Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 2 - Evidence for November 28, 1996
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 28, 1996
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 12:06 noon to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are continuing our work concerning the state of transportation safety and security in Canada. Our witness for today is from the Canadian Coast Guard. Please, proceed.
Mr. Michael A. H. Turner, Acting commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard: If it is acceptable to honourable senators, I should like to go through a short package that outlines what we do. The Canadian Coast Guard, which concerns itself with marine safety on the transportation side, amongst other things, is a creature of the public service. It is not a military organization. It is part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now, most of it having been split off from the Department of Transport and transferred to Fisheries and Oceans in April of 1995.
The coast guard has a number of different programs and roles. I will explain that part which we have taken with us to DFO and that part which has been left behind in the Department of Transport. I can do that succinctly by saying that, from the point of view of the Department of Transport, they retained the responsibility within their ship safety division for the regulation -- I mean that in the sense of law and statutory regulatory instruments -- inspection, and certification of ships flying the Canadian flag and of foreign flag ships operating in Canadian waters in terms of the design, construction, operation, and pollution prevention standards for those ships. However, the management of the waterway and the safe operation, control and regulation of that waterway is now with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the coast guard. Essentially, all of the safety services and systems that are provided by the coast guard are within DFO, and most of those services, from a safety perspective, would be of interest to literally anyone who goes down to the sea in ships or uses our waters.
From the regulatory aspect, we have taken with us to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard the responsibility for recreational vessels, because we felt that that was a better match with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but we have left the commercial vessel regulations for ship safety with the Department of Transport. We must work closely together with regard to the programs to ensure that there is no obvious gap that develops between the regulation of the ship and the management of the environment in which the ship operates.
To outline briefly the operations, missions, and functions of the Canadian coast guard, we have approximately 5,000 people across the country and an annual operating budget of a little in excess of $500 million, including capital expenditures. We operate largely in the coastal regions of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes system. We have minor operations in some inland waters, but that is an anomaly rather than the norm. For example, we have a small operation on Lake Winnipeg, which is a substantial body of water and which has over 800 licensed fishermen, a lively tug and barge operation in the summertime and thousands of recreational boaters in the summertime.
As a point of trivia, Lake Winnipeg was the first body of water in Canada to be charted entirely by the Canadian hydrographic service, which was set up in the late 1800s.
Our major programs fall into several areas and serve virtually everyone who uses the waterways for any kind of navigation or transportation; that includes recreational boaters and fishermen and all forms of commercial navigation right up to big ships.
Canada is highly dependent upon foreign flag shipping for its import-export business. It uses in excess of 98 per cent of foreign flag bottoms for the carriage of cargos in and out of Canada by sea. The value of cargo moved by sea is absolutely enormous; in fact, it is in the billions of dollars. People fly or go by train or bus, but cargo goes either by truck across the U.S. border or by ship to everywhere else in the world. The shipping industry and the safety of ships and their operation is a major concern.
Our programs are divided into several different areas, the largest of which we call Marine Navigation Systems and Services. Marine Navigation Systems and Services includes the Aids to Navigation system -- all of the buoys, lights, such as range lights and light stations, foghorns and electronic aids, including radar transponders, radio beacons and the new differential correction system for the U.S. satellite system, or global positioning system, or GBS. All of these are provided and operated by elements of the coast guard from our bases across the country and with our fleet.
The Aids to Navigation program is the largest of our various activities in terms of the resources it takes. In addition to the range of shops and shore maintenance facilities, it requires a fleet of specialized buoy tenders to place and maintain the floating aids. We also use other modes of transport, including helicopters, to get technicians out to maintain the various shore and electronic aids.
The next program I should mention in the general marine safety area is what we now call Marine Communications and Traffic Systems, or MCTS, which is a combination of the programs run from the coast guard radio stations and the vessel traffic services stations. We are in the process of amalgamating and integrating those completely in the operations of the 43 sites we have across the country for traffic management and radio stations. We will have that down to 22 in another three years. This is a matter that requires the cross-training of all staff. It allows for a significant reduction in the cost of operations and should be achievable with virtually no impact on the level of service and safety provided to mariners. That is a major project which we now have under way.
We are responsible for the Navigable Waters Protection program. Essentially, that is the application of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which regulates the ability or right of individuals or companies to build or construct a work of any kind that might obstruct navigation, whether it is in, under, over, through or above any navigable waterway in Canada. If you wish to build a bridge, for example, or even a pier jutting out into the water, you must make application to us under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The purpose of that is to protect the public's right of navigation.
I should also mention our Search and Rescue program, which is a major contributor to safety in the marine mode. It is jointly managed with the Department of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence, of course, is the lead spokesman in the other house. The program, which operates from a number of rescue coordination centres, is directed from three sites across the country: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Trenton, Ontario and Esquimalt, British Columbia. There are also two rescue sub-centres operated from coast guard bases in St. John's, Newfoundland and Quebec City.
The main rescue coordination centres are co-manned 24 hours a day by coast guard officers and DND officers, usually air force officers. DND provides the air element, as we call it, of the search and rescue system; this involves in particular the large aircraft used for making a search and for giving what is called overhead cover in the event that helicopters are required, and, of course, it includes the large helicopters that are used for the lifting and rescue of individuals in trouble at sea.
The coast guard provides the marine element of the system; this is a series of lifeboats along the shore at various shore stations as well as a small number of ships, what we call multi-mission ships that are multi-tasked to a number of different programs, which are located a further distance out from the coast and provide search and rescue coverage. The system seems to be effective. Our rate of success in saving lives is one of the highest in the western world. Moreover, through our membership in international organizations and in cooperation with other countries, Canada also has the responsibility for providing SAR coverage almost halfway across both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The search and rescue system is supplemented by the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, a network of volunteers across the country, which has over 3,500 members and is still growing. They provide excellent support. Many of the smaller SAR incidents involving small vessels in easy-to-resolve situations are now responded to, especially in the summer months, by the coast guard auxiliary. The search and rescue system relies upon the coast guard radio station systems for its communications. Search and rescue as an integrated operation with DND is, therefore, one of our largest and most active programs.
Ice-breaking is another one of our major program areas. We provide ice-breaking support largely for commercial shipping in eastern Canada in the wintertime, whether it is around the maritime provinces in the Gulf, the north shore of Quebec, the west coast of Newfoundland, up the Labrador coast, up the St. Lawrence or on the Great Lakes. The main mission there is not so much a safety mission, although we do provide safety services, including search and rescue coverage in the wintertime, as it is one of providing direct support for commercial shipping.
In the winter months, the ice-breakers are fully occupied in that mode. In the summer months, after we put them back together again, they go up to the Arctic and carry out the Arctic resupply mission. They also provide support for scientific research in the Arctic, for environmental testing and so on, as well as a certain degree of physical preference for sovereignty purposes -- to show the flag, if you will; and when they return in the fall we send them back into the Gulf and other areas of Eastern Canada for the winter.
There are other responsibilities of the coast guard involved with the regulation side for recreational boating and what we call the SAR prevention side, which is a program we have to provide education, training and safety awareness, particularly among the small boat community, both fishermen and recreational boat owners. We have found that to be an effective use of money within the organization. In an effort to reduce the number of SAR cases, you must educate the individuals involved.
