Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications

Issue 5 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-3, to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 5:32 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Tonight on Bill S-3 we have the officials from Transport Canada: Mr. Derek Sweet, who is Acting Direct General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation; Malcolm McHattie, Acting Director of Road Safety Programs; Elizabeth MacNab, legal counsel, and Gary Tulipan, Acting Director of Motor Carrier Policy.

Senator Spivak: Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I understand I have to make it at the beginning of the meeting. One matter is personal; one is for the committee's benefit.

I understand you received a letter, of which I have a copy here, from Graham Cooper of the Canadian Trucking Alliance. Mr. Cooper writes in response to my request for a copy of a presentation made by David Bradley, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, to a meeting of federal-prov incial transport ministers in 1998. I am informed that no transcript of Mr. Bradley's remarks exist, and therefore they cannot provide it. However, I have here a transcript of Mr. Bradley's remarks and I would like to table it for the committee.

I think the committee will be interested in it, and I am particularly concerned that we were told there is no transcript when indeed there is.

Mr. Cooper continues on:

Further, we frankly object to the implication by Senator Spivak that a meeting between Canada's transport ministers and the head of the trucking industry's national association is somehow improper.

He then quotes from Hansard but leaves something out.

First, I never once said in Hansard that such a meeting was improper. I said at the beginning that I wanted to go back to the issue of transparency. The gist of my remarks was that if the Canadian Trucking Alliance makes a presentation to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Transport, then other people such as the Teamsters, safety groups, et cetera, ought to be able do the same. I asked Mr. Christle, who was then appearing: "Am I correct that the meetings of council of ministers are secret?" Mr. Christle's answer, which was omitted from the letter, was: "I would not say secret. Closed is more accurate."

I want to apologize if they believe that anything in my statement implied that anything improper was done. I certainly intended nothing of the kind. I do not think that there is anything improper in the Canadian Trucking Alliance wishing to appear before the Canadian Council of Ministers of Transport. However, I do feel that if the meetings are closed - supposedly closed - they should be closed to everyone. If they are indeed open, then other people ought to be allowed to appear, because we live in a democracy, where closed meetings on matters of public interest should not be allowed.

The Chairman: We will make copies of Mr. Bradley's remarks and distribute them to all members.

Senator Forrestall: I think they should apologize for misleading us.

The Chairman: We can ask Mr. Cooper for an explanation. Thank you very much for your point of order, Senator Spivak.

Before we start, I have a letter from Ms Debra Ward, the Independent Transition Observer on Airline Restructuring, who wants to appear before our committee. Perhaps we should hear from her when we deal with Bill S-19. Do all senators agree?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: I also have a letter from Senator Austin, who wants to appear before the committee with Senator Stratton for about 15 minutes to discuss committee matters.

Senator Spivak: That is another matter.

The Chairman: That is something else. Maybe at the next meeting we can set aside 15 minutes of our time so that we will not have to delay the meeting. I will get back to both of them and tell them if they are free at the time of our next meeting, they can meet with us for 15 minutes.

Senator Forrestall: I have had a brief conversation with our clerk about our business immediately after the Easter break. We could carry on with the meeting, but I would not wish to get to clause-by-clause until the second week.

Members of our committee who may wish to move some amendments may be away, travelling with other committees.

The Chairman: Yes. It can wait until the following week instead of taking place on April 25.

We welcome the senior officials again today. We will hear from you first and then ask questions.

Mr. Derek Sweet, Acting Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Transport Canada: Before I begin, Madam Chair and senators, I might take a moment simply to acknowledge a number of our provincial colleagues, as well as one from the United States, who have joined us this afternoon. They happened to be in town to talk about safety ratings.

The Chairman: They are most welcome.

Mr. Sweet: Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. It has been about three weeks now since the minister and Mr. Elliott and I last had the pleasure of being here. Since that time, you have heard a number of witnesses and we have provided you with information that I hope is useful.

I thought I might just take a moment or two, Madam Chair, to reflect on some of the deliberations of the past weeks.

As you all know, Transport Canada's first concern is safety, and road safety is certainly a major issue, with nearly 3,000 persons killed and nearly a quarter of a million injured every year. Commercial vehicles are large and heavy. They cause more harm than lighter vehicles when involved in collisions. This is simply physics at work. Commercial vehicle operators and drivers are therefore subject to special safety rules over and above those that apply to other vehicles. These rules, as with other traffic rules, are generally applied by provincial regulation and are enforced by provincial authorities.

We have provided you with a report called "The State of Road Safety in Canada." Madam Chair, this report shows that commercial vehicles are involved in about 54,000 collisions a year, representing 4.7 per cent of the total number. That same report shows that the overall road collision numbers have declined over the years 1994 to 1998, and that commercial vehicle collisions have similarly declined from about 57,000 in 1994 to 51,000 in 1998. As the minister noted in his remarks to you three weeks ago, this despite a significant increase in commercial vehicle activity.

That same report indicates that in most collisions involving commercial vehicles, there is no apparent vehicle defect and that driving conditions are reported as apparently normal.

