Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 17, 1997
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 12:15 p.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are resuming hearings on the question of safety and security of transportation in Canada. We have with us today witnesses from the Canadian Trucking Association. We welcome your presence here today.
You will probably be aware that this committee had its genesis in a suggestion by Senator Keith Davey some two and a half years ago. He suggested that we take a look at the question of truck safety on highways. One thing led to another and we are now looking at safety generally. The members of the committee have been looking forward to having you with us because you, indeed, are the cause of our being in existence.
Mr. Bélanger, I will ask you to introduce your colleagues and to make an opening statement, after which we will ask you some questions.
Gilles Bélanger, President, Canadian Trucking Association: Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Graham Cooper, General Manager, and Michèle LeBlanc, Director, Research.
We appreciate the opportunity to bring to you the viewpoint of the 2,000 motor carriers that we represent, as well as some facts and figures to illustrate the state of safety as it pertains to the Canadian trucking industry. We have submitted to this subcommittee a brief, copies of two pertinent publications, entitled, Trucking in Canada, A Profile, and Straight Talk on Fatigue & Alertness, as well as a copy of the Technical Information Series bulletin for November 1996. We will not be reading the entire submission into the record but we will address the most important elements of it. We would also be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
We have had an opportunity to read over the transcripts of the sessions held so far. I suppose we are not really surprised at the amount of truck bashing in which some interveners have indulged before the committee. It is true that we, too, can sit back and enjoy truck bashing, if so inclined, but the reality of Canadian life is such that if Canada were to implement many of the recommendations presented to you, the Canadian economy would be in a shambles, unemployment would skyrocket and businesses would move south, to name but a few of the consequences.
The so-called big trucks, heavy trucks and long trucks are an integral part of the current success of the Canadian economy, as trucks carry the vast majority of trade, which has been responsible for our recent economic growth. Any of the added costs to truck transportation would jeopardize the sustainability of such growth because thin margins prevent the absorption of these increased costs.
To some people, the trucking industry can do no right. The entire trucking industry is assumed to operate with blatant disregard for the safety of its drivers, its equipment and other drivers on the road. This sad misperception is unfortunately fuelled and funded by interest groups more interested in modal competition, or in generating fear in the public than in the safety and well-being of Canadians.
On the whole, Canadian motor carriers have an enviable record of safety. Their drivers are professionals. They do a stellar job, not only delivering their loads safely and on time, but also safeguarding the safety and well-being of other road users. Unfortunately, a few dramatic incidents, as well as a minority of unsafe operators, are giving the entire industry undeserved negative publicity.
Safe carriers are tired of having to compete with these corner-cutting operators. This subcommittee and the CTA have a common goal. That goal is to rid the roads of unsafe operators. We will present to you today a plan to achieve this goal that is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is one which will help bolster a safer trucking industry, the backbone of Canadian trade and prosperity.
Trucking is the lifeline of our nation's economy. Trucking directly employs over 200,000 people. A truck in Canada contributes an average of $20,000 to $25,000 per year in taxes, not including income taxes, while combination vehicles contribute as much as $40,000 per year.
According to a 1994 Transport Canada report, the trucking industry is taxed an average of 13.5 per cent, which is high in an industry with historically low margins, particularly when compared to an average of 4.9 per cent for manufacturing firms. Profit margins fluctuate but have remained relatively low, around 4 per cent, through 1995-96. In some years, such as the recession years of the early 1990s, and for that matter the early 1980s, trucking operated at a loss. This explains why cost increases cannot be absorbed by the industry and must be passed on to the customers, resulting in an increase in the price of goods.
Yet, for the past 40 years for-hire trucking has grown faster than the Canadian economy, ahead of all other freight transport modes. As trade increases with our neighbours to the south, as it has with NAFTA, tonnage carried over roads also increases. Fuel efficiencies and improvements in equipment and management practices keep pricing competitive, while flexibility, reliability and good cost management continue to attract and retain customers, allowing them to properly compete in the global economy.
In the face of rising truck traffic and freight carriage, truck accidents have decreased faster than accidents involving other vehicles, declining by 23 per cent between 1989 and 1993. Truck accidents account for 3.6 per cent of all accidents, while trucks account for 9 per cent of total distance travelled. Although the overall safety record of trucking has improved, we must never rest in our efforts to reduce further still the number of accidents.
How can we achieve this? First, we need the uniform application and firm enforcement of the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers. The way to accomplish this is to have the National Safety Code adopted as part of federal regulations. Second, we need better roads. Third, we need more effective out-reach and education programs and more emphasis on training.
The vast majority of Canadian motor carriers take safety seriously. However, under the present regime, these safe carriers find themselves competing directly with motor carriers who undercut prices by taking chances on safety. We must make unsafe practices uneconomic. Safe carriers need the assurance and confidence that unsafe operators will be identified by regulators, be subject to swift and firm sanctions, and be removed from the industry if they are unable or unwilling to meet required standards of safe performance.
In order to achieve this, we need a more uniformly adopted and enforced National Safety Code, in particular with regard to standard 14, which addresses safety ratings. Currently, the National Safety Code has no force in law. It is a set of standards developed jointly by the provinces and the federal government in consultation with the industry. It must be enacted into law and regulations by governments before they can take effect.
From an industry standpoint, the major problem, in particular for thousands of carriers travelling interprovincially, is that the standards were never adopted federally. Accordingly, they are rarely applied consistently from one province to the next. Of course, this makes it more difficult than it should for motor carriers to comply with road safety regulations. It unnecessarily complicates the work of enforcement agencies.
The federal government needs to play a more forceful and powerful role in trucking safety. It has a national perspective on the economy contrary to the provinces, which quite naturally have their own jurisdictional interests to champion. Although aware of the broader national viewpoint, they must defend or adopt that which benefits their individual provincial industries, whether in competition with U.S. states or with other Canadian provinces.
