Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 7 - Evidence for February 19, 1997 (11:30 AM)
MONTREAL, Wednesday, February 19, 1997
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I will let you gentlemen be the arbitrators of how you wish to proceed, individually or collectively. Perhaps we could hear from all three of you, and then you would entertain questions.
Mr. Peter Machet, President, Avrail Inc.: With me today are Mr. Reg Learn, our vice-president, and Mr. Tom Prescott who is from Forensic Engineering Inc., an associate of Avrail. We will each touch on different topics.
I will deal with aviation because that is my background, and Mr. Learn will discuss the rail and, probably, some trucking.
Mr. Tom Prescott, Partner, Forensic Engineering Inc.: I will deal with the trucking industry.
Mr. Machet: I understand your main concern is deregulation and how it affects safety.
The Chairman: We are considering safety from the immediate or short-term view, but more purposefully, we are also considering the long-term view, that is, where technology will lead us, and how we should we get there safely. We want to find out just how safe the end-user or the consumer will be in the year 2010 or 2020. Ours is a very broad mandate.
We are in a learning curve ourselves, so we particularly welcome your views as an arbitrator between the two opposing points of view that we have heard from, the railways and the unions. Generally speaking, the committee has been satisfied with safety as it pertains to the railways. The effort in recent years to improve safety is quite marked, but we still have adversarial conflict. We hope you gentlemen will be able to shed some light on safety, generally, in these areas.
Mr. Reginald Learn, Vice-President, Avrail Inc.: I will start by reading our statement which you may find of interest.
The Chairman: Would you be able to leave a copy of your statement with the clerk?
Mr. Learn: Yes. I will fax Mr. Wilson a copy of it.
It is our sincere goal that this committee gathers sufficient factual information to successfully address the effects of deregulation on transportation, safety and security. It is for this very reason that we were eager to testify before you.
There is a long history of the perceived need for deregulation within the transportation industry, both in the United States and Canada. Theorized deregulation commenced in the early 1980s. The perception within the industry, on the one hand, was that a levelling structure would enable the largest and most fit to survive and grow with an expanded share of the market. The government, on the other hand, saw less need to regulate but, at the same time, it loosened the need to regulate and subsidize. The transportation industry envisioned increased revenue and less regulation at the same time the government foresaw savings and expenditures.
A statement at the time was that we would not recognize the Canada of the past. The Government of Canada struggled within the global economy, which resulted in recession and double digit unemployment. The national debt and deficit are part and parcel of the clearly evidenced interface of government policy and the transportation industry.
The theory of deregulation makes sense and, for the most part, was well intentioned. To broaden the transportation base servicing the remotest areas of Canada made sense, but it was not intended to allow carriers to do things in their own financial interest.
Many voices of caution and bells of alarm sounded in the House of Commons throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, all of which are duly recorded in Hansard. Many issues had to be addressed and policies put into place before deregulation. More trained, experienced inspectors should have been in place to conduct more numerous and intense safety inspections. It is, however, surprising that, after 10 years of deregulation, Canadians in general do not understand, and the government has not as yet come to grasp with, the effects of this policy.
Railways have abandoned entire communities and railway lines exercising their right to manage in a deregulated world. All of this was done on the understanding offered by the railways that safety would not be jeopardized. That is to say that deregulation, and the role of the regulator in deregulation, was accomplished on a understanding with the railways that safety would not be put in jeopardy.
Deregulation was enacted at the beginning of the economic cycle downturn. All of the forces of a shrinking economy, a shrinking market share, and a dramatic increase in the number of trucks on the highways competing for what was no longer there. Demonstrations by the trucking industries began in earnest. The Minister of Transport set up a task force to address the issues and problems in the trucking industry.
The heart of the problem, as viewed by the task force and its independent analysts, was low and unstable income. A temporary tax relief of about $120 million per year was granted to the transportation industry for diesel and aviation fuels. At the same time, depreciation value for trucks and tractors moved from 30 to 40 per cent. For the railways, it moved from 7 to 10 per cent. An additional $2.7 million in federal assistance was given to improve financially viable companies and encourage competition within the trucking industry. Finally, there was a $3-million federal contribution as a start-up fund for the Trucking Research Institute.
There followed debate in the House by Members of Parliament who expressed concerns prior to and after deregulation that, if we fail to address certain issues such as this cutback in funding and inspections by the federal regulator and the industry, regulatory reform may be detrimental to safety standards.
I can only address the effect of deregulation on the railway industry as noted during the investigation of railway accidents. Within the multimodal transportation safety board it became apparent that three modes recognized and understood that there was a threat, and that the industry was trying to do more with less.
The physical plan, mechanical components and human factors, were cut to the bone within the railway industry. Trains are run further between inspection points with less employees and fewer government inspections by either the FRA, on the U.S. side, or Transport Canada within Canada.
It is argued that electronic surveillance and the mandated absence of friction bearing and flat plate wheels reduce the risk of derailment. This is not entirely so. A noticeable lack of experienced management inspections, a noticeable lack of government inspections, a noticeable stretching of safe component replacement within the industry, weakening of federal regulation, and further, the regulators' failure to respond to safety advisories issued to them by the Transportation Safety Board are factors that have borne that out.
In Edson, Alberta there was an accident in which three men died when their westbound train, moving at 55 miles an hour, was struck by runaway cars. Between 1990 and 1996 there have been over 160 reported incidents of runaway cars on regulated railways within Canada. The runaway cars were placed in a siding with the descending grade eastward. The "D" rail protecting the siding was removed by the railway sometime prior to 1990 to facilitate the movement of cabooseless trains. Transport Canada has no requirement of the railways to inform them when or where such track protective devices have been removed.
In 1994, the Transportation Safety Board issued a safety advisory to Transport Canada who responded, through the minister, that the cause of runaway cars was the failure of crews to comply with the Canadian Railway Operating Rules, specifically Rule 112, and that the railways would strengthen their discipline toward crews who failed to comply with this rule. This deemed satisfactory response did not prevent the deaths of three persons on the August 12, 1996.
The Transportation Safety Board continues to issue advisories pertaining to safety issues to the regulator, Transport Canada. My comment, gentlemen, to Transport Canada's many responses to the Transportation Safety Board or, in some cases, lack of response, is that I would rather have a guard dog than a lap dog, because that is how it is perceived within the industry today.
The Transportation Safety Board has failed to exercise its full, mandated authority under the Transportation Safety Board of Canada Act which states:
...shall identify any deficiencies as evidenced by occurrences and any situation or condition that the Board has reasonable grounds to believe that, if left unattended, induce an accident or incident.
During my seven years on the board, there was never a public inquiry, despite horrendous rail accidents such those which occurred in Oakville, Manitoba; Long Lac and the King Horn subdivision, both in Ontario and now, recently, at Edson, Alberta.
The board seemed satisfied to conduct studies that would run for years and, yet, never be published. An example is the Rail Safety Issue Report, which is known as the "risk of collision" study which commenced in 1993 and has not been made public as yet, and may never become public because of the impact it may have
If Transport Canada fails to respond to safety advisory notices, accidents will continue to happen. If there is a failure to finance the three transportation agencies and all the individual support groups, one has to question why we have the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, why we have a national transportation agency, and why we have Transport Canada, rail surface.
Mr. Mazankowski, of course, wanted to see a separate, independent investigative group taken out of Transport Canada. Formerly, the Canadian Railway Transport Committee, was not only were the regulator, it was also the investigator. Today we have three agencies within the federal government. With reference to two in particular, we have the regulator who does the inspections, makes the laws and then enforces them; and the investigator who finds out what violations or breakdowns in equipment and that type of thing took place.
If the proposal is to have three agencies, my personal feeling, based on my investigative background with the government, is that, in order to save tax dollars, we should go back to the former system. We have administration services in each of the departments as well as all of the peripheral support groups. I feel that Canada should not follow the United States policies, but that we could well do in this country, in the present economic climate, with one investigative regulative group consisting of well-informed, experienced and very eager people who wish to see safety being the most important issue in the transportation industry today.
The Chairman: I am sure you recall a very serious accident in a mine in Wabush where a a radio tower had been moved from one side of a runway to the other. As I watched the aftermath of the investigation, I vowed, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, and even earlier than that, that if I had anything to do with it, a regulatory agency would never be involved in investigations.
Why would you want to go back to the situation where there may be a conflict of interest?
Mr. Learn: I base my view on what is going on within the boards.
The Chairman: Are you or were you a member of the board?
Mr. Learn: Yes. I was Superintendent of Investigation, Ontario District. Before that I was with the National Transportation Agency, and before that I was with the Canadian Railway Transport Committee. Prior to that, I spent 37 years with Canadian National Railways; and I am a senior citizen.
At the time of the Hinton, Alberta disaster, I believed that Mr. Mazankowski was definitely on the right track. What concerned me was that, after we went under the control of the board, and we elected to do that, I felt so strongly about safety issues in Canada, that I felt I could be more effective investigating the causes and circumstances of accidents. I believed that, once the recommendation was made to the regulators, they would be enforced.
That is not, in all cases, happening. Therefore, are we meeting our safety objective? For example, we sent an advisory in to the TSB in Hull, Quebec and then they decide whether it is warranted or not. If it is warranted, they pass it on to Transport Canada. The regulator then determines whether it is valid, as far as they are concerned, or whether it fits into their agenda, and this goes on and on. If they decide it is not warranted, they do not enforce it. I believe that safety is then diminished.
Investigations are the domain of the board, and the board is required to submit a report to Hull within 30 days. However, because the final product goes through the various levels within the board, including a group called "safety programs", by the time the report is transcribed and has gone through legal scrutiny, it will not become public for two years and, in some cases, it loses its effectiveness. We have lost control. There is an unwieldy process.
I retired on July 27 of last year, and I am pleased that there is a committee which will hear some of the fears of people like myself.
Mr. Machet: I will deal with aviation. I feel very strongly that the economy of an airline directly affects how it operates its safety department. I say this because, in recent years, I have observed that, as airlines try to capture a larger portion of the market, especially here in Canada, they have extended their resources to the point where their primary objective is survival, and safety issues have taken a back seat. Because of cut-backs within the airline, departments, including the safety department, may only have one full-time person operating the whole department. In the smaller airlines, the position may even be part time. In some instances, a line pilot may perform these safety duties after his regular duties. There is very little continuity in the performance of the job, particularly with the small airlines.
