Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 5 - Evidence for the afternoon sitting
VANCOUVER, Thursday, December 5, 1996
Upon resuming.
The Chairman: I wish to read a submission from Mr. Richard Neufeld, MLA for Peace River North. It is a submission that he wished to make, however, it is a long way for him to come. The letter is dated December 5, 1996.
Dear Honourable Forrestall:
Please accept this letter as my submission to your committee in regards to air transportation safety in the northern part of British Columbia.
I am the MLA for the Constituency of Peace River. The area I represent is 66,000 square miles in size or, in comparison, the same land mass as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island, with room to spare. The Alaska Highway was originally constructed during WWII and traverses my constituency for approximately 500 miles from north to south. During construction of the highway a number of emergency airstrips were built for safety purposes, which brings me to the issue I wish to bring to your attention and possible resolve.
I am informed that the federal government is in the process of decommissioning three of these airstrips in my constituency. Removal of wind socks has already taken place and large X's have been painted on the gravel surface of the airstrips. I understand that the final step is to dig ditches across the airstrips and to return the area back to its natural state. This would be a travesty. The airstrips in question are approximately 5,000 feet in length and are able to handle aircraft the size of a Hercules. The airstrips are now used for staging sites for fire fighting, emergency air evacuations for highway accidents or industrial accidents and as emergency airstrips for anyone in need. I would also point out that the Alaska Highway is an air corridor used by many small and large American aircraft travelling to and from Alaska and the Yukon.
The intent is not to plow the snow in the winter or to light the airstrips but rather touch them up in the summer with a grader to keep small trees under control and reinstall the wind socks. This would require very little maintenance and equipment is readily available from highway maintenance crews.
Anyone who has flown in small aircraft in the north with huge distances between airports will understand how important airstrips like this are for safety purposes and in many cases represent the difference between life and death.
I have attempted with no success to have the province take over the responsibility. Although cost has been the excuse, the provincial government also has some hesitancy because of the liability involved. I have pointed out that liability has never been an issue for the past 54 years and would assume that this would not change in the foreseeable future.
I am enclosing, as back up for this submission, a letter to Senator Carney and provincial hansard from this past session regarding the issue.
I appreciate the opportunity to have this submission read into the record and would appreciate any assistance you can give me to convince the federal government to continue ownership and to keeping the airstrips open for the reasons listed above.
Sincerely,
Richard Neufeld, MLA
Peace River North
It has enclosures and it will stand for the record.
Now we will turn to Mr. Sargent.
Mr. Wayne Sargent, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union: Honourable senators, thank you for fitting me in today.
I have been a longshoreman for 30 years working on the Vancouver waterfront on the ship and dock operations, operating all types of equipment from ship's cargo gear, dock gantry cranes, forklift and tractor-trailer units. I have also worked loading chemical ships. For the past several years I have been employed as a forklift operator in North Vancouver terminal.
I have been involved in union politics for the past 17 years. In my local, I have been elected as vice-president, executive member, and trustee. I have done the job of business agent, president and secretary-treasurer while elected to other positions.
In 1990 I was elected to the position of Canadian area third vice-president and safety coordinator, a position I still hold. In this position I have been involved in many issues. I have been a committee member working on the review of section 16 the Canada Labour Code. I am looking forward to working on the review of the marine occupational safety and health regulations starting next year. I am also a member of the Canadian Maritime Advisory Council which meets twice yearly in Ottawa.
I have considerable experience in safety issues. Needless to say, the ILW is deeply concerned with the trend of government to lessen safety in industry. The aim of government has been to achieve this goal through many avenues, starting with deregulation. The recent regulation review has seen many strong regulations reduced to standards; standards do not have the strength of regulations.
Any changes to regulations or new regulations have problems being gazetted. I speak primarily to the wear standards of the Canada Shipping Act on the agenda since 1988, reviewed in 1991, but still on the agenda and unable to get through Parliament yet. We also face reduction of service and delegation of some services to private industry, that is the delegation of some inspection services to classification societies.
We of the ILWU find this a very dangerous situation for Canada. Every year or two, government reduces service further, thereby saving money in the short term but losing face in the long term.
One only has to look to the south and take note of a situation that has no respect for the workers and is used unmercifully by the employers. Once this type of system becomes entrenched, it will be impossible to backtrack.
As for reduction of service, we find the Coast Guard and Transport Canada are so short-staffed that they do not have time to do thorough inspections. This situation, if continued, will lead to many marine accidents, further weakening our image throughout the world.
Downsizing and combining of services, while being cost effective, have industry and some members in government departments wondering what is happening. Coast Guard downsizing is a very touchy situation. We of the ILWU are very concerned how far this can and will go. We feel it has pretty much bottomed out and the government cannot trim services any further and still be effective.
De-tonning of vessels' cargo gear is a subject about which we, the ILWU, are extremely concerned. Our employers association currently has a proposal in front of the Maritime Advisory Council to allow lessening of the wear standards in certain situations. We feel this is just the thin edge of the wedge and the wear standards will never be respected.
Cutbacks in service will have a negative impact on the marine industry. We cannot afford any further cutbacks. Should cutbacks continue, then delegation to classification societies is inevitable. We do not want to be just like the U.S. marine industry.
If the cutbacks are to continue, or if there are no finances, then the government should look to user-pay on safety calls. This might be the catalyst to force the ship owners to keep their cargo gear in condition.
As an overview of safety in the marine industry, we accept the situation as it is now. If the government continues on its mandate of slicing costs at any expense, we feel the shipping industry will self-destruct in a short period of time. The respect that Canada has gained over the years will disintegrate.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could get some specific examples of the consequences listed here. You state:
... the recent regulation review has seen many strong regulations reduced to standards with very little strength.
Can you give us two or three examples of this?
Mr. Sargent: On the review, there were 113 regulations up for review.
Senator Perrault: What did they involve?
Mr. Sargent: They involved transportation of grain by waterborne carriers under the St. Lawrence Seaway Act. There were about seven outright removals, but 14 were reduced to standards. Some were trimmed or reviewed, and I do not have the list with me. CMAC and the Coast Guard have all this in their minutes.
Senator Perrault: You say that this is a reduction in the standards relating to the shipping of grain?
Mr. Sargent: Different things, yes. The timber deck cargo regulations were reduced to a standard.
Senator Perrault: Perhaps we could be provided with some detail on that issue. Were the workers being placed at risk?
Mr. Sargent: It is not really the workers; it is the vessel. The government came out with a plan or a bulletin last week on how to stow a vessel with timber. A lot of cargo that goes to the East Coast, such as lumber, may have three ports of call and each port has to be lash-able. It is fine if it is that way because then they have to a toward ship and a fore and aft to make sure that the cargo is lash-able and they can get the ship from one port.
Senator Perrault: There is a danger it could become unstable and roll?
Mr. Sargent: It can become unstable, yes, or the chains may break.
Senator Perrault: The cargo could come loose?
Mr. Sargent: Quite often in the winter time in Victoria, there will be two or three wrecks where the cargo has shifted on deck and they have to cut the chains and re-stow the cargo.
Senator Perrault: That is a difficult and dangerous procedure.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, it is very dangerous.
Senator Perrault: On page 2 of your presentation, you make reference to the de-tonning of vessels' cargo gear. I am not familiar with the meaning of that.
Mr. Sargent: A ship's cargo gear is rated at 25 tonnes. The regulations, the wear standards, state that cargo gear cannot be worn more than 10 per cent, so 10 per cent of a shackle or a head block is not an awful lot of wear. In eight times the diameter of a wire, there are eight breaks allowed in that section. If it has nine breaks, it is considered to be dangerous.
In the grain service, they load with a Bombardier, a little light cat that they put down below and push the grain to level it. Then the longshore crew goes down and they land the load of dunnage, third- or fourth-grade two-by-sixes, and they lay this across and then put burlap on it and maybe another layer of dunnage
They think that because there are only one or two lifts -- the Bombardier comes in and out, the dunnage comes in, nothing comes out -- that they can weaken the standards. These vessels have pontoons that are huge, 60 to 70 feet wide, perhaps 5 to 8 feet deep. They are all metal and they must be lifted off the hatch and swung around out of place. They must be swung in and out and we must do that work.
The concern of the Coast Guard is how the wear affects the overall operation of the gear. I am concerned about our people. The Coast Guard is worried about the actual gear. This is coming up in CMAC. It will be discussed next May, I believe.
Senator Bacon: Mr. Sargent, Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act, is currently before Parliament. It calls for our major ports such as Vancouver and Montreal to become commercialized and to have less involvement with the federal government. In your opinion, will this have any impact, any negative impact, on port safety and, if so, how?
Mr. Sargent: I do not think it will affect the safety of the port as such or our safety. It may affect the general safety of the vessels coming to and from the port. I do not think it will affect us as workers in the port.
Senator Bacon: There will not be any impact at all?
Mr. Sargent: I do not think it will have much impact. I have not read the full act. There is a lot of reading there and I just received a copy of it last week.
Senator Lawson: On page 2 you state:
... we find Coast Guard Transport Canada are so short staffed that they don't have time to do thorough inspections. This situation -- if continued -- will lead to many marine accidents.
Tell us about that.
Mr. Sargent: Our people tell me that when they used to go aboard a timber cargo vessel, they walked down the ship, looked at the chains, knocked the chains, made sure they were tight, and looked for kinks in the chains. If there was a tripping hazard, make sure you have covered the tripping hazard. If the ship was going through the Panama Canal, it had to have a catwalk built and the catwalk would have to be checked. Also the lifeline has to be stretched out properly. This is not done now.
Senator Lawson: What is done? Is it only a cursory examination and they go on about their business?
Mr. Sargent: I do not work the ships any longer. I have heard they drive down the dock on the dockside. They may look up and see there is a kink in the number four chain, number four end, number ten, and they will ask for those kinks to be taken out. Then they get up on top and look in the first hatch. The employers know that they will not go the whole distance of the ship now, so they make sure the first couple of hatches are up to snuff and they are not quite as concerned about the rest.
Senator Lawson: The careless approach to safety standards is passed on to the shipowner.
You also state:
If the cutbacks are to continue, or if there are no finances, then the government should look to user pay on safety calls - this might be the catalyst to force the ship owners to keep their cargo gear in condition.
That seems to me to have a lot of merit. Why do we not have a user-pay system? Who pays for it now? Is it paid for by government through supplying inspectors and so on?
Mr. Sargent: The government supplies the inspector.
Senator Lawson: Is there a pattern? With your experience in safety, do you know if there are particular countries that have ships that are in disrepair? I hear that there are.
Mr. Sargent: That is true for some flags-of-convenience ships, from Panama, Monrovia, Liberia, and some from the Bahamas. Those ships are owned by multinational owners. They may have a series of owners, such as a section of this company, of that company, of another company. In order to get any repairs done, the captain has to have a piece of paper that says the wire in number three crane must be replaced and so on. Otherwise the owners will not act on the problem. If they were forced to pay when the person comes down to inspect the gear, perhaps they would do a little more work on it.
Senator Lawson: We often see ships tied up here because the workers are jumping off and saying that they have not been paid or have some other dispute, and they can be tied up for weeks until the matter is sorted out.
Mr. Sargent: That is the responsibility of the International Transportation Federation.
Senator Lawson: It seems to me there is a lot of merit in what you say regarding user pay. Why should not the worst offenders be responsible for paying the costs of the exams?
Mr. Sargent: As long as it is not longshoremen who have to pay. We do not have the resources to pay.
Senator Lawson: No, nor should they have to.
Mr. Sargent:I do not know if you have ever heard of the ships that ply the coast. There are some old-timers. They were standing-gear ships. They would be forced to change the runner in Vancouver. The ship would go to New Westminster, and on the way around they would put the old runner back on. We would tell the guys in New Westminster to make sure to check the runner in number three hatch. They would check it and, sure enough, it was condemned again, the same runner.
Senator Lawson: There is no shortage of imagination as to how to get around the rules.
Mr. Sargent: That is true.
Senator Lawson: It might be appropriate for the committee to consider the proposal that has been put forward for user pay on safety calls. It seems to me to have a lot of merit.
Mr. Sargent: The Coast Guard is talking about user pay when they delegate to class. Some contractors do some engine-room calls and some seaworthy calls, but they have not yet got into safety, and we do not want them in safety because we think private industry does not have the same vested interest as the Coast Guard.
Senator St. Germain: You state at the top of page 2 of your brief:
One only has to look to the south and take note of a situation that has no respect from the workers and is used unmercifully by the employers.
Could you explain that further and perhaps give us some examples as to what you are referring to?
Mr. Sargent: South of the line the Coast Guard is a paramilitary organization. They would go on board a ship and inspect the cargo gear if we called them out. Then the government stopped that. They went to the classification society, which suggested a group of private businessmen that have experience on the ships. They would go aboard the ship and whoever got to them first would say, "That it is not bad, it is only worn a little bit," or, "This cargo we are loading is only light and is not a worry." They would say, "Yes, you can do that." That is what we do not want.
Senator St. Germain: Are there any actual examples you can give us where something bad has happened as a result?
Mr. Sargent:I cannot give you such an example offhand.
Senator Adams: How many members are in the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union? Is that union only in British Columbia, or is it across Canada?
Mr. Sargent: No, the ILWU is only in B.C. I am in contact with the ILA on the East Coast and CUPE locals, les débardeurs in Montreal. I keep in touch with them all. We work together and develop standards. In the last couple of years we have developed the timber deck cargo standards, the web sling standards and the wear standards. We seem to be the ones that are the driving force. We push them and get them interested.
Senator Adams: The committee has been advised by previous witnesses that ships travelling to Japan have hit rough seas and some of the cargo has fallen overboard. Does the responsibility for that belong to the loaders or the shippers?
Mr. Sargent: It is a problem for the ship. The Coast Guard normally inspects the cargo. Mostly the cargo that will have problems is made up of logs. Raw logs are tough to load. When loading a deck load of logs the load goes to a certain height and then they put a crown and put wires across called wiggle wires and cinch them up so tight the wires are singing. We get off the ship when the crew does this because if a wire snaps, it is very dangerous.
Senator Perrault: It could kill.
Mr. Sargent: It slices whatever is around. We get out of the way and get off the ship. They tighten the wiggle wires down and then we go back and load another two or three metres of logs on top of that until all the cargo is aboard. Then we put on heavy-duty chains and pull them together and tighten them up and cinch them down as best we can.
Sometimes, no matter how tight the wiggle wire is down in the lower part of the load, with the vibration of the ship and the wave action, the cargo loosens up. If this happens, logs may slide out, and if the sea is particularly rough the crew cannot get out to tighten the chains. They have to wait until the water is a little bit smooth to go out and tighten the load down. Sometimes they do not get a chance, rough weather carries on, and we get the extra work repairing these.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for being with us.
Our next witnesses are from the Pacific Pilotage Authority. Welcome, and please proceed.
Mr. Dennis McLennan, Chair, Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada: Honourable senators, I have a brief written presentation. I am not a master mariner. I am a businessman. For technical questions, the President of the B.C. Coast Pilots, Captain Al Flotre, can perhaps answer. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the standing committee on your visit to beautiful Vancouver.