The industry, therefore, strongly supports the proposition that the National Safety Code be adopted as regulation under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. At the present time the MVTA is undergoing review and, in the near future, will be revised to reflect the shift from a system of motor vehicle operating licences to a regime based purely on motor carrier safety performance. This safety performance will be measured by the degree to which carriers comply with the provisions of the National Safety Code.
With regard to the safety ratings standard, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators', or CCMTA, government-industry group has been working on its redevelopment since early 1994. As recently as October 1996, there were some significant differences in the methodology used by the jurisdictions to develop safety ratings, which threatened to create a situation in which carriers with identical safety compliance records but operating in different provinces might receive entirely different ratings. The provincial authorities were considering reciprocal recognition of ratings among the jurisdictions. However, this would, in effect, have sent a message to industry and to provincial regulators that inconsistent safety standards are acceptable. The CTA could not agree with this and therefore made it clear that it would endorse nothing less than fully harmonized safety rating methodologies.
The matter is now delayed until the end of September while jurisdictions are attempting to find a solution. I must say that there are some promising signs that the industry's insistence on harmonization of ratings has caused governments to rethink their earlier position. Once again, everybody knew what the solution was, or should have been, but in truly Canadian fashion political diversity was preventing uniform implementation. However, the industry stood firm.
The second pillar to support trucking safety is better roads. The 1989 National Highway Policy Study showed that almost 40 per cent of the national highway system was substandard. While representing only 3 per cent of the entire road system, the national highway system carries 80 per cent of the traffic. The study revealed that substandard roads are not only hard on equipment, they are deadly. Bringing the national highways up to code by widening lanes, adding medians and paving shoulders, could reduce by 160 the total number of Canadians killed annually on the roads and prevent 2,300 injuries also on a yearly basis. Yet the federal government and some provincial governments failed to reinvest adequately road-user levies into maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating and rebuilding substandard roads.
According to Statistics Canada and Natural Resources Canada, of the approximately $5 billion collected by the federal government in fuel taxes in 1994-95, only 181 million, or barely 4 per cent, was budgeted for roads.
In 1995, at the annual premiers conference, the premiers discussed the national system. A report from the conference states, in part:
Premiers, with the exception of the Premier of Quebec, emphasized the responsibility of the federal government to ensure a strong and viable national transportation system, and noted the importance of an efficient transportation system throughout all of Canada; not only in promoting economic growth and development through enhanced competitiveness, but also as a unifying force. They urged the federal government to enter into negotiations with the provinces and territories with a view to implementing a coordinated national highway policy, as soon as possible, with appropriate levels of federal funding to be provided within existing fiscal frameworks.
The provincial and territorial governments came to an agreement to invest in the national highway system contingent upon matching funding from the federal level. Yet, in December 1994, the federal government indicated that it was not in a position to fund a national highway system.
Mr. Chairman, investment in a highway infrastructure is not a choice, it is an emergency. The social cost of our sub-level highway system is becoming unbearable and warrants immediate attention.
The third essential element to enhance trucking safety is education. It is not uncommon for commercial drivers to log 200,000 kilometres per year. Given this level of exposure, serious accidents are remarkably rare in the trucking industry. A good number of commercial drivers are honoured each year for accident-free driving, some with several million kilometres and many years of experience. This reflects good training and skills upgrading and a healthy respect and responsible attitude toward their impact on other road users.
Most commercial drivers are keenly aware of the awesome responsibility that comes with manoeuvring a heavy vehicle through traffic with pedestrians, bicyclists, cars and light vehicles. Safe carriers take a serious approach to training and upgrading the skills of their drivers and other personnel. After all, commercial drivers work the large majority of their time unsupervised, yet the carrier is entrusting to them hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment and goods.
Proper training is paramount to safeguarding the equipment, the load and customers' repeat business, let alone protecting lives. Many carriers only accept drivers trained by schools accredited by the Canadian Trucking Human Resources Council, while others handle training in-house. The council was created under Human Resources Development Canada's central council's program. We feel that commercial driver training is being addressed adequately and continues to improve through the efforts of the CTA, provincial associations, responsible carriers and the CTHRC.
On the other hand, the average road user is often intimidated by large trucks and does not understand the dynamics associated with them. When a truck driver leaves a healthy distance between his truck and the vehicle ahead, other vehicles cut in, ignorant of the fact that a truck takes more car lengths to stop than they do. Others tailgate, not aware that they are hiding in the truck's blind spot. Many organizations, including the Ontario Trucking Association, the Canadian Automobile Association and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, have developed programs and information materials such as Sharing the Road and Don't Drive in the No-Zone. The principles of sharing the road with trucks should be integrated into all driver training programs and driver's licence testing.
Other elements are also important to recognize and incorporate into regulations and practices which apply to road safety. In August 1996, representatives of the Canadian Trucking Association and our provincial association partners developed a set of principles which we believe must guide the development, implementation and enforcement of road safety regulation into the 21st century.
The optimal regulatory system for truck safety must result in a reduction of accidents; be cost-effective for both industry and governments; penalize unsafe carriers and provide appropriate incentives to safe carriers; apply equally to all trucks and all types of trucking operations; recognize that trucks share the road with all other vehicles; be re-assessed periodically to ensure continued validity; be comprehensive, that is, take into account all applicable safety factors; be able to empirically identify safe versus unsafe drivers, vehicles and carriers; not create competitive imbalances to the detriment of safe carriers; require that inter-jurisdictional differences be eliminated, unless it can be demonstrated that these are justified on the basis of safety; be based on a new way of thinking about safety results rather than just activities; send appropriate market signals to encourage investment in safe operations; maximize the efficiency of enforcement activity; and recognize the ability of safe carriers to self-regulate.
We propose that these guiding principles be securely established in a national truck safety vision. The current lack of consistency among the provinces in the application of National Safety Code standards points to the need for a more prominent and direct role for the federal government. Although Transport Canada has jurisdiction over extra-provincial trucking under the MVTA, efforts to establish nationally harmonized safety standards have long been stymied in the absence of federal will to exercise its jurisdiction over extra-provincial trucking and to ensure enforcement of the rules.