In the search and rescue field there are roughly 7,000 incidents a year in Canada, of which the vast majority, over 90 per cent to 95 per cent, are in the marine mode as opposed to the air mode. A large percentage of those involve small vessels, particularly fishermen and recreational boaters in the summertime. So we are concentrating our efforts on reducing SAR impact by trying to educate people and working closely with them to develop an increased level of safety awareness.
The other main function of the coast guard is to supply vessels and to give essential support to the other programs of the department. There is the conservation and protection associated with fisheries surveillance and enforcement, and there is the support for the science programs of the department, including the operation of the science vessels.
In a nutshell, those are the programs which the coast guard operates across the country. As you can see, a good number of them are specifically aimed at contributing to navigation safety. A number of those are also particularly important in terms of protection of the marine environment as well.
We also have the responsibility for keeping certain waterways navigable, and therefore we do dredging in selected channels. However, that is being reduced, as much of it is being turned over to the major ports. Nevertheless, we still set the standards for commercial shipping channels and monitor them to ensure that they are being used safely. Part of that is done through the traffic management program.
Senator Bacon: What kind of training do your people receive when they join the coast guard? Is there a special course they must follow? Is any emphasis put on special security, for example?
Mr. Turner: We have a number of training programs. They range from the Coast Guard College in North Sydney to small local training efforts on the technical side. I would divide the training into three or four categories. We do a significant amount of technical training, ranging from the training of electronics technicians and training for the maintenance of equipment to special shipboard equipment courses for our fleet staff.
The Coast Guard College has several key programs. The one for which it was established is the officer cadets program, which is very small right now owing to the fact that the coast guard is getting much smaller. In that program we take high-school graduates and put them through a four-year course, which includes time at sea on the coast guard fleet, and they are trained to the level where they are able to qualify for a watch keeping or engineering certificate from both the coast guard and the ship safety department at Transport Canada. The most recent graduates, through arrangements we have with the University College of Cape Breton and the Province of Nova Scotia, obtain a degree in technology and medical sciences. Those are, essentially, the coast guard fleet officers. That is our major source for those officers.
We also do search and rescue specialized training at the Coast Guard College and at a number of other sites across the country. We run, on both the west coast and the east coast, training schools for what we call "rigid hull inflatable operations training", RHIOT. These are specialized schools that must be operated in the real world of the ocean environment to train staff, who are either on the ships or based in our lifeboat stations, in how to operate safely the small, high-powered, very fast vessels that are used for much of the inshore search and rescue work.
Also at the Coast Guard College we have our marine communications and traffic system training; radio operator training; traffic regulator training, and cross-training, as necessary. Our fleet engineering training is done largely at the college, although there is some technical training done at the field level.
The courses are structured to emphasize safety and security. The courses are focused on a particular requirement internally. We do not provide training courses for Canadians generally, because there are a number of provincial schools that provide such marine-oriented training. They are usually called nautical schools. We do, however, do some international training, usually on a cost recovery basis or funded by an agency such as CIDA, at or through the Coast Guard College.
Senator Bacon: Do the coast guard auxiliary volunteers follow the same courses? I believe that there are 3,500 of them.
Mr. Turner: We have a training program which the auxiliary itself operates, which we fund through our program with them. It varies from region to region because the situations differ from region to region. We have just reached an agreement with the auxiliary to expand its level of operation and to expand the amount of funding that we hope to be able to make available in the future for the auxiliary, since it is very cost effective.
The training is provided largely directly through the auxiliary, but we provide, from time to time, either instructors or specialist expertise to the training courses which the auxiliary officers set up for themselves.
Senator Bacon: Do they have refresher courses from time to time?
Mr. Turner: The auxiliary has its own refresher courses, but they differ very much from region to region. We have not attempted to establish a national standard for the level of training in the auxiliary, because the requirements are so different. For example, there is a coast guard auxiliary on Lake Winnipeg. The training they would need or would be able to obtain is different from the type of training they might receive on the west coast or in Newfoundland. It depends upon the circumstances.
Senator Spivak: Is the complement of the coast guard sufficient to meet the needs of Canada, surrounded, as it is, on three sides by water? Have you any information on the insidious rumours about privatization of the coast guard? How might that affect Canada's ability to meet its requirements for safety and protection?
Mr. Turner: With regard to your first question, we are of course stretched, as are all government agencies these days.
Senator Spivak: How much staff has been cut?
Mr. Turner: During the four-year period over which our present plans run, I expect to be reducing by approximately 1,700 people.
Senator Spivak: Is that from 5,000?
Mr. Turner: Actually from 5,300. We are part way there now. We have some distance yet to go. Much of that is on the fleet side. I can provide more precise figures, but the picture changes slightly from month to month as we refine our plan. With respect to the percentage of reductions, the biggest impact will be felt in the regional offices and in national headquarters here in Ottawa.
To minimize the impact on front-line service operations our strategy has been, first, to reduce to the greatest extent possible the administrative overhead of the department and the overhead at the management levels within headquarters here in Ottawa. For instance, one year ago my staff was roughly 450; it will be somewhere between 266 and 290 within two and a half years. At the regional level, we will make similar reductions, but at a lower percentage, at approximately 30 per cent. We will also reduce staff in support areas such as yards and shops and areas for maintenance work. The cuts there will work out in the range of 25 per cent to 28 per cent. Finally, we will make reductions on the front end to the extent that we must in order to live within the budgets available. We will try to do that in ways that will have the least impact on safety.
We are, as one example, putting increased emphasis on multi-tasking. Many of our ships are now multi-mission capable. They are capable of doing several different jobs, sometimes at the same time but usually sequentially. We are cross-training more of our people on those vessels to take on several different but related duties in order to get more value for the dollar and more capability from each person who remains in the coast guard fleet.
Whether the numbers are satisfactory or adequate is always a challenge for us. I would be the last to suggest that I could not do more with more people and more money. However, we believe we are providing a reasonable level of safety services with the resources that are currently available to us and through the programs that are put in place to modernize our systems. Those include modernizing aids to navigation in particular. We also try to cross-train and multi-task, and to integrate services such as radio stations and traffic systems wherever possible.
With these efforts, I believe we will be able to maintain the basic safety network without significant compromise. We are stretching the fabric thinner. There is no question about that, but it is still a safe system. Canada has always had the best marine safety system in the world.
Your other question related to the notion of privatizing the coast guard. I would start off by suggesting that the privatization of the coast guard is something of an oxymoron. I am not sure you can have a privatized coast guard, because a coast guard is, by definition, a national or regional government force of some kind. However, there are many opportunities within what we already do to do things more efficiently, at less cost, and still provide the safety services by making better use of the private sector service. I can give you a number of examples.
We have been working for several years, for instance, to improve the oil spill response capability in this country. Those efforts came about as a result of the 1989 task force on oil spill response capability. Through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, we have established in Canada a system or set of coast guard regulations. Private sector companies can now apply to the coast guard and obtain a certificate when they meet those regulations. They are then designated as a response organization, or RO for short.
