Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications

Issue 3 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-3, to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 9:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Darren Christle, our witness this morning, is from the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. He is the Director of Transportation Safety and Regulation. Welcome to our committee.

We will hear from you first, Mr. Christle, and then the senators will ask their questions.

Mr. Darren Christle, Director of Transportation Safety and Regulation, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators: Honourable senators, I am honoured to convey regards on behalf of the Manitoba Minister of Transportation and Government Services, the Honourable Steve Ashton, and my CCMTA colleagues from across Canada. I would like to thank this committee for requesting that the CCMTA appear before you today to share our perspective regarding Bill S-3, the amendment to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987.

As previously circulated, and as suggested in attachment number 1, the CCMTA is a non-profit organization comprising approximately 600 members, including representatives from Transport Canada, all the provincial and territorial jurisdictions, which, through the collective consultative process, makes decisions on administration and operational matters dealing with licensing, registration, control of motor vehicle transportation and highway safety.

Its members include approximately 370 associate members from the private sector, special interest groups and associations such as CRASH and the Canadian Trucking Alliance, whose expertise and opinions are sought in the development of strategies and programs.

The CCMTA receives its mandate and reports to the council of ministers responsible for transportation and highway safety. It is structured with a 15-member jurisdictional board of directors and three primary standing committees. The committees are the Standing Committee on Drivers and Vehicles, the Standing Committee on Road Safety, Research and Policies, and the Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, CRA.

As a result of my participation as a jurisdictional representative on the Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, which has had significant involvement in the development of the bill under consideration, and primarily NSC standard 14, motor carrier safety ratings, I have been asked to represent the CCMTA before this committee.

In order to provide information on where we are going, it is necessary for me to spend a moment on where we have already been. The federal authority to regulate the activities of extra-provincial trucking and bus companies was delegated to the provinces by the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1954. The MVTA, 1987, continued this delegation of authority, but with rules covering how the provinces can use the authority while simultaneously enacting national deregulation policies. The deregulation eased economic regulations, primarily market entry and exit, and refocused attention on safety. This refocus served as a precept for the creation of a memorandum of understanding called the National Safety Code, the NSC.

The CCMTA forum facilitated a consultative and participative effort of each Canadian jurisdiction, including the federal government, to establish 16 minimum safety performance standards for the safe operation of commercial vehicles in Canada. One standard, being first aid, is voluntary, thus leaving 15 NSC standards today.

Many of the minimum NSC standards have been agreed upon and jurisdictions are undertaking implementation. Bill S-3 supports the precept of consistent application of the standards, while recognizing that there will be some jurisdictional differences in approach.

There exists today a certain amount of criticism respecting the development of minimum safety standards by federal-provincial consensus. Additionally, there exists a perception of gross inconsistencies between jurisdictions on all elements of the National Safety Code. It is appropriate that I take a moment to speak to these issues.

Provinces have accepted the delegated responsibility for interprovincial trucking for the last 50 years. As such, all have, in good faith, dedicated scarce provincial resources, in conjunction with federal funding, to develop systems to manage this task within their own respective jurisdictions, albeit they are unique.

Between 1998 and 1993, Transport Canada allocated approximately $24 million, and between 1995 and 2000 approximately $20 million, to assist provinces with the development and implementation of the National Safety Code, and there have been positive results. Discounting the success of harmonization respecting major elements in a number of the standards would be inappropriate.

It must be recognized that the NSC are minimum safety standards. There is no barrier to prevent jurisdictions from exceeding these minimum standards. However, the result is a perception of complete incompatibility and inconsistency. I must recognize that there are certain regional and provincial issues that have caused some inconsistencies, however, for the most part many of the major elements have been developed and implemented.

Additionally, it must be recognized that provinces exercise the authority for intra-provincial transportation regulation. By means of the consensus development approach fostered by the CCMTA, we mitigate the possibility of dual regulatory regimes dependent on either the intra-jurisdictional or inter-jurisdictional characteristics of the motor carrier.

This recognition is evident when considering clauses 3.1 and 3.2. The amendment is particularly important in that it allows a co-operative opportunity to exist between the provinces and Transport Canada to examine, develop and test new and/or best practices in an extra-provincial environment.

One of the most significant amendments to the bill rests with the reference to the National Safety Code in clause 3, and the incorporation by reference of NSC standard 14, motor carrier safety ratings, in the regulation with reference to section 16.1(2).

Through CCMTA participation, NSC standard 14 has been under development and refinement for a number of years. The guiding principles of the standard will ensure that a safety rating system in Canada is based on the following: compatibility between jurisdictions; effectiveness by utilizing objective data analysis; equity independent of motor carrier characteristics; flexibility to recognize differences while not compromising process integrity; and consistency whereby carriers will receive similar ratings regardless of the rating jurisdiction.

The incorporation of NSC standard 14 into the MVTA is the major enhancement of Bill S-3. Each member of the CCMTA, government and associate, has had an opportunity to participate in the open drafting of the standard. The standard was approved by the CCMTA boards of directors in December of 1997. Standard 14 is significant due to the fact that it incorporates many of the other NSC standards within its purview. It is a complex standard that has required considerable resources in development.

In 2000, Transport Canada made $7 million available to the provinces for safety rating development, electronic data transfer and rating harmonization. These funds have been put to good use and it is anticipated that many of the jurisdictions due to release their carrier profile systems, coupled with the safety rating, will do so in 2001.

I would surmise that the committee will have heard comments about inconsistencies respecting tests of provincial safety rating systems. Please recognize that when these tests were done, many of the jurisdictions were using theoretical processes and algorithms under development in order to assess consistency at that specific point in time.