Madam Chair, notwithstanding that, the fact remains that collisions involving heavy commercial vehicles do hurt a lot of people. There are about 500 deaths and 10,000 injuries a year in collisions involving these sorts of vehicles.

As this committee is well aware, the National Safety Code was developed in 1987 to focus truck regulation on safety. Many standards have been brought into effect and enforced across the country. We have provided the committee with a copy of the National Safety Code standards.

Another report mentioned by witnesses, that done by a consultant named Fred Nix, has also been distributed. We engaged Mr. Nix about a year ago to report on the state of implementation of the key National Safety Code standard number 14. This report involved all jurisdictions. Mr. Nix did a very thorough job of assessing exactly where we were with respect to implementing this very important standard. As we reported to you at our first appearance, there are indeed problems and issues we need to resolve. However, the report was most useful and is being used as a blueprint for our joint efforts to implement safety ratings in a nationally consistent manner.

I believe, Madam Chair, Mr. Christle from Manitoba gave testimony about a week ago on behalf of CCMTA regarding a safety rating system that very shortly will be, or perhaps is now, up and fully functioning. This is also happening in other provinces.

Safety rating involves directly regulating the motor carrier undertaking rather than individual vehicles or drivers. The provincial government jurisdiction is limited to regulating motor carriers that operate exclusively within its boundaries. As you know, extra-provincial undertakings account for about 60 per cent of the vehicles on the road, and 70 to 80 per cent of the volume by revenue. These are very important activities that are exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

Bill S-3 therefore provides for federal legislation permitting the provinces to apply the national safety rating scheme to extra-provincial carriers, thereby allowing a seamless, provin cially operated, national regulatory framework.

There is more recognition in Bill S-3 of a federal role in motor carrier safety than previously. The federal government has consistently contributed towards National Safety Code imple mentation - about $57 million to date - to the tune of $5 million to $6 million a year shared amongst all the provinces. We have requested Treasury Board approval to continue this sort of funding arrangement with the provinces.

Madam Chair, several witnesses have expressed the view that the federal government should become more involved in motor carrier regulation. Transport Canada believes that the responsibility must be shared amongst all players, industry and governments alike.

The safety rating concept sets out to ensure that a motor carrier itself takes responsibility for safety. This is very important. It is a performance-based regime. Provincial governments, who have traditionally been responsible for road safety and motor carrier safety regulation, and who have widespread enforcement capabilities, are responsible for monitoring each motor carrier's safety performance. We think this is logical.

Bill S-3 provides the framework for a national and international safety rating regime which requires a level of harmonization that, quite frankly, has not yet been achieved. We have stated this before you previously. Transport Canada believes that the will and the mechanisms exist to achieve the necessary consistency. When Bill S-3, its accompanying regulations and the complementary provincial systems are in place, we believe that there will be a significant upgrading of safety enforcement and in national consistency. Indeed, we anticipate that the rate of fatalities and injuries involved in commercial vehicle occurrences will improve.

This will not be achieved exclusively by passing the bill. However, Bill S-3 is an essential part of the overall regulatory regime and its passage will certainly provide a needed boost to widely based efforts to achieve consistency and improve safety.

Madam Chair, just this week, the federal-provincial Council of Deputy Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety held its semi-annual in Ottawa. Amongst their discussions, you will be interested to know, was a revised memorandum of understanding on harmonization of the National Safety Code. The objective here, Madam Chair, is to re-energize, if I can put it that way, the national commitment to harmonization.

The deputy ministers also identified four priority National Safety Code areas for harmonization, including safety rating. They also, Madam Chair, were very interested in the concept of "championing," if I could put it that way, whereby a deputy minister would assume an oversight responsibility for each of these four priority areas. I believe this indicates quite clearly that the most senior regulators in Canada are very seriously engaged in the pursuit of National Safety Code consistency.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, we consider commercial vehicle safety to be a major issue. That is not because the present system has failed. In fact, commercial vehicle safety has improved and continues to improve.

Bill S-3 will provide a modern, national regulatory framework for further advancements in safety and for addressing the many issues identified by the witnesses that have appeared here before you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would be very pleased to try to answer any questions.

Senator Spivak: Mr. Sweet, thank you for coming again to answer our questions. You said in your statement that we are going to get a seamless web of a safety code.

I am a little troubled by some discrepancies. I put a question on the Order Paper on February 8 regarding the current status of each of the 16 standards. The reply I received indicates that according to the last report, which was issued on September 30, 1998, each of the 16 standards has been substantially implem ented in each of the jurisdictions, with few exceptions.

However, the aforementioned Mr. David Bradley stated in his presentation to the council of ministers: "To this day, few, if any, of the National Safety Code standards have been uniformly accepted across the country."

I have the latest report, which as you can see, indicates that we do not have substantial implementation by each province. Further on, the report details all of the provinces which have implemented them and those which have not. It indicates all kinds of deviations, such as in hours of service. For example, Newfound land and the Northwest Territories have not implemented all of the definitions. Alberta and Saskatchewan have not implemented the weekly cap provisions. Prince Edward Island has not implemented standards on security loads.