Although the major airlines have their own dedicated departments, they have been considerably downsized, but the workload remains high. Individuals who do these jobs bring that point across.
Deregulation has certainly overextended the resources of the airlines. I am thinking particularly of the two major airlines who must try to grab a good part of the market as quickly as possible to try to stay above water. The airline business operates in a very volatile, very fragile environment.
Airlines, of course, deal with large amounts of money. They may make millions but they also spend millions. However, the profit margin is very narrow between the two, and obviously that has an effect on the whole operation, especially the safety side, which is what concerns us.
What has exacerbated the safety issue, as far as airlines are concerned, are the recent cut-backs to the different agencies. Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board were both hit with some cuts. Transport Canada is even considering out-sourcing some of their audits and inspections of these airlines. They are talking about hiring private companies, approving the staff of these private companies, and letting them do the audits themselves rather than have Transport Canada people do it. The problem with that is that Transport Canada will lose some control over what the audit or the inspection is, and how it will be done.
As far as the safety board is concerned, Mr. Learn touched on some of the points of concern regarding the rail. In aviation the problems are similar. Prior to the creation of the Transportation Safety Board, there was the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which resulted from the findings of the Dubin report. The reason for the separate body was to isolate the agency from the regulatory part of government. It sounded like an excellent idea but, when this separation took place, the agency became completely independent, not only from the regulatory body, but it widened the gap between itself and industry. As a result, it lost touch with what was going on in the industry.
While they were a part of Transport Canada, and they were known as the Aviation Safety Group, there was always industry contact through Transport. There was always intermingling and some knowledge was being updated on a regular basis. Recently, I have found that it is not up to snuff as far as knowing what is going on in the industry. When it conducts an investigation or makes some recommendations to Transport, there is a lack of understanding of how the industry really works.
I raise that point because there was mention of the regulatory agency and the safety agency being two separate identities.
The cut-backs have also affected the operation of both the regulatory and the safety agency by the depletion of their personnel. We have lost professional people through attrition, and recent buyouts. Some of these inspectors are being hired by new, private airlines, thereby depleting the Transport Canada and the safety board staff even further. Although these people did work for Transport Canada, their loyalties change to the person who is paying their salary, which means their interests also change.
Even if they fill those positions with new people, it will take considerable time for those people to gain experience. It will probably be a few years down the road before these people gain enough expertise to do inspections and audits.
The Chairman: Can you link this to safety?
Mr. Machet: It will be some time before the new individuals are effective, so there might be a lag in safety.
The Chairman: That is a very serious, grievous statement, and I am sorry to hear it, but it is reality. I can only assume that you know better than I.
Mr. Learn: When I retired last July, my job was filled by the next person in line. That left three investigators in Ontario; one stationed in the chemical valley of Sarnia, which is critical; and two in Toronto. There are major occurrences happening, that are not being attended by the Transportation Safety Board. They conduct their investigations on a pick-and-choose basis. In other words, they will deploy you if they feel it is credible. The investigator in Edmonton recently retired, and his position may or may not be filled in the future, and we are down to one investigator on the East Coast.
The Chairman: In the four Atlantic provinces?
Mr. Learn: That is correct, sir.
Two investigators in Quebec will retire shortly which means that within about a year, Quebec will have one investigator. The investigator in Winnipeg is over 70 years old and he, too, will retire shortly. Cecil Darby in Vancouver is approaching 70. He is an ex-superintendent from CP railway, so you can imagine his background and the wealth of experience that will be lost when he retires. Very soon we will have lost all of our experienced investigators. A young man, whose background is journalism, will be coming into the Calgary area.
If I seem over zealous, it because I am. The railways are running trains further with less professionalism within the railway. They have just downsized to the extent of 14,000 people.
Today Canadian National Railways has 25 people and they want to bring that down to 18. If they run trains further with fewer people to do it, that means there will be fewer inspections by qualified people. The certified, Class-A carmen have gone. The directly impacts on safety and security.
Senator Rivest: What about technology? Is technology being supplied?
Mr. Learn: Technology is wonderful, there is no question about it. I am not against downsizing particularly, as long as we keep the safety structure in place. Technology can only do so much. My main concern with the influx of technology is its rapid introduction. Engine crews are bombarded by further clearance to take them further, a little further, a little further.
VIA Rail is presently negotiating to run passenger trains in the corridor at 100 miles an hour. One locomotive engineer will run it from Toronto to Montreal at 100 miles an hour for 334 miles.
You also have to look at the situation on the freight international border. I have a very thick computer printout from Buffalo, Black Rock which shows all the trains that were entering Canada for a one-year period. I sent that to the TSB in Hull, Quebec, along with a report that I entitled, Niagara, which is 42 pages long, in which I express my concerns about border point inspections. During that one-year period, of all the trains entering Canada from Buffalo, New York, not one train was inspected. I am speaking of FRA inspections.
The railway took all of the inspection forces out of Fort Erie. The trains were not inspected by federal people in the United States at this one terminal for a one-year period. They enter Canada at Fort Erie. Some of those cars may have come from California. These trains are running through census metropolitan areas such as Oakville, Mississauga, and Toronto and they stop in Montreal.
The Chairman: Do any of them carry dangerous goods?
Mr. Learn: Absolutely. We had one case that is recorded in my report to the TSB, where a train crossed the international border with 18 carloads of gasoline on the rear of the train. There was no inspection. When the cabooseless train was sanctioned, one of the conditions was that dangerous goods would be buried in the train, at least 2,000 feet from the rear, and that we would have a light sensor on the rear of the train.
To answer your question quickly, on January 31, the Transportation Safety Board made the statements that, the number of main track collisions in 1996 was 14, higher than the five-year average of 10. They said that, recently, there has been an increase in the number of rear-end collisions and, of particular note, main track derailments numbered a 189 in 1996, up 23 per cent from 1995. Increases in main track derailments over the previous five years have been mostly in single car derailments. However, in 1996, there was a significant increase in multi-car derailments, particularly where the derailments consisted of four or more cars. They also stated that the number of cars carrying dangerous commodities being derailed has increased.
Mr. Prescott: My comments will be related to transportation incidents that occur on the roadways. I am an accident investigator and I work closely with police officers who generally are the first people to arrive at incidents. Police officers, quite correctly, tend to focus their attention on whether a law has been broken.
My use the results of my own investigation plus that done by the police to analyze all of the causal factors in an accident that relate to technical issues and environmental issues -- the weather and the like -- and that analysis is used by the courts to assist in establishing liabilities. It is also used by insurance companies to assess liability in settlements with the parties involved.
Many of my colleagues, in particular police officers, who have similar skills to my own, no longer call themselves "accident investigators". They call themselves "collision investigators". The reason is that the dictionary definition of the word "accident" is that it is an unavoidable event, and my experience and that of most of my colleagues is that, overwhelmingly, accidents on our highways are preventable. Therefore, in the strictest form of the definition, they are not really accidents.
The work police officers do generally stops when they have fulfilled the requirements under the Highway Traffic Act. However, my work is completed upon the conclusion of a court case once an insurance company settles liability. Both of us have experience in analysing accidents which leads to learning certain lessons but, unfortunately, those lessons never seem to make their way to the decision makers who establish our rules and regulations. For that reason, I was quite excited about sharing some of my experiences with you.
I will address three points today. I will talk about driver training; the complexity of our highway environment, and how that the complexity of that environment creates a hazardous situation; and my belief that we have a bias for reactive solutions instead of proactive solutions.
All three points will involve a human theme. I am a professional engineer who has spent the last 27 years working with technology and, in that time, I have learned that people are the most important consideration, not technology. I think the biggest opportunities for improved safety come from the human side, that is, education. There are technological additions that can be made. We can make highways better, and we can make vehicles better, but I think the biggest opportunities lie with people, specifically, driver training.
I would like to give you some examples. The first incident involved very poor road conditions. A salting truck was called out within five minutes of the MTO observing icy road conditions. The driver of the truck was an extremely dedicated, well-trained driver, but he had never salted before. It was the first major salting run of the season, it was the first salting run on icy roads ever for this driver. His was the first truck out of the yard, less than two minutes after the call. He did not salt the first bridge he passed over, although that bridge was completely covered with black ice. His vehicle was travelling at 30 kilometres an hour so there was little effect of the icy conditions on his truck. However, less than five minutes after he passed over that bridge, two accidents occurred, one being a serious head-on collision. If that new driver had had an experienced driver at his side on his first two or three runs to help him identify black ice, and to know where he should put salt down, then that accident could have been avoided.
My second example involves a tanker truck carrying liquid, not a full tank, and, therefore, as the liquid moves in the tank, there are significant physical forces on the tank. Again, this involved a relatively junior driver. It was his first time carrying a liquid cargo; his first run of the day; and he was on his first ramp to get on to the 401. The truck tipped over and there was a significant environmental spill. Fortunately, there were no injuries.
My third example has to do with load security. A semi-van, was loaded with rolls in the United States and then sealed. It was picked up by a tractor unit that came from Canada. The driver of the tractor unit was not present when the van was being loaded, so he did not see how the load was secured. He did not ask that the seals be broken so he could inspect it. He was experienced enough to know that it was his responsibility for load security, but he chose, for whatever reason, not to examine his load. Back in Canada, he took some back roads because he was pressed for time and on an 'S' curve on a country roads, one of the rolls came out of the chalks. It has been improperly secured. It came out of the chalks, bumped into the side of the cargo van, and caused the van to tip over.
My last example involves a dump truck travelling down a very steep incline being driven by, again, an inexperienced driver who approached the decline too quickly. He attempted to change gears, he took out his gear box. He then applied his brakes but, instead of applying his brakes he pumped them, and, on an air-braked vehicle, that very quickly depletes the air cylinder. Essentially, he had no gear reduction left and no braking power. That incident involved a fatality. He hit another vehicle and killed the occupant of that vehicle.
My message to you is that, first, we must have good training systems for our drivers. We do not have a buddy-system or the equivalent of an apprenticeship program where experienced drivers can pass on their knowledge of carrying certain cargoes safely on our highways.