The standard will result in a safety rating being assigned to each motor carrier base-plated in a jurisdiction. The safety rating will either be satisfactory unaudited, satisfactory, conditional or unsatisfactory. Each jurisdiction will have in place a system to address issues of non-compliance based on objective data analysis, and a facility audit consistent with NSC standard 15. Each jurisdiction will assess a motor carrier's record over a two-year period, as it is reflected by their record of roadside convictions, at-fault collisions, commercial vehicle safety alliance, CVSA roadside mechanical fitness inspections, and facility audit results, which will make a positive impact on safety. That is what this is all about.

Clause 9 of the bill provides the federal minister with the authority to withdraw the ability of a province to issue a federal safety fitness certificate should they be in non-compliance with the standard. This provision will increase accountability of provincial jurisdictions and could result in significant adjustments being necessary should this authority be exercised.

Provincial authorities are committed to operating in good faith in support of national consistency. It is the position of CCMTA that Bill S-3 does support the principles of safety and increases the opportunity for additional harmonization. The CCMTA supports the bill as tabled.

I would be happy to further assist the committee if honourable senators have any questions.

The Chairman: Referring to item 11 of your presentation where you say that the CCMTA forum facilitated the consultative and participative efforts of each Canadian jurisdiction, can you explain how you proceeded to obtain such consensus?

Mr. Christle: The three standing committees are composed of various project groups. When an issue is tabled, it will go to a project group for debate and discussion in order to achieve that consensus from the voting members of the CCMTA.

Once we have an agreement in principle, the issue will be raised with the standing committee, and eventually with the board of directors and with the council of deputy ministers.

The Chairman: What is your opinion regarding the National Safety Code? Is it more or less flexible in comparison with the U.S. and Mexico security standards?

Mr. Christle: The United States is more prescriptive in their federal system. The National Safety Code is slightly different in the fact that the provinces are responsible for enforcement issues as they relate to the National Safety Code, whereas the federal government in the United States is responsible. There is quite a difference between them. It is a matter of trying to compare apples with oranges.

The Chairman: You are unable to say whether it is more or less flexible; is that correct?

Mr. Christle: That is right. They are actually fairly similar in some issues.

The Chairman: In paragraph 12 you mention the minimum NSC standards. Is it recognized that there are jurisdictional differences in the National Security Code and National Safety Code applications?

Mr. Christle: Yes, it is so recognized. At the same time, should there be gross inconsistencies, they would not meet with support from the participating jurisdictions. For example, should there be a gross inconsistency in vehicle weight thresholds, we would work to resolve that.

Senator Spivak: Mr. Christle, are your project group meetings open and transparent? Is anyone able to attend? May the media attend and report on them?

Mr. Christle: Yes, senator, they are.

Senator Spivak: Are all of the policy papers available?

Mr. Christle: Yes, they are.

Senator Spivak: Madam Chair, my question does not relate directly to the bill, however it is related to safety which this bill addresses.

Is the policy paper on hours of work that was approved in December 1999 available?

Mr. Christle: Although I would have to confirm it with the secretariat, I think that paper would be available. That particular issue is currently under consideration by the Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. I do not see why it would not be available.

Senator Spivak: Could we have a copy of that?

Mr. Christle: I believe so.

Senator Spivak: I understand that policy paper addresses a 36-hour reset and an 84-hour work week. As I understand it, there have been no public consultations yet; is that correct?

Mr. Christle: That is correct, senator.

Senator Spivak: My first question is, how could that policy paper be amended? It appears to be much more draconian than the American standard, especially in light of the agreement to provide for open borders.

My second question is, what form of public meetings or consultations will take place?

Mr. Christle: Specifically in regard to hours of service -- not to give you the impression I am trying to side-step the question -- however, due to standard 9 not being under consideration in the bill, I did not come completely prepared to discuss hours of service. However, I will attempt to answer your questions as best I can.

There is a significant difference between the American standard and the Canadian standard. One must also recognize that the American standard is also under review for amendment. The Canadian standard is based on the U.S. original standard as passed on July 1, 1938, thus it is somewhat outdated.

As to the consultation process, a consultation strategy is currently being developed. That is also an agenda item for the Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in April. Hopefully, from that meeting, the CCMTA will have some direction and be able to proceed with an open consultation strategy.

The process will be amended when we have feedback from the public consultation. We will be able to take a base proposal to incorporate items that have been raised that need to be amended, and then put the particular standard to which you are referring through the process for approval.

Senator Spivak: Are you saying that the project group that was dealing with hours of work for truckers can reopen this subject and change those hours? If the public consultation process determines, as I suspect many groups will say, as have the fatigue experts, that an 84-hour work week is not only not commensurate with what the Americans have, but it is also not consistent with the idea of safety, how will that be addressed? How would that be dealt with in your organization? Are you saying the matter would go back to the project work group?

Mr. Christle: The matter would be referred back to the project work group. We are expecting a significant number of comments from the public consultation process.

Senator Spivak: You do not know when that will be.

Mr. Christle: The strategy is still under development.

If we look south, as are you suggesting, to see what they have experienced in the U.S., we know that when they had their notice of proposed rule making, they had 70,000 responses. I am not suggesting we will get that type of number in Canada, but we will definitely get some response.

Senator Spivak: I would hope so. Road safety is a high priority issue.

You will provide the paper dealing with how that work group developed those particular hours.

You also mentioned the National Safety Code. We went through this discussion at a prior meeting, but the truth of the matter is that only 2 of those 14 items are implemented across the board. We have been hearing promises since approximately 1987 that everyone would implement the code, but that has not happened. I understand that in Alberta and Saskatchewan they do not enforce the federal limit of hours of weekly work, whereas in Manitoba they do.