The federal government does not want to regulate to avoid the cost of enforcement in political backlash. Instead, it chooses to delegate the administration of the jurisdiction to the provinces but does not provide the necessary dollars to ensure enforcement. Accordingly, politics take priority over safety.
To address this dilemma, the CTA supports the establishment of a federal highway safety trust fund, constituted with federal tax revenues from motor fuels. This fund could be used for two purposes. The first purpose would meet the federal responsibility for infrastructure improvement and development, while the second would ensure implementation and enforcement of the National Safety Code standards.
Should the federal government choose to continue working through the provinces, the disbursement of these funds to the provinces should be performance-based so that evidence of the national standards being implemented and enforced would have to be presented before the funds were disbursed. Models of this type exist in other federal jurisdictions, most notably the U.S. and Australia, and have been applied successfully.
In conclusion, the industry firmly believes that effective road safety regulation must provide appropriate incentives for safe carriers and swift, sure sanctions for those carriers which refuse to operate safely. There is no doubt that unsafe carriers are in the minority; however, their performance undermines the reputation of the entire industry. They must therefore be removed from the road, something which can only occur if enforcement resources are appropriately focused and applied consistently across the country.
Safe carriers have made it clear that they are willing and able to self-regulate and to form compliance partnerships with regulatory agencies so that enforcement efforts may be concentrated on putting unsafe operators out of business permanently. The road map is clear. Will the government choose safety over politics?
The Chairman: Your comments and observations are forceful and direct. You do something much more useful, that is, you follow through with suggestions, remedies and cures.
Do either of the other two witnesses wish to add anything to the opening comments?
Mr. Graham Cooper, Director, Government Affairs and Acting General Manager, Canadian Trucking Association: Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to answer any questions committee members may have, but at this point in time that is our formal presentation.
Senator Bacon: Mr. Bélanger, many witnesses have talked to us about putting the National Safety Code into place. Who does not want it? Where is the resistance?
Mr. Bélanger: The resistance comes form Transport Canada or the provinces. I understand that the discussions between Transport Canada and the provincial departments of transport on that basis are somewhat difficult because, since 1954, the provinces have enjoyed a delegation of the management of the federal jurisdiction in extra-provincial transportation. They do not want to give that up. Since 1954, there have been incredible discrepancies from one end of the country to the other. The fact is that it is still easier to take a load from Montreal to Mexico than it is to take one from Montreal to Vancouver. That should not be the case. The only way to overcome that situation is to have matters regulated at the federal level.
We have done away with the licences and the issuance of licences which needed the sanction of special tribunals.We are now concentrating on safety, which is a critical issue. The industry believes that the federal government should, at this point, come in with standards that are already developed by way of federal-provincial agreement. These standards should be incorporated in federal rules or regulation so that they would apply to all extra-provincial carriers. Extra-provincial carriers today represent the vast majority of carriers in Canada.
Senator Bacon: Could you talk to us about driver fatigue?
[Translation]
Would you prefer that I put my questions to you in French or in English?
Mr. Bélanger: As you wish.
Senator Bacon: Then I will speak in French. Can you talk to us about the connection between driver fatigue and safety? Do you prefer working longer hours or perhaps putting in longer weeks, that is working beyond the seven-day cycle? Ontario's position as outlined in the 1997 Task Force is along these lines. Would safety be adversely affected if you worked longer hours?
Mr. Bélanger: What we are trying to do is to be vigilant and to manage fatigue appropriately. Studies conducted in the past 10 years or, more recently, the major study conducted in Canada and the United States, revealed all kinds of facts that we were more or less already aware of.
For example, the latter study showed that daily shift changes affect driver fatigue much more than the number of hours spent behind the wheel. In Canada, for example, drivers spend 15 hours on the road, followed by 8 hours of rest, for a total of 23, or nearly 24 hours. Therefore, shifts are fairly similar from one day to the next.
This arrangement is in fact much better than the American system of 10 hours on the road, followed by 8 hours of rest, because the shift is moved forward 6 hours each time. On day one, a driver may start working at 8 a.m., drive for 10 hours and then rest for 8 hours. His next shift will begin at 3 o'clock in the morning. He then drives for 10 hours, rests for 8 and begins his next shift in the middle of the afternoon. Drivers' systems are thrown all out of kilter.
These facts were revealed to us in the study and we are trying today to gain a better understanding of this situation. We want to see a change in the way hours are tabulated. Under the current system, we encounter situations like the one I am going to describe to you where a driver returns to work one morning after four days off.
During the previous 14 days, that driver may have spent X number of hours behind the wheel in total, but these days are not all tabulated at once. When he shows up for work on day 15, the first 13 days count, as well as the current day. Over the course of 14 days, he cannot put in more than X number of hours. Upon returning from a four-day break, he may only put in two hours on day 15. We are saying that the rules no longer work, that they should be changed and that more consideration should be given to monitoring driver fatigue instead of abiding by strict regulations which state that a driver can spend only so many hours behind the wheel before stopping for X number of hours.
Of course, we do not think that everyone will be able to manage this correctly. We will need directives, but we will also need to allow a certain amount of latitude in some cases.
To answer your question, we are not suggesting that the number of hours allowed behind the wheel be increased. We are proposing a better system, one which will allow us to manage fatigue. I can give you one other example that is quite easy to understand. Montreal-Toronto is a 13-hour round trip. This is precisely the number of consecutive hours that a driver is allowed to put in within a 24-hour period in Canada. I am talking about a Montreal-Toronto round trip. Suppose that the driver gets tired by the time he reaches Cornwall. If he stops to rest, he will go over the 13 hours and will not be able to make it back within the allotted time. He will have to leave his vehicle on the side of the road and his employer may not be thrilled. He will have nowhere to go because he will have to wait eight hours on the side of the road before continuing. In cases like this, drivers struggle to stay awake and to continue on. That is what we want to change. We want to be able to tell the driver that is getting tired that he can pull over, get some rest and then continue on his way.