Frankly, I would like to know where this answer to my Order Paper question came from, because it is contradicted not only by the head of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, but by the latest report, which is "Commercial Vehicle Safety in Canada, the Fifth Annual Report to Parliament."

I wonder if you could put my mind at rest, Mr. Sweet, and tell me why there is such a discrepancy between this and what I was told by, I assume, someone in the department who obviously has not looked at this report.

Mr. Sweet: I will try to respond in a satisfactory manner. I am not sure I did coin the phrase "seamless web."

Senator Spivak: You just said it today.

Mr. Sweet: I am not sure I did, but I wish I had. I will take credit for it if you insist. Thank you.

No doubt there are discrepancies in individuals' or organizations' interpretations of the degree of consistency in application of the National Safety Code standards. I do not think that is particularly unusual. The standards are many and complex. The seemingly simple question of whether a standard has been consistently implemented or not poses some problems, quite frankly. It does not surprise me that some authorities might think the standards are substantially implemented while others might claim they are not.

The report that you quote from, Senator Spivak, is unfortunately not very current. This is one of the problems. We often have to deal with data that are not all that current. I think the date of this report is 1995.

Senator Spivak: It is 1998. Someone from your department states, in the answer to my Order Paper question, that the September 24, 1998 report was the last of five under the act.

Mr. Sweet: You are correct, Senator Spivak. The report really has two halves. The first half deals with safety data, and I believe that might be from 1995, and the second half deals with the implementation of the NSC. I think are you quite right. It is 1998.

Senator Spivak: This very expert witness, David Bradley, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, says that to this day, few, if any, of the standards have been uniformly accepted, and he goes on to say, if only they had.

We are being asked to approve a bill about the National Safety Code when we do not really have a national safety code.

Let me move on to another question. This has to do with hours of service. Mr. Cooper of the Canadian Trucking Alliance sent us a copy of an expert opinion on hours of service.I think we had asked for it.

It says 84 hours is just fine, because you just have to fool around a little and figure it out. There is no consistency among what is proposed in Canada, what is proposed in the U.S., and the European current standard for daily hours of driving. Canada's figure is much higher. As you know, Canada's proposed figure for maximum hours per week is 84, the U.S.'s current is 60, and Europe's current is 56.

Other experts say that the crash risk is 1.8 if driving for 8 hours; it is 3.2 if driving for 9 hours; and it is 6.2 if driving more than 9 hours.

I find it difficult to understand why the Canadian jurisdiction should be out of line with the United States. We will have trucks travelling across North America. I do not know how this is all going to come together if we have different standards from the United States. I know they are just proposed standards, but believe me, they probably will be implemented.

Why would we want to have standards in our country that would put people at risk? This is a common concern. You hear people all across the country saying that they are worried about the big trucks. If I were to send out a questionnaire to people in Canada, believe me, I can tell you what the results would be.

I am questioning again - I know it is not part of the bill, but we have you here - why you would do this. Tell us why.

Mr. Sweet: I would like to finish responding to the senator's first question on inconsistency.

The important point is, and it is a point we have tried to make before, that this bill highlights the safety rating standard number 14, which is an umbrella standard that we want implemented consistently across Canada. We are confident that it will happen, and that we will thus ensure significant consistency of implementation for all of the other important National Safety Code standards.

As you know, Madam Chair, it is our view that the proposals on hours of service - and I highlight the word "proposals" - should be discussed publicly in other fora. There will certainly be time for debate. We are working with provinces to decide the details of how those consultations will proceed.

The senator is also well aware that we have had differences historically with the United States. It has not caused a problem. Finally, I would suggest that it is certainly not our intention to put anybody at risk. These standards are all intended to improve safety.

Senator Spivak: Are you telling this committee that your mind is not made up about these draconian hours of service, that you might change it, Mr. Sweet? Are you saying that it is possible that these proposals will not be accepted and can be changed?

Mr. Sweet: It has always been our intention to use the draft standard as exactly that, as the basis for public consultation. Following those consultations, we and the provinces will review the draft standard and make changes if it is felt to be appropriate.

Senator Callbeck: I have several questions on comments you made, Mr. Sweet, in your opening remarks. You indicated that you requested Treasury Board approval for more money to give to the provinces to help implement the safety code.

Mr. Sweet: That is right.

Senator Callbeck: This came up before with some of the witnesses. My understanding was that the federal government was not currently giving the provinces any money for this. Is that right?

Mr. Sweet: The current five-year funding agreement with the provinces expired last year. We spent a good part of last year attempting to get approval for a new four- or five-year agreement. It has proven to be much more complex and complicated than we had anticipated. I know the documentation has gone from the department to Treasury Board. I understand it is scheduled to be heard by Treasury Board within the next few weeks. We are doing our best to maintain this arrangement with the provinces.

Senator Callbeck: Is the amount of money you are looking for still confidential?