This bill comes in the wake of promises not kept across all provinces as to the implementation of the National Safety Code. We have a patchwork quilt at the moment. Could you tell us which provinces have implemented how many of the standards?

Mr. Christle: I do not have that level of breakdown.

The Chairman: Are you able to provide that?

Mr. Christle: I will follow that up for you, Madam Chair.

The major elements for most of the 15 standards have been implemented in most jurisdictions. For example, I am not aware of any jurisdiction in Canada that does not have a single driver's licence in terms of commercial transportation. Knowledge and performance tests, for the most part, have been implemented. Driver examiner training programs have been implemented, for the most part, in all jurisdictions. For classified drivers' licences, major elements have been implemented. For self-certification standards and procedures for drivers, major elements have been implemented. Medical standards are in place. For the most part, we recognize that there are driver abstracts and carrier profiles and jurisdictions where carrier profiles are not in place, but they will be by 2001. Short-term suspensions in support of the CDSA standard are in place. For hours of service regulation, there is still considerable work to do.

Senator Spivak: Some are more important than others. For example, the size and weight of the trucks; the hours of service; and various things that relate to driver fatigue are very important. Those are not standard across the country at all.

Mr. Christle: To answer your initial question regarding what Saskatchewan and Alberta are doing regarding hours of service, I understand Alberta is in fact enforcing federal hours of service. However, they refer enforcement issues to Transport Canada for prosecution should a carrier be in non-compliance. Where there is a difference is in the intra-provincial regulation, where there is no cap. That differs from the situation in other Canadian provinces, Manitoba being one of them. Our provincial regulation mirrors the federal regulation.

Senator Spivak: Since it is possible that Canadian standards will be out of whack with American standards, do you not think there will be a problem considering that so much of the traffic is north-south?

I was recently at a conference in Winnipeg on trade corridors, and there was a great deal of discussion about the elements of safety with regard to trucks, particularly Mexican trucks coming up, as they do not have our standards. Do you not think that there will be a problem unless we harmonize with the United States?

Senator Christensen: Are you speaking specifically to hours of service?

Senator Spivak: I am speaking to hours of service and other standards. I understand the Americans will institute a black box, or whatever the electronic monitor is called. We do not have anything like that at the moment.

Mr. Christle: That is correct.

Senator Spivak: Our hours of service, according to this particular project work group, will be much more onerous than those of the Americans.

Mr. Christle: The black box technology was in the initial proposal that the United States was considering. The Congress in the United States did suspend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from proceeding with that particular draft until October of this year.

Senator Spivak: I understand from the American delegates at this conference that that will be implemented.

Mr. Christle: Then you have more current information on black box technology than I do.

As to the differences between Canada and the United States respecting hours of service, they exist today. There are considerable differences, for example, in demographics. The operating distance between Canadian cities is considerable longer than in the United States. Presently they are at a 10-hour day, and I understand they are considering increasing those hours. Canada is actually bringing those hours down from 15 hours on duty to 14.

Senator Spivak: I do not think so.

Senator Callbeck: In paragraph 13, you indicate:

There exists a perception of gross inconsistencies between jurisdictions on all the elements of the National Safety Code.

You go on to say that if there are gross inconsistencies, these will not be supported by provinces.

Mr. Christle: I did not hear the last part of your question.

Senator Callbeck: You say that if there are gross inconsistencies, these would not be supported by provinces.

Mr. Christle: There is a perception that gross inconsistencies exist. I am suggesting that, for the most part, the major elements of all the standards have had considerable progress and in fact have been developed and implemented in most provinces.

Senator Callbeck: I would point out that the weight of trucks, for example, can be four times heavier in Alberta. Does the standard regarding the weight of trucks not have to go through your organization?

Mr. Christle: No, it does not have to go through the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.

Senator Callbeck:There are certainly a lot of inconsistencies here.

We had a group here called CRASH.

Mr. Christle: I am familiar with that group.

Senator Callbeck: They gave us a list. As Senator Spivak has said, they indicated that only two have been implemented across the country.

Mr. Christle: I am familiar with the report card that you are referring to, but I think it is open to interpretation. As far as I am concerned, it does not necessarily carry a lot of weight.

Senator Callbeck: You are going to give us your report card, are you?

Mr. Christle: Yes, I can give you something from the secretariat.

Senator Callbeck: In paragraph 16, you refer to minimum safety standards. With the NSC, will it be possible to have standards for the safety certificate for provincial trucks and another set of standards for interprovincial trucks?

Mr. Christle: It is the intent that provinces will incorporate the federal standard by reference in the provincial regulations so that there will be consistencies and not a dual system. That was always the intent.

Senator Callbeck: Do you not believe it would be better to have one set of regulations administered and enforced by the federal government?

Mr. Christle: Through this process, you will have one set of regulations administered and enforced by the provincial government, in support of the MVTA, as it was structured in 1954, 1987, and as it is under consideration now.

Senator Callbeck: When you look at this chart of what has been implemented to date, that is wishful thinking, is it not?

Mr. Christle: Again, that chart is open to interpretation.

Senator Spivak: Does that mean it is inaccurate?

Mr. Christle: I can speak from Manitoba's perspective on that, specifically, if you wish.

Senator Spivak: Not Manitoba; speak about the national situation.

Senator Callbeck: Just to get a better feel for your organization, do you report to the ministers who are responsible for highways and transportation?

Mr. Christle: Ultimately, the ministers are responsible, yes.

Senator Callbeck: You have 600 members, I believe you said, and over 300 associate members.

Mr. Christle: That is correct.

Senator Callbeck: Your organization is run by 15 directors. Does that mean that every government has one representative?

Mr. Christle: That is right.

Senator Callbeck: In addition, there is the executive director. Am I right in saying that the members never get an opportunity to be on the board of directors?

