Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications

Issue 2 - Evidence - March 13, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:20 to study Bill S-3, an Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We shall start the meeting. We are studying today Bill S-3, an Act to amend Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

[English]

Appearing before us today are the Honourable David Collenette, Minister of Transport, Mr. Derek Sweet, Acting Director General, Road Safety Programs, Ms Elizabeth MacNab, Legal Counsel and Mr. Bill Elliott, Assistant Deputy Minister. Welcome to all.

[Translation]

Mr. David Collenette, Minister of Transport: Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me this opportunity to speak to Bill S-3, an Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987.

[English]

I will stress some key points of the bill and then summarize, after which I will be pleased to answer questions. However, the officials who are with us today are much more knowledgeable about the technical details of this bill than I am.

Without this act, the provincial governments would not have the constitutional authority to regulate truck and bus companies that operate beyond the boundaries of a province.

There is an interesting anomaly here. In 1954, there was a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, which was the forerunner to the Supreme Court, on a reference made prior to the Supreme Court's establishment in 1949. They ruled that the federal government has constitutional authority on interprovincial truck and bus regulation. The minister at the time, Mr. C. D. Howe, did not want any part of it, and, as a consequence, the entire 50 years of having this power that was given to us by the court has been era in which we have tried to delegate everything to the provinces. Parliament passes its statutory obligations but delegates everything to the provinces and everything is done with consensus. I say that as an aside. This has caused some issues that need to be discussed more and more in Parliament. One of those issues is the need by stakeholder groups -- the truck industry in particular, even in Quebec -- for a stronger assertion of a power that the federal government did not think it had, or accepted reluctantly as a judicial decision and has, by and large, delegated to the provinces.

[Translation]

The Act addresses trucking and bus transport, both of which are vital parts of our transportation system. Trucking is a $40 billion industry and is an essential component of Canada's economy. Intercity and charter bus transport is a smaller sector which nevertheless offers a very important service to many Canadians and foreign visitors.

The prominence of this road transport activity brings with it a continuing need to improve safety. This is necessary in view of the very significant growth in heavy truck traffic and to improve road safety. The 500 fatalities and 11,000 serious injuries that occur each year in Canadian road accidents involving heavy commercial vehicles remain a very serious challenge to all governments.

[English]

Even though a high proportion of the motor carrier activity is across provincial boundaries and is, therefore, a federal responsibility, the government is convinced that regulation by provincial governments is the most effective way to achieve national safety objectives. Again, I depart from my text to say that, while obviously we agree that the provinces should have the regulatory competence in this area, in effect, discharging Parliament's obligation, this cannot be used as an impediment to devise truly national standards. You can be sure that there will be a debate on this particular issue.

The bill continues the tradition of delegating the federal authority to the provincial governments, but, further, it has the objective that the regulatory regime must be focused on safety performance assessments based on the National Safety Code for motor carriers. That code comprises a set of 15 standards developed through a consensus process by federal-provincial committees. The process also involves industry and public interest groups. The regulation of motor carriers is therefore based on partnership and cooperation.

Specific clauses of the bill warrant some comment. Many of the clauses are little changed from the previous bill, which we introduced in respect of the bus deregulation issue; however, although they show little change from the existing act, they are required as essential updating. That is why we included them in the bill.

Key changes include the new "Objectives" section at the beginning of the bill, to which I have already referred, and the collecting of all regulatory powers in the new section 16.1.

Clause 5, new section 7 of the act, is the hinge around which the rest of the bill operates. Section 7 requires all extra-provincial motor carriers to have a "safety fitness certificate" issued by a provincial authority. An extra-provincial motor carrier must have the safety fitness certificate required by federal legislation, but all other aspects of the regulations and administration are under provincial law. As a result, the motor carrier deals with only one level of regulation, and that is by the motor carrier's own provincial government.

[Translation]

Section 8 of the Act authorizes provincial authorities to issue "safety fitness certificates" according to the regulations.

Since the trucking and motor coach industries are largely national and international rather than local or provincial, it is essential that their safety regulation be consistent across the country and compatible with regulation in the U.S. and Mexico.

This is where we come back to the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers.

[English]

As stated in the objectives section, the safety regime is focused on safety performance assessments based on the national safety code for motor carriers. The intent of the government is that the regulations referred to in clause 8 incorporate by reference National Safety Code Standard 14, "Safety Rating". The safety rating standard, like all other National Safety Code standards, has been developed through a consensus process involving federal-provincial committees as well as industry and public interest groups. The federal act and regulations will therefore require safety fitness certificates to be issued by the provincial authorities according to a consensus standard that they themselves have developed and agreed to.

In this way, motor carriers operating anywhere in Canada will be subject to the same regime of safety regulation, and a safety fitness certificate issued by any provincial authority will be a permit to operate anywhere in Canada. I think that that is a good move.

That whole process only works, however, if all of the provinces issue safety fitness certificates according to the agreed standard. Since the national safety code is a consensus document, it can be assumed that all provincial authorities will indeed function according to the national regime. However, should an individual province decide not to issue safety fitness certificates according to the standard, then the national regime would break town. Clause 9 of the bill therefore provides for this unlikely event by allowing the Minister of Transport, in consultation with his provincial colleagues, to withdraw the authority that is otherwise automatically given to a provincial authority.

I do not want to raise constitutional hackles here, but the fact is that for 50 years we have been delegating these authorities, even though the federal government has had the constitutional authority to act unilaterally, and given the amount of cross-border truck traffic -- North American traffic, NAFTA traffic -- we believe we must move to a coherent national standard.

In concluding, Madam Chair, I would just point out that the bill provides a solid framework for provincial governments to regulate extra-provincial motor carriers according to a national standard developed through consensus.

[Translation]

In this way, safety regulation of extra-provincial trucking and bus transport is delegated to provincial governments -- the governments that are best equipped to enforce and administer regulations for the many thousands of vehicles and operators using their roads.

Delegation of regulation of these vital national industries is based on a national framework that sets out to ensure consistent regulation in all parts of the country. The end result, Madam Chair, is to move us ever closer to achieving our vision of having the safest roads in the world.

[English]

The Chairman: Could you tell us how the environmental question was dealt with in the process that led to the proposed changes? Did you deal with it?

Mr. Collenette: That is a detailed issue that I would need to pass on to my officials, because they were involved in the negotiations with the provinces.

Mr. Derek Sweet, Acting Director General, Road Safety Programs, Transport Canada: Honourable senators, the bill contains a provision in the regulation-making powers to ascribe some consistency to operating emission regulations of extra-provincial vehicles. I could refer to the precise clause now or I could do so later, if you like.