Second, our highway environment is complex. Probably all of us in this room drive vehicles and, because it has become second nature to us, we do not think about how complex the highway environment is. We have 60-ton tractor trailers on the highway, side by side with one-ton cars. A 60-to-1 mass ratio difference is an enormous disparity. Once off the highways, those 60-ton tractor trailers are occupying the same streets as bicycles and pedestrians. Drivers with these enormous vehicles have an enormous advantage, but they pose an enormous risk to all of the smaller vehicles zipping around them.
Why do these other vehicles zip around them? My personal belief -- and it is borne out by research -- is that most people do not understand the technical limitations of their vehicles. If they have anti-lock brakes, they think that they are invincible, and they're not. On highways you will see a very responsible tractor trailer driver attempting to maintain some space between his vehicle and the vehicle ahead of him. You will also see smaller vehicles zipping in in front of that tractor trailer, leaving sometimes less than one vehicle length between the vehicles. What these people do not realize, and what many truck drivers do not realize, is that the air brakes in a tractor trailer do not apply for a period of about point three seconds after the driver has applied his brake pedal. That is because air is compressible; it takes time for that air to reach the brakes. Therefore, if a tractor trailer is travelling at 100 kilometres an hour, and its brakes cannot be applied -- no matter how good the technology is or how fast the driver's reaction -- for point three of a second, that means that vehicle will move 13 metres, almost three vehicle lengths before anything can happen.
The vehicle ahead of him is also subject to certain variables.It is being driven by a person. It is unlike an aircraft situation where there are strict rules about fatigue, training, the number of people in the cockpit. The driver of the motor vehicle may be operating a cell telephone, talking to another occupant in the vehicle, listening to the radio, may be tired, or even impaired.
This makes a highway environment quite complex. My message here to you is that, as you do deliberate on our three main modes of transportation: air, rail and highways, do not accept any form of mediocrity in the rules and regulations that apply to the highways. We should expect the same high standards that apply in rail and air travel. If those can be applied to our highways, then we will see an improvement in safety on the highways.
My third point is that we seem, as a society, to wait until a problem becomes serious or visible in the public eye before we decide to do something about it. I call that a "reactive" solution as opposed to a "proactive" solution. In Toronto, a large gravel-carrying truck left a ramp and crashed into a house and killed a woman in that house. That generated a lot of public outcry. It turned out that that trucking company has had numerous safety violations before this incident occurred. In my opinion, we are only able to catch these offenders on the road, not before they get on the roads. All of the previous offences committed by this particular trucking company were observed by police officers on the highway. I believe many of our transportation businesses have lost sight of the fact that the use of highways is a privilege, not a right.
Businesses see their role as moving goods from A to B by highway, and they use the highways in a way that allows them to maximize their profits. No one will object to any business making a profit, but they very often move those goods in ways that place the rest of the public, who also have a right to use the highways, at increased risk.
My message to you on this point is that we must have a requirement to operate equipment safely. Those requirements exist, but there is no method of assessing conformance to those requirements until the equipment is on the highway. I am suggesting that we find ways to assure conformance to requirements before vehicles get out on the roads. That would be a proactive step. These measures might be complex to develop, but we are intelligent people, and I am sure we can develop workable systems. If we develop those, then the vehicles on the highways will have a better chance of not becoming involved in a serious incident.
Senator Bacon: It is terrible to hear what is happening in air, rail and vehicle transportation, but it seems to me that the worst situation is to be found on our highways. Is that so?
Mr. Prescott: A significant number of tragedies happen on our highways. Part of the reason is that highways are used quite differently from the way our air transportation and rail transportation systems are used. They are used by enormous vehicles and small vehicles; they are used by people who are not professional drivers to move people to work; and they are used by people in various states of stress and anxiety, and impairment and ability.
Very often, the first time a person is involved in a serious accident it happens because the person has no experience of how to avoid a collision. Often the driver will brake when he should have steered, or vice versa. Drivers can improve their ability by practising what to do in certain situations. Pilots take that sort of training, as do locomotive drivers. I am sure many truck drivers also take such training, but the drivers of those tiny vehicles on the road do not. Education is enormously beneficial.
Senator Bacon: For drivers of automobiles or for drivers all highway vehicles?
Mr. Prescott: For drivers of all highway vehicles. We are coming up to April, which in my business, we call the "silly" season because road conditions improve with the milder weather and we start to see motorcyclists on the roads who are mostly young people who think they are invincible.
Senator Bacon: Our winters are so bad that drivers get excited in April.
Mr. Prescott: During the winter, when the weather is bad, airplanes do not fly or they change their patterns, but on the highways the police may advise people not to travel, but they still do. I think education and training are two enormous opportunities to improve safety.
Senator Bacon: Are you suggesting that permits be issued to drivers?
Mr. Prescott: That may be good, but I do not know if I have reached a conclusions on training. As an engineer, I am obligated to continue my training. I have been at this for 27 years, but I am still learning. Truck drivers continue to train. They take courses in air brakes and how to handle different loads.
It would be beneficial if we were always learning about driving.
Senator Bacon: This is a provincial jurisdiction, but do think it would be useful if drivers had to pass a test once every five years, for example? Would you recommend that?
Mr. Prescott: I would like to see a culture of safety, rather than mandating training courses for people, I would like to see people being enthusiastic about learning how to become better drivers, rather than them being told that they must take a particular training course. I know that is idealistic, but I tend to be a bit of an idealist about those things.
Senator Bacon: Have there been any improvements in transportation safety?
Mr. Prescott: Technologically, our vehicles are improving, for example, with the installation of anti-lock brakes, ABS systems. Technology helps us improve our safety margin as long as the driver doesn't use up that margin by trying to, say, corner faster.
There have been technological improvements to tractor trailers. Their brakes are better. I am sure you have heard lots of previous witnesses testifying about brakes being a problem. Anti-lock braking systems are becoming more common on tractor trailer units. They are being installed by the owners willingly, because it improves their driving.
Apart from technological advances, there are graduated licensing systems which improve the situation. There are restrictions on young drivers who cannot operate a vehicle on certain highways and at night time. I think, however, more steps should be taken to curb alcohol abuse on our roads because, in many of the tragic accidents I see, alcohol is a factor. Education can help there.
Senator Adams: Mr. Learn, when you receive an accident report, why do you not pursue it with a government official right away? You say you are frustrated by the lack of government action on board reports or recommendations. How can we improve that situation?
Mr. Learn: I would be reticent if I did not inform you that people I have worked with in the past have been excellent people. At the field level, the investigators are hard working, dedicated people. There is an honest, earnest desire among those people to propagate safety within the industry. We went out many times to the railways and spoke about the roles of the various players because, when the TSB came along, it was very unsettling to the industry because they did not know what to expect.
However, that did not filter down sufficiently so that everyone understood their roles within the field. For example, we do not go into an accident site until we do a preliminary perimeter inspection of it, with field glasses, whatever, and even then, once we determine that there is a leaking hazardous product in a derailment we, as investigators, do not go in until Transport Canada dangerous goods inspectors declare the area safe. Only then would the TSB take over the investigation through its investigator in charge.
That system works well. All of the people in the field know the rules. It took a long time before the railway field officers understood why it was important not to move things at a derailment site until we had gathered the information and the evidence we needed.They now know that we will turn it over to them and they can proceed to clean up. Those roles were eventually clearly understood.
Under the NTA and the Railway Transport Committee, there was a pride of authorship in a report. You investigated an accident, you went before the committee, and you explained your findings to them. There was interaction. We knew each other. You were respected on the basis that you were appointed under Section 226 of the NTA Act to investigate.
Now, once we write a report, it is in Ottawa within 30 days. We do not see it again. We may, eventually, receive a request to make some changes, if we agree with them. What was originally a 30-page report, may end up being only five pages long. The Act stipulates that we are to note deficiencies. We note those deficiencies, include them in the report, and they are removed.
I sat on the Human Factors Committee, and I chaired the Risk of Collision Project, so I know what happens in Ottawa. There is often no feedback or even requests for further information. This results in frustration on our part.
Senator Adams: It sounds as if you are frustrated with the delays that are caused by Transport Canada.
Mr. Learn: I am sure they have reasons, but I do not see why the delays should be so extended. People and industry have a right to know why they are being, say, moved out of their homes if there is a railway derailment. It is not good enough to tell them the reason two years down the road.
Mr. Machet: Part of the problem lies in the fact that upper management receives these reports, and they are responsible for transferring this information to the regulatory agency. Sometimes, they do not have the necessary background to recognize these problems as they come out of the field, and because of that, they tend to lag a little bit on how fast that information is transferred. I think that is where the problem lies. There is just not enough expertise at the higher levels to recognize what problems have been uncovered by those at the lower level.
Being out in the field, being in direct contact with the industry, we can recognize the problem immediately and pass the information on, but the transfer of information really slows down at that point.
Senator Adams: Living in the Arctic, most of the time we can't even see the paved roads. We drive on snow covered roads.
However, since I moved south, I have had to drive back and forth to work for almost 20 years, and I often see people driving on the highway showing absolutely no concern about poor weather conditions.
Your comments about driver training is something we should consider. Perhaps people should be tested not only when they first get their licence, but there should be a continuing education process so that drivers know about changing highway conditions. The authorities would also be kept up to date as to the traffic violations, whatever they may be, the driver has had between tests.
Driving along the highway just recently I noticed large, neon signs warning drivers of adverse traffic conditions. Do you think more neon signs should line our highways, perhaps reminding drivers of the speed limit or warning them of slippery conditions or black ice ahead?
Mr. Prescott: First of all, just a little anecdote, senator. My first driving experience in the North, on the snowy roads, was quite wonderful, until the spring came along and I decided I wanted to go fishing, and my car sunk into the Muskeg, so I learned something then, and by then I was supposedly an experienced driver.
To go back to your question, intelligent vehicle systems are on the way. There will be side warning systems for trucks using radar that will alert the driver to the fact that there is a vehicle beside his truck. Similar systems will tell you whether you are too close to the vehicle ahead of you or if the vehicle behind you is too close. There will also be more noticeable highway sign systems which will alert drivers of curves and changes in road conditions.
My point is that those new systems are not available yet. People are wonderfully adaptive creatures, but they can only adapt if they know they have to adapt. If they do not adapt until they are in a collision situation, then it is too late.