Mr. Christle: That is right. Voting members represent the governments. However, associate members do have participation through the project group meetings and through the three standing committees.

Senator Callbeck: Are they sometimes appointed to the standing committees?

Mr. Christle: They are participants in the standing committees.

Senator Callbeck: They are not members?

Mr. Christle: No. Voting members are the representatives of the governments.

Senator Callbeck:Thank you.

Senator Finestone: Is CRASH a member of the CCMTA?

Mr. Christle: It is an associate member.

Senator Finestone: Do you read and follow all the bulletins that group puts out? Do you refute or rebut the contents of the bulletins put out by CRASH? Do you look at the materials they publish?

Mr. Christle: I do, from a jurisdictional perspective. The CCMTA is not in the practice of rebutting anything that a particular special interest group puts out.

Senator Finestone: Do you call CRASH a special interest group?

Mr. Christle: Yes.

Senator Finestone: In whose interest are they specializing?

Mr. Christle: They are primarily funded by the railway. In my opinion, they have a particularly jaded view on some of the issues that is not necessarily representative of the consensus across the country, in my opinion. For example, when there is a particular study going on, say, about killer trucks, I would be surprised if anyone across the country would say that they would support killer trucks.

Senator Finestone: My colleague, Senator Callbeck, was asking you about the differences in weights and what would be included as a safety weight. If, say, the United States found that 44 per cent of all trucks coming from Mexico had safety defects so that their potential for accidents was rather high, then costs would be incurred whenever an accident did occur. Similarly, the collision costs and the health and safety costs to Canada as a result of trucking accidents amounts to $25 billion a year. These are very serious factors that need to be considered.

You say there have been consultations and we are in the process of developing standard 14 as sort of a base plate. Is that accurate?

Mr. Christle: Yes.

Senator Finestone: In order to reduce the noxious effects of trucks that do not respect the criteria, and to alleviate the suffering of the people who are injured and the consequent cost to our health system in Canada, do you not think that this bill, in clause 3 which amends section 3 (1), ought to include some kind of schedule which defines the criteria, whether it is the hours of work, the weight of the truck, or other criteria which would outline rights and obligations?

I mention this because I think this might be an effective way to respond to a lot of the criticism of this bill -- and there has been plenty of criticism. Bill C-6 which dealt with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act, had attached to it the purpose, the terms and conditions, and a definition of the CSA, the Canadian Standards Act, as a schedule. This was carefully designed by the Canadian Manufacturers Association, all the different industries associated with it, to deal with a particular aspect of their work which involved personal information and how that could be used in the new technological world.

The National Safety Code is an attempt to ensure the safety of the drivers, the owners and our citizens. That being so, should that not be defined clearly in the bill and in the context of the legislation? Then the regulations can be refined as it becomes necessary.

I do not find much comfort in being told that there is a base-plate proposal in standard 14. I do not know what is in standard 14. Does it incorporate what is contained in standards 1 through 13? How does it work?

I also believe that truck drivers should be made aware of their rights as they are defined in any legislation. Do you think that is a good idea?

Mr. Christle: Certainly, it is. That is what we have undertaken or tried to undertake through the National Safety Code.

To answer your question, many of the elements in the first 13 standards are incorporated in standard 14. For example, standard 12 is CVSA roadside inspections. That is one of the elements that must be considered when assigning a safety rating to a motor carrier. However, many people would not understand it. Let me explain it further. When carriers are subjected to a mechanical fitness inspection at the roadside, they will either pass or fail. They may be placed out of service. Each province is responsible for capturing that data, analyzing it, and using that as one of the elements for the safety rating.

Another example of this is short-term suspensions.Short-term suspension is NSC standard 8. It is in support of the CVAS standard. If a driver is found to be unqualified, to be exceeding hours of service, or to be operating defective equipment, that driver can be suspended on the roadside. Again, this data is captured by the jurisdictions and incorporated into the carrier profile system, NSC standard 14.

Senator Finestone: Would you call that the methodology for ensuring that there is accountability, transparency, and fines or sanctions? Is that how you see it being applied?

Mr. Christle: Sanctions are completely different. This is a way of removing a particular safety concern at a specific point in time. Should the driver be fined, that would be handled through the courts or potentially through a facility audit, which is NSC standard 15, which is also one of the elements that must be taken into account when signing a safety rating.

It does tie a lot of this together. The NSC standards are open and potentially shared with motor carriers, should they choose to look or ask. It is a completely open process.

Senator Finestone: Is there a specific test that drivers have to take? Do drivers know the standards? Do drivers understand their obligations? Do they have the right, not necessarily to whistle-blow but to complain to the owners that they are being asked to drive a truck that does not meet the national standards? Can the drivers blow the whistle on the owners?

Mr. Christle: I will answer this question using Manitoba's example. From an enforcement perspective, often we will have a driver come to us asking for assistance. They are operating a vehicle that, in their opinion, is mechanically unfit, or whatever the case may be. My branch, Transportation Safety and Regulation, would address those safety concerns by either having the vehicle inspected or performing an audit with one of our transportation safety investigators to determine if the allegation is a valid one. Yes, there is a process in place.

The Chairman: Do the drivers get a booklet or some information from the truckers association?

Mr. Christle: I cannot speak for the association. I do not know the answer to that. Again, I will use Manitoba as a example. There is a commercial drivers handbook that would be studied prior to obtaining a Class 1 licence.

Senator Finestone:Do they have to know all these rules and pass an exam in order to obtain a licence?

Mr. Christle: They have to write an exam to get a Class 1 1icence, yes.

You mentioned being concerned about accidents. In 1999, there were approximately 2900 fatalities in Canada. That number was 2934 in 1998. It was the lowest number of collisions resulting in fatalities in 40 years.