Senator Bacon: You want to do away with the restrictions on the number of consecutive hours allowed behind the wheel?
Mr. Bélanger: There have to be limits, but there has to be some flexibility as well. Right now, we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Neither the employer nor the employee can do anything about it.
Senator Bacon: You think there is not enough flexibility?
Mr. Bélanger: There is no flexibility at all.
Senator Bacon: Many witnesses have told us that the number of independent truckers is growing. Can you give us some idea of how many independents are out there today compared to regular truckers? Do you have any suggestions for improving the situation? We were often told that there were problems with the independent truckers. How can we improve that situation?
Mr. Bélanger: First of all, a large proportion of independent truckers work full-time under contract for a firm. They are subject to the same controls and supervision as regular employees.
Senator Bacon: And the same rules apply to them?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes. While it is true that there are more independents, this is not necessarily a problem. Furthermore, when it comes to the real independents, the rules have to be enforced. There are many safety regulations in place, but they are not enforced. As long as this continues to be the case, people will cut corners.
Senator Bacon: Can anyone force the truckers to comply with the regulations?
Mr. Bélanger: Right now, the provinces are responsible for enforcing safety legislation. These laws must be enforced, although no one has any money to do so. Drivers are let off the hook.
Senator Bacon: Do you feel that a national code would force the provinces to enforce the rules more stringently?
Mr. Bélanger: A national code would put all interprovincial firms on an equal footing, whether or not they use independents or drivers under contract. Everyone would be on an equal footing and the same rules would apply across the board. The problem we had until now -- and it appears on its way to being resolved -- is that everything could be fine in your home province, while you could be pulled over in another province because different rules apply. Different provinces have different rules. This is what we have to work on, namely adopting similar system across the country.
Before I continue, I have a comment concerning your previous question. A great deal of emphasis is placed on driver fatigue and the number of hours spent behind the wheel.
Senator Roberge: Much has been said about these issues.
Mr. Bélanger: They are the focus of much discussion. However, there is one thing that we consistently neglect to mention, and that is that drivers who spend long hours or even several days in a row on the road are in the minority in the trucking industry. The vast majority of truck drivers start work at 7 in the morning and finish at 3 in the afternoon. They either work 9 to 5, 8 to 4 or 7 to 3. This schedule applies to the vast majority of truckers. All of the truckers who work for companies like Reimer and Cabano that haul irregular loads are home every evening. They drive short-haul routes and are back home each night.
These drivers may be tired at some point, not because of their work, but rather because of what they did the night before. Their activities are difficult to control. However, we are most concerned about a small percentage of truckers, that is the long-haul truckers. A driver who leaves Montreal to deliver a load in Los Angeles will be on the road several days. His hours of work and hours of rest will vary, as will the start of his shifts. On these long international routes, once the driver crosses the boarder, the American system which is based on 10-hour shifts applies.
Senator Bacon: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Cooper: Senator, I would like to add one point about the hours of service to which Mr. Bélanger has already referred. You are probably aware that there is a process of regulatory review taking place in Canada and the U.S. at the present time. In the U.S., that process will take somewhat longer than it will in Canada because. As you are probably aware, the current hours of service regulations in both Canada and the U.S. are approximately 60 years old. There is broad consensus among both industry and government that they do not work. They may give some people some comfort; but in terms of attacking the underlying risk factors, they do not get the job done.
We are an associate member of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and an integral part of this process. The Canadian government, as well as the Federal Highway Administration in the U.S., are collaborating on doing a couple of things, not the least of which is to try to bring those regulations in both countries as close together as possible. In the U.S., there is a 10-hour maximum driving time as opposed to 13 hours here. Notwithstanding that, the recent report has indicated that the time spent driving is not as important a factor as some others. Therefore, it will be difficult in the U.S. to bring up their limit.
The key point to make in terms of the hours of service regulation and the way to address the fatigue question is that in both countries there is recognition that the regulations need to be based on more science than was the case when they were first written in the 1930s. It is arguable that in the 1930s they were not based on any science. More likely, they were based on the distances between major centres, such as the distances between St. Louis and Kansas City, and Montreal and Toronto, et cetera.
Mr. Bélanger: In the 1930s there was not that much long distance trucking going on.
Senator Roberge: I must tell you that I would find it extremely hard to drive 8 hours or 10 hours straight without being fatigued.
Overall, I think you are preaching to converts. We concur with many of the points that you mention in your brief. In fact, about education, you state:
Many carriers only accept drivers trained by schools accredited by the Canadian Trucking Human Resources Council$
That is a part of your organization.
Mr. Bélanger: Indirectly it is part of our organization because it is a central council created under Human Resources Canada. It involves the various stakeholders in the industry, including the unions, the teamsters, the CAW, the independents, the private carriers, and ourselves.
Senator Roberge: I was thinking that, perhaps, prior to waiting for the government to do something the Canadian Trucking Association, with the agreement of your members, should advertise to your suppliers to utilize only the trucking companies which have come through this educational or training system.
Mr. Bélanger: We have many customers who will demand from their carriers that they be ISO certified, that they have a total quality program, that they have this and that. They always accept submissions from those who do not meet the qualifications. It is the best price that wins. Regardless of what you have or do not have, we try to work with them, but price talks all the time.
Senator Roberge: Something has to start somewhere. Perhaps you people are the ones to start the process by convincing your suppliers that it is more economic for them in the long run to ensure that they use someone who is properly trained.
Mr. Bélanger: We are trying to do that. In that regard, we are working with insurance companies, governments, suppliers and with as many interveners as possible to try to foster training. In many ways, we have developed the training material, et cetera. It is gradually catching on. However, compared with Europe or Japan, we in America, whether it is Canada or the U.S., are not accustomed to spending much of our money on training. Our industry is no different from the others.