The act now provides that every ship above a certain tonnage coming into Canada or sailing Canadian waters is required to have an arrangement in place with a response organization. That arrangement is a form of contract. The contract provides for everyone to contribute to the overhead cost of providing that capability. It does not pay for the services actually used in a spill. When they are called out, the bill must be paid separately. However, through a private sector approach, this has ensured a significant increase in the amount of oil spill capability available in this country well beyond what we, as a government organization, had the capability to fund.
Another frequent example of contracting out is in the maintenance of our smaller aids to navigation. We occasionally charter ships to do that, for example. We have also examined certain services, such as traffic management, to see whether it would be possible to operate that system through the private sector at less cost. No doubt, we will explore other opportunities as we go along.
As another small example, the department owns and operates certain facilities and charters or leases others from the private sector. For example, the coast guard owns a fleet of helicopters that are operated by Transport Canada.
The Chairman: Do not even mention that word.
Mr. Turner: Arial surveillance by fixed-wing aircraft is provided through a mixture. We have a contract with provincial airlines in Newfoundland for the bulk of our aerial surveillance requirements, being pollution surveillance and, more particularly, fishery surveillance. We also own a couple of aircraft directly. We use the methods that are effective at the time.
Senator Spivak: Tell me about pollution prevention. Are you making sure that ships dump their ballast outside our waters so that we can avoid the growth of zebra mussels? What kind of pollution prevention are you talking about? Does it go beyond the ships to other kinds of pollution prevention?
Mr. Turner: It is largely ship-source pollution that the coast guard is concerned with. The international conventions, through the International Maritime Organization, set a series of standards for prohibitions and allowable discharges. On oil pollution and chemical pollution, in particular, there are quite stringent international standards. Canada adheres to those standards. It is a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. That convention is in turn codified in the Canada Shipping Act, and is primarily the responsibility of the Ship Safety Branch of the Department of Transport, which ensures that it is being applied to the ships that are built and operated in this country and those which come into this country.
We become involved in pollution prevention as well, particularly with respect to terminals ashore, especially oil-loading terminals. We also work with the people involved in the response to pollution, should there be a spill. We must work closely with them.
Ballast water is of particular interest to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are the office of primary interest for ballast water pollution or, to be more precise, pollution by non-indigenous species from ballast water.
Senator Spivak: Is your role in this more pronounced than before, your role and the emphasis on it? I will get to safety questions later.
Mr. Turner: We have significant problems in this country, in the Great Lakes in particular, through the introduction of foreign species. The vector, as scientists call it, for the introduction of those species appears to have been ballast water from foreign ships, which loaded their ballast in European rivers, being fresh water, and then discharged the ballast here when they loaded cargo up in the Great Lakes. I refer to both the river ruff, a small fish, and the zebra mussel. They are literally uncontrollable pests once they are introduced into the environment.
The somewhat ironic reason that these problems have become more difficult over the last generation is that the Europeans are doing a good job of cleaning up their environment. Their rivers now support small fish and other life forms which they did not support before, so they are more likely to be picked up in ballast.
Other countries are having the same problem. The Canadian Coast Guard is trying to work together with the scientific side of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with the U.S. Coast Guard, which already have regulations in place, and with the Ship Safety Branch of Transport Canada to develop regulations eventually under the Canada Shipping Act. We have amendments to the Canada Shipping Act before the other house right now to get the necessary authority to define certain kinds of ballast and species as pollution. The act does not presently do that; it focuses on oil and chemicals.
We already have guidelines in place in Canada to provide for the exchange of ballast water at sea; they ensure that ballast containing freshwater species is usually discharged in salt water and salt water is picked up in its place. That is usually effective in killing off most small species.
Senator Spivak: I wanted to ask you about the safety of recreational vehicles. Your responsibility is mostly on the coast. You mentioned that you have minor responsibilities, for example, on Lake Winnipeg. What is your view on how your role there might be enhanced? My own perception -- I vacation on a small lake, not as big as Lake Winnipeg -- is that there is not a large amount of enforcement, particularly with respect to drugs and alcohol, and we heard the other day what a safety hazard drug abuse and alcohol abuse can be.
What are your thoughts on this? What do you think the capability of the coast guard is in this respect? What would you recommend to the committee?
Mr. Turner: I am pleased that you raise that issue, because it is at the top of our agenda as well. The coast guard has, in the last couple of years, put considerably more focus on recreational boating safety. From a bureaucratic point of view, I have created an office of boating safety within the coast guard which acts as a focal point for boating safety matters. That has been mirrored in each of our regions. Our prevention program, which I spoke of earlier in the context of search and rescue, is being refocused and strengthened for recreational boating and inland waters. We have had several major initiatives under way over the last two years, with widespread consultation, to meet and work with all the recreational boaters and the recreational boating industry in this country. It is a massive industry. It generates approximately $3 billion in business.
When I say we provide minor services inland, I mean minor in terms of our physical presence there. We are responsible for the regulation of recreational boats, their design, construction, carriage of safety equipment and their operation across the country.
Senator Spivak: You could eliminate the noise from Sea-Doos.
Mr. Turner: Not necessarily. However, we can work with manufacturers, and, in fact, we do.
I would be pleased to send the committee copies of a report we have just received with the results of our working group on boating safety. Through the Office of Boating Safety, we established a working group that sought to bring to the table all of the various interests regarding these personal water-craft: the cottage owners, the operators themselves, the manufacturers -- we have in Canada one of the largest manufacturers in the world, Bombardier -- and the regulatory authorities at provincial and municipal levels. We have tried to work through that issue, identify the problems and come up with some solutions to improve the situation.
At the top of the list is the need for improved training. We have been repeatedly told that some minimum standard of operator training should be an objective of the coast guard. Second is the question of improved enforcement, and that applies to all vessels.
Let me digress from personal water-craft to the wider subject of personal boating safety in general. Last year we launched a consultation process in Ontario, because that is where the largest number of pleasure craft are located. Working with the province of Ontario and various recreational boating groups in Ontario, we held a series of workshops and meetings across the province aimed at trying to identify the issues, problems and possible solutions. We expanded that this year, with Minister Mifflin's agreement, to include the entire country. We have held approximately 65 meetings across Canada. We have operated a 1-800 number for people to give their input. We have had various bulletins and newsletters. The entire initiative has been designed to try to identify the major issues and concerns and the ways of approaching them.
From what we have learned through the consultation process, and based on our own expertise in this matter, we know that boating safety is a significant issue in this country. Over 200 people per year are killed in what is supposed to be a recreational activity. In fact, this area of marine activity has the highest rate of death per capita of any marine activity in this country.
Operator proficiency is something that people are telling us is very important and that we should be pushing toward some kind of minimum proficiency standard. Boat licensing -- that is, the licensing of the boat itself -- is another area where there is a clear message from all concerned that we need to modernize the existing boating system. There is generalized support for that, provided we can do it in a way that is not too intrusive. Where the difficulty comes is that we are under direction from the government of the day and the Treasury Board to begin to introduce fees for some of the services we provide. Boat licensing fees rub people the wrong way immediately. We therefore have the challenge of figuring out how to introduce a system that will improve, automate, and computerize the present hydraulic system to provide for improved safety on our waters, without aggravating or turning off large numbers of Canadians by charging a small fee.