A simple definition of piloting is the act, or art, of conducting a ship into or out of harbours, rivers or coastal waters, in areas of navigational hazards and dangers. With this in mind, the pilot has the conduct of the ship while the master, or captain, remains in command. This is a fine line but what it says is that the master retains the command of his ship and can override the pilot's instructions. If the master should exercise this authority, he must have good reason for so doing.
When a pilot boards a ship, it is the master's duty to inform the pilot of all information that he, the pilot, might need to perform his work. This will include information about engine status, handling characteristics of the ship, equipment malfunctions, and so on. The bridge watch must always remain alert to the ship's position at all times and anticipate the pilot's orders so that discrepancies can be detected early, leaving time for the master to confer with the pilot.
In our pilotage waters, ships over 350 gross registered tonnes, regardless of flag, are required by law to carry a licensed pilot. Our waters include all the coastal waters of British Columbia, from the Washington border in the south to the Alaskan border in the north.
In 1950, there were 35 pilots who completed 4,353 assignments. In 1970, there were 74 coastal pilots who completed 10,400 assignments. This year, we have 108 full-time pilots who will complete approximately 12,000 assignments.
The Pacific Pilotage Authority is a Federal Crown Corporation, reporting to the Minister of Transport. The mandate of the authority is to operate, maintain and administer, in the interests of safety, an efficient pilotage service.
The authority remains financially self-sufficient, generating its revenue from the shipping industry. Therefore, it does not rely on any appropriations from the government.
The West Coast of Canada experiences extremes of weather, tidal ranges and current conditions in certain areas that are unmatched anywhere in the world for a major marine artery. There are additional hazards such as a fishing fleet and pleasure craft. All of this is then mixed into the most convoluted coastline of any country in the world. Consistently ships complete their coastal voyages safely and efficiently.
In 1991, of 14,036 assignments, we had 99.787 per cent free of incident; in 1992, 99.841 per cent; in 1993, 99.790 per cent; in 1994, 99.907 per cent; in 1995, with 12,497 assignments, 99.879 per cent were incident-free.
The B.C. Coast Pilots cannot be compared to the pilots working in the other regions of Canada because the service provided is totally different, requiring distinctive skills and knowledge.
The prime consideration in all is safety -- safety of life and property, and the safety and protection of the environment.
In exhaustive reports submitted to the Minister of Transport on July 27, 1995, and on December 29, 1995, the Pacific Pilotage Task Force addressed all pilotage issues raised by the recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport and in specific questions subsequently posed by the minister.
In many instances, as set out in those reports, the Pacific Pilotage Task Force and its working groups agreed that the pilotage system put in place in 1972 continues to serve Canada well in meeting the fundamental objectives of public safety and environmental protection in a cost-effective fashion.
While not without disagreement and occasional criticism, the region has developed over the years an outstanding record of success in the implementation of Canada's compulsory pilotage system. Much of that success reflects the efforts that all parties have devoted to communication and consultation on matters of significance to Pacific Coast pilotage.
Our consultation arrangements have been reinforced in one of the significant developments that has come out of the process that began with the standing committee's recommendations and the preparation of a National Marine Policy. That development is the reconstitution of the Pacific Pilotage Task Force as the Pacific Pilotage Advisory Group.
The advisory group is comprised of representatives of all participants of the task force: shippers, ship owners and operators, the pilotage authority, pilots, ports, and the Chamber of Shipping.
The purpose of the advisory group is improve communications among the stakeholders, which facilitates further cost efficiencies in the delivery of pilotage services while continuing to fully meet safety and environmental protection objectives.
The authority remains convinced that the existing regional pilotage structure and compulsory pilotage provisions represent the best way to achieve continued public safety and marine environment protection.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you, sir, for your brief. Do lighthouses play any role in your lives?
Captain Al Flotre, President, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd.: I would say it is vital that we have lit navigational aids on the coast. I guess the question of the day is whether or not they should be manned. However, a lighthouse is important if the electronics on a ship fail.
The Chairman: The Pacific Pilotage Authority and the British Columbia Coast Pilots are interrelated. Perhaps Captain Flotre can make his presentation and then we can ask questions.
Mr. Flotre: I am the president of British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. We are a private company that contracts to the pilotage authority, and that is an important distinction. Some of my brief may duplicate what Mr. McLennan has said.
Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to Vancouver. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. As the spokesman for marine pilots on the West Coast of Canada, the opportunity to expound on the value of a safe and efficient pilotage system is always welcome.
I have brought two copies of a video on marine pilotage that our company commissioned last year. I hope you will have the opportunity to view it. It has received rave reviews and the sales of the video are being measured in the tens.
Marine pilots have been offering their services to captains for as long as there have been ships that travel to strange ports and require local knowledge of hazards and conditions. There is a reference to pilots in the Bible. One of the first written laws of France, dated approximately 200 AD, allowed the captain of a ship to take the pilot to the fore part of the ship and behead him if the pilot had run his ship aground. Fortunately for us, there has been a change in disciplinary procedures for pilots since that time.
For many centuries and even into our present century, pilots were seen as an option that ships should have available to provide local knowledge, and pilots would make their way out to sea to compete individually for the jobs that came along.
As this century progressed, public opinion began to focus on the local environment, and as the number of oil and toxic cargo spills began to mount, a new purpose evolved for the pilot where his duties and responsibilities were not limited to providing safety to the ship, but also to protecting the local marine environment and the dock infrastructures of the local port.
In 1972, after nine years of deliberations by the Bernier Commission, the Pilotage Act of Canada was passed. This act established the regional pilotage authorities that were given the task of providing a safe and efficient pilotage system for their regions. It also mandated that pilotage in Canada would be compulsory for most foreign ships within specified boundaries of Canadian waters. The act contains some provisions whereby Canadian ships and certain foreign ships may obtain exemption certificates or waivers on pilotage, whichever is applicable.
In 1994, a subcommittee of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport in a report on the St. Lawrence Seaway recommended that the Pilotage Act be repealed and the four pilotage authorities be dissolved. This prompted the Minister of Transport to establish task forces in each region, comprised of all stakeholders in marine pilotage -- shippers, ship owners, ship agencies, port authorities, pilots, and government officials -- to study, poke, and probe all aspects of pilotage in general, specifically the costs, compulsory pilotage areas, the requirements for pilotage licences and certificates, and the mechanisms for setting rates.
The Pacific region's task force immediately embarked upon a massive consultation process that resulted in a report to the national task force. I have brought a couple of copies of the report for you. I am sure you will enjoy the video more than you will this report.
The reports from the four regions confirmed to the minister that the present Pilotage Act was proper and effective and, with a few amendments, could be updated and maintained as a vehicle for the protection of our local waters and the supply of expertise to foreign ships that trade in these waters.
These amendments are contained in Bill C-44, which has been through the committee stage with consultations all across Canada and is awaiting final reading in the House of Commons. We expect this bill to be sent to the Senate for your approval sometime in the new year.
We at B.C. Coast Pilots Ltd., and all pilot groups in Canada, want to go on record at this time as supporting the amendments to the Pilotage Act contained in Bill C-44, and we urge you to work for Senate approval of the bill when it comes to the Upper House.
We would also like to emphasize to you that while there are some very vocal calls for more severe changes to the act, most industry and port authorities are in favour of keeping the present compulsory pilotage. It is those with little knowledge of marine matters who are seeking cost reductions that would compromise safety.
To address some of the issues raised in your letter of invitation, I would first like to state that we were pleased that the attempt at deregulation of the pilotage industry, to which I just referred, has been rebuffed and therefore deregulation has not compromised safety in the marine mode. However, we do have some serious concerns about safety in our sector.
We are pleased to compliment the many international shipping companies that operate their ships in a proper manner with due regard to maintenance of the ship and supplying these ships with qualified and properly trained personnel. Unfortunately, there are several companies in the world market who do not subscribe to these practices, and we refer to their vessels as the "ships of shame." These vessels are floating accidents waiting to happen, and although they are subject to inspection by the "port state control" branch of the Canadian Coast Guard, under which, if their equipment is found defective, they may be detained until repairs are made, there is no penalty or fine to induce the owner to be more responsible. This situation has been exacerbated by the reduction in staff at the Canadian Coast Guard, so many defective ships slip through the system. All those ships must enter Canadian waters and travel to a Canadian port before they are subject to inspection.
I would urge this body to consider severe deterrent penalties for this flagrant disregard for our Canadian environment and infrastructure.
Another concern we have is with the proposals that technology can replace human expertise aboard vessels in our waters. There is a need that every advancement be thoroughly tested and that all concerns be investigated before approval of this equipment is granted.
We are fortunate that the international body, the IMO, is dedicated to the same principles. Canada should endorse and support IMO in this testing. Recent technical advances allow those in our industry to give very accurate positions for a ship. They can also track very accurately where the ship has been. However, there is no technology at present that can decide, with proper consideration of all conditions, where the ship should go next.
The last paragraph in your letter asks for suggestions to ensure safety in the future, and although I do not have any specific suggestions, I feel that in general terms we must ensure that our government, in its ever-present search for cost reductions and in its consideration of the need for Canada to remain competitive in the global marketplace, must always place the lives of our transportation workers, the safety of our environment and the security of our port infrastructure ahead of the monetary concerns.
Thank you for your attention and we would be pleased answer questions.
Senator St. Germain: I will return to my question in regards to these lighthouses. I am sure I do not have to tell you of the controversy that has flowed as a result of destaffing. Do any of your pilots come in contact with the personnel on these stations, or is this outside of your particular area?
Mr. Flotre: Regarding pilotage, we do not come in contact with them. I have to say in my previous job of running coastal vessels my concern for weather was more immediate and we did contact them. However, as a pilot, for the ships we are on, weather is not a concern, especially when we are travelling the coast.
Senator St. Germain: My other question relates to Bill C-44 to which you make reference in your brief. In a nutshell, can you tell me what is the major thrust of that legislation and why is it so important to you?
Mr. Flotre: The legislation came out of the investigation by the task force, although the focus has changed for what is was initially. Now it contains some amendments in regards to the process of setting rights and some housekeeping matters, but it basically maintains the existing Pilotage Act of 1972, although it has now become a controversial piece of legislation. I am sure there will more controversy before it gets through the Senate and receives Royal Assent.
We are saying that pilotage is a very important safety issue in Canada and we should maintain the Pilotage Act as it is.
Senator St. Germain: You discussed ships that come in from offshore or from other countries, and which you say are mechanically unsound. Would you not have an option as pilots to refuse to bring a ship into harbour? If you are taking them out, you have to be bringing them in. If they are such a risk, why would you bring them in? Could you not just refuse and say goodbye?
Mr. Flotre: We do not have the option of just saying goodbye, but we can refuse to operate the ship or we can increase the safety measures such as additional tugboats if the ship is unsound. A pilot when boarding a ship does not have the time to inspect it before arrival, and a lot of the deficiencies do not show up until a later date when they become very critical to the operation that you are trying to complete.
The problem I see internationally is that although the ship can be detained and forced to undergo repairs, there is no determinate penalty. There is no incentive for the ship to be properly maintained or repaired.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, that is a spectacular safety record, over 99 per cent. If our basketball teams were doing that well, we would be happy.
The safety record is of interest to me. One of my in-laws was drowned up near Prince Rupert. He was a member of your organization. He was a pilot and was transferring to a freighter when a wave hit the craft that was bringing him in, and he has never been found.
Has anything been done over the years to improve safety for the pilots? It is not without its hazards, is it?
Mr. McLennan: The most hazardous part of piloting, I feel, as a non-pilot, is the transfer from the pilot boat to the vessel and from the vessel back to the pilot boat.
Senator Perrault: He went overboard and was never found.
Mr. McLennan: I knew him very well.
Senator Perrault: He was a good guy too.
Mr. McLennan: Yes. As the pilotage authority, we conduct pilot-overboard drills constantly on all of our craft to ensure that if a pilot falls as he is going up the ladder, we are out of the way. I do not want him to hit the boat. I would rather he hit the water. We do recovery exercises to ensure that we recover him as quickly as possible.
Senator Perrault: It continues to be a challenge?
Mr. McLennan: Correct. Since the time of the incident you mentioned, the pilots have had new and better jackets. Part of the problem in that tragedy was that he slipped out of his.
Senator Perrault: He had a jacket on?
Mr. McLennan: He had a floater on and he slipped out of the floater. Today's jackets are better, with straps that ensure they stay on, and there are big loops on the back. There is now a grid on the back of the pilot boats and the pilot is put on to the grid and lifted up and flipped on to the deck. That is part of the exercise.
Senator Perrault: At least something good came out of tragedy.
What would you term as an incident?
Mr. McLennan: Anything that was not supposed to happen. If the dock is touched, that is an incident and has to be reported. If there is damage or an injury, that is an incident. The statistics that we provided indicate that considering the number of assignments, there are not a lot of incidents.
Senator Perrault: It is a very impressive record.
You state that for the West Coast, "the service provided is totally different, requiring distinctive skills". In what manner is it different?
Mr. McLennan: Captain Flotre will be better to answer that question.
Mr. Flotre: Internationally, most of the pilotage grounds consist of a small port which has a group of pilots, and the pilots go in and out of that port and supply that port with their services. On the West Coast of Canada we service the whole coast, not only Vancouver. We service Crofton, Nanaimo, and Prince Rupert or Kitimat, so it is a special type of pilotage. None of these ports other than Vancouver could maintain a pilotage service, so we have to have pilots who are capable of servicing all those ports.
Senator Perrault: Therefore, it is quite a versatile group.
Senator Lawson: My question was also on the safety record. The percentage of incidents is very small. Since a pilot's role is to bring the ship in and take the ship out, does the number represent times that you miss the ocean on the way out or times you hit the dock on the way in?
Mr. McLennan: The majority of incidents involve docking. In Vancouver Harbour, with the tight proximity of vessels, terminals, such as Vanterm, can be dinged on the way by, but serious incidents do not happen very often.
Senator Lawson: It is a fantastic safety record.
Senator Bacon: With regard to marine traffic environmental concerns, dealing with possible spills, what are the pollution prevention and response networks in place in Canada?
Mr. Flotre: There is a relative new organization on the West Coast that deals with this. My friend at the Council of Marine Carriers could probably expand on that further because he is more aware of it. We know that the spill responses are in place but I do not know too many of the details.
Senator Bacon: Do you have any other major safety concerns?
Mr. Flotre: As pilots, our major concern over the recent years has been the deterioration of the condition of the vessels on which we work. That is an international problem, but Canada can have a vital role finding a solution for it.
Mr. McLennan: As the authority, our concerns are to ensure that pilots are trained as efficiently as possible, and we are searching out simulators to enhance the training. We send all the pilots from British Columbia to France because the best models and conditions are available there to train them to go through bridges, for example, to learn how to transit the Second Narrows. Upgrading of the training of the pilots is a big issue with us.
The Chairman: What is the shallowest water along the face of the wharf in Prince Rupert? At low water, what is the maximum depth?