However, in general, there is a provision under the regulation-making powers for the federal government to effect some consistency over the operating emissions that are produced by extra-provincial vehicles. This is in recognition that Ontario and B.C. -- I believe they are the only two provinces at the moment -- have enacted, for certain portions of their provinces, emission regulations for heavy vehicles. In the United States, some states have done the same.

In the future, it may be necessary to achieve some consistency in the area. Therefore, the bill does provide for this ability in the regulation-making provisions.

Senator Forrestall: Welcome, minister. I have some broad general questions that are based largely on your observations of a few moments ago. I must say that I have an overall sadness about taking this next step. I have been around long enough to have gone through a few of these changes. Every time we went through a change, we were assured that each step was a step towards a national transportation safety code that you could put in your hand and throw in the cab of a truck, as opposed to something that would be spread over a dozen different offices from St. John's to Victoria. It would be there, and could be used throughout the system. However, that did not happen.

We still do not have a national transportation safety code. We have a loose bringing together of various provincial efforts to improve safety and to improve the conditions that promote safety, such as making good highways and "smarter" highways and attacking the problem of drinking drivers, and so on.

Why have you not taken the opportunity now, with the new millennium and the breath of renewal in the air, to get the horse out in front of the cart? The cart is still pushing the horse. Safety is what we are after.

We have respect for the commercial requirements, and we must maintain respect for the human resources environment. We must do a lot of things to achieve the objective of having safe highways.

Why do we rely on a consensus document? A consensus document does not, in my judgment, constitute a national transportation safety code. Consensus changes with changing personalities. When you throw a government out and put a new government in, an ambitious Minister of Transport may want something changed through consensus. Consensus is an evolving and living thing, and in that sense it is good, but it is not fixed; it is not permanent; it does not have the force of constitutional law, good statute law.

Can you tell me why you proceeded in this way? Was there some reason for it or was it merely a preoccupation with national matters?

Mr. Collenette: Madam Chair, Senator Forrestall makes a very valid point, and based on his intervention, I think that his thinking is the same as mine. There is a bit of frustration here that we do not assert more strongly the national safety regime.

To paraphrase the Red Rose tea ad, only in Canada would we have a situation where the provinces regulate load transportation within their borders. In 1952, the decision was made that a federal government could regulate inter-provincial bus and truck regulations, but even though the federal government has the right to impose a national safety code, and this bill enhances that right of the federal government and the federal minister to do that, the problem is that we want to make sure that there is a consensus because there is, in effect, a danger of having two codes, because the provinces regulate everything within their borders, and we do not want that to be at variance with a federal regulation. That is why we have gone by consensus.

Over time, it will be more and more difficult for provinces to be recalcitrant on the National Safety Code, which is, as you correctly point out, a consensual document, because of the impact of cross-border trade. More and more trade is being done by trucks. In fact, I think about 70 per cent of our trade with the United States is with trucks, and then there is interprovincial trucking, as well.

This bill moves it along as well as we can. I will be discussing with my officials moving even further because we have the stakeholders onside. We have the stakeholders asking the federal government to assert its jurisdiction, and doing so strongly. We have it coming from the major trucking groups in Quebec, which is traditionally the province that most jealously guards its constitutional prerequisites.

I agree with you, senator. I do not think that you should be disheartened, because I believe this moves it along to some considerable degree. Hopefully, we will have a further assertion of our power as the next year goes on, after I meet with my new colleagues. They are changing all the time at the provincial level, but we will be meeting in the fall and I will be raising this item.

Senator Forrestall: Just so long as it is not like the replacement for the Sea King.

Senator Callbeck: The minister will enter into an agreement with each of the provinces. That is the same agreement on the safety code?

Mr. Collenette: Yes.

Senator Callbeck: Is there a time frame for when the provinces must have this implemented?

Mr. Collenette: I will let Mr. Elliott answer all of the details.

Mr. William Elliott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada: As the minister referred to in his remarks, there are 15 existing standards. The standards are agreed to federally and provincially, and then are brought into force by regulations at both the federal level and the provincial level -- at the federal level to deal with interprovincial issues, which is our jurisdiction, and at the provincial level to deal with matters within provincial jurisdiction. The idea is that there would be one set of rules with respect to trucking, generally.

Perhaps Mr. Sweet could be of assistance on the topic of timing.

Mr. Sweet: This bill deals most particularly with National Safety Code Standard 14, Safety Ratings. The minister confirmed that in his remarks this morning.

NFC 14, Safety Ratings, is a new standard that is currently being implemented by the provinces. We anticipate that the safety rating standard will be implemented in the provinces substantially this year. It is a complex standard that requires a great amount of gathering, analyzing and sharing of data between jurisdictions, and indeed, in the future, between countries. It requires a good deal of systems work.

Transport Canada has provided $7 million to the provinces for this fiscal year. The provinces are using that money very wisely. They are revamping their systems and, in some cases, developing new systems in order to permit the sharing of this safety performance data.

That is the long answer. The short answer to your question, senator, is that we anticipate that the safety ratings systems in the various jurisdictions will be substantially up and running this year, 2001. There will be some fine tuning to be done in the next calendar year certainly, but the provinces, we are told, are making good progress in that regard.

Senator Callbeck: When these safety ratings are up and running, will it be possible for the public to compare one trucking company with another?

Mr. Sweet: That is correct. The rating scheme that has been agreed to is for full rating. A carrier, based on its performance, will be rated as "satisfactory", as "satisfactory unaudited", which simply means that the on-road performance of the carrier is good but that there has not been an audit of that carrier's facility, or as "conditional", which is the rating that would be applied when problems exist with a carrier. In that case the carrier and the province would sit down and mutually agree that there are problems, and they would work out a plan to fix those deficiencies. That carrier would be closely monitored until the deficiencies were remedied. Should the deficiencies not be remedied, the carrier could be assigned an "unsatisfactory" rating and would then be taken off the road.

The benefit of a nationally consistent system is that a carrier would be rated in the same way in every province so that similar performance by a carrier would net the same rating in every province.

Senator Spivak: I regret very much that the minister only has a short period of time to spend with us, because in my opinion it is not details but policy questions that are important here.

It seems to me, Mr. minister, that you are reluctant to consider, or are not thinking of, the urgency of having a National Safety Code and what that might entail. The fact is that, each year, 600 people are killed and 12,000 are injured in some 40,000 truck crashes. That is a disgrace.

There is a lot of interprovincial trucking. About 79 or 80 per cent of it is done by trucking firms hired extra-provincially. Furthermore, Mexican trucks will also soon be driving up here and using our highways, because the President of the United States has said that he will lift the ban against Mexican trucks going into the United States. I think it is obvious that we will see a huge influx of traffic from Mexico. We know that the standards in Mexico are lower than ours. Therefore, we may have a large number of trucks on the road that do not meet our safety standards.