Based on Transport Canada statistics, we know that the number of commercial vehicles on the highway has increased and yet the accident rate has decreased.

Senator Finestone: Are you talking about big trucks?

Mr. Christle: Yes, I am speaking about tractor trailers. Using Manitoba as an example, we know that tractor trailers were involved in approximately 3 per cent of the crashes. I am using a statement from Manitoba Public Insurance, MPI. When you consider that, for the most part, the car drivers were responsible for the crashes, that number decreases when you consider fault. Things are improving in Canada.

Senator Finestone: Has an analysis been done by the federal government or the national transportation group? Do they have a portrait of the nature of the accidents: where they took place; what was the cause of those accidents; and so on? I think that might give us a very good picture of whether weight is a significant factor.

The Chairman: I think they have some information which can be furnished to us.

Senator Forrestall: My questions are more or less supplementary. I apologize for being late. It was an Air Canada problem, not mine. I might just add, for the record, 9 of the last 11 flights I have taken have been late.

I am curious about an area that Senator Finestone indirectly opened up. Are there jurisdictions other than the provinces of Ontario and Quebec that have special highway safety squads or groups whose main task it is to go on the highways to check for safety, tire pressure, brakes, and so on?

Mr. Christle: Every province has staff dedicated to what is referred to as transport compliance.

Senator Forrestall: Where there is provincial RCMP, highway jurisdiction, do they do this type of work?

Mr. Christle: They would be one of the parties involved. Often, they would be associated with the agencies responsible for operating the scales. That is to say, the staff responsible for the commercial vehicle safety alliance, the roadside inspections, which is what are you asking about, namely, checking mechanical fitness. Each jurisdiction has staff dedicated to that type of work.

Senator Forrestall: I have never seen a deliberate pull-off in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta. I have not driven very much in British Columbia, but I have seen them from time to time, and regularly, on the highways in Quebec and in Ontario, and I recognize that they have a much more dense traffic pattern. How active are the other provinces?

Mr. Christle:I cannot answer by giving you specific numbers. However, I can answer from a Manitoba perspective. Approximately 3,000 trucks were stopped for CVSA inspections on the roadside in 1999.

Senator Fitzpatrick: Road stops?

Mr. Christle: Yes, road stops and inspections under the provisions of the CVSA. It is an active program.

Senator Forrestall: That is quite a few. Would that have been done by local jurisdictions, weighers and the RCMP?

Mr. Christle: In Manitoba it could be done by municipal police forces or the RCMP or my particular staff, the transportation safety investigators. Primarily, however, it is handled by the transportation compliance officers, the provincial staff responsible for roadside enforcement.

Senator Forrestall: Do your safety investigators do any research? Do they go on planned interventions by the Sûreté du Québec, the Ontario Provincial Police or the RCMP?

Mr. Christle: If you mean a safety blitz, yes, they do participate in that.

Senator Forrestall: That is interesting.

Mr. Christle: If you are ever in Manitoba, senator, you are welcome to come along. We would be happy to take you out.

Senator Forrestall: I have travelled the route from Halifax to Ottawa a lot. Why have we not had a national transportation safety code? At a later stage, my colleague will introduce amendments that cry out for a code that is at once universal and at once provides for one-stop shopping. Highways in rural Cape Breton are probably just as safe as they are in rural Manitoba, but I do not know that, and nor does the truck driver, I am afraid, using those trans-Canada highways. Do you know why we do not have that? Is it because of the anomalies in highway construction?

Mr. Christle: There are a lot of differences in highway infrastructure or highway design across Canada, whether it is related to traffic volumes, demographics, speed differences or weight differences. It is difficult to use a cookie-cutter approach, especially when the provinces have had the responsibility for both intra- and extra-provincial regulation for the last 50 years. There will be some inherent differences.

Throughout my experience with CCMTA, I have never seen a jurisdiction not participate in good faith towards national harmonization. That is what we are working towards.

Senator Forrestall: To my knowledge we have been working at it for 30 years. Will we ever get there? I remember encouraging the government to try to bring these people together. Let us start what was promised 20 year ago. That was back in the 1970s.

Mr. Christle: Harmonization is also an issue for the Council of Ministers and the Council of Deputy Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. I understand they have tasked the policy planning support committee, PPSC, with drafting a memorandum of understanding to address these issues of harmonization. Again, I understand this particular issue is one of the agenda items under consideration for the council of deputy ministers meeting scheduled in April.

Senator Fitzpatrick: You said there were 3,000 inspections per year. That is about 30 per day. Are these vehicles randomly stopped at weigh stations or on highways or are they stopped because there has been an indication that there may be a violation, for example, for speeding or for something else, and then inspected? Is this a specific program that is followed so that, on a daily or a weekly basis, on a random sample basis, so many trucks are stopped? Although I know that you may base your answer on the situation in Manitoba, I am interested in that information in relation to British Columbia. It is probably fair to say that the road conditions in British Columbia may be more precarious because of the terrain. I realize that Manitoba is your backyard, but I should like to know how the Manitoba program compares with the one in British Columbia -- that is, if you can answer that.

Mr. Christle: The CVSA program is consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction across Canada, being a trinational agreement with Canada, the United States and Mexico. B.C. is very aggressive in enforcement, specifically regarding the issues that you raised.

As to how the vehicles are subjected to an inspection, it could be by being pulled over by a mobile unit. It could be by pulling them off to the side of the road in what we call a blister, a little bulge in the highway, and conducting it there. It could be as a result of passing through a scale and being waved off to the side. It could be as a result of having an audit performed at their chief place of business and having all the invalid vehicles pulled over and inspected on-site. It could also be as a result of a blitz by a policing agency. There are a number of different ways in which it can be accomplished.