Senator Roberge: Today, training is becoming the backbone of good corporations.
Mr. Bélanger: It is starting; but we are far from the 40 per cent that Japan does.
The Chairman: The Alberta Safety Council very much supports mandatory training before the issuance of a licence. I suppose they do so for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is control. Does the national association share that view?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes.
The Chairman: I am referring to mandatory training as a condition for licensing.
Mr. Bélanger: For drivers, yes, absolutely.
Senator Roberge: Would you accept a recommendation like that?
Mr. Bélanger: Absolutely. We have developed the best training material in America. The Americans envy what we have right now. We are trying to make training with that material, or equivalent material, mandatory. The day that the provinces decide to do that we will have gone a long way.
Senator Roberge: You want consistency in safety regulations across the country. Yet, on the other hand, you wish to have independent provincial rights as far as truck weighing facilities; is that right?
Mr. Bélanger: They are presently under provincial jurisdiction.
Senator Roberge: What would you recommend on that basis? Would you recommend that, for example, the federal government include in its recommendation something along the line of it being standardized?
Mr. Bélanger: We are working on standardization now. I am hesitating because I wonder if the federal government would have the jurisdiction to do that.
Senator Roberge: I am not talking about jurisdiction but about making a recommendation.
Mr. Bélanger: Are you referring to a recommendation that the weight laws be harmonized?
Senator Roberge: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: We have been supporting such a measure for years.
The Chairman: The program now provides funding for significant roads. I am not a great believer in conditional grants of this nature at all; I think you either make them or not. Again, the conditional caveat might seem to be a useful one. If we are to give you $5 million per kilometre per road to bring them up to national standards, then perhaps you should adhere to a national formula. If you do not want to do it, then do not take the money.
Mr. Bélanger: It has worked in the U.S. for many years.
The Chairman: We have heard that.
Mr. Cooper: Mr. Chairman, as you are probably aware, there is currently an agreement between the federal government and the provinces to assist in the implementation of the National Safety Code. To some extent it is performance based, inasmuch as the provinces are theoretically, at least, required to provide some evidence that they have done their job. One of the difficulties with that is that the amounts of money we are talking about are small.If my memory serves me, it is about $20 million over five years. Certainly, when you get into the larger jurisdictions, such as Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and so forth, that amount of money does not have much effect.
If you are looking at a larger parcel of money, as we are suggesting, and you make it performance based, then there could be a greater impact from the federal level, with some suasion, if you will, over standardization at the provincial level.
The Chairman: The committee was looking at dedicating 2.5 cents per litre of gasoline to maintenance and 2.5 cents per litre of gasoline to new construction. I am a long time supporter in the concept of the Trans-Canada Highway, the Yellowhead route and all these great routes. We should accept our federal responsibility; and I think most Canadians accept that. Most Canadians will stand still for standards and would want the federal authority to override. I say that because once you get off the highway and arrive in Truro, Nova Scotia, for example, with thousands of pounds of cargo, the moment you go downtown you must off-load.
Senator Roberge: Does the United States have a national standard for a safety ratings system?
Mr. Cooper: Yes. It is under significant review at the present time. Essentially, at the present time, the U.S. is looking at a one-rating system. The worst carriers identified by on-road performance, terminal audits and those kinds of things are likely to be classified as unsatisfactory. In the U.S., there are about 80,000 federally regulated carriers, a great many more that we have in Canada. Under that proposed system, the vast majority of those would be unrated.
When looking at motor carrier safety, there are two ways to approach it -- the carrot and the stick. What we are proposing is that you take the stick to the bad guys and give the carrot to the good guys. The difficulty with the approach that the U.S. has taken is that it is difficult to identify the good guys. You cannot make the assumption that because 95 per cent have not been identified as bad that those 95 per cent are all exemplary and need to be given some incentive. That is one of the difficulties with the U.S. system.
We participate in a number of committees to develop a safety rating system. I should add, also, that we have received representation from the federal highway administration. There is very much a hands-across-the-border approach to these kinds of committees. Obviously, there is a great deal of traffic that moves north- south. Therefore, to the extent that we can make the rating system similar in the U.S. and Canada, we are trying to do that. There are some significant differences because of the population of motor carriers and the different kinds of regulatory environments in the United States versus in Canada.
Senator Roberge: Unfortunately, we have not yet had a chance to read your brief, having just received it. However, I understand that you are recommending, for example, that in Canada we should have a ratings system. Is that correct?
Mr. Cooper: Absolutely. In fact, since early 1994 we have been involved in rewriting one of the National Safety Code standards. Again, this is a joint industry-government effort. We are getting close, we think, to the point at which we can have what has been referred to as the "National Flip to Switch Day" sometime in 1998.
Coming back to the point Mr. Bélanger made during his oral presentation, the difficulty is that the National Safety Code, of which this standard is a part, has no force in law. Everybody at the table may agree that this is a great standard. However, they then have to go away and say, "How will we cut this apart so that we can put it into our regulation?" That is the difficulty.
Mr. Bélanger: That is the standard to which we refer in our submission. It is Standard No. 14.
Senator Adams: Over the past few months we have heard about tires coming off trucks on the highways. The last time we heard about it was when we were down in Halifax over a month ago. I know your companies have mechanics. Airline pilots are limited as to the number of hours they can fly. There are tests required. In regard to truck equipment, there are no regulations in the trucking industry, as long as the tires look good and the engines and the bodies of the trucks look good, everything is okay. Are there any regulations as to how often a truck should be in the shop to be checked over?
Mr. Bélanger: There are standards to be met, but we do not have standards like the airlines have. Most companies have something like that internally. They have a preventive maintenance schedule. However, that goes back to the problem that we were mentioning earlier. All the major companies have that, and they do it properly. However, no one controls the irresponsible carrier, large or small. However, it does not mean that because they are small they are unreasonable. A lot of small carriers are extremely well managed and reliable.