Mr. Flotre: Prince Rupert has very deep water. It is probably 45 feet.
The Chairman: It is very deep, is it not?
Mr. Flotre: It is deep, although one of the berths or ports there is at Watson Island where the channel inbound is fairly shallow.
The Chairman: What about Roberts Bank?
Mr. Flotre: Once it is operational, Roberts Bank will probably be the deepest container berth on the West Coast of North America. Large container ships will be built in the future.
The Chairman: Halifax is in there somewhere, is it not?
Mr. Flotre: I said the West Coast of North America. It will give us a distinctive advantage over ports such as Oakland and San Diego.
The Chairman: We have a very distinct advantage with the depth of our water and the barrier of the two mountain ranges.
Mr. Flotre: The barrier of Vancouver Island provides us with an inland waterway for commercial vessels, for cruise ships, and for ports, and gives us the ability to provide infrastructure to the rest of country.
The Chairman: I wanted to touch on exemptions and waivers in the Pacific Pilotage Authority. Under what circumstances would an exemption be granted? I would presume ferries are always exempt.
Mr. McLennan: Correct, the ferries are all exempt.
The Chairman: What about waivers or exemptions?
Mr. McLennan: Of the 14,000 or so assignments of foreign craft, there are no exemptions unless they meet very strict criteria of sea time and local knowledge.
The Chairman: For the Port of Vancouver, would a vessel calling here every seven weeks qualify?
Mr. McLennan: In my two years as chairman of this authority, there have not been any exemptions granted for any foreign vessels.
The Chairman: Have any been requested?
Mr. McLennan: In my two years, none. I have lots of requests for the U.S. Navy, and from other U.S. craft going through the Inside Passage to Alaska, such as the big fish processors, but none for other foreign vessels going through.
The Chairman: Including cruise ships?
Mr. McLennan: Cruise ships, no. The last people who want exemptions are the captains of the cruise ships. There are 2,000 people on board a cruise ship and the Inside Passage and Seymour Narrows are not places to be without a pilot.
We, along with the cruise ship industry and the B.C. Coast Pilots, are presently examining the situation in the area from the northern end of Vancouver Island up to Alaska. There may be some opportunities for some of the cruise ships to take the pilots off, and that is their choice.
Senator Perrault: There have been approximately three incidents in the past two years involving cruise ships. Were there pilots aboard the cruise ships that have had collisions?
Mr. Flotre: All of those incidents occurred in the State of Alaska.
Mr. McLennan: There were none here.
Senator Perrault: It is comforting to hear that there were no B.C. pilots aboard.
The Chairman: Exemptions are widely practised with tanker service, for example.
Mr. McLennan: The waiver system, which was studied by the task force, is still under review, but I can tell you we do not grant them to foreign vessels. If a vessel going up the Fraser River has made so many trips within the last two years and if it is safe and the captain has the knowledge, then we can grant a waiver.
The Chairman: But do you do that?
Mr. McLennan: It occurs all the time. We do do that. We maintain thorough records on these vessels to ensure that they are safe to go up the river.
The Chairman: And the personnel, it is not only the ship.
Mr. McLennan: Yes, the person on the bridge. It is not the ship itself, it is the person and the local knowledge.
The Chairman: Have there been incidents? The statistics would indicate that the number is so small as to be almost not measurable. Have there been any incidents involving a ship under an exemption?
Mr. McLennan: If there had been an incident under an exemption, we would have heard about it. There have not been any incident under any waivers.
Mr. Flotre: The only incident I can remember involved two U.S. fish packers which collided up near Butedale on the Inside Passage, and one ship went to the bottom. That was about five years ago.
The Chairman: May I ask you about hydrographic services and charting? Captain Flotre, since you are in the business, are you happy with the charts and maps you have?
Mr. Flotre: Yes, I am satisfied with the existing charts. Once you are out of the Fraser River, which has ever-changing depths, the rest of the West Coast remains pretty static. Although there is always upgrading and the technology for charting is improving and the new electronic charts are being initiated, to date we have had no problems with the hydrographic service.
The Chairman: And you have no ice problems?
Mr. Flotre: None whatsoever.
Senator Perrault: This is British Columbia.
The Chairman: I will not be surprised if Senator Perrault gives us daffodils before we leave.
Senator Adams: Are there regulations on the coast requiring that ships carrying certain types of cargo or dangerous goods have pilot assistance, with control by a captain, when in Canadian waters?
Mr. Flotre: We have a special arrangement for crude oil tankers over 40,000 tonnes, whereby we put two pilots on board. That is actually at the request the of oil industry. That is the only specific regulation or method that we have for tankers.
Senator Adams: Transport Canada cannot force that, it is only on request from the shippers?
Mr. Flotre: The Coast Guard was involved in the consultation process. It did not see fit to regulate it because it was voluntary on the part of both pilots and the oil companies, so to date that procedure is there but it is not specifically a regulation. We have approximately 40 crude oil tankers out of Vancouver per year.
Senator Adams: Is the only way out through Canadian water?
Mr. Flotre: The dangerous part of that trip is the last 40 miles going down to Vancouver where there are strong tidal currents and narrow channels. In that stretch, the tankers have tug escorts.
Senator Adams: Does your organization supply pilots for the captains of ferries and barges in rivers? Do those pilots belong to your organization?
Mr. Flotre: On the West Coast, all of the barge companies have their own captains. There are no pilots on board the Canadian vessels, simply because we do not have any Canadian vessels over 10,000 tonnes, and those vessels all remain local, they do not go off to sea and return.
Senator Bacon: Is there a policy for alcohol- or substance-abuse testing in your organization? I am thinking of the Exxon Valdez disaster.
Mr. Flotre: There is not. The Coast Guard or the Department of Transport has alcohol or drug testing for cause. In other words, there is no random testing, but if there is an incident, then the authorities have the right to demand a test.
Senator Bacon: Do you have prevention through education?
Mr. Flotre: Certainly, we have education programs. We have treatment programs for any individuals who exhibit problems in that regard. Everyone in our industry is well aware of the Exxon Valdez. I would suggest that all the responsible people in our industry, from captains and deck officers to pilots, have changed their habits because of the Exxon Valdez. We feel very comfortable with our experience since then.
The Chairman: I know it is outside of your jurisdiction to some extent, but I would like to ask you about the situation in our northern waters where sometimes the best bridge personnel and charts are not available. Do you cover any of the north at all?
Mr. Flotre: No.
The Chairman: Why is that?
Mr. Flotre: We are very busy here. We are probably stretched to the limit most months of the year here. We could not offer our services up there because what we sell is local knowledge, and we do not have the local knowledge. I could not sell my local knowledge of the north to anybody.
The Chairman: I will ask you to comment on that as well, Mr. McLennan, because what you are selling is administrative capacity, not local knowledge.
Mr. McLennan: The busiest time in our territory, from Prince Rupert to the Washington border, is during the summer, the cruise season, and we are stretched right to the limit. Every cruise ship has two pilots aboard from Vancouver to Prince Rupert.
The Chairman: What about the Laurentian Authority? If you do not want to discuss your fellow authorities, by all means tell us, but it seems to me to be a major deficiency that there is not a northern pilotage authority and no one will take responsibility for it. We are all waiting for new safety codes to be developed and new standards of construction to come into play so there will not be a problem even if there really is one. What, in your professional judgment, captain, is the reason we do not have a northern pilotage authority?
Mr. Flotre: I have to admit I do not have a lot of knowledge regarding the area. My first question would be: What ships do we have transiting the area? I know we had an oil field in the north for a while.
The Chairman: The motor vessel Arctic has operated up there successfully for 15 years. There are lots of boats operating and supplying the Canadian Arctic.
Mr. Flotre: These are vessels that are very familiar with the area, and they are Canadian inspected and have Canadian personnel on board. It is the responsibility of the company that owns and operates those vessels to have knowledgeable officers to navigate them safely. In the pilotage aspect, the concern would be if there were foreign vessels entering those waters with dangerous or potentially harmful goods on board. That is when you would want to have knowledgeable pilots available to provide to the ship.
The Chairman: There should be pilots on board when there are thousands of tonnes of bunker oil or diesel in the hold, although diesel is not too bad.
Mr. Flotre: We are aware of one ship that comes to Vancouver that also goes to the Red Dog Mine. Is that not in the Canadian Arctic? It is a foreign vessel.
The Chairman: Around the world, the Arctic is growing as a tourist attraction, an ecosystem attraction. What might cost $5 million to $10 million to clean up down here in balmy British Columbia could run into the billions up there. Are you concerned about that? Have the various pilotage authorities ever discussed that when you get together from time to time?
Mr. McLennan: I do not want to make light of the issue, but in the last two years our whole focus has been a review of our own authority. I have spent all my time with the other three chairman discussing Bill C-44, and we have not discussed the northern area.
The Chairman: My son is a master mariner and an ice pilot and I say shame on him and I say shame on you, too. You should get busy and get Ottawa to do something about a pilotage authority for the north so that we can develop the expertise and give captains, who have the experience and who have attained ice pilotage capability, career opportunities so that they will stay and work in that environment. By the turn of the century or shortly after the turn of the century goodness only knows what will be transiting that very sensitive and inadequately charted part of the world. You fellows have a responsibility. I pester the young captain in my house about this regularly, sometimes to the point of embarrassment. However, I appreciate very much your being here and I know you have your own problems.
The next witnesses, Captain Russel Cooper and Mr. Peter Woodward, appear for the Council of Marine Carriers, representing the Western Canadian tug and barge industry, certainly one of the largest in this part of the world.
Mr. Peter Woodward, Vice-President, Council of Marine Carriers: Honourable senators, on behalf of the council, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns to you in your examination of technical issues, and legal and regulatory structures, in respect of the safety and security in the Canadian transportation industry.
We are on record with Transport Canada supporting its continuing control and effort to maintain the existing high standard of safety in the Canadian marine industry.
Our presentation today will address the marine-mode safety issues only and will provide you with the comments of a key segment of a diverse Canadian marine industry.
The main concern we wish to address today is the overpowering regulatory regime and the continued use of the present antiquated Canadian Shipping Act.
CMC is a non-profit organization formed in 1975 to ensure that the technical and labour interests of the industry are monitored, protected and advanced. Since our incorporation, the tug and barge industry have struggled through a very long and difficult economic period. We have continually been burdened with, and frustrated by, an onerous and ever-increasing federal marine regulatory regime.
The marine towing industry first appeared on the West Coast over 100 years ago when coal was moved by barge to deep sea ships at anchor. Various entrepreneurs then decided that aggregates could be moved more efficiently by barge and thus helped in the then construction boom in Vancouver. The appearance of lumber mills on the B.C. coast, a coastline of almost 10,000 miles with its long inlets and offshore island protection between Vancouver and Prince Rupert, along with the fact that building highways and railways was prohibitively expensive, meant that water transportation became the obvious, cheapest, most efficient, and often the only way to move goods to and from such facilities. Thus, a myriad of small tug and barge companies were formed at that time on the B.C. coast, and that was the beginning of a unique marine industry. The forest industry has played a key part since that time in the well-being of the tug and barge industry. We are clearly a service industry.
There was little or no regulatory controls in those early days and yet the industry managed and maintained a remarkably good safety record.
Many of these small companies no longer function, as several amalgamations have occurred. There are now two or three large towing companies and a number of smaller ones.
The council, since its inception, has expanded its base to include companies outside of British Columbia, and we currently consist of 35 member companies which collectively operate about 275 vessels. This varies almost day to day, certainly week to week, and there are over 800 non-self-propelled barges of various types and sizes. Our member companies presently employ approximately 2,600 seagoing and shore-based personnel. The council does not represent all the tug and barge operators in Canada or even in Western Canada, but we certainly represent a large percentage of them.
The regular operations of our companies extend from the U.S. Pacific West Coast through British Columbia waters into Alaska, the Beaufort Sea and Hudson Bay. We are also involved in the Fraser and Mackenzie river systems.
In 1990, Statistics Canada reported that the marine towing industry had revenues of $338,849,000, which was approximately 13 per cent of all of the dollars spent in Canadian water transport for that year.
The present equipment operated by our member companies is varied, and includes: small dozer boats; powerful ship-docking tugs; log-towing vessels; chip-, log-, hog-fuel- and aggregate-carrying barges; large self-propelled and self-dumping log-carrying vessels; petroleum-product barges; rail-car barges and ships; chemical barges; open and covered general-cargo barges; and offshore supply vessels.
Unfortunately, the growth of the regulatory regime mentioned earlier, with its resultant impact on our operations, is a great concern to all of our member companies.
The council is a member of the Western Marine Community, an informal coalition of all participants in the western region's maritime activities. It was put together in 1995 to address and respond to initiatives by both Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard in respect to both safety and cost-recovery issues.
We are here today to addresses the tug and barge concerns. The concerns of other members of the Western Marine Community should be obtained from them. I did attach a list of the members of the western marine community to the presentation. I can assure you we are not alone with our concerns.
We do have many concerns, one of which would be Bill C-44, but we do not raise that at this time. We wish to raise two or three major concerns. These include the effect of the Canadian marine regulatory regime on our operations, the inefficient and unbusinesslike supply of government service coupled with the threat of introduction of a user-pay concept, the threat of duplication of service by the intervention of provincial governments into recognized and accepted areas of federal jurisdiction, and the resultant takeover or possible takeover of private industry work by provincial government vessels.
Regardless of the concerns mentioned above, we feel strongly that Transport Canada, as the representative of the federal government and of the people of Canada, has an important role to play in the maintenance of a safe and viable marine industry, and this role is clearly appropriate.
Nevertheless, we feel that this role can be effectively achieved without their being "policemen." This could be done by implementation of a revised, prudent and fair vessel regulatory inspection regime, with careful control and auditing of all the present services, and with good communication with those participants. We do agree that marine safety must never be compromised and urge that this federal role in marine transportation be maintained.
Members of the council are also active members of the Marine Advisory Board. Captain Russ Cooper is our representative on the board and at the tripartite -- labour, management and government -- Canadian Marine Advisory Council.
The relatively new and important Marine Advisory Board was formed in June of 1994 to advise the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, then with Transport Canada, on strategic policy decisions and on the effect of many proposed operational changes that were being suggested by Transport Canada. Clearly such a mandate involves addressing transportation safety.
CMAC, or the Canadian Marine Advisory Council, is a larger group of varied marine representatives who meet twice a year in Ottawa, and this has been functioning for over 20 years. CMAC addresses all aspects of marine safety -- regulations, operations, and equipment -- and is an excellent and essential, although perhaps now cumbersome, vehicle to monitor the marine situation.
In addition to these two key groups with which CMC is involved, we meet privately with various levels of Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard bureaucracy on an annual basis. We feel these meetings are very worthwhile. This regular access to the "system" helps us meet our obligation to our CMC members and allows safety concerns to be continually addressed by active users. We do support the continuation, and applaud the work of, the two aforementioned committees, even though we would like to see the MAB work program refocused on more practical situations and the CMAC organization restructured.