You could be a hero if you went urgently forward and enforced safety standards. What is the federal department for, if not for extra-provincial and international regulations over trucking?

Just look at the figures. Look at the number of accidents that come from trucks.

Madam Chair, as the minister is leaving shortly, perhaps I could be allowed to put all my questions into one.

Mr. Minister, this bill eliminates the requirement for you report to Parliament. Why is that? In short, why are you not bulldozing ahead with this, like a white knight and a hero? Second, why does this bill eliminate the requirement for you to report to Parliament? If you were going to be here for a longer period of time, I would have at least ten more questions.

Mr. Collenette: I am certainly willing to come back, but because I have to attend a NAFTA meeting in Uruguay, I must leave right after Question Period. For that reason, this was the only time that we could meet. However, I am prepared to come back at any time.

The senator talks about my being a hero. I have taken on a lot of tough files in the seven or eight years since I came back into Parliament. Being heroic in politics is very difficult. It is one thing to take on tough issues and succeed; it is another thing to take on tough issues and get mired in rancour, especially when dealing with the provinces.

There is urgency with this, and we have pushed the provinces on it. However, the fact of the matter is that we must respect the Constitution. As I have said in response to Senator Forrestall, we do not want to have two sets of rules. We do not want to have provinces not cooperating. We are pushing them as far as we can. Perhaps we should be more assertive, as time goes on.

I am glad that we have the support of the official opposition on this, because that will help us as we go forward.

The senator talked about the fact that Mexican trucks will come to Canada. One impediment to that process is that those trucks must meet U.S. standards before they ever come to Canada -- standards that are quite rigorous, as you know.

Senator Spivak: Yes, but I read recently that President Bush will lift that requirement.

Mr. Collenette: Good luck. I am not sure that he has the authority to do that. We believe that Mexican trucks destined for Canada will certainly have to meet U.S. and Canadian standards. We will not have flawed vehicles on our highways. I agree with you on the need for urgency, and for the reasons that you state.

You mentioned that we would not be reporting to Parliament, and you asked why; the fact of the matter is that there will be a report to the Council of Ministers. Perhaps that is not good enough in your view, and possibly my officials can explain why we did not include a parliamentary report. However, if it goes to the Council of Ministers then it is reported through the Minister of Transport to Parliament. The Minister of Transport can then be questioned at the time of the Estimates. Indeed, at any time the Senate could summon me to talk about these particular issues.

Senator Spivak: You made reference to the urgency of the issue. In 1987 deregulation was agreed to on the basis that there would be a national safety code. Right now, in 2001, only two of the 16 standards are in place across the country -- only two. People in Canada are aware of these huge trucks, which are getting even bigger. Surely this is an urgent question. What is the time frame for you, as a minister with all of your powers, to say, "We must have a national safety code across the country"? From 1987 until 2001 is certainly not good enough.

Mr. Collenette: I certainly share Senator Spivak's enthusiasm.

Senator Spivak: Please act on it.

Mr. Collenette: I agree with you in respect of these national standards. However, I have learned over the years that my pan-Canadian soul must be restrained by the realities of our Constitution and the interprovincial wrangling and bickering. I mentioned earlier that I agree with the kind of fast-track approach that you are promoting. I want to move further and be bolder as the months progress, and I intend to raise this with my colleagues in the fall.

If the Senate feels strongly about having a report to Parliament rather than a report only to the Council of Ministers, perhaps there is a way that we can work with you to refine the legislation so that it includes a specific reference to a parliamentary report -- provided it does not require an independent report but one that would be provided through the minister. We will look at the wording and we will work with the clerk.

Senator Poulin: As sponsor of the bill, I want to tell you of the good work of your officials on my behalf. I officially thank Mr. Sweet who is here today.

I see this bill as a major step forward, knowing the difficulties that are always inherent in any negotiation that involves all of the provinces and territories. In my discussions with the officials, I saw this as an important step in the use of new technology, with the understanding now that the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers is taking that one further step.

My concern remains and I wonder what our position is in respect of our negotiations with the other countries in North America to ensure that there is a seamless system to reflect the importance of international trade. Can you tell me where we are in that respect?

Mr. Collenette: There are many bilateral and international issues that we must look at. One that Senator Spivak has raised is the issue of reciprocity between the U.S. and Mexico in terms of standards. I am not sure that it really is due to safety. I believe that it is due to other domestic, political considerations such as illicit immigration and smuggling. However, as has been pointed out, the new administration is closer to Mexico in its ideology, or at least in its experience, so I think we will see some relief of that.

I will ask my officials if there are any particular international issues on truck safety that could cause some concern. Can you give an update?

Mr. Sweet: The officials of the three countries have been quite hard at work for a number of years -- almost since NAFTA was instituted in the mid-90s or slightly before that -- to ensure that there is, as much as possible, a seamless movement of motor carriers amongst the three countries.

We have focussed our efforts on the safety considerations. We have had extensive discussions with our colleagues, both in the United States and in Mexico, on the issue of standardization of safety regimes. We have a consistent application of safety regimes between Canada and the United States. There are few differences, quite frankly, between the regimes in the two countries. Mexico, admittedly, had a good deal of catching up to do. However, you would be impressed with the progress that Mexico has made in instituting an acceptable safety regime.

The answer to your question, senator, is that officials are meeting regularly to ensure that the regimes are as consistent as they can be. We are quite confident that there will be a reasonably seamless safety regime in North America. As you know, there is a clause in the bill that encourages and permits us to effect reciprocal arrangements in respect of safety regimes amongst the three countries.

Senator Fitzpatrick: This question is not specific to the change in the National Safety Code; rather, I commend you on the progress that has been made toward better regulations; that is quite helpful.

Does the federal government, in cooperation with provincial governments, have any way to assess highways across the country and identify those areas that may be the major cause of accidents? Would improved codes help? I realize this is within provincial jurisdiction, but in my area, for example, there are two very dangerous stretches of highway that, in my view, are probably the cause of many accidents and deaths that have occurred over the last several years.

I am just wondering if there is any program to identify those areas that are real problems with respect to safety, and whether there is a way of dealing with those issues with the Council of Ministers, highway ministers, with whom you meet from time to time?

Mr. Collenette: We have identified 25,000 kilometres as the basic national highway network. This is the network that would be eligible for federal funding under any joint-cost programs.

There is much sharing of information about the quality of those highways. In fact, the provinces are not shy in talking about their safety problems as a means to justify extra funding.

In particular, we have Highway 401, both west and east of Toronto, which is very bad in terms of volume, accidents and deaths. I understand that four people were killed yesterday on the stretch near Belleville.