Senator Fitzpatrick: If there are 3,000 inspections, how many faulty circumstances are found? Do you have any numbers in that regard?

Mr. Christle: Not with me, but I do have a break down of every one of those items. I can tell you, for example, how many headlights were out.

The Chairman: Can you provide that?

Mr. Christle: Certainly.

Senator Spivak: Mr. Christle, I understand about 600 people are killed every year as a result of highway truck collisions. There are about 40,000 injuries and over 100,000 collisions in which trucks are involved. That may be improving, but it certainly is not good enough.

I want to go back to the question of the implementation of the National Safety Code. For 12 years, Saskatchewan and Alberta have refused to implement the weekly limits on hours of work that they agreed to in 1988. Furthermore, the provinces cannot even agree on the size of the trucks that are covered by the National Safety Code. The National Safety Code is to cover trucks weighing over 4.5 tonnes, but Alberta exempts those under 18 tonnes and Saskatchewan exempts those under 11 tonnes.

Has the CCMTA formally requested that Alberta and Saskatchewan use the 4.5 tonne threshold? This is background to the optimistic view that everyone will implement the code, which they have not implemented since 1988. You could do something else. They could be legally challenged under the Internal Agreement on Trade.

Give us some idea of how you deal with these provinces which have for years refused to implement the National Safety Code.

Mr. Christle: The weight threshold is a particular problem. However, some of the information may not be completely accurate. At the moment, Saskatchewan has a weight threshold of 11,000 kilos intra-provincially. The weight threshold for extra-provincial trucks base-plated in Saskatchewan is 4,500 kilos. They have a carry profile, are assigned a safety rating, and are following the principles of the National Safety Code.

As you suggested, senator, Alberta's weight threshold is presently 18,000 kilos. In terms of where Alberta is heading -- and, again, this is my understanding -- they are considering adjusting the weight threshold from 18,000 kilos to 11,794. Where did this 11,794 figure come from? That particular weight happens to be consistent with the International Registration Program, or IRP, which is presently in place in Canada and the United States. That is a significant improvement.

In 1998, Transport Canada commissioned a report which examined the proper weight threshold in Canada. They considered whether 4,500 kilos was the proper weight. The report came back inconclusive in that regard. That does not prevent jurisdictions from attempting to find out what that weight really should be.

I will use Manitoba as an example, if I may. We looked at the weight threshold and asked again: Where did this 4,500 kilos come from? It is my understanding that the number was picked out of the sky. There was nothing to support 4,500 kilos as being the proper weight. When we looked at Manitoba, we first looked at crash statistics. We found that vehicles between 4,500 kilos and 10,999 kilos were involved in significantly fewer crashes than vehicles over 11,000 kilos. In terms of mechanical fitness, we also found that they were no better or worse than vehicles at higher weight thresholds.

Senator Spivak: The point here is that there is a National Safety Code, whatever it is, and provinces are not implementing it. The problem with many of our laws is enforcement. I am asking you: Have you tried to enforce it? If so, what instruments are you using to enforce it?

Mr. Christle: That particular issue is a problem, you are right. Enforcement would have to be done through the council of ministers in identifying this as a concern. What they do in the United States is considerably different. They take a big pot of cash and throw it at the states and say, "If you would like this money, you have to do what we say."

Senator Spivak: We could try that.

Mr. Christle: In Canada, we do not have that level of resources. However, I am more than willing to try.

Senator Spivak: I want to go back to the issue of transparency. You talk about everything being transparent and that anyone can attend. However, the meetings of the council of ministers are not open and transparent. That is where the decisions are made. I understand that in 1998 David Bradley from the Canadian Trucking Alliance was invited to address the council of ministers where he was able to lobby for his position on the hours-of-work rule. My question to you is: Could you release his paper to us? Were you thinking of creating an equal opportunity for safety groups and the teamsters, who are opposed to the 84-hour work week, to address the assembled council of ministers? Am I correct that the meetings of the council of ministers are secret?

Mr. Christle: I would not say "secret." "Closed" is more accurate.

Senator Spivak: It does not matter what words you use. The fact is that no one is there to listen to what they are saying. They are making the decisions which do not come back to Parliament. It is not an open process.

The Chairman: Do they have a press conference at the end of their meetings?

Senator Spivak: They can say whatever they want. I am asking about this particular presentation by Mr. Bradley of the Canadian Trucking Alliance and whether we could have a copy of it.

Mr. Christle: That is a difficult question for me to answer, senator, because I was not aware it had occurred. However, I can follow up on your request with the CCMTA secretariat. If it exists, I am sure they will provide you with a copy.

Senator Spivak: We would like to see that. If you allow one group to lobby, how would other groups be able to lobby for their positions before the CCMTA? That goes back to the whole question of public consultation, transparency, openness and accountability, which I think is not what one would consider adequate, but perhaps I am wrong.

Mr. Christle: In terms of opportunities for associate members and the public to participate through CCMTA, the door has always been open. Special interest groups and associations have had an opportunity to get up and speak. I refer to CRASH and the CTA whose representatives on numerous occasions have stood up at project group meetings.

Senator Spivak: I am talking about meetings of the council of ministers.

Mr. Christle: I have never attended a meeting of the council of ministers.

Senator Forrestall: Why?

Mr. Christle: I am not a minister.

Senator Forrestall: You were not invited.

Senator Spivak: One lobbyist did get there, which is the point I am making.

Mr. Christle: I am not in a position to address that particular question. I am sorry, senator.

Senator Spivak: If you could get us some information on that, we would appreciate it.

You are suggesting that CRASH is really a lobby group, sub-rosa, of the rail companies. It is an open forum. Notes are recorded. I think we should ask the railway companies to see whether that is accurate.