The Ship Safety Division of Transport Canada controls all aspects of marine safety in Canada. They write, amend, rewrite and enforce the present regulatory regime. Since the early 1970s, our specific sector of the marine industry has witnessed a massive increase in the number of Transport Canada and Canadian Coast Guard regulations and thus has had to address many additional operation constraints and costs. These regulatory increases were often the result of knee-jerk reactions by Transport Canada to unfortunate but nevertheless isolated marine incidents or accidents. This situation has been aggravated by a Canadian policy of regular implementation of international-convention ship requirements in the Canadian domestic vessel regulatory regime, even though it is not appropriate to do so. That is not only the council's opinion. I think you will find that opinion is also held by other people. That policy has caused our sector of the Canada marine industry much pain and discomfort.
We believe that the Canadian tug and barge industry is faced with a larger domestic regulatory regime than any other sector of the marine industry in any other part of the world. We certainly have many more regulations to contend with than do our neighbours and competitors to the south. We have been striving for years for the establishment of a U.S./Canadian coordination of requirements, for the implementation of a level playing field concept, and for the removal of duplication of inspection requirements. Unfortunately, we have had little or no success in this area to date.
I must acknowledge that a study into regulation and accident-statistic comparisons for U.S. and Canadian small passenger vessels, and for tugs and barges, was undertaken a year or so ago by Transport Canada. Unfortunately, there has been no official result from that study to this time.
We note with interest that your mandate includes a review of the effect of deregulation on safety. This is an interesting question, but we hasten to add that the Canadian marine industry has not yet faced a deregulation regime, despite what the previous presenter said. We look forward to discussions in this regard.
In 1992, Transport Canada did introduce a regulatory review process. Representatives of CMC have met with Transport Canada staff many times to outline our thoughts on this progressive step. Despite scepticism about the value of any brief to government, we did prepare a 60-page submission on our position and spelled out suggestions for many changes to the 114 sets of marine regulations in place at that time. We suggested that 24 regulations be revoked, several sets of regulations be amalgamated, four sets be replaced by standards, and that 20 regulations be modified, simplified or made into guidelines. We also suggested that the remainder of the regulations be retained but be more consistently and fairly applied by the Ship Safety Inspection Service.
It is now December, 1996, and very little has happened in respect to action on the 15 recommendations produced by the review process. The number of regulations has still not been significantly reduced and the situation is further aggravated as new regulations are being produced annually.
For many years CMC has been an advocate of regulatory review and a strong believer in the use of standards and guidelines in conjunction with smaller, more basic and simplified ship safety regulations.
On the Pacific coast and in the Arctic waters, we are faced with competition from the United States.U.S. tugs of less than 300 gross tonnes face minimum regulation compliance, and this is truly not comparable to the Canadian regulatory regime. All tugs of over 15 gross tonnes must comply with all the regulations; tugs of over 10 gross tonnes must comply with construction requirements. To provide a genuinely level playing field, there must be some serious effort to create reciprocity of the regulatory requirements.
As noted earlier, another related concern, and a continuous battle for CMC and the other Canadian marine industry representatives, is the implementation by Transport Canada of requirements from international ship conventions, conventions signed in good faith by Canada, into the Canadian domestic regulations. These convention requirements are designed for larger ships operating on long, international voyages. Such requirements are neither appropriate nor practical for our smaller vessels operating in local trade waters only.
Thus the reduction and modernization of the marine regulatory regime and marine policy in Canada is essential to the future survival of our industry, and it is our greatest concern. We do have other concerns about the new Canada Marine Act and about Bill C-44, but this is the main concern that we wanted to address before your committee.
The Chairman: We will have some questions about that very shortly.
Mr. Woodward: In addition to the regulatory review process we are aware of and are involved in recent moves by Transport Canada to update and modernize the Canada Shipping Act. This antiquated piece of marine legislation, being the essential basis of the present regulatory regime, is clearly outdated, which does not create any confidence in those of us who are obliged to live and work with it. It is difficult to read, has its origins in the British Merchant Shipping Act written in 1894, contains far too much outdated and detailed information that is no longer relevant, and clearly must be rewritten or totally replaced as soon as possible.
If this regulatory review process is successful, it may be an ideal opportunity for Canada to make changes and move in this regard into the twenty-first century with a new, modern, marine act and a simplified regulatory regime.
Your interest in how cutbacks in government expenditures affect our operation brings us to Coast Guard/Transport Canada implementation of user-pay concepts.
Safety services supplied by Transport Canada include, but are not limited to, navigation aids systems -- and that includes lighthouses -- vessel traffic services, and vessel inspection services. We would have no objection to the Coast Guard supplying and users paying for such services if they were supplied and maintained efficiently and fairly. We have been striving through our involvement in the Marine Advisory Board to produce a more efficient and transparent Coast Guard/Transport Canada situation which would be beneficial to all concerned and not diminish the safety of the industry.
We are interested in the commercialization of some parts of the Coast Guard service, such as repair of navigational aids, and in the amalgamation of marine services with Fisheries. We are also interested in the suggestion that some marine services should be delegated to appropriately qualified and appropriately approved private individuals, such as the vessel inspection service.
Nevertheless, we feel that any government service or practice must become more efficient, modern and businesslike before we should be asked to pay for it.
Any plans for a user-pay system must be fairly implemented and open to scrutiny and must address all users before it is introduced. Without agreement on such basic factors we feel it would be inappropriate for such schemes to be introduced.
Our council is investigating a vessel self-inspection program operated by tug and barge owners but audited and approved by Transport Canada.
For many years CMC has been dealing continually with the federal government on marine matters. We are most perturbed at the recent attempted intervention by the provincial government of B.C. into what was previously an undoubted area of federal jurisdiction, involving matters of marine spill response, vessel double-hulling, escort tugs, vessel air emissions and vapour control systems for oil barges. This misdirected interest and duplication of concern will be costly, inappropriate and certainly unnecessary for all concerned, and must surely be stopped. We realize that this is a time of change, but a change such as this is not appropriate.
In this presentation today we have not had time to elaborate on specifics, but have attempted to give you a basic idea of how our segment of the Canadian marine industry feels about the state of marine transportation safety in Canada. We do believe marine safety in Canada is of a high quality and we clearly endorse Transport Canada as the vehicle to control marine safety. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend that the current federal marine legislative and regulatory regime be updated, simplified and made more practical and more cost-effective.
We have made our positions as outlined in this presentation known to Ottawa. We have discussed our concerns in great detail at many and various forums across Canada and would welcome any questions here today.
The government's plans for cutbacks and implementation of cost-recovery programs will continue to be supported by CMC providing such moves do not adversely affect basic safety, are sensible, are practical, are transparent, and help to eliminate the obscene federal deficit.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Captain Cooper, would you like to make a comment or two?
Captain Russel V. Cooper, President, Council of Marine Carriers: I will wait for your comments or questions and hopefully we can answer them.
The Chairman: You have touched on a massive sore spot. The Canada Shipping Act has its origins 100 or 200 years ago. The Aeronautics Act only goes back 60 or 70 years. Both acts are characterized by massive regulation, virtually to the point where the act itself is no longer referred to for any purpose other than the implication of the title. We use it as a swear word. Both need to be rewritten, there is no question about that. Both are obsolete and provide barriers that are frequently insurmountable. Often, the only way they are surmountable is by making another regulation.
Can you give us some examples of what you see as an overdose of regulation and give us a little prescription of how you would improve the situation, without getting into it in any depth? We would like to hear your priorities for a new Canada Shipping Act. I guess I am asking you how you want to be governed in the next millennium, by act or by regulation?
Mr. Woodward: I am presently involved with a group studying a revised Canada Shipping Act. We are at the very early stage of our review.
The present act has a multitude of examples that could be given, but I will give you just one, and that is the tonnage measurement regulations. The tonnage measurement requirements were spelled out in about 40 pages in the Canada Shipping Act. Those standards for tonnage measurement had been there for many years. There was no way that the tonnage measurement requirements could be amended until Canada decided to revoke the relevant sections from the act and write specific regulations.
This is part of our frustration, and it is a good example. That process was started 24 years ago. The new regulations were brought in in 1995. I can assure you that those new regulations were not acceptable to the Canadian industry. We spent 12 months trying to get Ottawa to change them. I am hopeful that at the CMAC meeting in May of 1997, we may get them changed.
The antiquated Canada Shipping Act and the overbearing regulatory situation have caused us great frustration. When a new Canada Shipping Act is written, instead of a 600-page document we need a 60-page document. It should cover many of the items of the present Canada Shipping Act, but it need not cover them in detail. We need a reference document so if someone wishes to know about crewing standards, or about load lines or registration of vessels, he will be referred to another document, and that document should contain standards and guidelines rather than regulations.
The Chairman: It is actually 1,700 pages. I know because I was part of the process 25 years ago that tried to do something about it and failed.
You mentioned that you have prepared a 60-page report. Would you happen to have a copy that our research staff may have?
Mr. Woodward: Yes. I do not have it with me, but I certainly will get that to you.
The Chairman: Thank you. Would you roll the regulations, consolidate them, compact them, put them through the sifter into the act itself or throw them out and replace them with standards and guidelines that apply to various operational circumstances?
Mr. Woodward: It is a very complicated situation, as you know. I will use the example of the hull construction regulations. The first 100 pages of the hull construction regulations tell us how to build a ship, the standards of bulkheads and tank tops and decks and shell. That is all totally unnecessary. Those things are adequately and properly covered by the classification societies of the world. There is no need for them to be in Canadian regulations.
One of the reasons that we have supported, and continue to support, Transport Canada in controlling the marine industry is that we feel it is an international entity, and we should have national standards. We do not want British Columbia to have one standard and Nova Scotia to have another standard. There are many cases where vessels have been manufactured on the West Coast and have gone to the East Coast and vice versa. The marine industry needs national standards.
Many of the regulations could be referred to in the act. I will take a controversial one: the oil barge standard. Presently in Canada we have standards for oil barge construction equipment and operation. In March of 1998, those standards will become regulations. Once they do, they will be far more difficult to change if we find problems.I would far rather have a reference in the act to a standard and a compliance with a standard.
The Chairman: Self-imposed in the industry?
Mr. Woodward: Yes, I think so. We as an industry group have had discussions with Transport Canada about self-inspection. This is a very sensitive issue, and we are approaching it slowly and carefully. We are dealing with our unions on this. One argument for self-inspection is that it would allow the Transport Canada inspection service, which is apparently taxed to the limit, to focus their energies better on those who need to be watched rather than on those who are following the rules.
The Chairman: Big business and the banks practise due diligence, there is no doubt about that. The banks are a little more sophisticated today than they were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. I suspect that The Royal Bank of Canada has a pretty competent marine advisory group and they practise due diligence with respect to lending money to the industry, even if it is only operating money. The safeguards are there. The people who best know how to deal with maintenance of the standards are the people in the industry. As the industry grows and becomes more sophisticated, it is important to let the department grow with you.
Senator Bacon: On page 1 of your brief you state that you have continually been burdened and frustrated by an onerous and ever-increasing federal marine regulatory regime, and that this regime, which you describe as "monstrous" threatens the very survival of your particular segment of the Canadian domestic marine industry.
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Mr. Woodward: One of the reasons we are looking at the self-inspection program is out of frustration. When we build a tug, not only must we comply with construction and equipment standards, but we have to have berths of certain sizes and we have to have cups in the toilets and we have to have all sorts of other things. The requirements are unbelievable.
Our industry gets very frustrated at the amount of regulation. I will use as an example the new oil barge standards. At one time six of our 35 member companies were moving oil by barges. Now that is down to five. As the deadline of 2015 approaches, when everyone will have to have double-hulled barges, I wonder how many of those five companies will be running oil barges.
In 1995, after the writing of the oil barge standards, one of our member companies needed to build a replacement oil barge. They looked at the costs of single-hulled and double-hulled oil barges and went to the oil companies and asked them to consider a change in rate if they built a double-hulled oil barge. Not surprisingly, the oil companies laughed and said no thanks. So they built a single-hulled barge in 1995. They were smart enough to build that barge in such a way that should they decide to convert it, it will be a little easier than if they had ignored the upcoming deadline. This regulation could very well put people out of business.
Some of the smaller companies find it very difficult to comply with the manning standards and certification requirements. The reason the Council of Marine Carriers does not represent every tug and barge operator in Western Canada is the fact that some companies do not want to face up to some of the things that we are facing up to every day.
Mr. Cooper: Regulations create an environment in which people are continually trying to get around the regulations. My understanding is that the Americans have no regulations to speak of. They are our competitors and are coming up here now and doing work that we used to do. We cannot compete against companies that are not faced with those regulations. It costs Canadian companies in the range of $80,000 more per year to operate a tug than an equivalent tug costs in the United States. Our regulatory environment is creating a fleet of vessels that are rule beaters, you might say, run by people who are circumventing the rules any way they can because the rules are so stringent.
Senator Bacon: What can you foresee as advantages and disadvantages should the Canadian Coast Guard be given the responsibility for navigation aids system, vessel traffic services and vessel inspection services?
Mr. Cooper: Those responsibilities are separated now. Vessel inspection Transport Canada is responsible for vessel inspection and the Coast Guard deals with marine navigational systems.
Senator Bacon: Do you deal with Canadian Coast Guard at all?
Mr. Cooper: I do, very directly. I am on the Marine Advisory Board. They are two separate things. Vessel inspection is under Transport Canada and others are under the Coast Guard or Fisheries.
Senator Bacon: Which services are under the Coast Guard?
Mr. Cooper: Navigational aids and VTS are the responsibility of the Coast Guard, and ship inspection comes under Transport Canada.
Senator Bacon: I have a question that is asked of every group that appears before the committee. Does your organization have any policy of education programs concerning drug and alcohol abuse? Are they a big problem in your industry?
Mr. Cooper: I do not think we have a major problem. We have employee assistance programs in place. It is certainly different from the situation of a few years ago. There will always be a certain amount of use, but it is not a major problem.
Mr. Woodward: As a result of our involvement with CMAC, we visited Ottawa several times in 1995 in an attempt to produce regulations that would control substance use and abuse. That attempt failed because there was no agreement even on the magnitude of the problem. As Captain Cooper said, it is not a big problem for those of us in the marine sector. We have addressed it. We have a committee and systems in place that help both our seagoing and shore-based staff.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, my question is with respect to the jurisdictional issue. On page 10 of your brief you state that you have been dealing continually with the federal government on marine matters. You say you are most perturbed at the recent attempted intervention by the B.C. government into what were previously matters of federal jurisdiction, things such as marine spill response, vessel double-hulling, escort tugs, vessel air emissions and vapour control systems for barges. You state that what you call the "misdirected interest and duplication of concern" will be costly, inappropriate, unnecessary for all concerned and must be stopped.
Those are tough words. I wonder if you could give us an estimate of the additional costs which you think have been unfairly foisted upon your industry as a result of what you perceive to be a duplication. You say it must be stopped. Would you like the federal government to have a confrontation with the provincial government and end the duplication? We need your guidance.