There was that very nasty accident that occurred in B.C. on a stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway, I believe. Obviously, federal funding has gone into that highway in the past and, hopefully, it will go into that highway in the future, on the assumption that the province agrees that it is a priority.

On that particular accident, we do have a Transport Canada observer involved. I will let my officials talk about their ongoing role in road safety and in working with the provinces. There is a cooperation with the provinces on all aspects of road safety.

Mr. Sweet: The minister is quite right. We deal on a daily basis with our provincial colleagues on all aspects of road safety. The condition of the highways is certainly one aspect, but, as senators will realize, when it comes to analyzing safety, the causes of accidents are most usually related to the driver and driver error. About 80 per cent of collisions are attributable to driver error.

To be quite brief here, the department has eight accident investigation teams across the country. We assist the provinces in investigating accidents that are of particular importance to help us, for example, in our role as the regulator of a new vehicle safety standard. So we are involved in a close way with our provincial colleagues.

With respect to the national highway system, the department is taking steps now to create a data base that would give us better accident data on the national highway system that might help us to better identify, in conjunction with the provinces, those portions of highways that are especially deficient from a safety standpoint.

Mr. Collenette: Honourable senators, I must go. I do apologize, but let the record show that the ones who are being discriminated against are the government side, and not the opposition, who have had some good questions, and I have done my best to answer those.

Senator Fitzpatrick: If I may put a supplementary, and if I understand what you said, Mr. Sweet, some areas are being identified, but I take it that there is not a catalogue of danger spots across the country. However, while they are not being rated in any way, you do have an awareness of some of the areas of concern.

Nevertheless, there is no program to say which are the worst 12 areas of highway danger because of the condition of the highway. Therefore, they are not being addressed in an agenda at these federal-provincial council meetings?

Mr. Sweet: Generally speaking, that is correct. At the moment there is no national catalogue, as you aptly describe it. We are, though, in the process of building such a database.

Senator Finestone: I am sorry that the minister had to leave. Fundamentally, I do agree with my colleague across the floor here that this is a matter of public concern. It is not only about trucks, but also about people, about deaths and about accidents. As you brought to our attention, there is a high number of accidents a year that take place. We heard about the terrible accident yesterday. These are our roads that people are driving on. These are our people who are being killed, or maimed or hurt. This is our disability insurance money being used.

You have trucking associations or provinces that are not applying what were 16 standards before. You now just mentioned that it is 14 standards. So you have reduced it to 14 from the 16.

I want to look at this from a human perspective. When you look at them, you realize that these trucks are huge, mammoth rigs that are rolling by. Canada plans to leave out scientific expert panel advice to the effect that drivers require at least two nights sleep a week. Does that not sound irresponsible? Is it logical that a person does not have two consecutive nights of sleep, or just two nights sleep a week? Is that human? That is what I should like to know.

I do not think that Canadians want anything to do with these 14-hour driving shifts. That is what is being proposed, with 84 hours of work a week for truck drivers.

You work on a standard of 36.5 hours of work a week, and we are asking truck drivers to drive 84 hours a work week, with 14 hour shifts and not two consecutive nights of sleep a week. Could you tell me how this makes any sense, when the advice from sleep scientists about these hours of work and these rules of work tell you that they are totally unacceptable? You are completely outside of the U.S. norms.

How, gentlemen, could you be suggesting to the minister that he accept, and that the rest of the provinces across this country accept, your norms and standards, which were not being adhered to in many cases anyway?

Mr. Elliott: To begin with, in your earlier remarks and questions, you referred to the toll on our highways. Certainly, we would agree that there are too many deaths, too many injuries and too many accidents.

I would point out, however, that significant progress has been made in reducing the number of accidents and the number of injuries and the number of deaths. That is not to suggest at all that there is not more that needs to be done, but we are encouraged that the trend is in the right direction.

With respect to hours of service for truckers, the first thing that I should like to clarify is that the bill that is before Parliament does not deal with the standard relating to hours of service.

Senator Finestone: Does it deal with sleep? The driver is supposed to sleep according to your rules or according to normal human rules?

Mr. Elliott: This bill, senator, does not deal with that issue at all.

Senator Finestone: Then where is that issue dealt with?

Mr. Elliott: The National Safety Code, which is referred to in this bill, does deal with hours of service. It is a different standard. It is a standard other than the standards that are being dealt with in this specific piece of legislation. There is work going on with respect to hours of service. As you are aware, there has been work on the development of a new standard for hours of service. There has been consultation, and certainly a public debate as to what that new standard should be. If there are to be changes to the standard dealing with hours of service, that would be done by regulation. However, that standard and those issues are not within the scope of this bill.

Senator Finestone: I do not understand what is in the scope of this bill. I do understand the lack of security and safety on the highways, and I do understand that the Americans have proposed a 12-hour shift limit over the 14-hour shift limit that we have. I do understand that 84 per cent of Canadians favour limiting weekly work hours to 60 hours. Are you looking at those in some other instance, or are you asking us to pass a bill that is addressing -- Mr. Sweet, did you want to say something to me?

Mr. Sweet: Sorry, senator. I was having a brief word with Mr. Elliott.

Senator Finestone: I do not understand. The intent may be wonderful, but you are asking us to review a piece of legislation, and accept that piece of legislation, and yet we do not even know how national safety standards, which will now be the responsibility of the provinces to administer, will work with each of the provincial ministers and yet the jurisdiction rests within the provinces. Moreover, the provincial record indicates that there has been deviation from the standards that were recommended in the past. Only a few provinces have recognized more than two out of the 16 standards originally proposed. How are we supposed to feel a sufficient sense of comfort to move ahead with this bill when the fundamental issues of safety and security of the travelling public have not been dealt with? When the driver and the family are not protected in the concept that we are putting forward? They are not even covered. Those are major issues.

Mr. Elliott: Perhaps I could attempt to clarify.

Senator Finestone: That would make me more comfortable.

Mr. Elliott: The issues that you raise and the issues that surround hours of service are certainly important. The current hours-of-service standard and the discussions around changing the standard are in standard No. 9. The bill before you deals with standard No. 14.

Senator Finestone: What is standard No. 14?

Mr. Elliott: Standard No. 14 is related to safety ratings. It is true that this bill does not deal with all issues relating to motor vehicle safety and that there are important other issues that need to be addressed. Some of the concerns raised this morning, as well as remarks made by the minister, relate to the whole scheme of the National Safety Code and the regulations that would give force to it.