Mr. Sweet: The amount will be more or less consistent with what has been provided in the past. It is approximately $5 million per year.

Senator Callbeck: You talked about harmonization. I thought I heard you say that the will and the mechanisms exist for harmonization of the National Safety Code.

Mr. Sweet: Yes.

Senator Callbeck: Do you believe that this bill provides a mechanism for implementing this National Safety Code?

Mr. Sweet: Yes, I believe very strongly that the bill, with its explicit reference to the National Safety Code and explicit intention to implement a safety rating system, will go a long way toward achieving national consistency. With respect to the will, I indicated that the council of deputy ministers, for example, is now very much seized of this issue. There are many forces at work here to help us bring this about.

Senator Callbeck: To my knowledge, there is only one thing in this bill that will give the federal government any clout. It is taking away the ability of the provinces to issue the safety licence. Do you feel that putting that in will cause these provinces to implement the various provisions of the National Safety Code?

Mr. Sweet: That is an explicit authority provided for in the bill, senator. However, quite frankly, it is our hope and our belief that we will never have to exercise this. We hope that through continued discussion and cooperation with our provincial colleagues, the necessary consistency will be achieved and the minister will not have to resort to invoking that measure. However, it is there if it is required, yes.

Senator Callbeck: I have difficulty figuring out why you feel the mechanism really is there. When you look at the chart of what has been implemented by these provinces, you can see that many things have not been.

Mr. Sweet: You are quite right, senator. I also suggest there are many things there that are not of real significance.

As I indicated, the standards are very detailed. In order for a jurisdiction to be judged to have implemented the standard consistently, the entire standard needs to be implemented exactly as prescribed. Quite frankly, the standards are complex, and there are areas where, in our view, a province may choose to deviate somewhat without any significant negative impact.

However, there are other areas where we feel very strongly that there should be consistency. I think I have mentioned the main ones to you. We are confident that we will achieve that.

Senator Callbeck: You mentioned that the deputy ministers held a meeting this week and there are now four deputies in charge of four certain areas.

Mr. Sweet: Four priorities have been identified. The deputies who will take on the championing roles have not yet been identified. That will happen over the course of the next few months.

Senator Callbeck: What are those areas within the safety code?

Mr. Sweet: The first area is safety ratings, which, as I have mentioned, is standard 14. The second is hours of service, which is standard 9. The third is load security, which is standard 10. The fourth is the matter of the National Safety Code threshold, which is 4,500 kilograms. We believe that these are all very important issues. We feel, as do the provinces and the deputies, that these are priority areas that should be moved along.

Senator Callbeck: This safety certificate that we are talking about in this bill is to be based on standard 14?

Mr. Sweet: That is correct.

Senator Callbeck: Why is that not in the bill?

Mr. Sweet: It is not in the bill, senator, for a very good reason, in our opinion. The approach that we are proposing in the bill is that the federal government regulate by referencing certain National Safety Code standards. That is to say, the federal regulation would be reasonably short, I would suggest. The regulation would then refer to whatever National Safety Code standards we felt needed to be regulated, in this case, a safety rating standard.

Senator, we feel quite strongly that the significant advantage here is that the standard and the regulation will be kept up to date almost automatically. When the standard changes, which would only happen with the agreement of all jurisdictions, then the regulation will change automatically. They do change; they are living instruments. As you know, it takes some time to effect regulatory change. Regulating by reference assures us of a regime that is always up to date.

If the standard were in the act, then we would have a very difficult time, I would suggest, in ensuring an up-to-date regulatory system. As you know better than I, it takes considerable time to change an act of Parliament. I think there is a considerable risk that the regulatory regime would fall substantially out of date.

Senator Forrestall: You used the phrase, "up and running in Manitoba." What is it doing in Nova Scotia?

What do you mean by "up and running"? I did not understand perhaps 30 per cent of what you said.

Does "up and running" mean compliance has been achieved?

Mr. Sweet: It basically means that the systems are in place, the data are being gathered, and carriers will be safety rated. The Province of Manitoba will begin to safety rate carriers there on April 1, I believe. The safety rating system will be implemented.

Senator Forrestall: Are all the provinces up and running?

Mr. Sweet: No, they are not.

Senator Forrestall: Which ones are most efficient in terms of the agreed-upon standards?

Mr. Sweet: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec are well advanced. British Columbia is working hard.

Senator Spivak: Are you speaking of their apparatus for the safety rating?

Mr. Sweet: That is correct, senator. B.C. is coming along, although I do not believe they are there yet.

Senator Forrestall: What about the rest of the delinquents?

Mr. Sweet: I would not characterize any of the jurisdictions as being delinquent, senator. They are all working very hard on this. As we indicated in our first appearance, we provided a substantial amount of money last year to the provinces to acquire the required computers to manipulate the data. That money has all been well spent. As a result, all the jurisdictions are now well along in implementing systems.

The jurisdictions I mentioned simply had a head start.

Senator Forrestall: Therefore New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland should get on with it.

Mr. Sweet: They are all working hard.