The majority of people do not understand their vehicles. There are many misconceptions out there. I recently read an article in The Toronto Star about some people who bought four-wheel drive vehicles because they thought four-wheel drive vehicles were safer. While it is true that a four-wheel drive vehicle can get you going, once you are moving, a four-wheel drive vehicle behaves, performance wise, no differently from a similarly equipped two-wheel drive vehicle. If you try to go around a wet or icy curve in a four-wheel drive at a higher speed than you would have done if you were driving a two-wheel-drive vehicle, you will be in the ditch. Maybe there is a responsibility on the automotive industry to educate people about the capabilities of their machine. That may be one option to consider.
Senator Adams: Earlier someone mentioned the lack of training of some truck drivers, and the reason is that those who own and operate trucks cannot afford to pay $500 for training and some companies who operate these trucks may not be inclined to pay for additional training for their drivers. Earlier you talked about a driver who could not drive a semi-trailers and you said that was not uncommon. Surely, to drive a heavy vehicle, a driver requires a special licence.
Mr. Prescott: It would definitely be helpful training courses were more accessible to drivers employed by small trucking companies. Perhaps a tax rebate or a subsidy would encourage drivers to take part in these courses.
My experience has been that the larger companies have superb training courses, and if that could, somehow, be filtered down and made available to the smaller operators, it would be beneficial.
The Chairman: I would like to ask 10 or 15 questions, but unfortunately, our time has run out. Thank you for leaving us the concept of the need to develop a culture for safety.
Mr. Learn, I am sure you know very well that when a politician asks the deputy minister to send to his office a team for the purposes of putting into action a policy of government, very frequently that policy, when it is finally presented to the minister, bears little or no resemblance to the initial briefing. You can figure that one out.
When I first read Freedom to Move, I wondered what Don Mazankowski and I had been doing for the previous 14 or 15 months talking about deregulation, where would it lead and what impact it would have. The final act had very little relationship to what we had discussed.
I thank you very much. You have travelled quite a distance to be here with us. We may have to call on you later in our mandate.
Our next witness is the President of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority. We are very pleased that you are able to be with us. Perhaps you might introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about the Laurentian Pilotage Authority and then, as we usually do, the senators will probably have a question or two.
Mr. Jean-Claude Michaud, President Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada: Thank you very much for inviting us. Since we did not anticipate this appearance, we did not prepare a written brief.
The Chairman: That is fine.
Mr. Michaud: Just this morning, we decided to come to the committee hearing to see if we could answer any queries you might have. I have read the documentation which was submitted by the Pacific Pilotage Authority which is similar to our own organization here, and the same comment applies to both other administrations. We are one of four administrations.
The Chairman: Do you have an opening comment or observation?
Mr. Guy Major, Secretary of Legal Counsel to Laurentian Pilotage Authority: I am accompanying Mr. Michaud today, and I hope I can be of some assistance.
The Chairman: Perhaps one or both of you, could tell us a little bit about the authority and its operation on the river. I have two concerns. One is the pilotage in the Arctic. The other relates to Halifax, where more and more shippers want to dispense with pilotage. Perhaps in a general way, you might deal with pilotage, in the context of safety, and in this case, accident avoidance.
Mr. Michaud: The Laurentian Pilotage Authority comprises the whole of the St. Lawrence River, from St. Lambert lock in Montreal to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including the Saguenay River. It does not include the Arctic Ocean.
The Chairman: I realize that, but we do not expect anyone who operates in the Arctic to appear before the committee. As you know, a passenger vessel went aground there, a year or so ago. Does that suggest that there is a need for pilots in the Arctic?
Mr. Michaud: I presume, as the Arctic becomes more developed, especially now for cruise ships, like the one that went there last summer, there may be that need. Unfortunately, that ship went aground. Obviously, in the very near future, a study should be done to assess what can be done to avoid a repetition of that kind of accident. Not only is the safety of lives a concern, there is also the issue of damage due to pollution in the Arctic.
In the very near future, more ships, especially foreign-going ships, will be venturing into the Arctic and accessing the Northwest passage. This should be a big concern for the Canadians.
The Chairman: As an expert, to what degree do believe the federal authority has responsibility? It is obvious that the number of attempted passages in those waters is increasing every year. Before we know it, 8 or 10 passages will be attempted during that very narrow window when passage is possible. Where will the pilots come from?
Will they be from the Canadian Coast Guard or from Fednav? I am hoping you will give a strong, even forceful opinion. Should we close the Arctic until such time as there is a body of qualified pilots to undertake this type of task, and I say that recognizing that it is out of your jurisdiction.
Perhaps you would prefer not to answer, and I would understand that. However, I am sure you understand our concern about this.
Mr. Michaud: Yes, I do. There are already some commercial ships using what we call "ice advisors". These people are ex-coast guards or ex-mariners who have spent much of their lives going up north with merchant ships. Ufortunately, some of them are newer comers in the area and are not qualified to perform this service. It should become compulsory to use an expert with local knowledge of the area. There are such groups of people around.
You mentioned using coast guard people. Some of them are very experienced mariners of the area. There are also master mariners from Canadian commercial ships with substantial experience in the north because they sail there throughout the summer.
There is a body of people who can be used, and it is just a question of making new regulations to cover the Arctic area, like some other areas already covered by compulsory pilotage waters.
The Chairman: Would this be covered by the Atlantic administration? Would you suggest setting up an Arctic pilotage administration and expect it to be self-sufficient?
Mr. Michaud: It could become another administration or, initially, it could be part of the Atlantic or the Laurentian administrations. Eventually, if there is enough traffic which warrants the creation of an independent administration, then that could be done. It will depend on the traffic that is going to use the Northwest passage.
The Chairman: Coming back into the river, is there growing pressure on the authority to allow more and more vessels to travel without pilots, and if so, is this a useful thing to do, or is it dangerous?
Mr. Michaud: There is some concern with regards to the Canadian fleet using the system. It is not so much the quality of people we supply to pilot the ship, it is the cost of supplying that service to the user. Some Canadian ships continually go up and down the river using pilots all the time, so at the end of the year, the pilotage bill amounts to a lot of money. It can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pilotage dues.
Since these companies are in competition with each other, they are trying to cut costs and one of the means to cut the costs is to reduce pilotage fees, and these ships try to proceed without pilots. I do not think that is the right solution. In fact, the administration is offering masters of Canadian ships the opportunity to pass an examination which will give them a certificate as opposed to a licence. A professional pilot will have a licence, but the master of a Canadian ship can sit for the certificate of pilotage, and in doing so, he becomes exempt from using the licensed pilot, so he can pilot his own ship.
Since 1987, we have had only 21 candidates apply for the certificate. Out of the 21 applicants, we have issued seven certificates. Thirteen of the 21 failed the first examination and did not pursue it. That is where the problem lies. They should continue. They should be convinced that, for them and the company, it will be more advantageous to continue and get their certificates.
We are now putting our emphasis on encouraging the Canadian ship owners to and their ship masters to pursue that career path. To me, that is the safest way to go about it, not full exemption of pilots.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: The Coast Guard is in the process of revising its budgets. Reductions to navigational aids are planned. Is this a source of concern for you? Do you believe that navigation will be as safe on the St. Lawrence as before or do you believe that there will be an increased need for pilots on this waterway?
Mr. Michaud: We are indeed quite concerned about the Canadian Coast Guard policy and about the fact that as of April 1, 1997, the plans are to reduce the number of floating aids by 25 per cent. Floating aids are essential to navigation. I am talking about buoys and other similar devices.
We conducted a study within our administration with the help of piloting authorities and we found that between 10 per cent and 12 per cent of these aids could be removed without affecting shipping safety in any way.
If in fact the Coast Guard follows through with its plans to remove up to 25 per cent of the floating aids, this means an immediate difference of at least 10 per cent which will affect navigation safety.
That being the case, the presence of pilots becomes even more important than before.
Senator Bacon: Nonetheless, other major safety factors affect ports and shipping traffic. Are you aware of any other factors that affect safety?
Mr. Michaud: As you know, Canada is a model for other countries in terms of piloting and the structure of its piloting authority. Even the Americans find our system well-structured. Moreover, our safety record is greatly admired by others, particularly by European and developing nations.
Have you read the West Coast report? The Pacific Piloting Authority has an average safety rating of 98 per cent or 99 per cent. Our safety rating for the Laurentian region has averaged between 98.5 per cent and 99.2 per cent over the last ten years.
We work closely with port authorities and with departments such as Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard. We work in teams in the region to ensure, along with shipowners, that all shipping safety measures are enforced.
Senator Bacon: Are recreational boaters a danger to you? Are they a threat to piloting operations on the St. Lawrence?
Mr. Michaud: There have been some difficult periods for us. I recall the year 1984 when the tall ships returned to Quebec. This was an exceptional year. We had a slightly more difficult time of it, but we nevertheless managed to ride it out with the cooperation of all organizations involved.
In 1997, however, the number of recreational boaters has declined as this is a fairly expensive sport and one that is not easy to indulge in on the St. Lawrence because of the currents, tides and so forth. It is not the same as boating off Pointe-au-Pic or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence where pleasure craft operators have much more room to manoeuvre. This activity has been restricted in the last five or ten years. The number of pleasure boats seems to have topped out, meaning that there are no more or no less of them, and they do not pose a serious threat to navigation or piloting operations.
Senator Bacon: Is your organization concerned about drug, alcohol or prescription medicine use? I hesitate to bring up the Exxon Valdez incident.
Mr. Michaud: We have a fairly structured disciplinary process in place. Pilots are monitored while on the job and when they board ship. The situation is vastly different than it was 25, 30 or 40 years ago when many cases of alcoholism were reported. The problem was more common back then.
In the past three or four years, there have been no more than one or two cases reported.
Senator Bacon: However, you do have monitoring mechanisms in place?
Mr. Michaud: Yes, we do.
Senator Bacon: And you monitor problem cases?
Mr. Michaud: Yes. Disciplinary action is taken as required.
Senator Bacon: Do you also offer rehabilitation programs?
Mr. Michaud: Yes, we do have measures to help people who have problems with alcohol. They need to get help, otherwise they would not be able to continue piloting ships.
Senator Bacon: And you can monitor their progress?
Mr. Michaud: Yes. Recently, we had a case similar to this and we turned to rehabilitation. The person in question is now back at work. He may be monitored more closely, but everything is going well.
Senator Rivest: What type of budget cuts and restrictions planned by the Canadian government would result in the ports of Sept-Îles and Trois-Rivières absorbing part of the piloting fees?