To clarify again, the bill that is before you does not relate to hours of service at all, other than the fact that it is a bill relating to a provision of the National Safety Code and the regulations related to it. It does not deal with standard No. 9, which is the hours-of-service standard. There are federal-provincial industry discussions on a revised standard.The consultations relating to those proposed changes are continuing, and there is discussion now between Transport Canada and our provincial colleagues about how best to continue those consultations. I believe that the minister will subsequently bring forward suggestions for changes to the standard and to the regulations, but that is not within the scope of this bill.

Senator Finestone: You say that that is standard 14. Could you tell me if you are also looking at collisions and the reporting on collisions for trucking infractions and accidents?

From what I have learned in this committee, Madam Chair, I understand that we investigate collisions in other modes transportation, such as pipelines, air, rail and marine travel, but we do not investigate incidents involving trucks. Why is that? Trucks are closest to people on a daily basis.

I drive from Montreal to Ottawa and return, as do many of my colleagues, and I can tell you that it is not fun to drive on that highway, especially early in the day when the big trucks are on the road. I am curious to know what happens when an accident takes place. Do we look at why that accident took place? Do we look at why the standard was abridged? Do we consider in which province that standard may not stand up to national standards? How do we know what the provinces are doing to meet the national standards, if we do not investigate?

Mr. Elliott: To try to keep the numbers straight, the standard referred to in this bill is No. 14. The standard for hours-of-service is No. 9. With respect to accident investigations, perhaps I could make some comments and then I will ask Mr. Sweet to elaborate.

It is true that there are differences between how accident investigations are carried out and pursuant to which regime they are carried out as between motor vehicles on the one hand and other modes of transport on the other. Parliament established the Transportation Safety Board, which is independent of the minister and the department, and it carries on accident investigations in respect of other modes of transportation -- rail, air and marine. The provinces carry out some items referred to by the minister -- largely the day-to-day conduct of enforcement and investigation relating to motor vehicle safety -- but the department does have some ability, as Mr. Sweet has alluded to, to look into the causes of accidents. However, you are quite right, senator, that different regimes apply to Motor vehicles and to the other modes. That, in large part, relates to the jurisdictional situation with respect to federal and provincial authorities, in respect of motor vehicles and the delegations that the minister has referred to in his opening remarks.

Perhaps I could ask Mr. Sweet to elaborate on what we do and do not do as a department with respect to motor vehicle accidents.

Senator Finestone: Mr. Sweet, considering that here has been such a poor track record by our provinces in implementing the National Safety Code during the past 12 years, do you feel that bringing this bill forward will really make a difference -- a bill that continues the delegation of responsibility, essentially, to the provinces? Do you really expect that you will see more respect for the 14 regulations, which used to be 16, including the one that you refer to in this bill?

Mr. Sweet: It is our view that the track record of the NSC implementation is not poor, as you would characterize it.

Senator Finestone: Did you say it is not poor?

Mr. Sweet: No, and let me explain. We have certainly had our difficulties in achieving all 15 standards -- there were 16 standards and now there are 15. By and large, I think it is fair to say that the standards are being implemented in a consistent manner. There are difficulties with certain standards, and this is admitted. However, it is also important to recognize that some standards are more important than others.

That is why we are focusing on standard 14, which is a new standard. Standard 14 calls for the provinces to safety rate every commercial carrier in the jurisdiction. In order to do this, provinces are required to take safety performance data of every carrier from a number of the important National Safety Code standards. Standard 14 is an umbrella standard that draws into it the performance of carriers in respect of a number of the other standards. For example, the on-road performance of vehicles. You are all familiar with inspection stations at the side of the road. Results of those inspections, which come under standard No. 11, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Standard, would be fed into the safety rating. Standard No. 10, which relates to periodic inspection of vehicles, would be fed into the safety rating. Indeed, the carriers' performance and hours-of-service -- standard No. 9 -- would be fed into the safety rating.

Not all of the standards are captured in the safety rating because it is collectively felt that some are more important than others, but standard 14 certainly does capture the performance of carriers with respect to all the major standards. It captures five, six or seven of those standards. By doing this, therefore, we are very hopeful that we will achieve the necessary consistent implementation of all of the important National Safety Code standards. We are not there yet, you are quite right, but to characterize it as poor is, perhaps, not quite accurate.

I would like to dwell for a moment on the issue of collision data. The implementation of the safety rating system will require that provinces capture a great deal of carrier safety performance information. Much of this information has never been captured before, and certainly has never been brought together like it will be in the future. We should be encouraged on the data front that we will have much more and much better data on the safety performance of carriers.

I neglected a question earlier, when we were talking about safety ratings; I believe the question was whether they would be public. The answer, which I did not offer, is, yes, they will be public. I described the ratings and they will be publicly available. We are making considerable progress here in capturing and analyzing safety data.

Senator Finestone: Madam chair, perhaps you could tell me when we will be talking to this department? The reason I ask that is that I almost had a terrible accident recently because the outer rim of some huge tire off a truck almost hit my car, and the debris was littered all along the highway. Is that covered in this standard 14? Would you like to ask that question?

The Chairman: You could ask the question. I do not think that it is. Is it, Mr. Sweet?

Mr. Sweet: The issue of tire separations?

Senator Finestone: Yes, that is what it is called.

Mr. Sweet: If it can be shown that it is related to, for example, insufficient or improper maintenance of the vehicle, yes, it would be directly related to the standard that relates to vehicle maintenance.

Senator Forrestall: I will defer to Senator Spivak, although I have a several broad general questions. By the way, do we have a list of these standards?

Senator Finestone: That would be a good idea.

The Chairman: Could you provide us with a list of the standards?

Mr. Sweet: We could certainly provide that, yes.

Senator Forrestall: The question is really why we did not have them before.

The Chairman: We do have them here, but they will provide us with a list.

Senator Forrestall: If it will delay the proceedings, I will defer.

The Chairman: We will have other witnesses, and you can use it then.

Mr. Elliott: Certainly, we will provide that.

Senator Spivak: Mr. Sweet, when you suggest that we will soon have a seamless web of safety standards across North America, you remind me of a character in Candide: Everything is for the best and it is the best of all possible worlds. I do not think that it is correct to say that certain things are not covered in this bill, because this bill is about the safety standards and everything relates to that, including the question of implementation, and so on.

Some time ago, we wished to amend the legislation dealing with the National Transportation Safety Board. We wanted to have that national board investigate trucking accidents. As I understand it -- and this relates to your question, Senator Finestone -- at the moment, it is the Department of Transport that makes the regulations and subsequently investigates accidents at the request of a province; it is not the National Transportation Safety Board, as has been the case in the United States for years.