Senator Forrestall: Is the $5 million in annual funding being spent on preparatory work?

Mr. Sweet: There was a special allocation last year of an additional $7 million to specifically work on these systems.

Senator Forrestall: That was divided among the provinces?

Mr. Sweet: Yes

Senator Forrestall: Will they get $4 million or $5 million this year?

Mr. Sweet: Yes.

Senator Forrestall: We are relying on data that were published three or more years ago and probably collected a year to two before that. Therefore, this information is four or five years old.

Mr. Sweet: Yes.

Senator Forrestall: Is that the best we can do?

Mr. Sweet: No it is not, and that is a very astute observation. We will be getting much more comprehensive data from our provincial colleagues as a quid pro quo for the next round of funding. All of this is assuming we get it, of course. We are optimistic, but we have not received the final blessing. We will be asking the provinces to supply us with a good deal more information. We do not think it will be an onerous job because it is information the provinces will have in any event as a result of implementing the safety rating.

Senator, this information will be of the kind we really need. It will give us information on the safety of the system. It will not be so much directed toward telling us whether this standard or that standard has been implemented in detail, but will go right to the bottom line in telling us the safety situation in each of the provinces. We are looking forward very much to receiving these data, which we will compile, make public, and feed back to our colleagues. I think it will be very useful.

Senator Forrestall: Do we have a test against which we can measure the progress of the good that can flow from a full implementation of these standards?

Mr. Sweet: We will have baseline data. We will be using the data we have now or the data we will collect in the first year. You will recall that we have discussed the review under the bill in the fourth or fifth year. It would be our intention to use much of these data that we will be gathering from the provinces to undertake a comprehensive review of how the system is working at that time.

Senator Forrestall: Are you suggesting that there is no great advantage in looking to the United States for an historical demonstration against which we might measure our progress, or, for that matter, to Europe?

Mr. Sweet: I am not suggesting that at all. I would suggest that the U.S. example is probably more relevant to us than Europe. They run different kinds of vehicles in Europe than we do in North America, as you know. We do deal extensively with our colleagues south of the border and we are privy to most of their data. We have an excellent cooperative arrangement with our American friends. I would suggest that the safety records for heavy vehicles are pretty much comparable in Canada and the United States.

Senator Forrestall: How do they do it differently in Europe?

Mr. Sweet: The European situation is quite different by dint of geography and density of population. The cities are much closer together. They do not have the long, four-lane highways that we have in North America. Our vehicles are larger than those in Europe. There are some significant differences.

Senator Forrestall: Senator Spivak has touched on the question of hours of work, and I believe we will hear more from her later on that. We are somewhat alarmed by the increase in the number of allowable hours behind the wheel. As someone who has spent much time driving between Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Ottawa, via both the TransCanada Highway and the U.S. route through Maine and New Brunswick, I can say that there is a notable difference in what I call "general roadkill." That includes anything from little rabbits to massive truck tires. In some areas of our country you can see two or three trucks in the space of an hour picking up tires off the road. If you hit one of those tires at night, it is like hitting a rock. In other areas, you can drive for four or five hours and count up to 200 blown tires still on the side of the road. I do not think they let it go for more than 24 hours, but it must have happened over an extended period of time, perhaps as much as six or seven hours. You can drive in some areas in the United States for hours, and if you see roadkill of whatever description, you can bet a buck it happened in the last 25 or 30 minutes because they do excellent work in keeping their highways clear and clean. Roadkill, junk on the highway, is a serious cause of accidents.

Why do we have this situation? You have not dealt with it in the standards. There are things other than what is in the standards that directly impact upon safety on the highways. I just wonder why this area was not touched upon.

Mr. Sweet: If I understand correctly, senator, I think your query here is directed more to highway maintenance.

Senator Forrestall: No, sir, I am talking about highway safety. When you are driving along and you see a young lady roaring past you in a red Volkswagen doing 140 and all of a sudden she is engulfed in a -

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Or a man.

Senator Forrestall: Men do not drive Volkswagens at that speed, believe me. Females do.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: We do not have sons?

Senator Forrestall: They do not drive quite that fast. That poor car, no matter who was driving it, was engulfed by a huge tire that came down on the hood, and the bottom part went underneath the car. The woman, in this case, manhandled that car so as not to hit the truck and not to cross the median into the other lane, and saved her own life. She managed to bring that car to a stop behind the truck and off the road. She was very lucky. Someone was killed by a flying tire somewhere in Canada that week.

I think it is a matter of safety. I do not think it is a matter of highway maintenance. If the provinces cannot afford to clean up their highways, well then that is an answer. I do not like it, and perhaps we should try to do something about it, but this is not just maintenance,. It is partly maintenance, but it is also safety.

Mr. Sweet: Sorry, senator, I thought you were referring to the frequency with which the provinces cleaned the highways.

Senator Forrestall: I am wondering if we have a national standard where the road has to be cleaned every six hours, for example. Someone has to patrol it. I see someone laughing. Am I that far out in left field? Am I? Am I that nuts? I was not looking at you. I was looking at the man behind you. That is a matter of safety.