Senator Spivak: Is this entirely a federal responsibility because of the navigable waterways? The federal government is in charge of this?
Mr. Turner: Yes.
Senator Spivak: In your licensing and operating capability, are you looking at age? It seems to me that part of the problem is that children are running huge horsepower boats without necessarily knowing what they are doing.
Mr. Turner: Yes.
Senator Spivak: The second point I would make is that Sea-Doos can also be a menace, because they are often run by people who want to go around canoes and tip them over. There was a serious accident in Ontario. Another matter is the capacity of the waterways. Do you anticipate, for example, putting a limit on the number of boats that can operate in a designated area -- say 10,000 boats on Lake Winnipeg?
In British Columbia, where they have outlawed Sea-Doos, there is a court case challenging the law, and that case will go to the Supreme Court because of the obvious commercial interest in it. Capacity is of major importance, and so is the age of the people operating the boats. Could you tell me what you are doing about those matters?
Mr. Turner: If we were to follow the recommendations we have had from our consultations across the country, and which we are now putting to our national council, we would, in fact, implement certain age restrictions. Below age 12, one would be quite limited in what one could operate. From 12 to 16 one could still operate some power boats, but not with large horsepower. Above age 16, one could operate a boat of larger horse power. Again, this would occur with minimum training standards in place.
With respect to limiting the number of vessels, capacity was the term used. With respect to capacity, we already regulate the capacity of a single vessel by virtue of construction standards. However, as to limiting the number of vessels in a given area, I believe the capacity of a particular waterway would be a difficult thing to regulate or even measure.
Senator Spivak: Not doing so is bound to cause accidents.
Mr. Turner: Often, though, strictly speaking, it is the manner in which the vessels are being operated in close proximity that causes the problem.
Senator Spivak: I assume that there might be a threshold level or a floor. For example, if the waterway is a small lake, that is one thing; however, if it is a waterway like Lake of the Woods, that is a different thing. It would be difficult to regulate capacity on Lake of the Woods, which goes into the United States.
Mr. Turner: The regulatory aspect of trying to limit capacity of a waterway or lake is quite difficult; however, there is an instrument by which some of this can be accomplished. Boating on various waterways is managed controlled through the boating restrictions under the Canada Shipping Act, for which we are responsible. Again, this is solely a federal activity, but we have worked out a system with the provincial governments whereby, if a local municipality, for example, or a cottage owners' association makes application to the province and can satisfy the province that it has done the necessary consultation and background homework, the province will then pass on to us a recommendation about what kind of restrictions to put in place on the particular bodies of water.
There are roughly nine different kinds of restrictions. They range all the way from allowing no boats at all, through allowing no power boats to allowing only certain classes of vessels, and restricting it to certain speeds and to so many metres from the shoreline, and so on. That can be done directly through cooperation with the provincial agencies with which we work, and we implement it through the boating restrictions regulations.
Technically, if a regulation to ban personal watercraft, passed by a local municipality in B.C., were to be challenged in court, I would expect it to be found ultra vires. Constitutionally, only the federal government can regulate navigation, and the instrument we use to do that is the boating restrictions regulations. If that same organization were to come to us, we would be able to use the boating restrictions regulations in some cases to address some of those problems.
Senator Adams: My question concerns the rescue aspect up north, where we sometimes have accidents on the sea. Is the military equipped to deal with these situations? Sometimes we use local airlines, but often the military is asked to come to the aid of people who have gone out hunting seals and need help. For instance, the ice can break away, leaving you stranded and in need of help. When you start searching the sea ice, it is hard to find people in the snow.
Does the military have equipment, such as tents and other things that can be used for rescuing people out on the land or on the sea ice?
Mr. Turner: Yes. The search and rescue forces, both our partners in the air side of DND and our own forces in the coast guard, have specialized kits that can be dropped from the air, for example.
Sometimes, particularly in the case of marine accidents, they drop life rafts or pumps, but there are also other kinds of equipment that can be dropped from an aircraft to a party lost on the ice, for example, to provide protection and shelter until the rescue helicopter or other forces can arrive on the site. In the Arctic in particular, this is a tremendous challenge because of the enormous distances involved. Each year we find that the coast guard icebreakers and our helicopters operating from those icebreakers are involved in a number of search and rescue incidents involving aboriginal hunters who are having exactly that kind of problem: either they end up on an ice floe and are unable to get back to land, or they become stranded because of a severe storm, and so on. It is quite a challenge because of the enormous distances involved, but there is some specialized equipment available.
Senator Adams: Sometimes the military is not used. If a person is not too far out on the land or on the ice, sometimes civilian aircraft are used. Who is responsible for funding that? The local airlines are paid for looking for people who are lost on the land or not too far out on the ice, but who pays them? Is that funded by the territorial government or the federal government?
Mr. Turner: When the aircraft is tasked directly by the rescue centre in a search and rescue case, it can be done in two ways. First, if an aircraft is in the area and in flight, in the same way in which you task a ship in that situation, it is obligated to respond. If the rescue centre says, "There is a situation in such and such an area; we know that you are 20 miles away; we need you to go to that area to determine whether or not there are people down on the ground in that area," then the aircraft is required to respond. The other situation that is quite common would be where the rescue centre needs to task a private or commercial aircraft on the ground to carry out the search phase or to air-drop some equipment, or whatever. In those cases, they directly charter the aircraft and the bill is picked up through the rescue centre by the search and rescue budgets of the department.
Senator Adams: It is the same thing for rangers? We have mostly volunteers for situations where the coast guard does not have equipment, especially boats, snowmobiles, and so on. People from the community go out looking for people who are lost. Are the costs for things such as gasoline borne by the community or does the government, through the coast guard, pay for those types of things? Sometimes people go out searching on the land and are gone for two or three days. What about their wages? How would that system work?
Mr. Turner: I can only answer part of that question. You might want to put that question to DND with respect to how they fund the activities of the rangers. For the coast guard auxiliary, where an auxiliary has been established, in most cases they provide their own boats, but we provide funding for their operations. When they do go out on the land, or on a search with their boat, we provide the cost of fuel and the cost of insurance coverage as well. We do not cover salaries if they are away from work, but we cover their operating costs and provide insurance coverage and some training as well.
Senator Adams: How will the gun laws affect this situation? The rangers have military guns. Who will be responsible to register them? Will it be up to the person who has the guns, or is the military going to pay to register those guns?
The Chairman: That is an interesting question. We might have someone from the department come to talk to us about security and safety in the area of restricted and other guns.
Senator Adams: I asked one of the rangers how many boxes of shells he was issued per year. He said he got 10 boxes per year. He used some for Caribou hunting and could sell the rest.
The Chairman: What are the major safety factors that concern you in your sphere of activity? What do you feel you must be concerned about constantly? What are your greatest fears?
Mr. Turner: As I mentioned earlier, the largest loss of life now is in small-boat activities, both recreational boating and fishing. We are trying to put the emphasis on those areas.