Mr. Woodward: In recent years the federal government, Transport Canada and the Coast Guard, have been continually harassed, in my opinion, by the provincial government. I would suggest that most of the costs that have been imposed on our industry are as a result of our effort to try to stop this situation.
Senator Perrault: What type of harassment has the provincial government engaged in?
Mr. Woodward: There is an organization called the B.C.\U.S States Oil Spill Task Force. It has been working diligently since the Exxon Valdez incident to improve areas of concern, such as spill response, prevention plans, vessel double-hulling, escort tugs, the examples I included in my brief. Those recommendations from that B.C.\U.S. States Oil Spill Task Force were in turn passed on to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment.
We then faced not two but three different groups which were addressing areas we felt they were not qualified to address. What we are asking for here is a return to some sort of sanity so that one group, hopefully Transport Canada, will address these problems, rather than having them addressed by two or three groups and having to watch for new requirements coming from many different jurisdictions. As to the cost to our industry, it has clearly been high, but rather than monetary, it has been more in time and energy at the moment, wondering where things are coming from.
Senator Perrault: Our local governments are concerned about the impact on the environment of deleterious substances and vapours and emissions. We have a limited land area in downtown Vancouver. It is a narrow peninsula, in a sense. Many municipalities have been discussing the issue of safety in the event of a disaster and have been calling for tougher measures to protect the environment. A few years ago we had an explosion of a ship here, and of course we all know of that massive explosion in Halifax Harbour. As the harbour becomes more congested and the population grows, there is a concern about safety.
Do you think that there are adequate safeguards for the ports in the greater Vancouver area, and adequate safety measures in the transport of toxic substances and matters of that kind? Do you think we have some way to go?
Mr. Cooper: I will speak of the experience of my parent company in towing a chemical barge up beyond Second Narrows. The safeguards that have been put in place by the company itself were probably mandated to a degree by government regulation, but the company certainly wants the most responsible person towing their barge because they do not want any problems.
Senator Perrault: You believe the standard was adequate?
Mr. Cooper: I do.
As Mr. Woodward stated, we are already faced with 114 regulations, and if the provincial government gets involved, we will be faced with two regimes. It is difficult enough to deal with the federal government. It seems to be putting tougher and tougher measures on us. We have nowhere to go, no room to move.
Mr. Woodward: Senator Perrault, it is an interesting problem. Studies have shown that anywhere from 90 to 95 per cent of accidents are caused by human error. No matter what you put in place, there is always the worry that it may not be enough.
In our industry, our vessels are controlled from the day their keels are laid, right through building, operations, crew certification, crew standards, equipment standards, crew training. When it comes to moving oil and chemicals, we have very strict regimes in place. We have an oil spill response regime in place on the West Coast. There is consideration right at this time for a similar system for the movement of chemicals.
Senator Perrault: Are there certain chemicals that you refuse to transport? Do any of your members have a prohibited list for the transport of chemicals in built-up areas?
Mr. Woodward: I do not think there is.
Senator Perrault: For example, I would think that a barge load of toxic waste would not be hauled through Vancouver.
Mr. Woodward: No. B.C. Ferries, whose representative will be speaking to you shortly, has special runs for dangerous goods, but that is a bit different.
Senator Perrault: There are certain sailings on some of the ferries for transporting explosives?
Mr. Woodward: I believe so.
Senator Perrault: You do not have a prohibited list as such? You exercise judgment with respect to the cargo?
Mr. Woodward: The operations are such that every master is obliged to know what he is carrying.
Senator St. Germain: I listened to your brief very attentively. If you are frustrated over one thing, it is over regulation, and duplication would exacerbate the situation that much more.
Do you consider your industry an extremely safe industry presently?
Mr. Woodward: Our safety record is perhaps not 98 or 99 per cent as the pilots claimed. However, we do have a good safety rate. In the late sixties we had a series of unfortunate accidents which resulted in loss of life. It is possible that many of the regulations I talked about arose from those tragedies. Fortunately for us, our safety record since 1969 or 1970 has been very good.
Senator St. Germain: Perhaps the industry has been the author of its own misfortune, as far as regulations are concerned, if it did go through such an unfortunate period.
We all remember the Exxon Valdez incident. Even those of us who were in business most of our lives had a horrible reaction to that. I was so upset I would not buy from Esso for a while. I surprised myself by doing that because I would not have thought I would react in that manner.
You talk about being over-regulated, and I believe you. The pendulum may have swung too far against you. The reason may be fear of such dramatic incidents, particularly with oil tankers. Government may be reticent in removing the regulations because if there were to be an incident, we can all guess who would be to blame. The first line of attack is generally toward those in government.
I wonder whether your excellent safe record since the early 1970s cannot be attributed in part to the great amount of regulation. However, I also know logic has to prevail. I do not know whether we will be able to make a recommendation that will help you, but you might be able to help us by giving us suggestions that may be of future use.
Mr. Woodward: I do not want to go back to the situation of the late 1960s, where we did have some accidents, but I can assure you they were clearly as a result of human error. They were unfortunate and we were all very sad about them.
Your example of the Exxon Valdez does cause us some concern because it is clear to us that the reaction of abhorrence that you had yourself was common in Ottawa. Every time oil transport safety is discussed, we hear about the Exxon Valdez.
We have new oil barge standards. We had to upgrade all our equipment because of those new standards. They were clearly brought about by the Exxon Valdez accident.
None of our barges -- not a single one -- even if it were full to capacity, would have anywhere near the capacity of a tanker such as the Exxon Valdez. All of our oil barges are subdivided in such a manner that the biggest tank is no bigger than a fuel tank on a cargo ship. We do not pose a particular danger should an oil spill occur, but we have had to suffer with the knee-jerk reaction to the Exxon Valdez incident, and it is unfortunate.
The Canadian industry does not move oil on the West Coast and in the Arctic to the degree that the Americans do. We are an integral part of the work that is going on regarding spill response and prevention measures on this coast, but the real concern arises because of the American tankers bringing oil down from the Arctic, not because of the Canadian industry. Unfortunately, however, we have been regulated because of that.
Senator St. Germain: I recall you talking about levelling the playing field with the Americans. Are the Americans less regulated than you are? They have the Jones Act and other regulations. Are they more competitive by virtue of less regulation? What about their safety record, excluding the Exxon Valdez? Is it as good as yours and does regulation play a role in that scenario?
Mr. Cooper: There is a study going on within government right now comparing the two sets of regulations, American and Canadian. We are not privy to the results of that study at the present time. However, in our brief we say that American ships under 300 tonnes are not faced with anywhere near the regulations that are faced by any tug over 15 tonnes in Canada.
Senator St. Germain: A former constituent of mine mentioned to me that someone wanted to put captains on smaller tugboats. Do you recall anything on that issue?
Mr. Cooper: Who wanted to put them on?
Senator St. Germain: I am not sure whether it was MOT or someone else. I was told the industry wanted higher certification of people on smaller tugboats.
Mr. Cooper: That is not coming from us. We have been fighting the department on that issue, and on recertification. We are waiting for the publication of regulations on recertification and other issues in the Canada Gazette.
There is no question that the Americans are less regulated than we are. There were some sinkings in the 1960s, after which what became known as the "hot-rod tug" was developed. It was due to competition. Once one was built, another one had to be built to meet the competition. That did not require regulation. Some of our old regulations just do not apply because the tugs have changed so much. With the dangerous cargoes such as chemicals and oil, you cannot afford to have a tug that is not running properly. Good operators know that.
The Americans have a 300-tonne limit. They do have problems, but the extent of regulation is nothing like in Canada. The American Waterways Organization is considering putting in some minimal standards on their tugs, such as requiring charts and compasses on their boats. That is what caused the accidents on the Mississippi. The American Waterways Organization wants to do that in-house rather than by regulation. Of course, every time there is an accident down there, the industry faces a great deal of pressure for more regulation, but on the whole, their level of regulation is very low compared to ours.
Senator Adams: The Americans do not compete in the areas you are serving. As you state, you have strict regulations and the Americans do not, but they do not compete with barges, especially around the West Coast. Is the area around Alaska, the North Coast and the Beaufort Sea part of your area too?
Mr. Woodward: The Northern Transportation Company Limited is a member of the Council of Marine Carriers and they have been working recently on the north slope. They have had very little opportunity for work there, partly because of crewing requirements on Canadian vessels.
A comparison between U.S. and Canadian regulations for tugs is very interesting. Rather than go on about it, which we could do for hours, I would urge you to try to obtain the study that was carried out this year in Ottawa by Transport Canada. Unofficially I understand the results of that study support what our industry has been saying for the last 10 years.
Senator Adams: Do your members service the area around the Mackenzie Delta and along the Beaufort Sea up to Alaska, or is it mostly serviced by the American industry?
Mr. Woodward: Under the Jones Act, we cannot work from two ports in Alaska. There has been the odd occasion where a company has been contracted by NTCL, for instance, to take cargo down the river, out through the Beaufort Sea and into the north slope, but the exemptions for such work are few and far between, just as the exemptions for Americans working in Canada are not numerous.
Senator Lawson: Are labour relations in your industry governed by the federal or provincial Labour Code?
Mr. Woodward: Federal.
Senator Lawson: Has your industry ever challenged the provincial government over the fact that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over your industry and they have no right to interfere?
Mr. Cooper: Regarding all the regulatory issues we have been discussing?
Senator Lawson: Yes.
Mr. Cooper: I think that came through loud and clear, but they proceeded anyway.
Senator Lawson: Perhaps you need to make your challenge stronger. Clearly your industry, which involves shipping, is governed under the federal code.
Mr. Cooper: That is the point we made, but they carried on anyway.
Senator Lawson: There was a similar attempt in New York in the early days too. Sometimes you have to say no. The provincial government seems to be trying to push you around, and perhaps you have to push back. You may need to institute a court challenge and pursue it all the way to the Supreme Court. There is really no issue that your industry falls under the federal code and federal jurisdiction. That issue has been decided many times.
Mr. Woodward: All we can say, Senator Lawson, is that we have to deal with individual ministers and sometimes certain ministers can make it tough.
Senator Lawson: Yes.
The Chairman: There is a lesson, gentlemen, in the Irving Whale situation that supports many of the things you have been saying this afternoon.
Senator Lawson: As far as the Irving Whale is concerned, I think that the whole world, especially Canadians, should recognize the greatness of the achievement of picking it up from the ocean floor and taking it back to Halifax. It is a monumental achievement.
The Chairman: Even more monumental is the fact that it sat on the ocean bed for 29 years and did not break up.
Senator Lawson: The fact that it not break up when it was raised is another major achievement.
The Chairman: I know if Mr. Irving were here he would find some way to make sure that the record was clear that the Irvings had wonderful reputation for great success with building ships and barges. They built a barge that worked, and he would give not a whisker's damn about the federal regulation.
Mr. Woodward: Most of their equipment was designed in British Columbia.
The Chairman: I wanted to give you one last opportunity to get your oar in. I knew you would know exactly where I was leading.
Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to have run across you again, gentlemen.
We welcome our next witness, Mr. William H. Martin. We invite you to make your presentation, and then we will proceed with questions.
Mr. William H. Martin, Vice-President, Safety and Standards, British Columbia Ferry Corporation: Honourable senators, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee because transportation safety obviously is a subject in which we are vitally interested.
Our president and CEO, Mr. Frank Rhodes, has asked me to apologize for his absence. The Ferry Corporation, along with the rest of the provincial government, is in the throes of budget cutting and downsizing and it is essential that he stick close to head office at this time.
The British Columbia Ferry Corporation is the largest ferry company in North America. We have 40 vessels serving 29 different routes, and we carry more than 21 million passenger per year. We have over $630 million in fixed assets, and we operate with an annual budget in excess of $300 million.
In the 1995-96 fiscal year our total revenue intake was $313.5 million. Of that amount, $9.4 million was from tourists from outside the continent, mainly from Asia but also from Europe, and $18.8 million was from tourists from the United States. That is a total of approximately $28 million that was pumped into the B.C. and Canadian economy which arguably would not have been come in if the B.C. ferries had not been around.
As operators in the marine industry our comments are confined to safety issues within that mode. I did catch the tail end of the presentation of my colleague Peter Woodward. I may be repeating some of what he said, but it is worth doing so to emphasize that the industry as a whole is largely of the same opinion.
Although we are going to discuss the marine mode, regulations affecting other industries, such as the increase in the allowable load limits for the trucking industry, for example, can have an effect on our business. Some of the corporation's ramps are quite old and were not engineered to withstand those heavier loads, and that has led to a demand for expensive upgrading from the trucking industry. Some of our smaller terminals are being upgraded at this time.
B.C. Ferry Corporation, as an owner and operator of ships, is subject to regulation by Transport Canada. As a provincial Crown corporation, however, the ferry company is subject to the provisions of the British Columbia Labour Code, which is administered by the Workers' Compensation Board of B.C., rather than being subject to the Canada Labour Code, as are most other shipping companies.
With regard to contact with federal agencies, the greatest impact on our activities comes from the activities of the surveyors of Transport Canada's Ship Safety Branch, and from the Coast Guard, which is responsible for the provision of aids to navigation, vessel traffic management systems, search and rescue, and overall control of the pollution clean-up regime.
Up until now, the B.C. Ferry Corporation was subsidized by the provincial government. However, from a high of $58 million in 1988, that subsidy has been reduced to $4 million in this fiscal year and will disappear altogether in the next fiscal year. At the same time, we are faced with replacing aging assets and the requirement that we fund all our capital expenditures from revenue. Up until two years ago, all our assets were provided free by the taxpayer, including, for example, our two "Spirit" class ferries. I say this to demonstrate that B.C. Ferry Corporation is moving closer to becoming a commercial operation, despite the requirement that it must reflect provincial government social policy in its operations. We do run many routes which are not profitable but which are thought desirable as a social service to the people of British Columbia. Therefore, any demands placed on the corporation through increases in the regulatory burden will receive close scrutiny. We do, however, make the commitment that safety is our top priority and we fully intend to honour that.
As is the case with the Council of Marine Carriers, our formal contact with the federal bureaucracy is mainly through the Canadian Maritime Advisory Council, CMAC. I am also a member of the Canadian delegation to the International Maritime Organization. That delegation is headed up by the Ship Safety Branch. We do have some input to the Marine Advisory Board, but we feel that the membership of that board is much too restricted and does not adequately represent all industry interests. I will add, however, that ministers Mifflin and Anderson have generally made themselves available to discuss things with the industry. In the last two to three years we have been able to see both of those ministers almost whenever we wanted, which is very refreshing.
Moving on to the questions the committee wanted to discuss, I can say that there has not been a great deal of deregulation in the marine industry. In fact, the opposite may be said to be true. There has been, as Mr. Woodward has stated, an attempt at regulatory reform. However, the only thing that accomplished was the consolidation of a large number of regulations into a smaller number. The regulatory burden continues to increase, with the resultant increase in cost to the industry.
One example is the overly onerous requirements of the new crewing and certification regulations. These were actually designed for ships which spend considerable periods of time at sea away from immediate help, and they ignore the unique conditions under which the ferry fleet, and to some extent the tow boat fleet, operate.