Mr. Sweet: It is. I would suggest the provinces do have policies on how frequently they do this, but that certainly is not covered by the National Safety Code. An area you touched on that is covered is the issue of tires. We would be looking at the National Safety Code standards that relate to vehicle maintenance and inspection, for example. If the vehicles are properly inspected, one could suggest that these tires should not be falling off the vehicles. There, senator, there is a direct link with the code.

Senator Rompkey: My questions are more fundamental, and I apologize if everyone else already knows the answers. I want to ask, if I may, about trucking compared to other modes of transport. Perhaps it is not realistic to compare it to transport by air or by sea. Maybe it is more realistic to compare it to train travel.

What has been the growth in goods going by truck rather than by other modes of transport over the last 10 years, and what is forecast for the next 10 years? What is the pattern of road transport in this country?

Mr. Sweet: Madam Chair, this is not a safety issue. I would call on my colleague, Mr. Tulipan, to help us out.

Mr. Gary Tulipan, Acting Director, Motor Carrier Policy, Transport Canada: Madam Chair, senator, domestic growth in the trucking sector over the last 10 years, from say 1988 to 1999, has been averaging a little under 9 per cent per annum. The international component has been really rapidly growing.

Senator Rompkey: What do you mean by "international"? Trucks coming into Canada?

Mr. Tulipan: The north-south growth. In other words, the Canada-U.S. growth. I must emphasize that our numbers simply relate to Canadian trucks. We do not have the equivalent numbers for American trucks and the goods that they are carrying back and forth. The international traffic numbers I am quoting are for goods carried by Canadian vehicles. Those have an average annual growth over the same period of about 16 per cent a year.

Senator Rompkey: Is this Canadian trucks carrying goods from Canada to the U.S.?

Mr. Tulipan: It covers both imports and exports. Although the rail sector has also been growing quite rapidly, it has been somewhat less than that. I do not have the actual number for that, but I could get it for you, Senator Rompkey, if you wish.

There are what I would describe as "relatively healthy" forecasts for the next 10 years. By healthy, I mean in the area of 4 to 6 per cent a year, if you are looking at the total picture for the trucking sector. I believe it is slightly less than that for the rail sector.

Senator Rompkey: I was trying to get a picture of the importance of road transport and whether we can see growth there as compared to other modes. Is it fair to compare it with other modes?

Mr. Tulipan: Again, senator, just to give you a comparison, and looking at the international trade between Canada and the United States, in 1999 roughly 70 per cent of imports and exports were carried by truck. That is compared to about 13, 14 per cent by rail, and also about 17 per cent by air. By and large, it is the trucking sector that is the growing and the important sector, certainly with freight, and I am only speaking of freight in this case.

Senator Rompkey: What then is the status of foreign carriers in the Canadian market? When they come into Canada, are they subject to these standards with the regulations?

Mr. Sweet: That is correct, senator. Every commercial vehicle that plies Canadian roads will be subject to and is subject to the National Safety Code.

Senator Christensen: Do we have a reciprocal cabotage agreement with the United States or Mexico?

Mr. Sweet: Yes. I do not believe "cabotage" is the precise word, senator. Currently, when vehicles are in Canada, be they Canadian, American or Mexican, they must meet the Canadian safety regime. Similarly, our vehicles in the United States abide by the American rules.

As I indicated, we work very closely with our American colleagues, and also more and more with our Mexican friends.

I think it is safe to say that, by and large, the safety regimes in Canada and the United States are very similar. There are certain exceptions; hours of service was mentioned. There are some differences there, but by and large, I would suggest, and not to put words in the mouth of the trucking industry, that the industry would agree that operations across the border are reasonably seamless.

Senator Christensen: The NSC has been in effect since 1984, for 14 years. It appears that there is not full compliance, with all of the provinces having bought into it. Is there a financial inhibitor there?

Mr. Sweet: Yes, I think that there are plain reasons, ranging from perhaps funding - it does cost money to implement - to mounting enforcement regimes. There is also the willingness of jurisdictions to implement the standards. The reasons are quite varied, and they do vary by jurisdiction and by standard, quite frankly.

If I might, senator, I think that there is something of which we should not lose sight. Despite these inconsistencies and the rapidly growing volume of truck traffic, the safety record is improving.

Senator Christensen: Can you point to the National Safety Code as contributing to that in places where there is high compliance? Can you see a difference due to compliance over those 14 years, or is it the result of equipment changes or whatever?

Mr. Sweet: That is an excellent question. The answer is, we are not sure. It is very difficult, quite frankly, to assess the contribution of the code to the improvement in safety. However, we do know that safety has improved since the NSC has been implemented, for better or worse, in jurisdictions. Therefore, we would certainly attribute much of the improved safety record to implementation of the National Safety Code.

As I indicated earlier, senator, we want to undertake a thorough review of the current provisions in the bill in the next four or five years.We want to get a better handle on the contribution of the National Safety Code to improved safety. These improved data that I talked about earlier will help us do that.