The other things that trouble us, and to which we need to pay attention, are things such as the adequacy of our training and our equipment, to make sure that we have the equipment positioned in the right places and that the training is adequate for the challenges we will face.
The Chairman: Do you feel there is something lacking in this area?
Mr. Turner: Not so much lacking as that there is a continuing need always to be on top of the situation, to ensure that the staff have the latest training and the right equipment. As budgets become tighter, that becomes more of a challenge.
One area which gives us some shivers at night is the cruise ship trade, which has mushroomed, on the west coast in particular, but even off the east coast and up the St. Lawrence River. The volume of cruise ship business and the size of those ships with the number of people on them can be a significant challenge if we ever have a major SAR incident. We had one in the Arctic this summer involving a small cruise ship. We were very fortunate. There was serious grounding and a lot of damage to the ship, but there were no casualties and no injuries. It could have been much different, of course, had it been some other kind of accident. The cruise ship industry is one area of concern in terms of our search and rescue system.
The Chairman: Does the uniqueness of the Arctic environment itself give you cause for worry? Are you at a level of capability today that you would like to see improved by the year 2010? If so, in what way? You just touched upon a northern incident involving a cruise ship, but given the uniqueness of that environment, are there other concerns?
Mr. Turner: There are. For example, they would concern the state of hydrographic charting in the Arctic. We are working with our colleagues in the Canadian Hydrographic Service to see if we cannot speed up the rate of charting work in areas such as that. Large areas of the Canadian Arctic are still poorly charted and need a lot of work. That is also true of certain areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, where the state of charting is still quite poor.
Our presence in the Arctic, however, is being reduced because of the necessity of cutting back the number of units in our fleet and living within the available budget. We have fewer ships up there to respond if there is a problem in the Arctic.
The Chairman: In terms of oil spills and those types of horrendous accidents, are we falling short in levels of preparedness?
Mr. Turner: We have made significant improvements in that area over the last few years.
The Chairman: Has technology made it easier and cheaper?
Mr. Turner: Technology has improved the rate of recovery from an oil spill on water, but it has not helped much in terms of recovery once the oil comes ashore. Once you get oil on a beach, it is a messy, dirty problem. Little has changed over the last quarter of a century.
We have done quite a bit to improve the state of oil spill preparedness and response capability in this country, but there is no doubt that we can still make improvements. One of our concerns in the coast guard is the need to retain sufficient capability within our fleet to be able to help with offshore spill recovery if there is an accident of that kind. The response organizations which we have established focus their attention and their capability on oil spill recovery in the sheltered, near-shore waters and on the beach. They do not have significant off-shore capability, and the coast guard will have to continue providing that.
The Chairman: North of 60, there is the question of northern protocols for commercial operation in the north. With regard to flying foreign flags, are we satisfied that the present systems are up to date for ensuring their adequacy to travel in that part of the world?
Mr. Turner: Yes. In an external sense, the systems we provide, such as navigational systems, are still fairly minimal in the Arctic. That is why I mentioned the need for better charting. As for traffic levels, there is a tremendous area up there with limited marine traffic, even in the summer months. We try to focus our attention on those areas.
On the regulatory side from a ship's perspective, that of course falls within ship safety, but we ensure within Canada that the foreign-flagged ships visiting our Arctic regularly meet Canadian standards.
The Chairman: With respect to the term "double bottom", at what point in the future do we deal with that as it relates to foreign operators?
Mr. Turner: The phase-in schedule for that is one you should take up with the ship safety people at Transport Canada. That is their responsibility. We have a schedule in Canada which is more onerous than both the international side and the American side. It is the best of both combined. I am sure they could give you more detail on that.
The Chairman: How are we doing with satellite navigation? When can we look at that?
Mr. Turner: We are doing very well -- excellently, in fact -- in terms of the capability to use satellite navigation systems.
One of my major initiatives for the department over the next few years is the modernization of the Aids to Navigation system, moving away from total reliance on the traditional lighted aids on the shore and buoys in the water to a combination of satellite navigation and conventional aids. To supplement the satellite navigation system signals, which are currently available through the GPS system -- mainly from the Americans, but there is a Russian system as well -- there is a technique now called differential GPS. We are establishing through the Canadian Coast Guard in partnership with our American colleagues, the United States Coast Guard, a series of transmitter sites across which we will provide this high-precision correction signal.
Basic GPS systems or receivers have come down in price to the point where a small-boat fisherman or recreational boater can buy for $400 one that can be held in the palm of the hand. It is quite amazing the way the cost has come down. Sophisticated models for use on board a proper ship are still somewhat costlier, but even a full-fledged, full-featured differential GPS receiver is only in the neighbourhood of $4,000 or less, and it is coming down rapidly.
GPS by itself will give you sufficient accuracy, in the neighbourhood of better than 100 meters, even the way it is diluted by the Americans. With the differential technique, we are consistently getting 8 to 10 meters of positioning accuracy.
Through the combination of that with the new electronic chart system -- because the technology is moving ahead rapidly in that area as well -- a large ship can now safely navigate up a channel such as the St. Lawrence River with far fewer aids to navigation and shore lights than it needed before. A company on the West coast is probably the world leader in this technology of electronic chart display and information systems.
The Chairman: Who are they?
Mr. Turner: Offshore Systems Limited. We recently placed an order for a quantity of their equipment for the coast guard ships. We have been working closely with them for years in perfecting the system, which is known as ECDIS. ECDIS, along with the high precision position fixing system available through DGPS, represents the leading edge in the world and the state of the art in marine navigation systems. We are moving to adopt those in Canada as quickly as we can, having in mind the need to ensure a continuing level of safety for all users of the system, right down to small boats. You cannot afford to have one of these new ECDIS systems on a small fishing vessel yet, but you can on big commercial ships.
The Chairman: Might the committee call upon you to ask one of your staff on the west coast to join us at our hearings in Vancouver next week?
Mr. Turner: I am sure we could range that, yes.
The Chairman: Who keeps the statistics on pleasure boats?
Mr. Turner: It is interesting that you raise that question, senator, because one of our major problems has been getting good, consistent data on boating accidents and loss of life.
We are working with the provincial governments, the Red Cross, the Canadian Life Saving Association and the police forces to get better statistical information. We have a reasonable handle on it now, but it is not good enough.
I recently signed an agreement with the United States Coast Guard as well, and we are sharing information between our Office of Boating Safety and theirs. They have gone through similar problems in past years in trying to get the data collection systems in place necessary to track exactly what is happening with respect to recreational boating and small vessel safety. We expect to learn from them as well.
Senator Bacon: I have a question on light station staffing. You have been engaged in the de-staffing of light stations over the past few years. How far have you gone with this program on each of our coasts? What are the cost savings? Are other countries doing the same things we are doing with light stations?
Mr. Turner: The de-staffing of light stations is a world-wide phenomenon. Canada is not ahead of the rest of the world; in fact, it is behind in a number of areas. In the United States, for example, only one light station still has a light keeper, per se. That is in Boston harbour. By Act of Congress they decided that for historic reasons they should keep a person there.