Therefore, I do not feel at all out of line when I want to ask questions about hours of service, for instance. I have specific questions, but I have one broad question first. I want you to specify -- and give it to us in chapter and verse -- exactly how the Constitution is preventing you from regulating extra-provincial and international trucking.

Coming to the specific questions, I want to ask a question with regard to the standard for hours of service, which is far below that of all other countries, including the United States. In the United States there is a minimum of 10 hours for continuous off-duty time; in Canada it is 8 hours. In the United States there is a limit on driving hours in the shift of 10 hours. In Canada, it is 12 hours. The limit on driving hours in a week in the United States is 60 hours. In Canada, it is 84 hours. There is a huge difference between Canada and the United States. Here are my questions.

First, what is the situation concerning public hearings on the new policy for truck drivers' hours of work? What will be the role of the federal government in these hearings? When and where will they be held? Where is the draft legal standard that Transport Canada said would be released in mid-October 2000? Will the CCMTA board of directors be making their decision on the new hours of work standard at their meeting in June?

These are legitimate questions to ask with respect to this bill, because we do not often get a chance to talk to the bureaucrats about what is going on. We do not have a chance to inquire about this topic. We, as representatives of the people, as are the members of the House of Commons, need to know these things because there is great public concern about what is happening on our highways. These are specific questions, and they relate to some of the questions that Senator Finestone was asking.

The Chairman: Before we get an answer, you all have your briefing book. At Tab 4 is the National Safety Code for motor carriers, and it contains the standard description. You could get more information there.

Mr. Elliott: Let me attempt to address each of the matters that were raised.

First, I should like to make it clear that I did not mean to suggest that the concern and questions being asked with respect to hours of service were not relevant and important. That was not my intention at all. I was simply attempting to clarify what is contained in this proposed piece of legislation, and what is outside it. Certainly many of the comments that the minister made relate to the overall regime with respect to the National Safety Code and concerns that the minister has with respect to the efficacy of that regime.

I do not want us to be diverted, perhaps, by a debate over what the appropriate adjective is about the current regime. The minister has clearly indicated, with respect to the current regime, that the current level of cooperation between the federal and provincial jurisdictions is not satisfactory. It is not good enough. We do not have as harmonized a system as we require. The minister, though, has indicated that that is a concern to him, and a concern that he intends to raise with his provincial colleagues.

We have not, however, come to the conclusion that the approach of the National Safety Code and the level of cooperation, or the lack of cooperation, is such that we should throw out the approach entirely. This bill is based on that approach. As Mr. Sweet has indicated, although it has not been completely successful, there is certainly a level of cooperation and a level of consistency between the jurisdictions.

Again, it is not good enough, but it is certainly better than potentially 14 completely different regimes, with a regime in each of the provinces and each of the territories to deal with matters within provincial and territorial boundaries and a regime to deal with interprovincial and international trucking.

In answer to your question regarding what is in the Constitution that prevents the federal government from regulating interprovincial or international trucking, I have not asked our counsel, but my answer to that question is that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent us from doing that.

Senator Spivak: Exactly.

Senator Forrestall: Why did you not do it 20 years ago?

Mr. Elliott: The rationale for not doing that is, as I said, the desire not to have one regime for trucking between provinces or internationally that is completely different from the regime within a province. Certainly, the trucking industry told us, and I am sure will tell you, that their desire is to have one set of rules by which to operate. They would like, for example, to have the same set of rules in the Province of Quebec and the same set of rules with respect to interprovincial trucking and the same set of rules with respect to international trucking.

Senator Spivak: If I could interrupt you, Mr. Elliott, I neglected one portion. Under the internal agreement on trade and under NAFTA, Canada has an obligation to standardize national safety standards across provincial borders and across international borders. I do not quite understand why it would be so terrible if you had two standards. Perhaps the provinces would need to buckle up. I do not get it.

Do the Canadian government, the NAFTA treaty, the internal treaty on trade and the Constitution not trump the provincial governments, no matter what they are doing? No? Yes.

The Chairman: Let the official answer, Senator Spivak.

Mr. Elliott: I defer to my colleagues from the Department of Justice. The simple answer is "no", but there is not a simple answer. The Constitution and the relative jurisdictions in conflict of law issues are very complicated. The desire has been to try to have one regime. We have moved a certain distance down that road, if I may use that analogy, but we have not made as much progress as we need to make.

Senator Spivak: Okay.

Mr. Elliott: You asked also about hours of service. May I respond to that?

Senator Spivak: Public hearings, yes.

Mr. Elliott: As I said in my response to an earlier question, the issue of public consultations is still under consideration. There will certainly be public consultations. We, the federal government, will certainly have a role to play with respect to those. The CCMTA board is dealing with that issue, and the minister will have some decisions to make based on what the CCMTA is proposing.

I would ask Mr. Sweet if he could address the senator's question about the draft standard.

Senator Spivak: When and where?

Mr. Elliott: That has not yet been determined, senator.

Senator Spivak: Okay.

Mr. Sweet: The draft standard is substantially complete. It is to be used as the basis for consultations, as I think I indicated in an appearance before some of you last fall. This exercise did take us quite a bit longer than was envisaged. It was more complicated than we had thought it would be, quite frankly. However, we are in good shape now. As soon as a decision is taken on how the consultations will be effected, that document will be used as the base document, if you like.

Ms Elizabeth MacNab, Legal Counsel, Transport Canada: I want to say at the outset that I agree with Mr. Elliott with regard to the application of NAFTA and other international agreements. We cannot, under an agreement with another state, interfere with matters that are purely within the provincial jurisdiction, unless the provinces also agree to it.

One other point that has not quite been made during all of this discussion is that although we, in the federal government, have the jurisdiction over interprovincial motor vehicle operations, there are some limits to that jurisdiction. The case that determined our jurisdiction in the first place pointed out quite clearly that there were some matters that remained within the provincial sphere relating to highway safety. Some simple examples are matters such as speed limits, load limits on local highways, and so on.

As the federal government gets more involved in the safety aspects of interprovincial trucking operations the question of where the line is drawn between local matters and federal matters will become more blurred. That is another reason for looking towards more cooperation.

Senator Spivak: Thank you for explaining that. However, I wonder if the opinion that you have given has been tested through other court decisions. I ask that because of the Chapter 11 section in the NAFTA agreement. It has been said in some quarters, that that section means that municipalities cannot operate independently. If that can reach into the municipal system, it occurs to me to wonder whether the whole NAFTA position that you state been tested in the courts of law? Has that ever been challenged?

Ms MacNab: Not to my knowledge, but I am not an expert on NAFTA.

Senator Spivak: At issue here is the fact that we have an agreement under NAFTA. In other areas of NAFTA the agreement has been able to reach down into the municipalities, if I may put it that way. The Mexican issue regarding putting metal-clad garbage in the garbage dump is an example.