Senator Christensen: I would think that after 14 years, you should have some qualifiers that would be able to judge that quite accurately.

Mr. Sweet: It is difficult to do. I mentioned earlier a well-known consultant in Canada who has done work for us in a number of areas. The report provided to you on the implementa tion of standard 14, although it did highlight some inconsistencies in the implementation, did indicate very solidly that there were clear safety benefits to implementing safety ratings. Those data came mostly from work done in the United States.

We are quite confident, as I indicated earlier, that implementa tion of the safety rating system will mean a safer highway system for all Canadians.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am more familiar with the Building Code. It is an instrument which regulates another sector where the federal government plays a very important role. I know that the National Research Council sets up the committees which draw up the standards of the National Building Code which, in turn, is adopted by each province.

I was just wondering who, in the context of the Code's review, in its evolution process, were the players and how new standards were established? Is it a continuous process, a yearly review? Do you follow a timetable for this review?

Mr. Sweet: It is a continuous process. We are now developing the standards.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: When you say "we", whom do you mean exactly?

Mr. Sweet: We, within the federal government, and our provincial colleagues.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: The Department of Transport?

Mr. Sweet: That is right.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you work with other organizations within the federal government?

Mr. Sweet: All the time. We meet with the provinces at least twice a year. As I said earlier, we are now reviewing the standards very closely.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Is there an organization to check the standards in terms of new technologies, now that our vehicles are getting more and more sophisticated, with computers on board and so on. I'd like to know whether you do mechanical and technical tests and, if so, whether you share the results. What is the process to establish new standards?

Mr. Sweet: The process is managed by an organization called the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. This organization deals both with the federal and the provincial governments. We meet periodically, at least twice a year. We make presentations to the Deputy Ministers Council, and they, in turn, make presentations to the Ministers Council at least once a year.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Let me ask you again, since you have not yet answered my question. I should like to know, when you decide what should be the weight per axle for each type of truck, when you allow a certain load, when you determine the capacity of hydraulic brakes, when you decide they require such and such stopping capacity or such and such a cable to stop the power in case of a collision, who does the research, who makes the recommendations to improve the equipment and to establish new safety standards? Is it you or the provinces? In which lab is it done? Where? When you say "we," do you technically have the labs to do that?

Mr. Sweet: As far as the standards which apply to the vehicles themselves are concerned, it is only the federal government which can establish standards. We, at Transport Canada, do the research.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Where?

Mr. Sweet: On the eighth floor, Tower C.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Come on, you do not bring trucks on the eighth floor! I am asking you to tell me where you do that. Do you have labs? In the case of buildings, they do some tests, the new materials are approved, scientific standards are applied.

In the case of vehicles, there are even more risks than when you determine the load a steel beam in a building can support. In terms of the materials that are used in vehicles, of the equipments and the technology, where do you do the tests required to establish your standards?

Mr. Sweet: It is done in Blainville, north of Montreal. We have a lab and a test track. They belong to the government, and they are managed by the private sector. We test all new vehicles in Blainville. Those tests are administered by Transport Canada.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Regarding the testing program which applies to all new vehicles on the market and tests for older vehicles, which are not necessarily in sync with new technologies, how do you decide which tests should be done? Do you test only newer models? Are you concerned with aging vehicles which are still on the road?

Mr. Sweet: The federal government is only concerned with new vehicles, and the standards apply only to them. Once they are sold, the provincial laws and regulations apply.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: The standard is established only by the federal government?

Mr. Sweet: Exactly, for new vehicles, standards are established for the brakes, the lights and all the safety features.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: How much do you spend each year?

Mr. Sweet: About $5 million.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is done by the private sector now. Is it not SNC Lavallin which bought it?

Mr. Sweet: Not exactly. The lab is managed by the private sector. We have a contract with a firm called PMG Technologies Limited.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you share information with other countries?

Mr. Sweet: Of course. We have regular discussions with the United States. We were in Geneva last week, for instance. We have monthly meetings with other countries to discuss standards harmonization, for example.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: How could you ever decide to authorize double road trains? How could you ever allow on our roads such machines which cannot stop on a decent distance, given the basic principles of dynamics? Everyone knows that those vehicles are lethal for those in front of them as well as those inside. How could you establish standards for such vehicles?

Mr. Sweet: The new vehicles meet all requirements set by the federal government, as far as safety features are concerned.

[English]

Senator Callbeck: How far along are you in drafting the regulations for proposed section 16.1?

Mr. Sweet: Senator Callbeck, the regulation that would put into effect the safety rating system is well along. As a matter of fact, Mr. McHattie and my colleagues against the wall over here were discussing just that today. We will discuss it again tomorrow. The regulation is drafted. I believe it was the subject of discussion today.

Senator Callbeck: Could this committee see the draft?

Mr. Sweet: Absolutely.

Senator Callbeck: Can you tell me what the Atlantic rating formula is?

Mr. Sweet: I am not sure I can, senator. It may be referring to safety ratings.