Mr. Michaud: The government wants to force the ports to pay for dredging operations. The Canadian Coast Guard is no longer willing to contribute to or to subsidize dredging costs like it has in the past years.
Senator Rivest: What exactly are we talking about here?
Mr. Michaud: Dredging the river bottom. A typical example is the North Traverse located approximately 15 nautical miles downstream of Quebec City which must be dredged every year at a cost of approximately $1 or $1.2 million. If ports like Quebec want to continue welcoming deep-draught ships, they will have to do something, because the government will no longer pay for these dredging operations.
Senator Rivest: The federal government?
Mr. Michaud: Yes, the federal government. This becomes a problem for users and for the port industry and it must be resolved. That is one example.
Mention was made earlier of reductions to navigational aids. Today, the focus is on floating aids, but tomorrow, other types such as electronic aids will be targeted.
Senator Bacon: If I understood correctly, you indicated that a reduction of 10 per cent or 12 per cent would be acceptable. Is that correct? Would a 25-per-cent cut be acceptable?
Mr. Michaud: No, it would not.
Senator Rivest: You talked about Canadian ships. When a foreign ship enters the Gulf of St. Lawrence, it is boarded by a pilot. Does the Canadian government bill for this service?
Mr. Michaud: Yes. The piloting authorities must be self- sufficient.
Senator Rivest: Have safety measures been increased recently rather than cut? Perhaps they could be increased.
Mr. Michaud: Perhaps they could be increased slightly.
Senator Rivest: Would it be possible to do more?
Mr. Michaud: We do not want to overcharge users.
Senator Rivest: Well, I am trying to save you money by limiting the cuts to 15 per cent instead of 25 per cent.
Senator Bacon: However this will result in job losses.
Senator Rivest: That is right. Since these proceedings began, we have heard that travel by plane, train, automobile and truck was dangerous. Boat travel would appear to be fairly safe. Is that correct?
Mr. Michaud: The safest mode of transportation is by boat.
Senator Rivest: Yes, but a boat will not take you everywhere.
Mr. Michaud: No, but this mode should be used to full advantage.
Senator Rivest: Is passenger transportation regulated differently? We know that shipping is a fairly well-regulated industry, but does international or local passenger travel or cruise ships pose any special problems for you?
Mr. Michaud: No, because international and national regulations come into play.
Senator Rivest: What about ferry services?
Mr. Michaud: The Québec-Lévis ferry.
Senator Rivest: Are you experiencing any problems with the Québec-Lévis or the Sorel-Saint-Ignace ferries?
Mr. Michaud: No.
[English]
The Chairman: If there are any problems in the pilotage, I would know about them.
Senator Adams: Are there any regulations which apply to foreign vessels entering the waters of the Arctic? Are they obliged to consult a pilotage authority before entering the area, or is any information regarding the area conveyed to them?
Mr. Michaud: The Arctic is not a compulsory pilotage area, so there are no regulations as far as pilotage is concerned. Only four areas within Canada have compulsory pilotage water. There are some on the Atlantic coast, the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and some areas on the Pacific coast. We have yet to decide what we are going to do with the Arctic.
Senator Adams: Does that mean any kind of ship, including tankers, can enter those waters?
Mr. Michaud: Yes.
Senator Adams: Without permission?
Mr. Michaud: Yes. They all report to their intention to enter Canadian waters to the Canadian authority. We know they are there, but there is no regulation as far as having compulsory pilots on the ships.
Senator Adams: The ship that ran aground in the Arctic was marooned there for a couple of weeks, and it had to be towed off the sandbar. Some of the passengers had to make other arrangements to return to their homes. Who would cover the expenses of, one, the towing and, two, the passengers' transportation costs?
Mr. Michaud: The ships will pay for the services it uses to get it out of the problem. We have the continuous presence of the Canadian Coast Guard ships in the summer months so, when one or more of their ships is used to go to the rescue, it is a cost to the Canadian taxpayers.
Senator Adams: My concern is with the increasing numbers of tourists who visit the north, some of them canoeing or kayaking in the rivers and the sea, and who end up in trouble. Often searches are mounted to rescue these people. I have heard it said that the Canadian Coast Guard, spends $250 million a year on search and rescue operations.
Mr. Michaud: Yes, I believe that is the case for the national organization.
Senator Adams: However, recently the policy has changed so that any foreigner going out on any kind of Arctic expedition has to put up a bond. Is this a regulation now?
Mr. Michaud: Yes, it is because that organization is under as much pressure as any other government agency to try to get cost recovery. They are trying to impose a bond to cover the costs in case something happens. Otherwise, it becomes a burden, or it could become a burden, to the Canadian government.
Senator Adams: What is the situation that applies to Canadians in other countries? Would we pay for a search and rescue operation, or would the other country pay for it?
Mr. Michaud: We could be liable, yes.
Senator Adams: I believe that situation applied to the sailor who was sailing around the world.
Mr. Michaud: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. I am glad you just dropped in.
We are pleased to welcome officials of Fednav Limited. Which is, perhaps, Canada's largest, and certainly one of our most efficient and capable shipping companies. It is one of those companies I point to with some pride and, if we were to measure Canadian flag ships and Canadian flag fleets, Fednav would certainly lead the way. I welcome you and we look forward to your presentation.
Mr. Jim Murray, Non-Executive Director, Fednav Limited: I retired from Fednav Limited on December 31, having been with the company for 30 years. I served as a vice-president for 25 years, and all the time I was with them I was responsible for the technical operation of the ships they own. I was also responsible for their operations until about 12 years ago, when I became responsible for their terminals. For 25 years, I have been a member of the executive counsel of the Shipping Federation, and although I don't speak officially for them today, the comments which I will make have been vetted by the Shipping Federation and have their endorsement. I see that Captain Ivan Lantz, their Marine Manager, is sitting behind me to ensure I stay with the text.
Fednav is, as you have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the largest Canadian owned international shipping company. We are headquartered in Montreal and, although we trade worldwide, our principal activity is steel from Europe into the Great Lakes, and grain back to Europe. We represent something between 40 and 43 per cent of the international traffic into the Great Lakes, and during the Great Lake season, we operate a fleet of between 70 and 80 bulk carriers, some of which we own, but the majority of which we charter from owners in many different countries.
I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are satisfied with the standards of safety required by the government. We believe that they have evolved sensibly, and provide regulations which protect the safety of crews, longshoremen and the environment. We do not find these requirements unreasonably burdensome, and we believe that they are sufficient to meet the standards which the government mandates and which the public expect.
I would like, however, to make one or two observations which might be of interest. As we have just heard, the Canadian Shipowners' Association are opposed to compulsory pilotage between Montreal and les Escoumins. We do not agree that river pilotage should become non-compulsory, but we do accept the system of pilotage certificates for ship officers as an alternative to full pilotage, as long as we can be assured that those in command of these ships are well qualified to pilot their ships in these waters, as ascertained by an examination by the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, and that the crews are not fatigued.
For example, they might be fatigued if they had just brought their ship from Lake Ontario to Montreal, which is a 30-hour passage of intense pilotage down the seaway. The certification process should guarantee the competence of the officers in the river, and the regulations should ensure that the officers are not fatigued.
Turning to the marine service fee, the industry has been looking at the services provided by the Coast Guard. It is clear to everyone that there are too many floating navigational aids. For years, the Coast Guard has been providing them in a quest for perfection without sufficient regard for cost-effectiveness. We have no problem with a reduction in the number of nav aids.
We also accept unmanned lighthouses. I have, for some time, believed that it is not even necessary to have a light on them, as long as they are equipped with strong radar reflectors.
Fednav welcomes port state inspections. Apart from considerations of safety of crews and the environment, if sub-standard ships competing with us are removed from the oceans, this is in our interest. While we have not had a problem, I am aware that there has been strong criticism of the way in which port state inspections have been carried out in remote ports such as Sept-Îles and Port Cartier.
Quebec Cartier Mining have been vocal in their criticism. They tell me that owners become aware of this problem and are reluctant to come to Port Cartier and Sept-Îles, or demand a premium on the rate. The problem is that these inspections are carried out by young, inexperienced surveyors from Transport Canada who come on board looking for deficiencies.That is their job.
The criticism is that they do not always differentiate between a major defect and a minor one, and although that seems to be improving, I heard about an incident late last summer. A Greek friend of mine, who is a first-class and responsible shipowner, had his ship, Standard Virtue, inspected at Port Cartier. Some deficiencies were found which he considered to be of a minor nature.
The ship had to be moved to Sept-Îles for repair, which consisted of welding new strips of steel, totalling 0.6 tons, six tenths of a ton of steel. For this, the cost to him was around $90,000. Had the ship undergone these repairs in a shipyard in Greece, he estimates the cost would have been $10,000. In addition, his ship was delayed for five days which is equivalent to a further loss of $35,000.
Sept-Iles has few ship repairers and the remoteness discourages bringing in repairers from Quebec or moving the ship there. This ship owner considers this to be unreasonable, and he is unwilling to expose himself to such further treatment; he is reluctant to send his ships to Sept-Îles or Port Cartier in the future.
The answer, Mr. Chairman, is to provide better training and on the job experience for inspectors before putting them to work. I read in the transcripts of your hearings in British Columbia that Captain Flotre, of the B.C. Coast Pilots, advocated severe penalties for owners of ships detained for port state inspection deficiencies. I think this is unnecessary. The delays suffered by these ships are sufficient penalty.
Remember that a Panamax vessel is worth, $7,000 U.S. to $15,000 U.S. per day, depending on the market, and cape size bulk carriers can be worth $10,000 to $20,000 per day.
Mr. Wayne Sargent of the ILWU, in Vancouver, took a swipe at all flags of convenience. This was an unsupportable generalization. While there are ships which are sub-standard, registered in some of the open registers, it is wrong to state that all open-registered ships are substandard.
For the 10 years, from 1985 until 1994, the Liberian fleet, which was either the largest or the second largest in the world, consistently had an insurance loss record better than the world average rate, and better than many well-known national flags.
Mr. Sargent went on to deplore the trend of the government to lessen safety by delegating safety to classification societies. I disagree with him. I see no move by the government to delegate this, nor do I think it would necessarily lower the standard. On the contrary, it would probably improve as, generally, the society surveyors are of a higher standard.