To give you one example of the impracticality of the regulations, the current regulation states that all marine engineers must be provided with training on a diesel engine simulator by February of next year. There is one simulator in British Columbia at the Pacific Maritime Training Campus of BCIT, which handles about 50 candidates a year. B.C. Ferry Corporation has 350 marine engineers, and there are over 1,000 on the coast in total, so it would take about 20 years to process all the existing staff, never mind the new people coming along. It is totally impractical and it is frustrating that the Ship Safety Branch does not seem to realize that.
The Chairman: Is that somewhat similar to the facility at Memorial University?
Mr. Martin: Memorial University has a bridge simulator and a diesel engine simulator. It is actually a simulator of the control board of an engine room, so that catastrophic engine failures can be simulated to observe how people deal with them.
We are certainly not opposed to the simulator training. What concerns us is the practicality of moving people through the training due to the lack of simulators and resources on the coast.
The Ship Safety Branch, especially in recent years, has had a much improved record of consulting with industry before imposing rules which arise from the application of the International Maritime Organization regulations. There had been a tendency to impose IMO regulations wholesale on the domestic fleet despite the fact that these regulations were intended for deep sea ships, of which Canada has relatively few. That approach is now changing, and industry, especially the domestic ferry industry for which I speak, has established an excellent consultative relationship with the regulators.
Regulations should only be imposed when there is a demonstrated need for the rule. Treasury Board of Canada has a regulatory policy -- a copy of which is attached to our brief for ease of reference -- which dictates exactly how the regulatory process should proceed. We recommend that these guidelines be reviewed by Transport Canada and strictly applied before new regulations are introduced.
I spent 20 years in the federal government with Coast Guard and I found it very difficult to ignore Treasury Board. How the Ship Safety Branch has done so, I am not sure. I do admire them for it.
I should like to say a few words about the effect on safety of government cutbacks. The main areas where government cutbacks have had an effect are with regard to the Ship Safety Branch and Coast Guard services.
As a general policy, B.C. Ferry Corporation welcomes a third-party overview of its operations. Because we are in the business of carrying passengers, we feel we owe a much higher duty of care to our customers. At any one time on our major vessels, we can carry more than 2,000 people of many different nationalities. Safety is always foremost in our mind. We would like that third-party to be a government agency. There is some question as to how that monitoring should take place. At present, it is done through the Ship Safety Branch of Transport Canada.
While the Ship Safety Branch has risen to the challenge of government cutbacks, and we have not seen any damaging effects on the branch as yet, there is some concern over its future. If we are going to be monitored by a government agency, we want that agency to be staffed by competent, skilled professionals. As some of the skilled professionals who are currently on the staff of the Ship Safety Branch retire, the wage freezes in the public service are making it difficult to recruit competent replacements. This causes us some concern, because if we are to be monitored, we want to be monitored by our peers.
The industry is maturing and we submit that the Ship Safety Branch must consult with industry as to how monitoring will be carried out in future. There is still too much duplication of effort. Let me use as an example something Mr. Woodward referred to earlier. In many cases, classification societies carry out design checks and calculations for new ship construction. The Ship Safety Branch often duplicates this effort, which is a waste of time and money.
With the introduction of the International Safety Management Code, the marine equivalent of ISO, we are capable of carrying out self-inspection to a great extent. Where a responsible operator such as B.C. Ferry Corporation adopts the code, and a third-party certifies the company, then we feel that that company could be permitted a greater degree of self-inspection with spot checking by the regulatory agency. This would free up scarce Ship Safety Branch resources to concentrate on areas where greater problems exist.
Cutbacks to the Coast Guard have not had much of an impact on the corporation. This is mainly because our vessels are well built, they are staffed by competent crews and they operate on well-established routes. Our crews are very familiar with the routes, so reductions in navigation aids do not have a serious impact on us.
There has been an increase in the number of occasions on which our ferries have been requested to assist other vessels in distress. We have not firmly established that this is a direct result of cutbacks to the search and rescue service, although we suspect that it is, and we will be monitoring this very closely in the near future.
The Chairman: You are not suggesting that you object to that, are you?
Mr. Martin: Not in the slightest, sir, but if we are going to be a recognized part of the search and rescue organization, then we may have to provide better training. Distress situations generally occur in bad weather, and if someone is to be sent away in a rescue boat, he or she should be trained to do that sort of work. It is not a concern; it is a comment.
Our summary comment is that the Treasury Board regulatory policy should be used as a basis for justifying any further regulation of the marine industry and, if possible, current regulations should be reviewed against the criteria outlined in the policy and maintained or abolished in accordance with those criteria.
Taking into account modern developments in safety management, such as the ISM code, the relationship between the Ship Safety Branch and the marine industry should be examined to determine to what extent self-inspection is possible and practical, and the role of Ship Safety Branch should be defined and the necessary changes made in classification, or through some other avenue, to ensure that sufficient compensation is paid to Ship Safety Branch surveyors to attract those with the necessary level of competence and expertise.
With regard to the monitoring of safety, that has already been pretty well described. It is done by Ship Safety Branch. We have no further comment on that.
My next topic is spot checks by industry. To date, the marine industry has been heavily regulated and the inspections have inevitably been carried out by federal government staff. We have our own internal safety monitoring and auditing program, but we have not attempted to use this as a substitute for Ship Safety Branch inspection. However, we feel that the use of a Ship Safety Branch regime should be seriously discussed. We think we are now in a position where we can start on that.
I have a few comments on the effectiveness of safety enforcement. Currently, enforcement of safety regulations involves a "snapshot" approach. The vessel was safe at the time it was inspected, and it is up to the company to maintain that level of safety. So the maintenance of safety is left to the initiative of the operator. With the decision to adopt the ISM code, there is a case to be made for an ongoing program of self-inspection, reinforced by spot checks by the regulatory agency.
With regard to the transportation of dangerous goods, the regulations concerning this issue do not pose too many problems for B.C. Ferry Corporation. We do have regular dangerous-goods sailings on which no passengers are permitted aboard.
A minor irritant is the fact that the requirements governing the carriage of dangerous goods by road and those governing carriage by sea are slightly different. There is a difference in the placarding, but we feel that could be resolved and rationalized with very little effort. It is not a major concern.
That covers the issues which the B.C. Ferry Corporation wishes to place before you. I am at your disposal, if you have any questions.
Senator Lawson: I am recalling your opening comments and thinking back to when the B.C. Ferry Corporation was first put together by Premier Bennett and it had its first labour shutdown. As I recall, Senator Perrault was the leader of the provincial Liberal Party at that time. I was summoned to Victoria by Premier Bennett to discuss the situation. I said, "I understand you want to talk about this strike you are having." He said, "No, we don't have a strike. They don't have a right to strike." I said, "Let me rephrase that. I understand you want to talk about the mutiny you are having." He said, "Yes, I will accept that. We will talk about the mutiny. How do you propose we deal with it?" I said, "You can't make them walk the plank like they did in the old days; there are too many of them."
I think back on those days and then listen to you speak of 40 vessels and 29 different routes and 21 million passengers. As the teens would say, "You've come a long way, baby." Great progress.
Mr. Martin: We are in the middle of collective bargaining at the moment, so we may have a mutiny just before Christmas.
Senator Lawson: It would be an official strike?
Mr. Martin: That is correct.
Senator Lawson: They now have bargaining rights. They did not then.
Senator Perrault: Will there be a fare increase to meet your targets next year?
Mr. Martin: We are in a quandary. The instructions from the provincial government are that we are not to reduce services, we are not to lay anyone off, we do not get a tariff increase, our subsidy is disappearing, and we are to continue building new ships and facilities. The bottom line does not compute. I do not see any alternative to a tariff increase in the new year, but that is my personal opinion. It is not the official policy of B.C. Ferry Corporation.
Senator Adams: You mentioned Coast Guard cutbacks and your concern about accidents. If a ferry needed assistance, how many hours would it take for someone to arrive?
Mr. Martin: In the southern part of British Columbia it is not a problem because when you are aboard any B.C. ferry, you can look around and generally see about three other B.C. ferries within sight. None of them is more than approximately 30 minutes from the nearest terminal. As long as the engines are still running, they can get to the terminal. If not, in the southern region, there are always many other ships around.
The concern would be with the northern vessels that run between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert. That is a 15-hour trip of approximately 250 miles, some of which is fairly isolated. There again, they are always fairly close to land, so one course of action would be to run the vessel aground. They are equipped with full fire-fighting systems, with life-saving gear such as life rafts and rescue boats, and the crew are all certified by the Ship Safety Branch, so we feel we could handle any normal emergency incident in a competent fashion.
Senator Adams: Have any arrangements been made locally if some incident were to happen close to a settlement or community?
Mr. Martin: We would call upon local resources, whether it was fish boats or whatever, to assist. The main thing would be to evacuate injured people to medical help, if that was available.
Senator Adams: You mentioned dangerous goods. I do not know how often those large transport trucks use the ferry. You stated that when a ferry carries dangerous goods there are no passengers. Do any other shipments travel on the ferries?
Mr. Martin: Commercial dangerous goods are identified by the trucker as he comes through the booth. As I mentioned before, we have sailings specifically for dangerous goods such as explosives, oxyacetylene equipment or large shipments of propane or gasoline.
Other dangerous goods may not be dangerous in themselves, but they would be dangerous if mixed with another type of good. For example, a bulk cargo of sulphur is no problem on its own, but is if it gets wet.
They are identified when they come through the toll booth and special arrangements are made for them on the car deck. We comply fully with Transport Canada regulations regarding the transportation of dangerous goods. In fact, we exceed them thanks to the precautions that we take.
The Chairman: There is one solution. We could give you a fixed link. There is a crew working right now in the eastern part of Canada. You pick out the site and we will build it.
Mr. Martin: The fixed link generated a great deal of interest on Vancouver Island, but the general reaction from the islanders was, "No way. We do not particularly like B.C. ferries, their fares are too high and their food is lousy, but we prefer that to a fixed link."
The Chairman: The safest stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway with respect to trucks has to be across the water here. Perhaps we could build a canal from Halifax to Vancouver and barge those big tractor trailers out here, and then you could take them the rest of the way.
Mr. Martin: We would welcome the business.
Senator Lawson: You mentioned replacing aging assets. Does the corporation have a public policy as to how it will replace them? Will those new ferries be made in B.C., made in Canada, or will the world marketplace dictate that policy?
Mr. Martin: At the moment there is a Crown corporation which is subsidized by the taxpayer. Most of our equipment is made in B.C. For example, we are building high-speed catamaran ferries. The aluminum comes from France because that is the only source of the particular grade of aluminum that we require. The engines are MTUs from Germany. However, apart from those items, the entire content is British Columbian, and that is a provincial government policy.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. You presentation was succinct and very much to the point.
Might I now call on Mr. Brian Lowes.
Mr. Brian Lowes, Executive Director, British Columbia Safety Council: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, today I will be being drawing upon my 20 years' experience as a licensed driver-training instructor and driver-certification assessment officer in my comments.
The British Columbia Safety Council is a not-for-profit organization formed in 1945 for the purpose of safety education and training in this province. We are one of the largest occupational safety and health trainers in Western Canada, and have an extensive background in traffic safety. We operate a licensed driver school with more than 35 instructors who work directly with us, and we have a network of about 100 authorized delivery agencies around the province that deliver B.C. Safety Council driver-improvement programs in local communities.
Each year more than 25,000 people receive training directly or indirectly through the council or one of our authorized delivery agencies.
Our offices are in Burnaby to serve greater Vancouver. However, we also provide on-site occupational training at employers' sites and last year we visited 85 communities around the province.
The focus of my presentation today will be traffic safety, as it remains the largest challenge in safety in this province, and I suspect across the country, in terms of the number of people who are injured and killed each year.
Canada had its peak of fatalities back in the 1960s when there were over 6,000 individuals killed in traffic accidents each year. At that point in time B.C. had its peak of around 850. Current fatality levels have declined in last few years to approximately 3,500 across the country and 550 in B.C. These dramatic reductions in the fatality rates may make us think that we have reason to celebrate, but fatality rates are not an accurate indicator of the traffic situation. During that entire period of time when fatality rates have been going down, the accident rates have continued to rise. The number of people who have been injured and disabled in traffic accidents across the country constitute an army of walking wounded and disabled people. In this province every 12 minutes one of our citizens is injured in a traffic crash. Since I entered the room here, two people have already been injured. Roughly every 16 hours one of the citizens in this province is killed in a traffic crash. The annual cost to the citizens and the government of this province amounts to many billions of dollars, in terms of emergency response, trauma care, rehabilitation. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has to pay in excess of $2 billion a year for the immediate medical treatment, rehabilitation and lost wages for traffic victims. The cost to the private sector is estimated to be about three times that, an additional $6 billion. I would suggest to you that the cost to the individuals, in terms of reduced earning potential during the rest of their lives, probably exceeds that figure.
Obviously, the lost taxes and opportunities would make a significant contribution to reducing the financial stress on our government coffers. Reduced health expenditures for public health, emergency care, and emergency response could also provide further benefits.
There is no question that injury reductions through improved traffic safety can have an extremely strong positive spin-off, not to mention a very positive impact on family life. One of the hidden realities of traffic safety, just as it is for occupational safety, is that those individuals who suffer severe disability often also suffer marital break-up, which leads to serious consequences down the road, in terms of extreme emotional stress and economic difficulty.
We all have a stake in helping to correct this situation. Unfortunately, many of our citizens have placed excessive faith in technology to protect us from the negative effects of traffic accidents. In fact, ignorance and lack of skill in traffic are the major causes of traffic injuries and facilities in this country. Technology is effective mainly for post-crash injury reductions and to some extent as a crash or injury-prevention mechanism, but we are many years away at this point from technology which will eliminate the major source of crashes, the driver. When we can take the driver out of the equation, we will see a massive reduction in crashes. Unfortunately, that is decades away.
At this point in time, driver ability and accountability are areas where we have enormous potential for crash prevention. No amount of today's technology can protect drivers from their incorrect decisions, inadequate skills and inappropriate attitudes.
Those of us involved in traffic safety have long talked about the three pillars of traffic safety, which are engineering, enforcement and education. Each of these areas is incapable of solving the problem on its own, but in conjunction there is enormous potential for improvement. For several decades now there has been too great an emphasis on engineering at the expense of enforcement and education, and the situation is only getting worse.
I am not suggesting that the engineering improvements in the road environment and in the vehicles have not been beneficial; they have been. There have been tremendous advances.
Since the 1960s we have seen the advent of radial tires, independent suspensions, rack-and-pinion steering, seat-belt systems, disc brakes, unit body construction, energy-absorbing body construction, collapsing steering columns, passenger-cage protection designs, head restraints, antilock brake systems, four-wheel drive systems, side-impact protection, and, of course, something that seems to be in the news every day, air-bags.
Senator Perrault: They are great decapitators.