There is a part of the industry that is not responsible and which does not have these measures. However, we cannot impose that on them. I do not think establishing additional standards like you are mentioning would necessarily correct the problem. The safety rating that we are talking about would go a long way to solve that problem. If these carriers were constantly facing the possibility of having their hundred-thousand dollar rigs taken off the road, they would probably think twice.
Mr. Cooper: Senator, there are a couple of standards that apply to what you are referring. Unlike the airline industry, they are not based on the number of hours travelled. There are a couple of standards, however, one of which is referred to as the Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection Standard. If my memory serves me, that standard maintains that a commercial vehicle must be fully inspected every two years. Combined with that is the requirement for pre-trip inspections, which the driver conducts before he starts his trip. He does an inspection of brake adjustments, the integrity of the wheels and various major mechanical components. There are maintenance standards required, but they are not based in the same way the airline industry is in terms of time travelled.
Senator Adams: Does each company have a policy of insurance or do they contribute to Workers Compensation? How is a truck driver covered in terms of medical insurance, if someone were to have an accident with him? How does it work in your organization?
I have a business which employs so many people. Workers' Compensation charges me so much for my people per day.
Mr. Bélanger: Companies, obviously, have Workers' Compensation. Some provinces, like Quebec, have automobile insurance. Some accidents may be covered by that. It varies from one province to another. However, all carriers have Workers' Compensation and most would have additional insurance.
Senator Adams: You mentioned earlier that we need better roads and that your organization has paid about $3 billion in taxes to the government. Usually, part of your taxes go into provincial government coffers. I do not know how the tax system works, but highways are mostly run by provincial governments. Every time I buy a car, I am taxed on the tires and everything. How does this system work in regard to trucks compared with a regular car as between provincial taxes and federal taxes? You say you need better roads, but where does all the tax money go that we are paying to the government?
Mr. Bélanger: Basically, a special tax, or an excise tax, has been levied on fuel to compensate for the use of the roads. That tax is used for everything but road construction and road maintenance. What we are saying is take part of that tax and throw it back to the roads because that is where it comes from. Let us use it appropriately.
The Chairman: How much are you suggesting? We have started with 2.5 cents.
Mr. Bélanger: We have not come up with a particular number.
The Chairman: Could you come up with one when you next meet with the responsible provincial ministers and the federal government? I understand that you are a part of that organization, albeit informally. It is very important that you keep saying that over and over again. The tax on diesel and gasoline is a general revenue raising proposition; it has nothing to do with the highways.
Mr. Bélanger: That is wrong.
The Chairman: I know it is wrong.
Mr. Bélanger: If a tax zeros in on something, it should be for a specific reason. If we are to apply the tax to the general well-being of the country, it should be charged to the entire country or the entire population. That is a major problem. I do not know how clear it was from our brief, but the problem is that there is no margin in trucking. There is no money in trucking as such. Any additional costs are passed on to the customers, which adds to the price of goods and reduces our competitiveness on global markets. That is where we must make the choice. Will we impose an additional tax? We must look at the consequences on the economy. It is different from adding another cent to a package of cigarettes because you make a choice and you pay that as an individual.
If the companies were so rich that they could absorb the difference, then we would have another point. Every single little saving is passed on to the customer because of the competition. They do not have a choice to pass it on because of competition. Therefore, there is no margin. There is no means to absorb it. Therefore, it has a direct impact on Canada's economy.
Ms Michèle LeBlanc, Director, Research, Canadian Trucking Association: The Transportation Research Board in the United States conducted a study a few years ago which showed that it costs about 6 cents per mile when driving on a road that is not properly surfaced. This show the economic interest of a carrier in the rebuilding of roads. That 6 cents per mile savings does not mean a whole lot to the average driver. I do not drive much more than 15,000 kilometres per year. However, to an individual rig that is putting in 100,000 or 200,000 kilometres per year, that 6 cents means an awful lot. That is why there has been a lot of interest on the part of carriers to improve the roadways. It is not just for ourselves. There is a cost savings.
Mr. Bélanger: The 6 cents is an awful lot more than the profits.
Senator Adams: The chairman commented on opening a new highway with a toll. Do your members pay tolls on bridges and some of the highways?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, we pay tolls, which amount to substantially more than for cars, of course.
Senator Adams: How do you regulate that? You know your costs per year since it may be the same drivers going back and forth these toll bridges or roads. Does it average out to 50 cents or $1 for trucks? Is there a difference between trucks and cars?
Mr. Cooper: There is a significant difference, senator. As a matter of fact, I was down in Fredericton a couple of weeks ago along with our colleagues from the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association. We were talking to the Minister of Finance about the tolls on the New Brunswick road, which is due for completion, if my memory serves me, by 2001. Part of it is opening this year. For that stretch of highway, which I think is 195 kilometres, the toll for a commercial vehicle will be around $27.
Senator Adams: Would that apply to a person living in the area or would it be just for the truckers or the trucking companies?
Mr. Cooper: For each vehicle that passes over that road, the toll is $2.33 per axle per kilometre, if my memory serves me. It works out to about $27 for a commercial vehicle. In theory at least, that amount was arrived at by taking into account some of the benefits that will be derived from savings by cutting on the distance and so forth.
Interestingly enough, when we met with the minister in New Brunswick, and before we went into that meeting, we were talking with some of the motor carriers in New Brunswick. To give you an example of the impact of what Mr. Bélanger was talking about a moment ago in terms of increased cost, there is a manufacturing facility in New Brunswick which employs a large number of people. They ship to the U.S. If they had been required to pay a toll, for example, the margins are so sensitive that there was a danger that that manufacturing contract could have been lost to the United States. That is because both the manufacturing margins and the transportation margins are so thin and the sensitivity to increased costs is so high. Those are the kinds of issues that must be taken into account when you are looking at increased costs. Obviously, you must take into account the benefits as well.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: We always ask these questions, Mr. Bélanger, and I am sure that they are not new to you. Does your membership undergo any drug or alcohol testing? And if someone is caught red handed, what, if any, measures are taken?