When I came to Canada 30 years ago, the government was talking about dropping the requirement of having the Canadian steamship inspection classify all Canadian ships and, instead, accepting inspections by a classification society. The rest of the world, other than the United States, does this. Thirty years later, nothing has happened, and they are still talking about it, so I do not see any move to delegate safety to classification societies.
Mr. Chairman, I read in Vancouver that you had questioned why there was no northern pilotage authority, and a few months ago, I had to refer to it again. I would suggest that this is due to there being relatively little traffic in the Arctic, and not enough to justify a bureaucracy.
As pilots are available from entrepreneurial groups, the pilots do not help much with the actual navigation of our ships, as navigation in the waters, at least in the Eastern high Arctic, is relatively easy with lots of deep water. These men are invaluable because of their experience sailing through ice.
We employ these ice advisors to assist the masters of our foreign crewed ships. They teach the officers the skills of sailing through ice and the value of patience, and they stand a watch to allow the masters to rest. We also employ these ice advisors in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the winter.
Of course, we frequently rely on ice-breaker support in the High Arctic and we are concerned by the government's cutting costs by reducing the number of ice-breakers available to support commercial shipping in the High Arctic.
The mines at Little Cornwallis Island and Nanisivik were developed with the understanding that commercial shipping exporting the concentrates would be supported by coast guard ice-breakers at no cost to the shippers.
One of the six ice-breakers which used to work in the Eastern High Arctic has already been withdrawn, and we understand that further reductions are planned, which would increase the risk of a marine casualty in this most environmentally sensitive area.
Finally, I have a criticism of the time taken by the Marine Accident Investigation Board to issue their reports. The Olympic Merit, a bulk carrier on charter to us, left the seaway channel and grounded off Dorval on Christmas Eve 1995. There were no injuries. She was refloated three days later. Now, 14 months later, the report has still not been published. Some five years ago, the Malinska, also on charter to us, went aground in Lake Ontario. There were no injuries. That report took over two years.
Mr. Chairman, if we are to learn something from these accidents, we should learn it sooner.
The Chairman: I appreciate your comment regarding the difference between pilots and ice advisors. I would only remind you that a cruise ship did run aground in the north.
Senator Bacon: Mr. Murray, what do you see any cost advantages or disadvantages if the Canadian Coast Guard takes charge of navigation aid systems, vessel traffic services and vessel inspection services?
Mr. Murray: I think that there is a lot of fat that could quite easily be cut away. The Coast Guard has tried to provide a perfect service without much consideration for cost-effectiveness, so I think that there are margins that could quite safely be reduced.
Senator Bacon: You do not seem concerned about the issues concerning lighthouses. We heard deep concerns expressed about that in Vancouver. Can everybody operate without them?
Mr. Murray: I think everybody does operate without them, the truth be known. Almost every ship, from cruise liners down to fishing boats, all have radars. All our ships must have two radars, and the days of relying on a flashing light, I think, have passed. If there were a strong radar reflector on each tower, I think that would be more than adequate.
Senator Bacon: Are they still important from the weather aspect?
Mr. Murray: I do not have much experience in that regard. I have certainly never heard that expressed as being a problem in Eastern Canada. I read the transcript of the hearings on the West Coast and it seems to be more important there.
Senator Bacon: Much depends on where the lighthouses are located.
Mr. Murray: I think the difference between east and west is that there is much more coastal traffic in Western Canada, such as tugs and barges, which we do not have in Eastern Canada. The ships in Eastern Canada are not so vulnerable to bad weather. I do understand the concern of the tug and barge people on the West Coast, but there may be other ways to resolve the issue.
Senator Adams: Mr. Murray, I believe you are quite familiar with the High Arctic. You mentioned the mines at Little Cornwallis Island and Nanisivik. I think the mined material goes directly to Europe and that may be why the Coast Guard was cutting back on the services it offers. Most of the vessels in the area carry ore from those mines.
Mr. Murray: We have contracts, Senator, to lift concentrates from Little Cornwallis and Nanisivik, and 95 per cent of that goes to Europe. As to the chips that come in, there is the Canadian flag, NV Arctic and the other ships we use are foreign flag ships. These ships are all ice-strengthened, but from time to time, particularly at the beginning and the end of the season, we require assistance from ice-breakers.
Senator Adams: You say the government is cutting back services yet some of those ships, you say, belong to Canadian ship owners.
Mr. Murray: All the concentrates that move out of the High Eastern Arctic are carried by our company, some on one Canadian flag ship, the rest on foreign flag ships.
Senator Adams: You still depend on the Coast Guard icebreakers to enable your ships to go there. Did you say the icebreakers only go in therein August?
Mr. Murray: Our ships are ice-strengthened, so they can go in earlier than that. The NV Arctic can go in in June. It can actually go into Nanisivik in May.
Senator Adams: With the support of the Coast Guard ice-breakers?
Mr. Murray: Yes.
Senator Adams: With no support, what is the earliest date they could go there?
Mr. Murray: There is a six-week window in summer when, normally speaking, as far as Nanisivik and Little Cornwallis are concerned, there is no ice; but from time to time the wind changes and ice comes in, so it is useful to have an ice-breaker around.
Our ships are all heavily ice-strengthened. We have no difficulty going in in the middle of the summer but, for the early and the late voyages, then ice-breaker support is necessary. The Coast Guard North used to have six ice-breakers working up north, but now they have five.
I understand that the supply ship that was to go to Grise Fjord last summer could not get in, and one of the reasons was there was no ice-breaker to help her at that particular time. All the cargo had to be flown in, presumably from Resolute.
Senator Adams: It would have been flown in from Resolute Bay or Yellowknife. Both are a long distance from Nanisivik. If the government cuts back on its icebreaking services it may hurt those two mining companies.
Just as a matter of interest, the ice around Grise Fjord sometimes does not break up even in the summertime.
Mr. Murray: For the last 10 years or so, we have always been able to lift our contracted quantities. I do not think that the reduction from six to five icebreakers will endanger that, but I think that any progressive reduction might cause a problem.
Senator Adams: You mentioned earlier that many foreign vessels sail in those waters and there should be no real concern because the waters are deep enough, as long as they know where they are going.
Mr. Murray: Yes, it is actually relatively easy but, although they are foreigners, they are very good seamen and navigators. They are highly skilled and well trained. Just because they are foreigners does not mean that they are below acceptable standards.
Senator Adams: My concern was an environmental one if any type of shipping can have safe access to that area.
Mr. Murray: Yes.
Senator Adams: Are the current government regulations adequate to cover the movement of vessels in the Arctic?
Mr. Murray: The Coast Guard North keeps a very close watch on what is going on in the High Arctic. I do not know what caused that that small passenger ship to go aground last summer. She may have been off course; she may have been pushed by ice; or she may have had a breakdown. I do not know the actual circumstances.
Senator Adams: There was no ice.
The Chairman: Is that another case of a late report?
Mr. Murray: This one might have been more complicated.
Senator Adams: Do you have any concerns about the safe shipping of ore out of Voisey Bay?
Mr. Murray: I think the ice conditions in winter at Voisey Bay are very severe, and only ships of the highest ice class will be able to get in there in February, March and April. I think the current regulations of the Coast Guard are sufficient to protect the environment.
The Chairman: I am pleased to hear the comment about Voisey Bay because it is some matter of concern as to whether or not there would be an attempt to do massive stockpiling or to extend the season somewhat.
Can you look ahead 10 or 15 years and tell us what you think vessels might be capable of from a safety point of view?
Mr. Murray: Presently, an international committee is working to revise the rules. We are talking about ships of high ice class.
The Chairman: Yes, but but I am also talking about critical communications, wires encased in tubes of water, for example, to retard melt-down and the breakdown of communications which, in more than one instance in the past, has led to panic and misunderstanding as to the nature and location of a fire on board. I am double bottoms and paint lockers encased in water, all the things that the SIU, for example, has been talking about for 50 years.
Mr. Murray: Yes, that is quite an extensive question. There is a committee sitting at present, revising the rules for construction of high ice class ships. The Canadian Coast Guard are represented on that committee. One of our young men has been assigned to work with the Coast Guard, and they are meeting with the Scandinavians and the Russians to try to come up with new rules for ice class tonnage. I think that the ships of the future will look very much like the ships today. However, the details of construction may change.
They will all, of course, have double bottoms. For high-ice class in the Arctic you now require double skin in certain compartments. You will find characteristics like carrying fuel in protected tanks, so that if there was ice penetration from the outer hull, there would be no fuel spill.
As far as communications are concerned, they have improved immeasurably in the last 20 years. The satellites have made life very much easier. We have no problems these days in communicating with our ships in the High Arctic.
On the question of things like paint lockers, there was that bad fire on the Hull Company ship some years ago, involving paint in a cabin. That is less a question of regulation, that it is a question of crew training. Any reasonable crew of experienced, well-trained sailors would never have had paint in a paint locker in the middle of the accommodation. It was bad housekeeping and bad seamanship.
One of the problems is that the Canadian Coast Guard has reacted to situations which were caused by badly trained crews. The solution is not to provide more regulations, but to provide better training and better discipline.
The Chairman: Can you touch on the level of training in Canada and tell us perhaps how it is carried out nowadays? Is it satisfactory to the end-users?
Mr. Murray: I have very little experience in that field, because only two of our ships are Canadian flag. As you know, there are colleges in Newfoundland, Rimouski and Ontario as well as on the West Coast where young men are trained.
I believe the training is good. Certainly I see some young men coming from these colleges and looking for jobs on foreign ships in order to get in sea time to qualify for their certificates. These men get good reports. Some I have met have been very impressive.
One of the problems is that Canada, as a nation, does not have a great heritage for deep sea operation, and we are inclined to provide crews adequate for our coastal work, but for nothing greater.
Senator Adams: Are you satisfied with the safety equipment on board these ships going into, say, Grise Fjord? Sometimes these ships are unloaded by people from the south who are not familiar with tidal changes or how to handle certain dangerous cargo. I remember in Iqaluit, a couple of years ago, a ship which was carrying dynamite caught fire. The ship was grounded when the tide went out and then the fire broke out.
Mr. Murray: There are two types of shipping in the Eastern Arctic. Small Canadian ships resupply Iqaluit, Grise Fjord and other communities. The handling of any dangerous cargo should be done in accordance with Coast Guard regulations. As far as fire equipment goes, these ships would have hand foam fire extinguishers and hoses, and that is all.