Many countries have either completed their de-staffing or are well on their way to de-staffing their light stations and are using automated equipment to perform the traditional aids to navigational functions from light stations. In Canada, roughly 209 light stations have been de-staffed, with approximately 55 remaining. Those are concentrated in two regions: Newfoundland and the West Coast, and out west you will find that that is a major concern. It does not relate so much to the specifics of light stations as aids to navigation service as it does to the other related safety services.
One year ago, there were still 35 staffed light stations on the west coast. We proposed to do eight during the current fiscal year; five of those remaining 35 have been completed. Recently, we told the users that we thought we could do nine more safely next year and we wanted to discuss those with them. In each case, we have undertaken to demonstrate, through the new systems and technologies available, how the safety services can be provided adequately either by new technologies and equipment on site or by other means entirely, such as contracting with someone in the future to take weather observations.
The most sensitive issue on the West Coast is weather: weather observations from light stations for small boat navigation, including both fishermen and recreational boaters, and aviation weather observations for the large numbers of light aircraft moving up and down the coast. As we have been de-staffing, we have been installing automated weather packages and taking on more responsibility from AES to make sure that the real-time weather data is available to mariners on the west coast in a timely way so that they know exactly what the conditions are.
So far all of the equipment has turned out to be very reliable. You may have seen the news coverage of a storm on the west coast about a month ago in which there was considerable fuss about four of these stations not functioning. It was claimed that the automated packages had failed completely, but in fact it turned out not to be a failure of the light stations at all. The systems worked just fine. The problem was caused when an operator ashore, in reprogramming a computer the day before, accidentally dropped those four sites from the automated system, which we developed to carry the data into the radio station systems and automatically broadcast the real-time information to the mariner.
On the cost saving question, operating light stations in a de-staffed mode is significantly cheaper. We have saved millions of dollars, literally, through this means. This is why every country is moving in this direction.
To give you a quick idea of the number of the aids to navigation we have in the system for the coastlines, in British Columbia there are approximately 400 un-staffed light stations and minor aids to navigation along the shore and 2,900 various other aids, and approximately 35 manned light stations. Of the $10.5 million dollars that we spend for aids to navigation on the west coast, over $7 million -- and that represents 70 per cent of that amount -- is spent on those 35 light stations. In each case, you must maintain a microcommunity on the site, with support systems and services, power generators, sewage systems, and everything down to the television antenna and houses -- all the infrastructure that is needed on a small island or a remote coastline in order to maintain a couple of families on the site. That is what makes the operation of these manned stations so expensive. All 2,976 other aids to navigation along the coast operate on the remaining 30 per cent.
Senator Bacon: If you were to have more money, would you spend it on light stations or on something else?
Mr. Turner: If I had more money to put into the marine safety system, there would be more efficient and better ways to use that money than having light keepers on light stations. Each one can be effective in terms of eyes and ears over a small portion of a coastline that covers only a few miles. Each one can be effective in terms of responding to a small accident of some kind by going out and helping, but only in a small, local area.
The systems and improvements that we have put in place, particularly on the west coast over the last 10 years, have focused on broader things that can be done, including improving the marine communications systems up and down the coast. For example, we have implemented significant improvements in VHF; we have put in place a series of high efficiency directional finders to be able to zero in on someone who calls for help; we are implementing improvements in our search and rescue system itself, and are improving the other aids to navigation, including the electronic systems. We are continually making improvements. We are focusing now on how to ensure that mariners receive up-to-date, real-time weather information from us, rather than simply depending on the forecasts from AES. We have developed systems to do that. The situation has been quite critical. The mariners on the west coast have made it clear to us that it is important to them that we find ways of providing alternative or additional safety services before we take people off the light stations.
In short, to maintain light keepers on the light stations mainly for the purpose of retaining the light and the foghorn that accompanies it is not a good use of our money compared to the other things we could do if we had additional funds.
The Chairman: Sometimes you do it, though, because you have a heart. I think it would be a real benefit if you had EH-101 helicopters, especially for situations like the one that happened up north the other day.
Mr. Turner, will you return here at a later date?
Mr. Turner: I would be happy to do that.
The Chairman: You will be aware of why we would like to have a resource person.
Mr. Turner: Yes. There is an unfortunate perception among the people on the West Coast that we did not listen to what they told us during the consultation phase and that we still want to proceed with de-staffing regardless of their concerns. However, we did listen and we have taken into consideration both their concerns and what they told us must be done before it would be safe to de-staff. That is why we are proceeding cautiously, step by step.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Turner. We have enjoyed your presentation and we would like you to return at a later date.
Mr. Turner: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Richards, I apologize for the delay, but it is not too often that we get a chance to hear from the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Mr. Richards is the director of Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways.
Please proceed, Mr. Richards.
Mr. Darrell Richards, Director, Research and Information, Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways: I will not read the brief. I will merely summarize it because I know that you are busy.
Just as an aside, I might tell the committee that I first met Senator Forrestall approximately 20 years ago, when he was involved in a transportation committee in another place.
Today, I should like to describe our organization, show you some highlights from the survey of Canadian public opinion on truck safety, and then link that information to the work that was done by the Senate at the time of the passing of the deregulation legislation approximately 8 years ago.
Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways, otherwise known as CRASH, is a national association that is trying to bring a public perspective to the safety issue of big trucks. We campaign for the adoption and enforcement of meaningful truck safety regulations and are opposed to the expanded operation of bigger, multiple-trailer trucks on our roads. We are not, however, anti-trucking. We are simply pro-safety. The trucking industry is obviously indispensable. One cannot buy even the simplest of things, such as groceries, without the existence of a healthy trucking industry. At the same time, the volume of truck traffic on our roads has increased dramatically. The trucks are getting bigger, there are more of them, and they are more complicated. In some provinces, a second or third trailer is now pulled behind the cab. Each hitch in between adds some uncertainty and increases the amount of sway and the whiplash effect in the rear trailer when the driver must make an evasive motion to avoid, for instance, a deer on the road or a box that has fallen down, or whatever.
There is lots of anecdotal evidence about the impacts of heavier and longer trucks and, more particularly, the triple-trailer trucks; but we wanted to go beyond anecdotal evidence and test public opinion, and we did so with a survey. This is much more important information than anything I could say. This survey was done by the Angus Reid Group, a reputable company. They conducted 1,500 interviews this fall among a representative cross-section of Canadian adults 18 years of age or older. They then weighted the results by age and gender. The results are accurate, plus or minus 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20. However, if you break it down to a certain province or age group, then the reliability is not as high as that.
The important point to come out of this survey is that people involved in regulating trucks will now see from our survey that Canadians are concerned about big trucks. That concern is growing, and they want governments to act on their behalf. Through this survey, they are telling us to stop the high percentage of trucks that fail inspections. Approximately 33 per cent of trucks inspected fail mechanical fitness tests. They are saying: Combat the fatigue of truck drivers, make the roads safer and stop the move to bigger, longer and more complex trucks.
I will now show you some highlights of the survey.
The pictures that I am about to show you illustrate what you already have in your brief, but it is there in picture form. I am sorry that I do not have a French copy of the brief, but I do have a four-page summary in French.
Across all the provinces, we find that people perceive that the roads have more and more truck traffic. Approximately 80 per cent perceive that there are more trucks on the roads.