Mr. Bélanger: International trucking firms are currently subject to U.S. regulations in this area. The industry made representations for several years to the federal government, urging that it bring in similar regulations in Canada.
The government decided against it. The industry developed a program which meets the requirements of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Employees of international trucking firms, that is most of the drivers who go to the United States, must comply with these requirements. Very few of the companies working only in Canada enforce these regulations or follow this program. There is no obligation on their part to do so. Obviously, the danger is that those drivers with alcohol or drug problems will leave the international trucking firms and seek employment with the national ones. This could quite conceivably happen.
As I mentioned, we supported and we continue to support the idea of bringing in regulations, legislation and a Canadian system.
Senator Bacon: You would like a system similar to the American one.
Mr. Bélanger: Yes. Here in Canada, we have encountered many problems with the Human Rights Commission. Applying the U.S. system here could lead to some problems. However, if regulations were introduced to Canada, Parliament's legislative authority could offset these problems. We still want the Canadian government to regulate the industry. A court in Ontario has already ruled on this matter. Some court rulings could prevent us from enforcing certain components of the U.S. regulations. If that happens, the Federal Highway Administration will refuse to recognize us and to exempt us, because of the Canadian rulings. This would force us to move our operations to the United States. Thousands of jobs will be lost to the United States if the Canadian government does not regulate the industry. In any event, the industry itself says that there should be regulations and supports the idea. We do not want to see drivers that take drugs on the road.
Senator Bacon: What preventative action has your association taken? Do you discuss these issues with your membership?
Mr. Bélanger: We have introduced a national testing and prevention program. We have educated employers about these matters and we really believe that we have done all we can. Of course, if some firms decide not to adopt these measures, we could have some problems. Some do want to adopt them, but their unions are saying that this is out of the question.
Senator Bacon: How persuasive can you be?
Mr. Bélanger: As persuasive as we can. We are a voluntary association and we do whatever we can. We certainly cannot coerce anybody into enforcing these measures, or else we would lose all of our members. However, we can be quite convincing. For example, we developed our program and in the vast majority of cases, it has been embraced by firms which do business internationally.
The US regulations are, of course, another incentive. Some wholly Canadian firms are also part of this system. However, there are still only a limited number of firms in this category.
Senator Bacon: Would you agree that the most serious safety problem that truckers face is the condition of the highways?
Mr. Bélanger: That is a serious problem, but in my view, the failure to enforce safety laws is an even bigger problem. I heard someone mention earlier the problem of wheels flying off rigs. There are two reasons for this. On the one hand, there are inspection problems and so forth, but the condition of the highways is also a problem which can damage equipment. If more inspections were conducted, perhaps we could prevent more accidents from happening, but the fact remains that some accidents and problems are due to the fact that some firms cut corners. Only a small number of firms are guilty of doing this, but we are powerless to stop them.
Senator Bacon: Your association is powerless to act?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, it has no authority to stop them.
Senator Bacon: Even if you were to bring in -- and I am not familiar with your regulations -- more stringent internal rules, these would not be followed?
Mr. Bélanger: They would turn in their membership.
Senator Bacon: You would lose your members?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes. You may recall that three or four years ago, a number of accidents occurred on Quebec's north shore.
The coroner was very critical of the industry and that year, the Quebec Trucking Association invited the chief coroner to address trucking firms. He spoke to industry representatives and voiced a number of criticisms. However, he concluded by saying that of all the fatal accidents that had been investigated, not one involved a member of our association.
Senator Roberge: But there were others.
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, the people who belong to associations, pay dues and contribute to the work we do are responsible individuals concerned about safety and about complying with the law. Those who have problems are not association members. We have no way of reaching them.
Bringing in regulations and enforcing them will address that situation.
[English]
The Chairman: Could I invite you to deal quickly with a couple of points? One of them is Mexico-U.S.-Canada traffic, which is an emerging problem. I am not necessarily interested in the economics of this traffic but, rather, the safety issues. Have you given any thought to that?
I will tell you, gentlemen, that it is a little in-joke around here that if you want to know what is going on in the trucking industry go to Australia. If you want to know what is going on in the airline industry go to Australia. If you want to know what zero tolerance is go to Australia. Thank you for having been there.Was it worthwhile and what did you learn? More important, was there anything we could learn because they have in place many of these mandatory regimes that we have been talking about. In some cases they have been in place for short periods of time. Other aspects of these regimes have been in place for extended periods of time. Could we learn anything if we were to go to Australia?
Mr. Bélanger: Indeed you would, Mr. Chairman. One of the things we see in Australia is five trailers with one truck. I will let my colleague answer the question on Australia since he is the one who went.
Mr. Cooper: Mr. Chairman, your comments on the Australian experience and the Australian example are valid. They really stand out in the world in terms of the level of progress that has been made there.
A few years ago the trucking industry there, for example, was in an absolute shambles. It has come a long way since then. We went there to look at the so-called fatigue management program, a program which is being developed between the government of Queensland and the Road Transport Forum, which is the Australian industry association. We found many interesting things in terms of this approach to alternative compliance, not only in the area of fatigue management but also in other areas of trucking safety maintenance and so forth.
First, it must be recognized that Australia is similar constitutionally in make-up to Canada. One of the most interesting things that we saw there was the concept of template legislation. In Canada, if I could draw a parallel, if we have a national safety code, we keep our fingers crossed that the provinces will implement it.
The approach that has been taken in Australia is that in the Australian Capital Territory, or ACT, which is somewhat similar to the District of Columbia, a template piece of legislation is developed with regard to vehicle safety, for example. It is implemented in the ACT and the other states in Australia adopt it by reference or directly into their own regulations. This is a relatively new approach. When we were there, this was being looked at, and I think there had been one regulation, if my memory serves me, that was already in place. We heard some interesting presentations from representatives of the National Road Transportation Commission from Melbourne, who were talking about this whole issue of template legislation. I commend that type of approach as a model.