The other type of ships going to the high Arctic are bulk carriers. Again they would have hand-held fire extinguishers and hoses for spraying sea water, but that would be all they would have. The record shows that, apart from that incident in Iqaluit, there have been very few incidences of fires.
Senator Adams: What happened was that some ships has to move away from the burning vessel. Some of them complained because they had to go out four or five miles to be safe.
Mr. Murray: I think that is apocryphal.
Senator Adams: I heard complaints that, as a result of that fire, when tankers were in the bay other ships had to stay out a certain distance and could miss the tide for unloading their cargo.
Mr. Murray: That should not be necessary. After all, tankers discharge aviation fuel in Montreal every day of the week.
The Chairman: What is the largest class ice-breaker we have operating in the Arctic nowadays?
Mr. Murray: The Louis St-Laurent is the largest.
The Chairman: Is she class 7 or 8?
Mr. Murray: I do not know. Perhaps Captain Lantz could answer that question.
The Chairman: I wanted him to come up here an hour ago, but he is shy.
Captain Ivan Lantz, Manager, Marine Operations, The Shipping Federation of Canada: I do not know what we call her, in terms of ice class, but she is certainly a 1,300 class. She has over 2,300 horsepower. She is the biggest and best thing Canada has as far as handling Arctic ice is concerned. The next one down would be the Terry Fox.
Senator Adams: In 1953 I sailed in the C. D. Howe up to Churchill. I heard that vessel had been sold to mining company. Do you know what happened to that ship?
Mr. Murray: I remember the C.D. Howe and I remember her being on the market for sale about 15 years ago. I imagine she has been scrapped by now.
The Chairman: We very much appreciate your assistance in this and wide-ranging subject, that of safety in transportation. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Wilkens from the Tire Retread Information Bureau, as well as from Mr. Dunn from the Oliver Rubber Company.
Mr. Harvey Brodsky, Managing Director, Tire Retread Information Bureau: The Tire Retread information Bureau is an a non-profit, member-supported, international association dedicated to promoting the use of retreaded tires worldwide, most especially in North America. We do that through providing information about retreaded tires to the motoring public, government agencies, and trucking companies.
I have with me a document that I believe you have all had an opportunity to see. May I read it?
The Chairman: Certainly.
Mr. Brodsky: I may deviate a little from it. I appreciate this opportunity to address this Senate of Canada committee on behalf of our Canadian members. We presently represent close to 30 Canadian retread plants, or over 30 per cent of all retread related companies in Canada.
The Canadian retread industry has much to be proud of. For more years than most can remember, retreading has saved Canadian motorists, both commercial and public sector fleets, as well as private passenger motorists, many millions of dollars, and has greatly contributed to helping control the scrap tire problem which exists everywhere.
As an aside, I would mention that "I walk the talk". I drive on retreaded tires, and nothing but retreaded tires, and have been doing so for 25 years, and I am alive and well to tell the story.
Furthermore, retreaded tires are environmentally friendly. Since tires contain a large percentage of synthetic rubber, which is petroleum based, every time a tire is retreaded, Canada's dependence on imported oil is reduced. During the course of the year, more than 40 million gallons of oil is saved for Canada, or over 400 million gallons for North America.
Yet, our industry suffers from an image problem, caused primarily by serious misperceptions, and that is exactly what they are: misperceptions. The cause of these misperceptions can be attributed to one factor: tire debris on our highways. Allow me to digress. I am certainly wearing the newest clothing in this room, because all of my clothes were lost on the airline last night, so I had to go out and outfit myself, but more importantly than the garments I am wearing, I had my friend, Guido, the alligator, and he travels with me everywhere I go, and I am very sorry that Guido cannot be here. He is a great big, ugly piece of rubber that I picked up on a highway some years ago, and if I were to throw Guido down on the floor, most everyone would say, "See that's what we mean? There is another retread." In fact, Guido is from a new tire, as is much of the rubber that we see on our highways. Rubber on the road litters highways and creates driving hazards, but you may be surprised to learn that much of this rubber debris comes from tires that have never been retreaded. These are new tires that have come apart. What causes this unsightly and dangerous problem? The answer is: tire abuse, pure and simple.
Tires that are abused will fail, whether they are new or retreaded. Under inflation is the major cause of failure. Other causes are overloading, mismatching of dual tires on an axle, and the failure of trucks to stop when they know that a tire is beginning to go flat.
If any one of were driving your automobile and a tire was beginning to go flat, your vehicle would begin to handle erratically, and you would have no choice but to stop and change your tire, whether it is raining, snowing or 110 degrees outside. Everyone in the room would agree that we just do not continue driving a passenger vehicle when it has a flat tire.
However, if a driver of an 18-wheeler senses the beginning of a tire problem, he knows that, except for his front steer tires, all the other tires on his truck are on dual axles and it is not necessary to stop immediately, especially when there is a truck stop a few miles down the road. Most truckers are conscientious and they do stop. However, even if the trucker calls the depot, the first questions they will ask is, "How far are you from a truck stop? Can you limp in? Go ahead and take it in." More often than not, the trucker will proceed to the truck stop. After all, the truck has 17 other tires to keep it going.
The truck continues down the highway. The problem tire, which may not be a retread, it might have been a brand new tire which, unfortunately, was driven over a spike or had a defective valve, is the tire that begins to overheat and finally disintegrates, throwing rubber debris all over the highway.
Sadly, the driver right behind that trucker turns to his wife and, more often than not, says, "Look at that. There is another retread", to which she responds, "Yes, there ought to be a law against those things. We ought to call our representative and see what we can do."
The tire debris task force, a group representing trucking companies, retreaders, trucking and tire industry associations, new tire manufacturers and the U.S. government agencies, recently picked up and analyzed 1,070 pieces of tire debris along U.S. highways. To have as fair a test as possible, they were picked up at nine separate locations, different road conditions, different road temperatures, and only 11 pieces, or approximately 1 per cent of the pieces, could be attributed to retread failure, and by that, I mean manufacturing defects of retreads.
Our industry has much data to substantiate the fact that retreaded tires are not the prime cause of rubber on the road. I might add that the national average, in any country, for retreaded tire failure due to manufacturing defects, parallels the national average in any country for new tire failure because of manufacturing defects. Retreaded tires do not fail at a greater rate than new tires and again, we have lots of data to substantiate this.
The evidence pointing to the safety, reliability, economic and environmental advantages of retreaded tires is just overwhelming. Tens of millions of retreaded tires are safely travelling along Canadian highways as we speak.
In my business I tend to look at tires as I walk along. Recently I happened to be bending down at the wheels of a Canada Post vehicle and the fellow put his head out and asked, "Is there something wrong?" I was looking at his tires to ascertain whether they were retreads. I was very pleased to see they were. It is good to know that the Canadian government is saving money by using retreaded tires on their postal vehicles.
School buses, emergency vehicles, airlines, military vehicles, commercial and public sector trucking fleets and millions of passenger vehicles worldwide save money and help the environment by using retreaded tires.
I believe the focus of your attention today has to do with truck tires. One of the largest passenger tire retread companies in North America is in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. It is a very fine company by the name of Eastern Tire Service. I might add that the next set of tires on my car will be from Eastern Tire Service.
To hamper the use of retreads would be a severe disservice to motorists and taxpayers throughout Canada.
The retread industry shares your concern about tire safety and rubber on the road, but we must place the blame where it belongs: on improper tire maintenance. We must also take steps to educate the motoring public about the importance of proper tire maintenance.
On behalf of all Canadian retreaders, the International Tire and Rubber Association and the Tire Retread Information Bureau, we stand ready to help.
I have been invited to be a featured speaker at a conference to be held by Clemson University, School of Business, in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, in March. I would like to read to you the presentation I have prepared for that conference because it addresses the issue from a different point of view. There I will be addressing people in the tire industry
The title of my talk, which I will give on March 7, is: "Do Retreaded Tires Really Make Sense? and What About all That Rubber on the Road?" Please bear in mind that my speech was prepared for the Clemson conference. I will open by saying that, to a large measure, my presentation today is like preaching to the choir. Although there may be a few exceptions, most everyone in this room and a 100 per cent of those in the tire industry know that all tires manufactured by reputable manufacturers can easily withstand more than one life.
In fact, no reputable manufacturer of truck tires or aircraft tires would dream of producing a new tire that was not designed to be retreaded multiple times. Look at the tire ads in trucking magazines, or read the manufacturers' brochures. They will always mention the fact that their tires are designed to be retreaded.
The retreadability of any tire assumes, of course, that the tire has not been seriously abused by improper maintenance during its first life. Under inflation, overloading, mismatching of tires on dual wheel positions, running at excessive speeds, failing to stop when a tire begins to lose air, these are some of the causes that will probably prevent a worn tire from passing the initial inspection prior to being retreaded for a second or subsequent life.
One only has to turn to private trucking fleets to prove my point. Practically every major private trucking fleet in the world routinely uses retreaded tires. In fact, the better the tire record keeping program the fleet has, the more certain you can be that they use retreads. Why? Because when one examines the economic benefits of retreads and the failure rate of retreads versus new tires -- virtually no different when top quality retreads are combined with a proper tire maintenance program -- it becomes a "no-brainer".
Fleets know that retreads can save as much as two-thirds of the cost of a new tire and will usually offer comparable mileage and sometimes even more than the original tread without compromising safety or performance.
When the unit savings is multiplied by thousands or tens of thousands of times every year, we are talking about serious money. Fleets who keep good records know this. Why then do not all fleets use retreaded tires? It is not because certain applications only lend themselves to new tires. I cannot think of a single application where retreads will not perform as well as new tires, but the one thing retreads cannot do is the impossible.
By this, I mean retreads cannot stand up to abuse. If a retread is subjected to constant abuse such as under inflation, overloading or any of the other causes I mentioned above, the retread is probably going to fail, and when it does it can very often damage the vehicle -- if the tread is thrown at a great speed -- or it can lead to what we call the "$500 truck stop", which is more expensive than trying to limp into the truck stop a few miles down the road.
As an aside, we are assuming that the fleet I am talking about is using a properly manufactured retread processed by a reputable dealer and carrying the correct tread design for the application. Cheap retreads and cheap new tires will remind the user, the hard way, that you get what you pay for. I just said that retreads cannot do the impossible and I told you why they usually fail, but do you know what? So will new tires. I repeat, "So will new tires".