Madam Chair, do we need to look at this perhaps in more detail?

Ms MacNab: Perhaps I could make one point here with regard to NAFTA. Under NAFTA our obligation is to provide national treatment to our NAFTA partners, which means in terms of the trucking industry that we can demand that trucks coming into Canada from either Mexico or the United States meet Canadian standards, which is, again, another reason for harmonizing. That means safety standards.

Senator Spivak: However, if Canadian trucks going into the United States do not have the same standards as the American trucks, what is our exposure there? We are desperately trying to harmonize with the United States in many areas. In this area we are not.

Ms MacNab: That is right.

Senator Forrestall: I am surprised that, from your point of view, the department has not considered a reference to the Supreme Court for an interpretation. I wonder whether or not this would withstand the scrutiny of judicial review. It would assist to understand it without having to wait until an event, or a sequence events, takes place requiring a reference, for whatever reason, to the Supreme Court.

Would the department consider a reference to the Supreme Court simply to better understand this?

Mr. Elliott: Senator, I certainly thank you for your observations, but note that whether or not there should be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on a matter relating to international trade would be a more appropriate question for the Attorney General of Canada and perhaps our colleagues at Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Senator Forrestall: I am not sure how this should happen, but certainly an impetus must come from Transport because this is a Transport matter. The Attorney General of Canada will not otherwise look at this and decide on it.

Mr. Elliott: Senator, I will certainly be happy to pass that observation on to the minister.

Senator Forrestall: I would appreciate it if you would.

Senator Eyton: Instinctively, I like the idea of one standard. To me that makes great sense because it is an effective and efficient way of doing things. Instinctively, I would favour a delegation, the principle in the bill itself.

It may be naïve of me, but a number of questions have been raised that worry me a little. Let me ask a simple question. If the safety standards are critical for the National Safety Code, who is driving all that?

Are the federal authorities, or are the federal and provincial authorities, driving the development of a national safety code and those standards? What is the relationship with the U.S. and Mexico in terms of the international standards that we are talking about? Who or what is driving the development of the National Safety Code and those standards?

Mr. Sweet: The development of the National Safety Code standards is really done collegially in a consensus-based way. The organization that is most involved is the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, CCMTA, which is an organization of all provincial and territorial governments and the federal government. The CCMTA also includes many hundreds of other members -- public interest groups and private sector concerns.

The standards are developed by this committee of federal and provincial officials and are amended from time to time by the same committee.

Senator Eyton: In every important initiative there is a small group that initiates change. It is not an association of 500 or 1,000. Who is taking the lead in this? To what extent are we working well with our provincial colleagues as well as internationally?

Mr. Sweet: I humbly suggest that we lead on many of these initiatives. That is not surprising, because around the CCMTA table we are the only representatives of the national interest -- the provinces, obviously, represent their own interests. I would suggest that Transport Canada is very active in the CCMTA process and is leading a number of initiatives with which you are familiar; we chair the hours-of-service task force, for example, as well as the safety ratings task force, and others.

Senator Eyton: Senator Spivak talked about a three-year period. It is probably longer than that since we worked on the National Safety Code and the standards. How close are we to reaching a consensus of what I could call the "best Canadian standards"? I recognize that only a few have signed on in any meaningful way. How close are we to something that is comprehensive and meets Canadian standards?

Mr. Sweet: As I indicated earlier, consistent implementation of the safety rating standard No. 14 is the key; it is agreed by all around the CCMTA table and by industry that that is the key standard. That is because it is an umbrella standard that brings into consideration performance on all of the other key National Safety Code standards. Standard No. 14 is the key. By the end of this calendar year most, if not all, of the provinces will be well placed to begin implementation of safety ratings. In fact, some are implementing them now and others are still working on the systems requirements that I indicated earlier. I suggest that a year from now we should be in very good shape. Therefore, we should begin to see consistent safety ratings implemented in every jurisdiction across Canada.

Senator Eyton: The matter is urgent. The reasons have already been alluded to here. How tough are you prepared to be with, and how quickly will you act against, states and provinces that simply do not adhere to, or do not enforce, or do not fulfil their commitments in accordance with the National Safety Code? How tough can you be?

Mr. Sweet: We have had excellent cooperation in building the safety ratings standards. As I indicated, everybody around the CCTMA table agrees that that is the key safety standard. I expect that cooperation to continue into consistent implementation of the standard. The short answer is that we are not anticipating significant inconsistencies. There has been cooperation exhibited thus far in developing a standard and implementing it. Therefore, we anticipate that all jurisdictions will comply with the standard. We hope that we will not need to consider any action.

Senator Setlakwe: What happens if they do not comply?

Senator Eyton: Ultimately, the federal government has the authority to withdraw the exemption.

Mr. Sweet: That is correct. The minister noted that in his opening remarks. If it turns out that a province, for whatever reason, is not implementing the standard as laid out, then certainly the Minister of Transport has the authority to withdraw from that province their authority to issue safety fitness certificates to carriers.

Senator Finestone: I looked through the minister's speech and I am concerned about penalties and fines.

You mentioned, Mr. Sweet, that you represent the national interest. However, as the minister stated on page 7 of his brief, "Since the trucking and motor coach industries are largely national and international rather than local or provincial, it is essential that their safety regulation be consistent across the country and compatible with regulation in the U.S. and Mexico." There is not, generally, satisfaction with the application of the national standard to date, because it is not considered good enough, it is not seamless, and yet we have national treatment. Then I read that the act addresses both bussing and trucking transport, both of which are vital parts of our national transportation system. Apparently trucking is a $40 billion industry and is an essential component of Canada's economy, but we need to improve road safety. The minister also indicated that it is necessary to view this significant growth in heavy truck traffic as imperilling road safety. Therefore, it is a federal responsibility, because a high proportion of that motor carrier activity is across provincial boundaries. That is even more to the point under the "peace, order and good government" section. The government is convinced that regulation by governments is most effective in achieving this, but according to the second paragraph on page 4 of the brief, they will delegate federal authority in this area.

I would ask you then to look at the new "objectives" section, on page 5 of the brief.

When did we decide to segregate the country -- create more divisions and reduce the federal jurisdiction and national responsibility? I do not understand that. I believe that Senator Eyton hit the nail on the head. I ask Ms MacNab when it was that transportation became a questionable division mark for federal-provincial jurisdiction? Was Mr. Dion consulted on this? Is it something that is open for discussion?

The Chairman: We are still discussing a transport issue.

Senator Finestone: Yes, but I would presume that the Intergovernmental Relations Minister, Stéphane Dion, would be consulted on this issue.