In fact, I was referring earlier to the rewrite of the hours of service regulations that we are currently undertaking now in conjunction with our federal and provincial government colleagues. We have talked, albeit informally at this point, about the idea of having some kind of template. That is probably the best example of where uniformity is needed. You are dealing with physiology and human behaviour. Presumably, what makes a person tired in Newfoundland also makes a person tired in British Columbia. That is an ideal candidate for a template type of approach.
Mr. Bélanger: The template legislation is what we know here as incorporation by reference.
The Chairman: Could you touch on Mexico for us, please, because this is of equal and growing concern?
Mr. Bélanger: We hear all the time about unsafe Mexican carriers coming across into U.S. border zones. Basically, that is an electoral issue more than a real issue. Because of the way the laws and regulations have been applied on that border, shuttle services are used. There are operators who own one tractor and all they do is they cross the bridge. They will run 100 kilometres per week using an old tractor. They just operate on a flat rate.
The major U.S.-Mexican carriers, and I know them all personally, are just as well organized as we are. They have trained employees and beautiful equipment. They are on par with us. It is true that there are smaller carriers there, as there are here, which are less safe, but the ones that carry loads deep into the U.S. and eventually into Canada are just as safe, just as well organized and well managed as are the best Canadian and American carriers.
The problem on the border is caused by border politicians who, of course, want to please the teamsters who, in many situations, oppose the Mexicans because they are afraid of cheap labour. Across the border it will not be cheap labour very long because of the cost. You can have cheap labour in Mexico because the cost of living is cheap. Once you raise the economic level everything else rises with it.
I have no concern whatsoever in this regard. I speak with knowledge and experience because I know the Mexican carriers and I have been there many times. I have visited all the big operations. I have no concern whatsoever for their ability to be on par with us.
The Chairman: Do they have in place a national trucking association similar to ours?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes.
The Chairman: You are an integral part of a multinational association, are you not?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, I am also the current president of the North American Transportation Alliance, which is an alliance of the Canadian Trucking Association, the American Trucking Association and La Camara Nacional De Auto Transporte De Carga, or CANACAR.
The Chairman: That is why we are all the more privileged to have you.
Senator Roberge: For example, if a truck goes into a weigh station in Quebec, for example, and he is overloaded by 1,000 pounds, let us say, what kind of costs would there be associated with that?
Mr. Bélanger: In most provinces there is a basic fine and then so much per pound. Let us say a 5,000 pound overload might cost $2,500 or $3,000 in fines.
Senator Roberge: It is different in every province?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes.
Senator Roberge: In order to protect the roads, would it not be good if these fines were higher?
Mr. Bélanger: The industry has supported that in most provinces. A carrier tested one of the scales in Quebec near the Quebec bridge. He took a trailer, loaded it within limits and sealed it in the presence of an inspector. It was a dry summer day so there was no ice accumulation. All that tractor-trailer did in that whole day was go from the terminal, drive about five kilometres, went over the scale and back to the terminal. Thirty minutes later he went back again and the variance on the weigh ticket was many thousands of pounds.
We have a problem with the quality of the scales. We have a problem with some types of loads. For example, when you stop on the scales with a tanker of liquid, the liquid goes back and forth. It may take half an hour to settle. What can you do?
In general, the industry supports higher fines for those who overload. They should be off the road. If we had roads built to standards, according to the code, and if everybody operated according to the weight laws, then the roads would not deteriorate more than normal because of weather, et cetera. A truck, if loaded within the rules on the standard code, does not deteriorate the road more than a car, whether it has 20 axles or five axles, because of the way it is built. We want the ones that overload off the road as much as everybody else.
The Chairman: As one of those people who drive quite frequently between Halifax and Ottawa, I want to tell you that trucks terrify me. Not any of the witnesses we have heard have been able to convince me otherwise. They comfort me until I get back on the road. The most prestigious trucking firms in Canada have no credence in my eyes above the competency of the driver of that truck. This is not a question of cars tailgating trucks and hiding in blind spots; trucks hide in one another's blind spots. It is pretty scary when you get two of them racing down the highway at 130-140 kilometres.
Mr. Bélanger: We oppose that, too, by the way.
The Chairman: I hope so. The terrified motorist cannot get off the road. You do not dare drive under 125 or 130 kilometres between here and Quebec City or Rivière-du-Loup. To do otherwise is to take your life in your own hands. Worse than that, you endanger the lives of other people.
Little things like slush skirts could be used in the spring and the fall. There are all sorts of little things that could be done, such as tire pressure. It would help if the average driver knew how to identify an unsafe driver. Maybe there should be a reward for such identifications. I have seen speeding trucks pass police officers, too.
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, I know.
The Chairman: The police officer does not care, he will not chase him.
Mr. Bélanger: I have called some of my members when I have seen trucks driving too fast. We do not support that. There are companies that have governors and satellite tracking. They all govern their vehicles at less than 100 kilometres.
The Chairman: Just one in 20.
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, but why are cops not stopping them?
The Chairman: Why do we not? Why do we not take another nickel of this tax from the price of a litre of diesel and give it to the provincial police forces to get their crews out on the road?
Mr. Bélanger: That is the second suggestion, senator.
The Chairman: Is that included in your truck safety fund?
Mr. Bélanger: That is right.
The Chairman: That is excellent. We are very pleased that you were able to be here with us today. We might want to call you back, if you do not mind.
Mr. Bélanger: We would be delighted to come back.
The Chairman: You are very special to us, and to millions of car drivers I might add. We believe that safety is a culture which must be nourished and encouraged. That can be done with training, common sense and certain disciplines.
Thank you again.
The committee continued in camera.