To blame a tire, whether it is a retread or a new tire, for a failure caused by improper maintenance, is the same as blaming a vehicle for an accident caused by a drunk driver.
Before I get into the final part of my talk which will be about rubber on the road and its causes, I want to briefly mention the environmental advantages that retreads offer.
In addition to keeping tires out of landfills, every tire that is retreaded is one less tire to be landfilled or otherwise disposed of. Retreads also save the world many hundreds of millions of gallons of oil every year. Tires are petroleum based and, every time a passenger tire is retreaded, approximately 4.5 gallons of oil is saved. A truck retread saves approximately 15 gallons.
Although they may look round and black, retreads are one of the "greenest" or environmentally friendly recycled products you will ever see. This is why the U.S. government Environmental Protection Agency has issued a guideline for government fleets to use retreads, why the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive actively promotes the use of retreads, and why President Clinton signed Executive Order 12873, mandating the use of retreads on government owned vehicles.
Let us talk about rubber on the road, the tire debris we all see littering our highways. We, in the retread industry, know that rubber on the road is largely caused by all the improper tire maintenance problems I cited earlier. The tire debris task force has begun an ongoing education program aimed at truckers to help them understand the importance of proper tire inflation on a regular basis.
Our organization, the Tire Retread Information Bureau, is also involved in trying to educate the motoring public through our Don't thump 'em. Pump 'em program. We have distributed many thousands of our Don't thump 'em. Pump 'em labels for use on truck dashboards, and we will continue to distribute them to truckers through trucking magazines and at future trucking shows.
We have also begun a program of conducting seminars for highway patrol agencies through the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and I might add that this is a group that operates throughout Canada as well as the States. To date, we have conducted training sessions on proper tire maintenance for the California Highway Patrol, and will be conducting a training for the Utah Highway Patrol in March. We will continue to offer this service to the highway patrols of all states and provinces in North America at no cost to them.
Sadly, too many people consider retreaded tires to be the Rodney Dangerfields of the tire industry, and for those of us who know Rodney, we know that Rodney likes to say, "I don't get no respect." Our goal is to change this perception. If we do -- and we will -- all users of tires will benefit greatly.
My colleagues and I would be happy to try to answer your questions.
The Chairman: Yesterday we heard from the Rubber Association of Canada whose comments, incidentally, were very much in defence of retreads for the same reasons you have enunciated. They told us that the state of the art is quite sophisticated, and a good retread plant is a very costly investment because it requires very sophisticated X-ray equipment. You said you represent about 30 retread companies. How many would employ that level of sophisticated equipment?
Mr. Brodsky: Mr. Wilkens and Mr. Dunn represent two of the largest retread organizations in the world, so they would be pleased to answer your question.
Mr. George Wilkins, Vice-President, Bandag Canada Ltd.: Bandac Canada has 57 dealers coast to coast in Canada, 45 of which have ultrasonic inspection capabilities.
Mr. Bob Dunn, Division Manager, Oliver Rubber Company, Standard Products (Canada) Ltd: We have 24 locations. Currently, seven have ultrasonic casing inspection capabilities, with five more machines currently under installation. The major trucking fleets are demanding that tires be processed with ultrasonic. These are the greatest, most modern, electronic detection devices available. This testing is being dictated by the end-user or the fleets.
The Chairman: What percentage of your production is done by your 45 plants? You have 57 plants, 45 of which are equipped with this machinery. What percentage of your total retread business would those 45 plants do?
Mr. Wilkins: I would guess between 80 and 85 per cent.
The Chairman: It is significantly more than your plants which do not have this eqipment.
Mr. Wilkins: Absolutely, yes. It is the smaller shops that do not have the ultrasonic capability.
The Chairman: Smaller by volume, you mean?
Mr. Wilkins: Yes, absolutely.
The Chairman: Would that also apply to your plants, Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn: Yes, generally.
Mr. Wilkins: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and the Hercules Retreading Company are not represented here today, but I would estimate that they have similar numbers. I know Goodyear has ultrasonic capability in most of its company shops.
The Chairman: I assume you do not have the type of shop where the ordinary driver or customer could walk in and ask you to retread his tires.
Mr. Brodsky: No, sir. That is known as custom retreading, and that is a thing of the past. We all remember many years ago when retreading was not at all sophisticated to the degree that it is today.
The Chairman: Can I buy a set of Michelin retreads for a passenger vehicle?
Mr. Brodsky: You might be able to. A retreading plant, to address the issue in the focus of pssenger, will only retread those tires that are suitable for a second life. Tires are very carefully inspected. Approximately 85 per cent of passenger tires that go into a retread plant are rejected because they have either been run flat, run underinflated -- which passenger vehicles are notorious for -- they might have been curbed, or something else may have happened to that tire which renders it unsuitable for a second life.
If you tried to have your own tires custom retreaded, the problem would be that, perhaps, only two of your four tires would pass the initial inspection and then, later on in the process, as they buffed off the old rubber, they might find that only one tire is retreadable. You would be a very unhappy customer if that happened. Retread companies will normally ask you to buy a set of retreads, knowing that the tires you are buying have passed a very rigid inspection, and are suitable for a second life.
The Chairman: I am one of those people who is frequently on the road between Ottawa and Halifax. On one of my trips, I watched as a tire seemed to engulf a little Volkswagen. The lady driving that car demonstrated extraordinary skill and presence of mind to keep from flipping, because the car was bucking and jumping. How she ever manoeuvred it to the side of the road and stopped, I do not know. The truck kept right on going.
A couple of weeks ago, driving down through the United States in wet weather, I ran into the usual difficulty, when passing trucks, of not being able to see and wondering whether I would make it. One of the trucks I passed had splash rails, which resulted in the visibility being much better and me feeling much safer. Have you ever considered guard rails or splash rails being designed and used to capture or trap the rubber from exploding tires under the truck?
Mr. Brodsky: That is an interesting idea.
The Chairman: It might save some lives.
Incidentally, I am tempted to ask you, when you were down on your hands and knees looking at that postal truck, did it occur to you that that truck is never driven over 30 kilometres an hour?
Mr. Brodsky: I am aware of that.
The Chairman: Those retreads will last forever. I am just being facetious.
Senator Adams: I appreciate your comments about the environmental advantages of using retreaded tires.
However, yesterday we heard of the dangers of tires exploding at high temperatures. Are retreaded tires more susceptible to that happening than are new tires? Have you done any studies in that regard?
Mr. Brodsky: To my knowledge, there is no difference. The safety factors of a retreaded tire, under any circumstances, are exactly the same as new tires.
However, just as one can buy a cheap pair of eye glasses or shoes, one can buy a cheap tire, a new tire. We see them advertised in our newspapers. You could buy a retreaded tire that might not have been processed by a reputable manufacturer. I would not want to defend the retread industry and insult your intelligence and say that every single retread ever made is made by a reputable manufacturer. That is not the case. The great majority are made by reputable manufacturers. I think we do, throughout North America, an excellent job in policing ourselves as an industry, and the best policeman we have is the consumer, because trucking companies are very careful how they spend their money.
I like to cite two instances or organizations who would not use retreaded tires if it would harm their business. These are two organizations that live and die on reliability. That is all they have to sell. One is UPS and the other is Federal Express. They are both major users of retreaded tires. They also use them on their over-the-road vehicles as well, for long distances.
From a pure dollar-and-cent point of view, if retreaded tires were keeping the packages from being delivered on time, they would drop them like a hot potato because, after all it, would harm their business. That is not the case. They embrace them because they know that retreaded tires are as reliable as new tires. It is proven to them every day, and it saves them an absolute fortune which is reflected in the cost of the services they provide.
It is the same as buying an airline ticket. If airlines did not use retreads, and they do -- all airlines in the world use them routinely -- the price of an airline ticket would be considerably higher. They have short stopping distances. They hit the ground at 200 miles an hour and they must stop that vehicle in a few hundred yards and they will "scrub" a lot of rubber off. If retreads were not safe, they would not use them.
Senator Adams: I remember the fire in Hagersville, Ontario about 10 years ago and the difficulty of bringing that fire under control. Are large incinerators still used to dispose of used tires? I have heard that certain states in the U.S. are burning tires for fuel. Is that happening here? I am concerned about the environmental impact of burning tires. How does the system work now?
Mr. Wilkins: Unfortunately, the Government of Ontario prohibits the use of burning tires for fuel, and all of the tires in Ontario now are being exported to Pennsylvania and New York state where they are going into cement kilns. It is unfortunate that the Ontario government does not allow the use of tire derived fuel. However, it is being done in other provinces. Tires are now being recycled. These are mostly passenger tires, and they are being used in cement kilns. Large tire dumps and storage areas are quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Senator Adams: Is the one in B.C. still operating?
Mr. Wilkins: I believe B.C. is recycling tires, burning them for cement kiln use. Certainly, that is the case in Alberta, and I believe B.C. I believe that is happening in every province in Canada, except Ontario. The Ontario tires are going to the U.S. to be burnt, so this province has no large depots of used tires.
Some of it is being used in asphalt, as well. Some in other things like mud flaps and floor mats. There is certainly a recycling component to scrapped tires.
Senator Adams: Did you sell the 40 million gallons of oil that was retrieved from tires to the oil companies?
Mr. Brodsky: I like to say that we are the doctors, we keep the patient alive. Eventually, however, all patients die and they go to our friends, the undertakers, the scrapped tire people. They do various things, as Mr. Wilkens said, from grinding them for carpet underlay to burning them in cement kilns. Our job, however, is to keep the patient alive.
Picture a juggler. He always has one ball in the air. As long as we continue to retread, and if retreading stays at least at the same level as it is now, we can keep tires out of landfills indefinitely, and that is very important because the landfill problem is a major problem throughout the world.
Senator Bacon: Where would a customer who is not happy with his retread tires go? Would he lodge a complaint with the Consumers' Bureau and would it then be passed on to you?
Mr. Brodsky: If it were me, I would go back to the tire dealer and explain why I was unhappy. In my experience a reputable dealer would be able to handle your complaint to your satisfaction. If not, then I would go to whatever regulatory agency oversees that dealer and try to get satisfaction. A reputable dealer wants to have your business the next time, and that will not happen if he does not keep you happy.
The Chairman:Thank you very much, gentlemen. I wish you well in your speech, Mr. Brodsky.
The committee adjourned.