The Chairman: We will ask him, if need be.

Senator Finestone: I hope so. I do not understand why there is a question mark.

Mr. Elliott: Our understanding, and certainly the bill reflects our understanding and advice, is that the provinces clearly have some jurisdiction with respect to trucking.

Senator Finestone: Yes.

Mr. Elliott: The federal government certainly has jurisdiction with respect to international and interprovincial trucking.

With respect to the delegation and when those things were decided, the minister indicated that there was a decision in the 1950s. It is true that this bill is a continuation of that model.

Mr. Sweet has alluded to the good cooperation that has been exhibited by provinces with respect to this particular standard and the work that has already been undertaken by jurisdictions to implement this standard. Our expectation is that the legislation before you, should it be passed and implemented by Parliament, will be an important step toward reinvigorating the National Safety Code.

That is one reason that the National Safety Code is specifically referred to in the bill. Will it be enough? Will it provide the level of harmonization and cooperation that we require? The minister, in his opening remarks, suggested that this question is still open. If it does not, he has indicated that he is prepared to consider other action.

Senator Forrestall: I have a follow-up to something the minister was talking about earlier regarding the development of smart highway systems, particularly Highway 401 and half a dozen others. For example, we have our own stretch of killer highway in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia. There are a number of them around the country.

Could a province, on the basis of developing cures for these terrible situations, seek federal funding? Would that be sufficient reason for funding, or must there be a federal-provincial mix, which seems to have been the desired policy over the years: "If we have already spent money there, we will spend more. However, if we have not spent any money yet, we will not spend any at all."

In other words, is there a criterion for federal help?

Mr. Elliott: Unfortunately, I am not in a position to provide you with an answer to that question. I hope that I am not sounding overly bureaucratic, but the question of highway funding is not within the responsibility of my group, which is the safety and security group. Any of my colleagues from that part of the department, or the minister, could provide you with that information, but I am afraid that I do not have it available this morning.

Senator Forrestall: Whom would we call?

Mr. Elliott: My counterpart, the responsible ADM, is Mr. Louis Ranger. He is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy for the Department of Transport. He and his group administer highway funding and provide advice to the minister on highway funding.

Senator Forrestall: It would seem that the Auditor General's observations were bang on. Perhaps the Public Service of Canada should meet with us every third week for one hour to tell us who is involved.

Senator Spivak: I want to go back to the hours of service issue. It relates to the safety rating system, if the code and regulation that emerge reflect past discussions.The CCMTA has suggested that carriers with good safety ratings will be allowed to exceed the hours-of-service regulation. Does the draft standard include any recognition of carriers with satisfactory or good safety ratings?

Mr. Sweet: The senator is quite correct. We are continuing to do research in the area of fatigue, which is fundamental to establishing an appropriate hours-of-service regime. We have done considerable work in this area over the last few years, as you know, and we are continuing to do more. Part of the "more" is the possibility of running a controlled experiment to determine other impacts of hours-of-service arrangements on fatigue. The details are just being worked out. We are involved, as are our American counterparts, Industry Canada and some provinces, as well. If there is an issue in this area, it would be very well controlled and it would be of a research nature.

Senator Spivak: Is the answer yes or no?

Mr. Sweet: The answer is that we are considering some research in that area.

Senator Spivak: It might be the case that carriers with good safety ratings will be allowed to exceed the hours-of-service regulation? You are not ruling that out?

Mr. Sweet: As I indicated, we are considering entering into some research that would investigate this sort of situation.

Senator Spivak: I think I have the answer.

The Chairman: You are putting words in Mr. Sweet's mouth.

Senator Spivak: No.

Senator Callbeck: Some of the concerns that I hear expressed by the public concerning trucks are the hours of service and the length or the size of trucks. My understanding is that last fall Ontario moved to extend the length of trucks. Where does that stand? Are there discussions with the provinces? Will this be considered in the national safety code? Is it part of it? I should like to hear your comments on that.

Mr. Sweet: There is no national safety code standard that deals specifically with the weights or the lengths of commercial vehicles. There is a memorandum of understanding that has been entered into amongst all provincial levels of government and the federal government concerning truck weights and dimensions.

Having said that there is no NSC standard that deals specifically with weights and dimensions, I should indicate that the safety rating standard deals obliquely, shall I say, with that issue?

Let me explain. A number of factors go into the building of a safety rating. One of these factors will be a carrier's weights and dimensions performance, if I can put it that way. If a carrier receives contraventions for overweight vehicles or for vehicles that are over length, then that will be accounted for in that carrier's safety rating. Although there is no specific NFC standard that deals with weights and dimensions, a carrier's weights and dimensions performance will be a factor in the building of the carrier's safety rating.

Senator Finestone: Will it pay for the cost of repairs to the roads when they break it up. The highways get destroyed, and we have no rules to govern that.

Senator Callbeck: You say that length will be included. Could every province permit a different length? Will there be any thought to standardizing the length or getting some control over it?

Mr. Sweet: The memorandum to which I referred was entered into in 1988, I believe. That is the memorandum on weights and dimensions. It has been amended once or twice, or perhaps thrice since. In fact, only recently Ontario and Quebec entered into a further understanding on the issue of weights and dimensions.

It is fair to say that the issue of weights and dimensions has been approached more on a regional basis. When you talk of a national uniformity of weights and dimensions, that has been an objective, but it is fair to say that the result is that we have more regional arrangements on weights and dimensions than we have national.

Again not to appear to be overly bureaucratic, the issue of weights and dimensions is also within the purview of our policy group. That would be Mr. Ranger's folks rather than the organization that Mr. Elliott heads, of which I am a part.

Senator Callbeck: You said that this memorandum of understanding was signed in 1990 concerning the dimensions. What does it say? Does it have any teeth in it?

Mr. Sweet: I should probably defer to helping you out, perhaps, by getting more information on the weights and dimensions memorandum. As I indicated, it really is not an area that is our responsibility; it is the responsibility of the policy group in Transport Canada, but we would be willing to bring further information to you if it is of interest.

The Chairman: If you can provide us with further information, it will be distributed to our members. In the meantime, some questions that were asked by Senators Spivak and Forrestall can be referred to Mr. Ranger, and we will ask Mr. Ranger to send us the answers to those questions. I appreciate that you cannot answer all of the questions.

Thank you for your presence here today. If we need further information, we will let you know.

Senator Spivak: Do we need to obtain further advice on NAFTA and its implementation?

The Chairman: I mentioned that request.

Senator Spivak: Perhaps we could get someone who is competent in that area?

The Chairman: I will let you know that as soon as possible.

I would ask the steering committee to remain for purposes of discussion and preparing a report.

The committee adjourned.