Mr. Christle: You are more than welcome to do that, senator. It is my understanding that CRASH receives a majority, or a large portion, of their funding from railway associations. CRASH has the right, as does any other special interest group in the country, to express opinions. Whether in my opinion they are right or wrong is neither here nor there. They have the right to state their position.

Senator Spivak: Would you say that the Canadian Trucking Alliance is a special interest group?

Mr. Christle: Absolutely.

Senator Spivak: I find that term to be more of an American term. In this country, we not think of special interest. We think of many different voices who speak for the public interest, including the Canadian Trucking Alliance. "Special interest" is a type of code which says, "You are illegitimate."

The Chairman: That is your opinion, senator.

Senator Finestone: The other day I asked whether this bill was not putting the cart before the horse. Then I heard from the eminent Senator Forrestall whose opinions I respect and who has had a long history of association in this field.

Can you tell me if this bill, as presented, will have the positive impact which we hope it will have? That is to say, will there be safety and security for the drivers and for the population, and will there be good income that is safe and secure for the business world? I do not see what this bill does over and above what presently exists. The rules and regulations are not respected. Nor are they clearly defined. They do not have force in law. I think the bill should go out for consultation and be open to amendment. Do you agree?

Mr. Christle: Looking at it from the other side of the table, I see the NSC as a broad framework of how safety can be positively impacted by each jurisdiction across the country. You must recognize that many of the elements have been developed and implemented across Canada in each jurisdiction.

I see this as a positive step. I see this particular bill, once it incorporates NSC standard 14, as having a positive impact on safety from a global perspective.

Senator Finestone: Where is standard 14 defined? How does anyone know what National Safety Code standard 14 is? It does not say "standard 14," it says "National Safety Code."

Mr. Christle: National Safety Code is referenced in clause 3.

Senator Finestone: Where does it mention standard 14 in clause 3?

Mr. Christle: It says "National Safety Code."

Senator Finestone: It could be standard 1.

Mr. Christle: In clause 6, where it references section 16 and the ability to make regulations, it will incorporate, by reference, NSC standard 14.

Senator Finestone: I am suggesting that you need to see the standard laid out in the bill as a schedule. Then you can read it, understand it, and apply it through the law. This way, it is understood but not exactly clear. Would that be a fair assessment?

Before you answer that, do you not think that you and the industry would be more comforted -- the owners, the users and the drivers -- if you underwent a process of consultation before you entrenched this bill in law? That consultation could then be reflected in the content of the bill.

Mr. Christle: I am not opposed to consultation at all. In terms of recognizing that a major enhancement to Bill S-3 is the inclusion of NSC standard 14, I would point out that NSC standard 14 was developed in an open process where stakeholders did have the opportunity to participate. I believe that has already occurred.

Senator Finestone: I feel strongly about a schedule being attached to this bill. A selling point for the electronic document legislation, which dealt with how to handle personal information and use electronic information, was the fact that the CMA had done extensive consultations across the country with all aspects and participants in that field of business and consumer opportunity. That was then reflected in the bill. That created a comfort level. That is not to say that everyone was in love with the process, but it did mean that Canadians' views at all levels of usage were reflected in the schedule that was attached to the bill.

I would be much more comforted if I could see something concrete attached to this bill that would reference what we were expecting as Canadians in a standard from the federal government.

That leads me to the other part of my concern: We have, de facto, delegated the federal authority to the provinces. This would be a more official approach to removing federal jurisdiction and placing it in the hands of the provinces. Before that is done, we must know why we have a national standard that is supposed to be for the entire country. Once the national standard is in place, then delegation may make more sense.

Has the question of hazardous material been addressed at all?

The Chairman: That question has not been addressed at this meeting.

Senator Finestone: In regard to goods being transported across the border, what kind of standard is found in the National Safety Code with respect to hazardous materials such as nuclear waste? Where is the power, the weight or the authority?

The Chairman: That is addressed in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Senator Finestone: That is a separate act.

Is a log kept of every load a truck carries? Is there a form that relates to standard 14 that is a declaration that hazardous waste is being transported? How do you know what is in any truck?

Mr. Christle: Drivers are required to have a bill of lading with them.

Senator Finestone: Who inspects that bill of lading to ensure that it is accurate?

Mr. Christle: The roadside enforcement officers or transport compliance officers perform that function.

Senator Forrestall: With respect to the identification, that is what we have now in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act that we worked on for so many years. Like John Crosbie said, "Who would read it?"

All that is addressed there is the requirement to identify the load. I do not think that act suggests how, say, atomic waste should be packaged. That would be a function the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States or Canada. That would be a different function. The truck driver and public would have to know. There must be an identification sticker.

Senator Finestone: Should that be identified as something that needs to be addressed under the code?

Senator Forrestall: I have been looking at the matter for years. I would not know what was in a truck. You go by the sticker.

The Chairman: Can we return to Bill S-3? We are now discussing another act.

Senator Finestone: I was trying to determine whether there is some point under this standard 14 that indicates that you must ensure that if you are carrying hazardous waste, that it is identified as that truck travels interprovincially or across the U.S.-Canada border.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Usually, there are lights on the truck. If I remember rightly, there are labels on the truck.

[English]

Between the National Highway Code and the National Safety Code, we have a wonderful potential for a safe and secure road system in our country. However, neither the National Highway Code nor the National Safety Code seems to be an obligation. I find that worrisome, Madam Chair.

Senator Callbeck: I understand that instead of a consistent national safety rating system, there are different regional systems which produce different results of the same data. Are there different regional systems?