Senator Callbeck: Under standard 14, compliance review and safety ratings, it gives what different provinces are doing. It says Prince Edward Island will use the Atlantic rating formula.

Mr. Sweet: Thank you; that helps.

That refers to the safety rating methodology being used in Atlantic Canada. The safety rating standard, standard 14, is an umbrella standard. It provides jurisdictions with some flexibility in the fine details as to how they do the safety ratings. The standard sets out those items that must be accounted for in safety ratings. For example, the standard sets out the safety ratings themselves, and if they are satisfactory, conditional, and so on. It does not go into a great deal of detail about methodology.

You are referring to the methodology that the Atlantic provinces have chosen to adopt.

Senator Callbeck: Will they all have the same methodology?

Mr. Sweet: Yes. The bottom line here, senator, is that a carrier's performance in whatever jurisdiction will receive the same safety rating. There will be some flexibility to allow for slight variations in methodology. However, the important thing - and industry certainly agrees with us on this - is that generally speaking, a carrier that performs thusly in Ontario will get the same rating as that same performance would receive in Alberta, B.C., or Nova Scotia.

Senator Callbeck: There has to be flexibility across Canada, but is there flexibility within this Atlantic rating formula?

Mr. Sweet: There will be a little flexibility there. At the end of the day, a carrier who performs in a certain manner in Atlantic Canada will be rated the same for the same performance in Ontario or B.C.

Senator Callbeck: I am trying to get at whether Newfoundland will be exactly the same as Prince Edward Island, or will there be flexibility there?

Mr. Sweet: My understanding is that the four Atlantic provinces are using the same methodology. Presumably, the identical methodology will continue to be used in those four provinces. That methodology may be slightly different from that used in Ontario, Quebec, or B.C.

Senator Callbeck: In other words, the four Atlantic provinces will be the same?

Mr. Sweet: That is correct.

Senator Forrestall: I think we got into this somewhat when you were here with us before. It has to do with the rate at which we are moving our trucks into Mexico. I do not recall that we asked you this question: Is there an anticipated date by which we will have seamless trucking?

Mr. Sweet: Senator, I will answer briefly, if I may, and then I will ask Mr. Tulipan, who is our NAFTA expert, to help me out.

We are not quite seamless with Mexico yet on the safety aspects.

Senator Forrestall: I understand that very few of our trucks cross the border. They go to a station where the trailer crosses, but the tractor picks up an empty trailer, presumably, and heads home.

Mr. Sweet: That is quite correct. I think it is safe to say that Canadian carriers have been reluctant to move deeply into Mexico. It is foreign territory, after all, and the preferred practice, at least so far, has been to simply get across the border and then, as you say, drop the trailer and return to the United States.

We are discussing in the various NAFTA fora how to make the safety regimes in Mexico, Canada, and the United States more consistent.

I did indicate that, by and large, Canada and the United States are the same. Mexico is making great progress, but they have had a long way to come, obviously.

Senator Forrestall: Do you mean by that that there is nothing wrong with our trucking because we pretty well meet the American standards? If we started to enter Mexico, Mexican authorities would anticipate a reciprocal arrangement to allow their trucks to enter our country. Is this why - how do I say this without getting into trouble with Mexico? - their standards are somewhat lower than ours?

Mr. Sweet: I think it has been acknowledged that historically, Mexican safety standards have been lower. I would also suggest that they have made excellent progress over the last two or three years, certainly during the time we have been dealing with them quite closely. As you know, those vehicles need to meet the American safety standards to enter the United States. Indeed, they would need to meet ours to get into Canada.

Senator Forrestall: That was why I was asking when that might happen, because there must be a very economically disadvantaging tug of war happening here.

Mr. Sweet: If I could, senator, I will call on Mr. Tulipan to bring us up to date on where the opening of the southern border, the U.S.-Mexico border, might stand.

Mr. Tulipan: Senator, first, perhaps I can provide a little of the history over the last few months. The NAFTA arbitration panel came down with a ruling on February 6 that the United States had not lived up to its obligations under the agreement and that they were to open the border to Mexican trucks.

The United States had 30 days to comply with the ruling, which would have taken it to March 8, 2001.

The NAFTA rules state that if the United States does not comply with the ruling within that 30-day period, Mexico can take retaliatory measures at that point.

Since then, President Bush has indicated publicly that he is in favour of NAFTA and of opening the border. The Americans did meet with the Mexicans on March 22 to discuss where and how the border opening would occur. I understand that all the proposals that were put on the table by the Americans, with the exception of one, were generally well received by the Mexican trade department. That one was the actual date. The date proposed by the United States was January 1, 2002.

Current indications are that the Mexicans have not accepted the proposal, and they are really studying whether or not they can accept that date - in other words, January 1, 2002 - for opening the border.

Senator Forrestall: That is where it stands?

Mr. Tulipan: That is the way it stands.

The Chairman:I wish to thank the witnesses for their presentation and their answers to our questions. We are considering adopting clause-by-clause on May 2. We would appreciate having some of you attend that meeting in case we need further answers to our questions.

The committee adjourned.