This slide illustrates the concern of people about the proposals to run two full-length trailers behind one tractor. This is now permitted in the three prairie provinces and in the province of Quebec on certain highways, but it is not permitted in the rest of the country. Approximately 85 or 86 per cent of the Canadian public are opposed to the operation of two full-length trailers behind a single tractor. There is little support for that idea.
We also tested the public's response. We said, "They already allow this in certain provinces. Does that change your view on this issue?" We still ended up with 81 per cent opposed. The knowledge that they already operate in Alberta did not convince people that it was a good idea.
The next slide addresses the attitudes concerning the proposal for triple-trailer trucks. Approximately 94 per cent of Canadians are opposed to them. Both these cases involved strong majorities in every province across every age and income group. We said, "They already allow triples in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Does that change your view?" We still had roughly 93 per cent opposed. It did not have much impact.
People are concerned about sharing the road with longer trucks because it takes longer to pass them and you are exposed to more splashing as you pass them when it is raining. Also, if you meet a longer truck, you will be exposed to more splashing and spraying for a longer period of time. Approximately 72 per cent said that sharing the road with longer trucks will make driving more difficult for motorists.
To give you some background on this, we are now moving into a continental transportation market as a result of NAFTA. The United States federal limit on weights is 80,000 pounds. There are some exceptions in certain cases that were grandfathered, but, generally speaking, the federal limit on weights in the U.S. is 80,000 pounds. In Canada, the national standard varies a little from province to province, but, generally, it is around 130,000 pounds. We asked people: What should we do? Should Canada go down to the U.S. limit of 80,000 pounds? Approximately 13 per cent said that 130,000 pounds should be allowed in both countries; 29 per cent said that we should keep our own limits in each country; but 55 per cent said that Canada should reduce its weight limit to the U.S. standard of 80,000 pounds. The concerns that were expressed mainly involved damage to roads and bridges.
What should governments do? There is now a trend towards more self-regulation, but 78 per cent of the people sampled felt that the government should adopt regulations to improve safety rather than having voluntary safety regulations.
The last slide deals with the limit on the amount of time you can drive. In the U.S., the federal standard has a limit of 10 hours for truck drivers; in Canada it is 13 hours. Certain proposals are being made to relax the weekly limit, although probably not the daily limit. Approximately 69 per cent of Canadians said that we should go down to the U.S. limit of 10 hours. If we are going into a continental market, then we should standardize to the lower limit not the higher one.
I wish to summarize by taking us back to what happened when the motor vehicle carriers were deregulated. At that time, the Senate said that, if we were to deregulate the motor carriers or truckers, it was on condition that there be a national safety code so that national standards would allay people's concerns that deregulation would result in relaxed safety.
The time tables for the establishment of the national safety code have been continually pushed back and delayed. It is still not completely implemented. Some provinces have opted out of some of the provisions and it is already 1996, which makes it approximately nine years since the Senate made what I have always considered to be a good recommendation. We have all kinds of problems and statistical vacuums. We have railway statistics within four months but trucking statistics for commercial crashes are only now available for 1993.
In 1993, the National Transportation Act Review Commission went back to the national safety code issue that was first recommended by the Senate. It recommended that, if the national code was not implemented by March 31, 1994, the federal government should take back jurisdiction of interprovincial trucking safety. That deadline has come and gone, and we still do not have the national safety code implemented in its fullness.
I should like to outline one of the problems that occur when there are provincial standards on a matter like this.
The Chairman: You have left me a little puzzled here. Are you in favour of the federal authority taking control of interprovincial trucking?
Mr. Richards: Yes. When there is a provincial regulation, there is a tendency to try to maintain your competitive advantage and productivity by going for the biggest truck in your jurisdiction and, perhaps, by not implementing all parts of the code, where not doing so can give you a competitive advantage. I am not necessarily saying that these are bad people; I am saying that that is the way the system works when you have provincial controls. When one province tries to gain that advantage, then the others have to respond. If they do not, the jobs will move away from their jurisdiction. If there is a national standard, then the provinces will be less vulnerable to that kind of pressure.
In conclusion, I wish to introduce our group to you and to share with you the results of the survey and comment on and reinforce some good work that you did nine years ago.
Senator Bacon: Would it be better to ban these double- or triple-trailer trucks? Should we encourage finding some technology to make some improvements?
Mr. Richards: There was a federal-provincial scientific-measurement study on the safety of these sizes of vehicles and the various types of hitching mechanisms and technologies. It was a very good foundation study for safety, and its 1987 report said that the national standard should be two 28-foot trailers at a maximum, because, when you go to the triples, there are problems. When you have longer doubles they do not stay on track in the same lane when you go around a curve.
Since then, four of the provinces have gone beyond that. They do not use the national standard. In their own jurisdictions, they have allowed the triples. That safety study said that there should not be triples with A or C hitching mechanisms. We now have four provinces that allow A or C hitches with triples. Again, this is a case of the provinces trying to gain competitive advantage and thus going past the national standard, which is not compulsory but voluntary.
Senator Bacon: If the federal government were to have responsibility over the interprovincial trucking industry, we would have to provide the provinces with more money, if we wanted to have the regulations implemented, would we not?
Mr. Richards: Perhaps. In the United States, the federal government funds roadside vehicle inspections. I am not an expert in that area, but you could be on to something, yes.
Senator Bacon: Would reserved lanes for trucks be something that we could consider?
Mr. Richards: From a safety perspective, it is a good idea. From an economic perspective, it would be important to ensure that there would be no subsidies involved in doing that. If there were subsidies for the special lanes, then you would be shifting the rate from the railroads, and that would compromise safety in some respects because, generally, the railways are safer.
Senator Spivak: I was appointed to the Senate just before the safety study to which you refer was released. I remember that the major concern involving deregulation was safety. We were told, "Don't worry about deregulation. Safety is paramount." If you remember, that is what is stated in the act. They have talked the talk, but they did not walk the walk.
An article in the Winnipeg Free Press states that major truck traffic in Manitoba has gone up by 52 per cent. That is because for several years in the prairie provinces there has been a move away from grain elevators and railroads. Therefore, there are great big terminals. The farmers do not use their farm trucks to go on those roads but must have bigger trucks. Why? Because sometimes they are going as far as 100 miles. Because of the heavy use of these trucks on the roads the whole network of roads will cost $18 billion to redo. This situation involves not just the main roads, or even certain roads, but the entire network of roads in our prairie provinces; they will be covered with these heavy truck-trailers.
Is your organization aware of the total transportation picture? What are you doing to take this into account? It is not just the major highways that are of concern.
You mentioned that the railways are safer than trucks, but the railways do not receive any subsidies at all, whereas the roads are subsidized. The trucking industry says that that is covered off by gasoline taxes and so on. So there is a tax issue here, too. We have just come off the Crow rate, which amounted to approximately $1 billion a year. That simply reinforces the trend away from the railways. Now, we must spend $18 billion and the provinces, who want to control their own trucking, want the federal government to pay for it.
In what way do you think you can lobby against something that will be overwhelming? It is already.