Mr. Lowes: The federal motor-vehicle safety standards have played a significant and essential role in all of these advances. What has been the net benefit? We have reduced the fatalities that occur at the scene because the extent of injuries has been reduced. The emergency-response systems have been greatly improved so we get people to trauma care faster and then we work medical miracles in the hospital and put people into rehabilitation. That is where our army of walking wounded comes from.
Society has come to put great faith in technology. We now believe that we are practically invulnerable when we drive down the street in our cars and we only learn the reality as the crisis evolves into a catastrophe. People believe, unfortunately, that modern vehicles are practically infallible, despite all the warranty claims, and that those vehicles will protect them. People also believe that modern vehicles do not need much maintenance. Drivers simply do not understand modern vehicle technology. I suspect that those of us in the room who are a little older have a better understanding of vehicle dynamics than people who are learning to drive today.
Drivers do not understand critical differences, for example, between front-wheel-drive and rear-wheel-drive vehicles. That is something else that has come along in the last 30 years. Almost all modern automobiles today have front-wheel drive, and they behave very differently from vehicles with rear-wheel drive. If you ever get into a serious driving crisis with one, and if you use the driving techniques that were commonly taught for controlling rear-wheel drive vehicles, you will probably run into severe problems, such as swapping ends, in a real hurry. If people use their brakes incorrectly during cornering, there is the possibility of flipping the car.
These things need not happen. It is very easy to teach people the difference between front- and rear-wheel drive, and to produce some degree of skill in using correct techniques.
Many drivers with antilock braking systems do not know how they work, nor how to use them properly. In some cases this causes a reduction in safety. When the antilock system goes into operation, people will take their foot off the brake, not realizing that what they are feeling is the antilock system actually working. This reduces the breaking effort and can potentially result in a collision.
Drivers with four-wheel drive mistakenly believe that they have infinite traction, regardless of the circumstances, and drive at a faster speed than would otherwise be appropriate under poor driving conditions. Unfortunately, we were not able to arrange snow for you today. We could have provided you with a good demonstration of what happens in the metropolitan area of Vancouver when there is a bit of snow on the ground. Those of you who are from this area know what I am talking about.
Senator Perrault: Quarter-inch paralysis!
Mr. Lowes: Because of the high water content in our snow, we get icing conditions almost instantly, and that makes for very difficult driving conditions. The vehicles that end up in the ditch first are often four-wheel drives and sport utility vehicles because the people who choose those vehicles often have no idea as to how they work, and instead of been able to take advantage of the benefits of this technology, they fall into its traps.
The average person learning to drive is not required to learn anything about traction or vehicle control. That is rather sad, and is one of the reasons we have such a terrible number of accidents.
We look forward to improved engineering in traffic control systems, which will help to respond better to changes in traffic volume and driving conditions. At present, the tremendous congestion in major urban areas leads directly to driver impatience, rash decisions, abrupt actions and consequently to increased accident rates.
Improved engineering in such things as left-turn lights, left-turn bays, and computerized control of traffic volume would probably help traffic to flow better. It would also help clean up the air because if vehicles are moving their pollution-control systems are working. When vehicles are just sitting in traffic and idling, those pollution-control systems are not in operation.
I would like to turn to enforcement. Financial constraint due to the present state of government finances has actually led to a reduction in police presence on our streets and highways, at least in this province. I do not know what others are encountering in other areas of Canada. In most of our major detachments the traffic squads have been reduced, both in the number of officers and in the level of activity. In B.C. today there are fewer traffic officers on the job than there were in 1981, despite a population increase in greater Vancouver of about 50 per cent in that time period. One can imagine what the effect is on drivers faced traffic congestion when there are no police officers in sight. The police do not even respond to crashes unless there is serious injury, and perhaps not even then.
The lack of visible traffic enforcement, in conjunction with congestion and driver impatience, has produced a remarkable lack of restraint on the part of drivers. This has resulted in chronic speeding, tailgating, lane changing in an attempt to "get ahead", and a total lack of adjustment for adverse road traffic or weather conditions. Then, when emergency situations arise, very few drivers know how to perform an emergency manoeuvre, nor have the skills to execute it properly.
As a result of funding problems in enforcement, we are now turning to -- guess what -- more engineering. We have all heard of photo radar and normal radar systems. There are also upcoming technologies such as red light cameras and active control systems with police monitoring. Even in enforcement, we are now looking for automated systems. Of course, many citizens are up in arms over having their picture taken, and there is consequent social unrest over that.
Our third pillar of traffic safety -- the third E -- is education.I must note that cars generally do not cause crashes, except in the rare cases of mechanical failure which result mainly from inadequate maintenance, another reflection of the attitude that many drivers have towards their responsibilities. Actual failures in a properly maintained vehicle are fairly rare. Even in the majority of the truck crashes which are unfortunately in the media all too frequently, the brake systems are in reasonable condition but are not adjusted correctly. Brakes do not work properly if they are not adjusted correctly. It is the responsibility of the driver to maintain the adjustment, and the fact that they do not is another reflection of both attitude and ignorance.
Weather is often blamed for traffic crashes, and is indeed a factor. However, the majority of accidents in B.C., and everywhere else in North America, occur under good driving conditions. Even when weather is a factor, it is a driver's responsibility to adjust to adverse conditions. Unfortunately, too few do.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in most things. In criminal or civil court, ignorance is not an acceptable reason for your injury of another person or for damage you cause. Why is it that, in Canadian society, ignorance is acceptable for drivers? Traffic accidents cause more injury and trauma to our citizens than anything else, yet somehow ignorance is acceptable in this particular area.
Education of drivers has a very low priority. In B.C. fewer than 10 per cent of new drivers take formal education or training. Is this reflected in our crash rates? Of course it is.
In B.C. hairdressers are required by law to successfully complete a comprehensive training program before they are allowed to practise their trade. I am not aware of how many people are killed or injured having their hair done. However, these people are required to take professional training. In B.C., professional truck drivers are not required to take professional training other than an air-brake course. So as you contemplate multiple-unit trailers weighing 150,000 pounds going down our highways, keep in mind that 93 per cent of B.C. is a mountain and that no professional training whatsoever is required at this point in this province for those drivers.
That is only the start of the problem. I will return to that when I speak to licensing in a moment. However, it is an example of how casually our society takes the responsibility of drivers. That casual approach is reflected in the accident and injury rates.
Proper education of all drivers, new and existing, is the best solution to our present traffic-safety problems. Drivers who understand their vehicle, the road environment, and how to deal with the range of road, weather and traffic conditions they will encounter are much more aware of their limitations and tend to respond accordingly.
Appropriate skills training should be an equal priority. The ability to drive a modern automobile, under the range of normal road and traffic conditions we encounter daily, is not something we are born with, nor is it something we can absorb by osmosis as we grow up. What we absorb instead is the example of our parents -- 16 years of responding to other people in the traffic environment. This is where we learn to be courteous, or not; to stop at red lights and stop signs, or not; to observe the speed limit, or not; to wear a seat belt, or not. All these things we pass on. We condition our children for 16 years and then expect them to go out and be responsible people and to drive perfectly. We often will not spend any money on professional training, to let others who know what they are doing pass on proper skills and knowledge. It costs $600 or $700 for a driver-training program, or about six months' worth of minimal insurance coverage. Would proper education and training not be the best insurance for our children when they are learning to drive?
The skill to cope with emergency situations is not beyond the ability of the average driver, as our 25-year experience in driver education and training has shown us. People can learn.
Why do so few people take professional training? Yes, it does cost money, but so does vehicle maintenance, so does vehicle insurance, so does gas, so does everything else in life. It is less expensive than taxes, I assure you. The reason is simply that people are not required to take training and the standards of our licensing system do not produce any market pressure that will move people in that direction.
I will now turn to the licensing system.
I mentioned earlier the extensive improvements in automobile technology over the past 30 years. Today's roads, vehicles and traffic are not at all like the ones we had 30 years ago. Unfortunately, our licensing standards have not kept pace, and they are very much like they were 30 years ago. If you are like me, you will remember that the most difficult challenge in your driving test was parallel parking. I can assure you that one of our greatest successes in traffic safety is that we very rarely have anybody killed or injured in parallel parking.
As I say, we have not kept up. We need fundamental reforms to the system. Effective testing systems and licensing standards will create an incentive for professional driver education and training. We need to have a user-pay philosophy in which the true cost of this system is recovered from the drivers being tested. If we make it more expensive to arrive for a test in a state of incompetence and ignorance, then prospective drivers will be motivated to go and learn properly. If it cost you $150 every time you went in for a test, which is the cost of a test in our provincial government system, you would not want to do it too many times. If, as is the case in Britain, you had to wait nine months for the next opportunity to be tested if you failed the first one, you might be a little more prepared when you show up. We subsidize our tests; we charge $35 for a test that costs us $150 to administer. This is not rocket science. We provide no motivation for people to learn, we put no teeth in the system, and we wonder why people treat it casually.
Examiners need to be fully qualified on the vehicles in which they do tests. In this province, there is no requirement that a Motor Vehicle Branch Examiner hold a licence for the vehicle they are testing. If you are a would-be professional truck driver who hopes to be driving a 150,000 pound truck with 15 speeds and air brakes and all sorts of other things, chances are you will be examined by a person who is only licensed to drive a car, someone who has never driven a truck for a living, someone who really does not have much expertise in terms of the spatial requirements of your vehicle and how difficult it is to get it through an intersection, how far it takes to stop, how to manoeuvre it in heavy traffic.
Is this relevant? Of course it is. Does it produce people who are well qualified and well tested? No, it does not. It is completely unacceptable to our organization that any government examiner be any less qualified than the instructors who are licensed to teach in the schools.
Just compare this system with the process that is in place with regard to aviation or marine safety. You will find that the examiners in those areas are always much more highly qualified than the people they are examining. In fact, they are the most highly qualified people in the system. The fact that our driver examiners are less qualified than instructors is an abomination and is responsible for killing many people.
National standards for all classes of professional drivers need to be established, similar to the national driver's licence system in the United States. Both industry and the public would benefit from such a system over time. I know that is an ongoing effort with the CCMTA and ATTACK programs. I also know that there are problems in some of the jurisdictions in Canada. However, those jurisdictional problems should not mean that we have to pay with thousands of people being injured and hundreds of people killed across the country. We cannot afford, nor should we tolerate, incompetence behind the wheel of any vehicle.
In summary, we believe it is somewhat pointless for the federal government to continue pursuing, through federal motor-vehicle standards, further expensive engineering solutions to traffic-safety problems in the absence of at least minimal solutions to the present enforcement and educational inadequacies. That is not to say we should not continue to push for improved engineering solutions, but we realize we could well be wasting much of the resources expended in that direction.
We would realize a much higher return on our investment of these scarce resources if we redirected an adequate portion of that funding to raising driver competence and implementing systems for holding drivers accountable for their actions. It is very easy to get a licence. It is very difficult to lose it.
While many of these areas fall under provincial responsibility, the federal government could certainly have a strong central role in creating a national consensus on the need for such action.
If we do nothing about the root problem -- the bad drivers who cause the crashes -- the pursuit of engineering solutions will cause the prices of cars to rise rapidly beyond the ability of our citizens to purchase and operate them. When I was contemplating buying my first car in 1972, a full-sized Chevrolet sedan cost roughly $6,000. Today, the cost of that car is five to six times higher. It is a much better car. However, with the average price of a car today being $28,000, one must ask how many people can afford to buy one? We can continue driving the cost of the car through the roof so that we end up with a $100,000 car in which it is almost impossible to get hurt. However, the accident rate will continue to rise, we will still be wrecking those cars, and we will still injure people, because people will find ways to defeat the safety systems in them.
Please remember, drivers cause crashes. The only real solutions that we can afford involve drivers, not engineering.
On behalf of the B.C. Safety Council, I thank you. If there are any questions, I would be happy to respond.
Senator Bacon: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am very concerned about the training of drivers. Is the B.C. Safety Council in favour of supplementary training or refresher courses from time to time for vehicle drivers? How would such a program be implemented?
Mr. Lowes: Yes, we would be in favour. It would be very difficult to implement it completely at the start, but in B.C. and in many other jurisdictions, licences must be renewed every five years. In this age of electronic data processing, it should be possible for us to assess the driving record and accident history of every driver and have their five-year renewal based upon the results of their behaviour. Thousands of drivers go decades, some an entire lifetime, without ever having an accident or getting a ticket. On the other hand, some drivers are on a "frequent crasher" program. Perhaps they get Air Miles at body shops.
We should not penalize drivers who take their responsibility seriously and make a consistent effort over long periods of time to drive in a responsible and safe manner. We should assess the performance of drivers, and if we see a poor performance, particularly with new drivers in the early years of experience, we need to do something about it right away. If we are not going to require mandatory education for all drivers, we should make sure that if we see a problem in the early years, we can get those drivers into an education process as soon as that negative history starts to show up.
After five years it would be entirely reasonable to reassess people's vision and hearing, and perhaps give a written examination to see if they still understand what a traffic light means. That is for people who have a good driving record. For those with a bad driving record, we should be asking, "Why should we give the privilege back? Why do you deserve to continue driving? Why should we let you continue to be a menace to other people's safety?" That five-year renewal time is a reasonable opportunity to get at this problem.
The driver-education industry presently is not in a healthy state because the very low licensing standards do not motivate people to take training. That is a real problem because the schools cannot afford the research and development required to put together good programs to keep up with changing technologies. Many driving instructors in this province today, although they are fully licensed, would have difficulty explaining some of the technology I mentioned earlier. None of them work for B.C. Safety Council, I can assure you.
It is very difficult for driving schools to earn a living because of the very low volume of people going through the training programs. They are all hanging by a thread. Putting in effective licensing standards that are relevant to today's roads and traffic would probably triple the number of people taking initial training and quadruple the number of people taking refresher programs. In such a market, the industry would respond to provide good-quality training.
Senator Bacon: Is the B.C. Safety Council concerned about the rate of accidents at level crossings?
Mr. Lowes: Absolutely. In fact, I am the B.C. chair of Operation Lifesaver, which is a joint effort of the Railway Association of Canada, Transport Canada, and Safety Councils from across Canada. Fortunately, over the last 15 years, we have seen the number of collisions at level crossings decrease consistently as a result of our educational efforts in the community. Where we once had one fatality per day on average, we now have slightly more than one per week. Unfortunately, trespassing has become a much greater problem for the railways because of the growth of urban areas and still having trains operating through them.
Senator Bacon: The solution is education.
Mr. Lowes: The solution to almost all of these situations is education. When you understand how futile it is to try to outrun a train, you do not do it. Educated people tend to behave more safely.
Senator Perrault: Is driver competence better or worse than it was 10 years ago?
Mr. Lowes: Much worse.
Senator Perrault: What is the reason?
Mr. Lowes: It is partly as a result of the reduction of visible enforcement. There is something we call the 45-calibre test. If you put a gun to people's heads and say, "Drive and behave yourself," almost everyone is capable of doing so. During the licence test, you have to behave yourself for 20 minutes, and almost everyone can do it. That changes when you put people out on the road where there is no enforcement visible.
Senator Perrault: It is a jungle.
Mr. Lowes: It is a jungle, and people are not behaving themselves because they do not have to.