Mr. Christle: Each system is geared towards data formulated in the particular provinces. There are differences. Ontario uses a system called CVOR. That particular system has identified violations that have occurred using a process which is different from many of the other jurisdictions in terms of convictions. Through the CCMTA, we developed something called a conviction equivalency table which identifies the degree of severity based on a conviction that a driver or carrier would accrue on the roadside. Ontario has used a different conviction equivalency number to assign their safety rating. Although the particular numbers differ, the fact that they have identified a low, medium and high risk is the same as the other jurisdictions across Canada.

The short answer to the question is, yes. The more complete answer to your question is that the process is similar across the country.

Senator Callbeck: Do you see these regional systems being eliminated, or do you think that 10 years down the road we will still have them?

Mr. Christle: That would be a subjective answer, but I would guess that we will probably still have those systems. That is my personal opinion.

Senator Callbeck: In the papers that you gave us, you seem very positive about the implementation by the provinces of the NSC standards. However, a recent consultant report which dealt with the provincial implementation of safety ratings found the following. There is no consistent rating process. Motor carriers under similar circumstances will not be given the same rating in one jurisdiction as in another. Test cases show widely different results. Virtually all provinces are implementing safety ratings with some deviations from the standard.

Do you agree with that?

Mr. Christle: That is an accurate statement. The report you are referring to was developed by an individual by the name of Fred Nix on behalf of Transport Canada. I made reference to it earlier in my presentation when I suggested that, at the time that that study was conducted, the processes were still under development. The thresholds were theoretical. Many jurisdictions did not yet have a computer system at that point in time to be able to run this particular analysis. It was done with pencil and paper. Of course, there will be deviations.

I would further suggest that many of the jurisdictions that have still to release their carrier profile systems across the country would have those in place in 2001. That particular report also suggested that we build the systems in the jurisdictions and run this particular process again, and keep working towards harmonization.

We have accepted that recommendation and we have proceeded. Manitoba, for example, has had a carrier profile system in place since July of 1996. However, we were not issuing safety ratings to motor carriers. We will be issuing safety ratings to motor carriers with this amended carrier profile system effective April 1.

Senator Callbeck: You said it would be done by 2001.

Mr. Christle: Yes, it will be done in 2001.

Senator Callbeck: Will we have a consistent safety rating in Canada?

Mr. Christle: We will have carrier profile systems in Canada that will be capable of assigning safety ratings.

Senator Callbeck: That will not necessarily be the same in every province for interprovincial trucks.

Mr. Christle: Correct. In terms of an exact process, there will be differences. However, will it result in a similar rating? I am hopeful it will.

Senator Callbeck: Why can it not be the same process? What is the big problem with every province having the same process?

Mr. Christle: There are systems that have been in place in provinces for a very long time, even 50 years. Sometimes that can be entrenched and difficult to amend. That is what we are working towards. That is the reason this particular process through CCMTA has been so successful.

Are we taking baby steps? Yes. Are we making progress? Yes. Eventually, we will get there.

Senator Callbeck: Do you feel that the enforcement provisions in the bill will be effective?

Mr. Christle: I believe so. There is one element in the bill -- the particular clause escapes me at the moment -- which allows for a venue provision for enforcement. That is a significant step. It is a significant, positive step.

Senator Callbeck: Could you repeat your last point? I did not understand what you said.

Mr. Christle: There is a particular clause that allows for a venue provision for enforcement whereby, should an offence occur outside a province that detects the offence, it can be handled by the province that detects it. That does not exist right now. That potentially could be one of the reasons, for example, jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan may not be enforcing hours of service federally.

That is a significant, positive step. The fact that provinces will be required to follow the standard, potentially losing the ability to issue safety fitness certificates, actually makes this bill particularly more restrictive from a provincial perspective. However, it does support the concept of national harmonization.

Senator Callbeck: It would be national harmonization by a different process.

Mr. Christle: As long as it is consistent with the NSC standard and achieves a similar rating in each jurisdiction, I would suggest that that is a positive step.

Senator Spivak: My understanding is that, although the federal government has delegated the implementation to the provinces, it has the power to legislate a national safety code. In other words, to make it mandatory under the law, in which case those provinces that do not apply that national safety code would be breaking the law. Am I correct in that statement?

Mr. Christle: As I understand it, yes.

Senator Spivak: There must be some reason why the federal government has chosen not to do that, even though it has delegated in many other cases, the Criminal Code, for example. It is all delegated, but the head of power is the federal government. I think that is the answer to the question. The federal government has chosen not to make this a law. Why, I do not know, but I think it is based on the deference to the provincial powers. Perhaps it is Quebec.

Senator Finestone: Is it something to do with the Canada-U.S.- Mexico new rules and regulations?

Senator Spivak: By the way, based on the findings at this conference, there has been a high increase in truck traffic, particularly in certain corridors -- one in BC, one is in Manitoba, and one is through Toronto. Those figures will explode in the next few years.

It seems to me that only the federal government has the power to make laws, which would cover a treaty arrangement, not the individual provinces.

Senator Finestone: That is what is so confusing.

Senator Spivak: It is a wrong choice, I think.

The Chairman: We will discuss it further. Thank you, Mr. Christle. We will await your further information.

Senator Finestone: Could we identify the clause that gives jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction on infractions that the witness referred to previously?

The Chairman: It is clause 8.

The Chairman: We appreciate the information you gave us this morning.

Senators, we will adjourn.

Senator Spivak: Is Mr. Fred Nix, the author of the report that was referred to, on our list of witnesses?

The Chairman: No, he is not.

Senator Spivak: Senator Callbeck, you have seen the report. Would it be useful to have him appear before us?

Senator Callbeck: I have not seen the consultant's report.

The Chairman: We could ask for the report and then decide if we need to hear from Mr. Nix in person.

Senators, we will adjourn. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday March 28 at 5:30.

The committee adjourned.