Mr. Richards: You have identified one of the underlying problems. That is to say, in order to get an integrated and balanced system, you have to have a level playing field. That is one issue. Another issue is deciding which problem to tackle first. In the prairies now, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are both considering going beyond the national weight limit. In those provinces, that limit is 137,850 pounds. Manitoba is now considering moving its grain and other resource products at 15 per cent over the national weight limit.Saskatchewan wants to go far beyond that. In fact, they now allow some potash trucks to haul 190,000 pounds.
It is a vicious circle. The branch lines of the railways are being abandoned; therefore, the weight limits for trucks have been increased to move the grains. However, because more grain is moved by trucks, therefore, more lines are abandoned. I cannot point fingers at the villains, though, because it is a complicated thing.
The shift that we have seen so far involves short-distance resource products being moved 100 to 200 kilometres. However, if they go to double 48-foot trailers on NAFTA corridors, which are north-south, and on transcontinental highway corridors, you will see a much bigger problem. That problem will be a shift to trucks for long-distance traffic. The railways have lost the short haul; but if you go to national corridors for double 48-foot trailers, then you are at risk of the railways losing the long-haul traffic.
Senator Spivak: My point is that the only way you can beat this is on a cost-benefit basis. If it were to cost more to ship by truck -- that is, if trucks did not have subsidies -- you might get some of that railway traffic back. When the transportation system for the western farmer was removed, many people urged the government to look at a comprehensive transportation policy before they did this. Of course, the government did not. So it is a mess and it will continue to be a mess.
Mr. Richards: To make one thing clear, our association would not necessarily lobby to remove freight from trucks to railroads. We want safe trucks. That is our mandate.
Senator Spivak: Part of that has to do with the subsidy.
Mr. Richards: Yes. You have put it well, senator.
Senator Adams: I am concerned about the number of hours that truck drivers are allowed to drive. The maximum driving time is 13 hours. Does that include the time for a coffee break, for instance, or does it mean the total driving time is 13 hours? That is a long time. What are the regulations concerning driving for 13 hours?
Mr. Richards: It is a complicated issue. The word used is "consecutive." I am assuming that means you can drive for 13 hours. About one-half of the companies are very responsible. They do not push their drivers. For them, there is not as much concern. The problem is with the bad carriers. We see articles in the newspapers and hear testimonials from truck drivers all the time with regard to this. Drivers are told to deliver loads by a certain time, even if it requires that they exceed the hours allowed in their log book. If they are involved in an accident, that is their responsibility. If they do not comply, the company will hire someone who will.
Senator Adams: If they comply, are they paid a bonus?
I live in the east end of Ottawa. I expect to see big trucks on the road in the middle of the night, but I do not think it is acceptable for there to be so many of them on the road during rush hour. There should be a regulation to keep them off the main thoroughfares in cities during rush hour. One transport trucks takes the space of three cars. Do you think we should regulate the hours during which they are allowed to drive in cities?
Mr. Richards: California does that. Perhaps a cost-benefit analysis should be done first. It is certainly worth looking at.
The Chairman: How are you funded?
Mr. Richards: We obtain funding from three sources: railway unions, the Railway Industry Association, and individuals. Two years ago we started without money. It took us two years of consultation to find that there was a level of interest and to go to potential sponsors to get some support.
We do not apologize for that. With the government pulling out of funding NGOs, you will find that many safety organizations must rely in one way or another on industrial funding.
The Chairman: I would hope that you would not be embarrassed about that. Do you consider spray and splash by trucks to be a serious problem for car drivers, or merely a nuisance?
Mr. Richards: The attitudinal surveys show that motorists identify this as a problem. I do not have my finger on statistical correlations, but even the perception of a risk becomes a road hazard, because people respond in those situations in ways you might not expect.
The Chairman: Could you explain that?
Mr. Richards: The presence of a truck on the road will sometimes affect the car drivers' behaviour because they feel vulnerable. They may change lanes abruptly or put on their brakes suddenly. For example, if you are passing a truck in a lot of spray and you get blinded, you may, in a panic, jam on the brakes, although there may be someone behind you. In other words, the presence of the truck might cause behaviour you do not expect.
The Chairman: Do you favour a minimum age for driving trucks?
Mr. Richards: I do not think you could impose a maximum age, because you would probably run into problems with the Charter of Rights. Critical in all of this, however, is the need for a national training standard. We need to weed out the bad operators. Statistics show that drivers have accidents when they are first hired. J.B. Hunt have raised their wages 35 per cent because they know that, if they keep a driver for more than one year, their accident rate goes down. It is important to have proper training and apprenticeships. Minimum age does not concern me as much as proper standards.
The Chairman: Does graduated licensing enter into this formula?
Mr. Richards: It probably does. It is a good idea -- apprenticeships or graduated licensing.
The Chairman: You can be perfectly trained by the best truck driving school in the world and still be too young to get behind a 64-wheeler.
Mr. Richards: Younger drivers in general have higher accident rates because of more aggressive behaviour.
Senator Adams: Do check points simply check the weight of trucks?
Mr. Richards: They check for overweight vehicles. Occasionally they do mechanical fitness inspections, although I heard a driver who drives regularly from Toronto to Montreal say that in 10 years he has only been stopped once for the fitness test.
Senator Adams: Most of the time they are closed.
The Chairman: I would like to address the issue of the abuse of substances -- drugs, alcohol and particularly barbiturates, or the type of drugs used to keep drivers awake, and which also leads to illegal log practices. Perhaps you could touch briefly on drug use. Should we have random mandatory drug testing, particularly of trans-border truckers, both provincial and national?
Mr. Richards: The people who drive internationally now have to do that in order to access the United States system.
The 30 or 40 per cent of carriers who are bad create an environment in which they are pressuring the drivers to perform, that is, stay awake longer. It is that kind of downward pressure from the dispatchers and shippers that is amplifying the problem with stimulant abuse.
For example, the penalty for delivering a truckload of auto parts late can be $7,000 an hour.
Senator Spivak: Do they not have extra personnel? They require a person to stay up longer to do this because of the bottom line? If they hire more people, there is less profit, I guess.
Mr. Richards: It happens. Drivers have told us that they are told to drive an unsafe truck and deliver a load on time even if they exceed their log book to do so, or they will be replaced.
The Chairman: A moment ago you used the figures 30 to 40 per cent.
Mr. Richards: That is not a statistic. It could be 5 per cent.
The Chairman: You do not know?
Mr. Richards: No, I do not.
The Chairman: That is an alarming figure. If it is anywhere near that number, we should ground them all and consider everything before we allow them back on the road.
Mr. Richards: We do know that last year 33 per cent of the trucks inspected had mechanical fitness problems that resulted in their being ordered out of service.
Senator Spivak: Is this in Ontario?
Mr. Richards: That is the national average. In terms of operators it is probably lower than that, because I expect that the bigger, more reputable operators have more vehicles in their fleets.
The Chairman: I wish we could keep you here longer, but we must go elsewhere. Thank you for appearing. We may call upon your expertise at a later date.
Mr. Richards: We would be pleased to hear from you. I will leave you a sample of our newsletter and a copy of our survey.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Richards.
The committee continued in camera.