Senator Perrault: We have had a great influx of population into this area. If people come from Europe or Asia and state that they have been driving for 20 years and do not need to take any tests, are they required to take a test before they get their B.C. licence?
Mr. Lowes: It depends on what jurisdiction they come from. There are reciprocal arrangements between our government and other jurisdictions, typically in the United States, under which those drivers will perhaps have to take a written examination, or if they have a multiple-class licence, they may have to take a practical exam on one of those classes.
If they come from somewhere outside North America and have an International Driver's Licence, they may be granted an examination exemption. Most people from outside North America would have to take an examination.
Senator Perrault: There is a great controversy about air-bags presently. They were regarded as the ultimate safety measure 10 years ago, and with great reluctance companies installed them. We now read stories about decapitation and other horrible injuries, particularly in young people. What is the position of the council?
Mr. Lowes: As I tried to say throughout my presentation, technology is a double-edged sword. You live by it and you die by it. Air-bags have the potential for reduction of the severity of injury in higher-speed crashes. At lower-speed crashes, any advantage they might offer is minimal. My understanding is that the standards in place for air-bags are not specific as to deployment speeds. There is a major liability issue which concerns the manufacturers of automobiles.If there is a low-speed crash and the air-bags do not deploy and someone is injured, the company can be sued, so they have the air-bags deploy in collisions at very low speeds. Unfortunately, in those situations people will not only get little advantage from the air-bag, they may suffer injury.
The other major difficulty with air-bags is that they were designed for some theoretical average-sized person with a certain leg length. People with shorter legs move the seat further forward so they will be closer to the steering wheel. Unfortunately, air-bags are all the same size, no matter how big the person is.
Senator Perrault: One size fits all.
Mr. Lowes: Yes, one size fits all, and if you are sitting closer than 12 to 15 inches from the air-bag when it goes off, it will hit you at 320 kilometres an hour. Even a pillow at 320 kilometres an hour hurts. I believe if you consult with the people in Transport Canada, you will find that a number of them were very reluctant to see air-bags implemented in Canada because most people in this country use seat belts. In the United States at the time, the rate of seat-belt usage was very low. In most states they were not required. Therefore, air-bags were seen as a wonderful protection device to deal with the problem that people would not use their seat belts.
Since the air-bag systems were designed for people not wearing seat belts, they have a big bags that deploy very quickly because that unrestrained body is coming forward to hit that steering column and you need a big fast bag to stop them.
Senator Perrault: Would you suggest one or two initiatives which could be undertaken by the federal government to improve the situation across the country?
Mr. Lowes: With regard to the air-bag problem, I cannot suggest anything. However, engineers are extremely resourceful. There is great concern among the public, particularly people with short legs and parents of small children, who want to know what they can do. They have bought these $30,000 cars, they do not have a lot of money, and they do not want their expensive new cars to become lame ducks in the marketplace. Is it possible to retrofit some kind of key-lock system that would disable the activation process? I do not know. I am not an engineer, but I suggest this problem will grow in complexity and legal liability.
Senator Perrault: Is Young Drivers of Canada still in existence?
Mr. Lowes: Yes. It is a private corporation that operates a driving school.
Senator Perrault: Does it operate across the country?
Mr. Lowes: It is national organization with local franchises across the country. It probably has the largest network of driving schools and has a very high public profile. There are many other driving schools, most of which have one or two offices.
Senator Perrault: So education is at least part of the solution?
Mr. Lowes: Education is the single most potent weapon we have against road crashes. Unfortunately, it is one that people will not willingly resort to unless they are motivated to do so. I understand that it is not an area of responsibility for the federal government.
Senator Perrault: No, it is not, but there may be some initiative.
Mr. Lowes: I would suggest that vehicles will continue to improve. Antilock braking systems will probably become common in almost every vehicle as the technology matures and the costs go down. That will be a very positive move. In order to take full advantage of those systems, people will need to know how to use them properly. Again, it goes back to education. The best tool, in the hands of someone who does not know how to wield it, does not work very well.
The Chairman: It occurs to me that the industry is attempting to make air-bags acceptable. We apparently did not check them adequately in the first place. Do you know who is checking them this time around?
Mr. Lowes: In Europe the air-bag that are in use are much smaller and slower. They never bought into the concept of the big fast bags. Perhaps that is a quick answer for Canada. If the Americans can get people to wear seat belts, maybe they can get them to use smaller and slower air-bags.
The Chairman: Who is examining the systems that will replace what we already have, other than the industry itself?
Mr. Lowes: The industry and Transport Canada, which is part of a world-wide community. There is another organization, the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, which is a world-wide body primarily driven by the medical and engineering communities together, and they had their world-wide conference here in Vancouver in September. There is an amazing amount of research being done. The information is available. The engineering was just premature. I think it was put in place too soon. Smart air-bags will be available in the future. Engineers will learn how to control the deployment rate proportionate to the weight of the person and the proximity of the person to the steering column. I do not know how long it will be before that technology is ready.
Keep in mind that air-bags are not a failure. My understanding is that for every person that has been killed by an air-bag, a very large number of people have been saved.
This device has to sit in a car sometimes for many years without operating, but when it is called upon to operate, it must do so perfectly in a few thousandths of a second. This can be after 10 or 15 years of total neglect. That is a lot to ask of any technology.
Senator Adams: We met some people in Ottawa from an automotive association who were most concerned about traffic on the highways. We heard statistics from Transport Canada that 49 per cent of highway accidents involve alcohol.
Some people learn how to drive and as soon as they finish learning, they drive a car at 100 or 120 kilometres an hour on a highway which states that the speed limit is 80. How can we teach people to slow down? People use the excuse that they were late for some appointment and that is the reason they were driving 120 instead of 80 kilometres an hour.
How do we prevent accidents on two-lane highways such as those where people lose control of a car and there is not enough clearance to get off the side of the road they suddenly find themselves in a ditch? Can the highways be improved or should we rely on teaching people the proper way to drive so there are fewer accidents and fewer people killed on the highway?
Mr. Lowes: Periodically, the roads and highways have to be rebuilt and upgraded. We have learned an awful lot over the last 50 years about highway design. It would take an infinite amount of money to solve all our problems in a short period by rebuilding the highways to make them crash-proof. There is no such thing as a crash-proof highway, and there never will be. However, we can build roadways that give better lines of sight. We can put better traffic control system in with advance warning lights before intersections or dangerous spots.
There are a number of technologies evolving that will provide better warnings to people. In some places in B.C. you can tune in to a radio station before entering a mountainous area and find out the weather conditions for that stretch of roadway. In the future, we will have vehicles with intelligent microprocessors that will be able to pick up information from roadside transmitters and feed it into the computer in the car to warn of icy road conditions and perhaps change the braking system's performance capability to deal with the problem.
There is no end to the ingenuity of engineers. There is no end to the expense side either. It is always the driver's responsibility to adjust to the road conditions. If it is slippery, slow down. If traffic is heavy, back off. People just simply do not want to do what we want them to do. They often do not act in their own best interests.
What can we do about that? Education is the key. I keep coming back to education. People do not act totally irrationally. What we have is a lack of understanding. The average person really has no idea how far it will take to stop from any given speed because they do not practise those things. In driver training programs, this is taught and practised. People must learn the techniques and gain the experience, so that as they are driving down the road, they will have some idea of their manoeuvring capabilities and their braking capabilities, and that will affect their following distance and the speed at which they choose to drive. Education is a very powerful tool.
You alluded to drinking drivers. That is an area where we do have good evidence of the power of education. In British Columbia, some 14 years ago, we implemented a program called Counter Attack. This was a program to raise awareness. Essentially, it was a public relations campaign. It was a bit fraudulent because there were supposedly a great number of blood-alcohol testing vans; this is what we were told through television commercials and radio messages and newspaper advertisements. They were going to be everywhere. I went seven years without ever seeing one in greater Vancouver, and I drive around a lot. I do not know where they were, but I never found them.
However, that educational campaign raised the awareness of the average citizen that drinking and driving is not a brilliant thing to do. We taught people that this is a dangerous activity, it is irresponsible. We changed public attitudes. Being drunk and driving is an intolerable act, and today most people accept it as intolerable.
Senator Perrault: Are the penalties tough enough?
Mr. Lowes: I will return to that in a second, Senator Perrault.
The reality is that most reasonable people now behave responsibly and reasonably, and they have cut back on their drinking and driving. We do not have a problem with impaired driving. We have a problem with drunk driving. We have been sold an illusion that if someone has a glass of wine or a beer over dinner and then gets into a car an hour and a half later, he or she is suddenly transformed into a raving lunatic who is totally incompetent. That is not the case.
The average blood-alcohol reading of a person apprehended for drunk driving in this province is 0.17, almost twice the legal limit. That is not the result of drinking one beer. The people who are charged with impaired driving causing death have an average blood-alcohol reading of 0.25. They can hardly stand up. As I said, we do not have a problem with impaired driving. We have a problem with drunks driving.
Senator Bacon: Would you favour random testing?
Mr. Lowes: The experience in Australia has shown how effective random testing can be. Every police vehicle is equipped to do roadside inspections and random testing. They have roving squads that stop on the side of the road in the morning and set up their equipment. They stop six cars and test them and let them go on their way, then stop the next six cars and test them. If they find nobody, they move on to another location and do the same thing over and over again.
Senator Bacon: They have been very successful.
Mr. Lowes: Drivers in Australia know how frequently they are going to encounter these things.
When talking about penalties, other than capital punishment there is no penalty that will stop an alcoholic from drinking. The biggest problem we have with drinking and driving, since we have removed most of the slightly impaired social drinkers from the road, is that we are now left with alcoholics, drug addicts and social psychopaths who simply refuse to go along with the order of society. For those people, we need big sticks. We have to determine who these people are. Are we are dealing with someone who has a medical condition, an addiction problem? If so, we should get them into treatment before we let them back out on the road. If we are dealing with social psychopaths, in my opinion we should take their car, compress it into a little cube and give it back to them and tell them to drive that.
We could also treat drunk drivers in the same manner as someone smuggling drugs across the border. They would forfeit their vehicle to the Crown, which would have a big auction and help reduce the deficit, or the car could be given to the Safety Council for drivers' safety programs. That would solve our funding problem.
Senator Perrault: I heard that if someone in Australia refuses to take a breath test, he or she receives an automatic, mandatory 30-day licence suspension.
Mr. Lowes: In my opinion, the penalties are already severe enough. The problem we have is that, (a) people do not believe that they are ever going to be apprehended; (b) they do not believe that even if they are apprehended they will ever be found guilty in a court of law; and (c) if they do, it will be five or six years before they will have to pay a penalty, if ever.
We have taken away the immediacy and the certainty. If people believe that they will probably get caught, if they believe they will almost certainly be found guilty, and if they believe that the punishment will be significant, then they might change their behaviour. The reality is that our conviction rate has gone from 94 per cent to 47 per cent in this province in the last five years.
Senator Perrault: From 95 per cent to 47 per cent?
Mr. Lowes: Yes. We have an industry in our legal system. The penalties are so severe it is now worthwhile defending yourself at almost all costs. The technicalities hamstring our police officers and our judicial system. It is too complicated, it is too uncertain. Do something about that and you will have an impact.
Senator Adams: Many drivers use cellular phones while driving on the highway. How much effect does it have on a driver whose wife starts arguing with him on the phone?
Mr. Lowes: Cellular phone safety is an interesting exercise in logic. The problem with cellular phone use while the vehicle is in motion is the potential for distraction. There is also the potential for the inability to physically control the car. Hence, free connections might be a feature down the road. Manufacturers would install plug-ins for cell phones so that every car would come with a hands-free connection. That is a feature in some luxury cars today.
I would challenge the notion that merely having a conversation on a cellular phone is automatically a dangerous act. Do we not all talk to our passengers? Do we not all listen to our radios while we drive? A driver can be distracted by any number of things. It is the way you drive and what your priorities are while you are driving that count. I drive my wife crazy because if I see something while we are driving, I will stop in mid-sentence and pay attention to the problem. Then, 30 seconds later, she is asking me to finish the sentence and I have forgotten what we were talking about because I became focused on the traffic situation. However, I would rather insult my wife than have a collision.
The Chairman: How is the B.C. Safety Council funded?
Mr. Lowes: Unlike the first 50 years of our existence, we are now totally self-sufficient, for better or worse -- and so far it is for worse. We used to receive government funding.
The Chairman: You raise your funds through solicitation and through the sale of education programs?
Mr. Lowes: Yes, primarily through training program revenues. We are a membership-based organization, but only about 5 per cent of revenue comes from membership.
Mr. Lowes: Do you sell packaged training courses on things such as front-wheel drive, four-wheel drive, the new disc brakes, antilock brakes?
Mr. Lowes: The information on vehicle technologies is contained in the programs as opposed to having a special program for any particular technology. We do have some specialized programs such as motorcycle rider training. We used to have the best truck-driver training in the province. The lack of standards made it uneconomic for us to continue with that program, so we stopped.
The Chairman: Is there a facility in Vancouver where I could send my son or daughter to take training?
Mr. Lowes: If are you talking about basic driving training, yes, there are a large number of commercial driving schools.
The Chairman: That is how to start and stop a car?
Mr. Lowes: Yes, there a large number of commercial schools.
The Chairman: Where would I go specifically to learn how to handle a front-wheel drive on ice as opposed to rear-wheel drive?
Mr. Lowes: A few of the commercial schools do have some supplementary driver-improvement programs. Some specialty trainers like ourselves have long been involved in such activities and someone could come to us for special training.
The Chairman: It is not readily available?
Mr. Lowes: It is not universally available, no.
The Chairman: I would suspect that it is not readily available anywhere in Canada.
Mr. Lowes: I would probably agree with you.
The Chairman: If you had two cents out of each litre of petroleum taxes, do you think it would be useful to spend some of that money on the establishment of driver-training schools, in addition to spending it on the highways where it is needed?
Mr. Lowes: The support of driver-education programs would be extremely beneficial, but funding would be a major issue in there. In a few areas in Canada basic driver education for young people is provided through the school system, but not in British Columbia.
Senator Adams: Is there equipment available for a car to give warnings of certain weather conditions, say from Transport Canada? It may be helpful for a driver if there was some warning that it was going to rain that day. It might also add to people's safety.
Mr. Lowes: Down the road there will many technologies that will make it possible for improvements in the information that flows through to drivers on such things as environmental conditions, road conditions, traffic conditions. Heads-up displays are not only used in fighter aircraft, they are now available in some automobiles to have the speedometer visible up on the windshield. I am sure these types of things will be incrementally improved over time as the economics permit.
If I may leave you with one last thought, it is that the greatest factors in traffic safety are driver attitude and driver competence, and what is missing the most is a sense of personal responsibility for safety. The only way we are going to change that is by educating people properly for the task and then following up with proper administration of the licensing system using effective standards, and by taking the licence away from people who are not willing to live up to their responsibilities.
The Chairman: Please accept our appreciation for your time and the effort in appearing before the committee.
The committee adjourned.