37-1
37th Parliament,
1st Session
(January 29, 2001 - September 16, 2002)
Select a different session
Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 6 - Evidence, May 2, 2001
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 2, 2001 The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communica tions, 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 5:30 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill. Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair. [English] The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-3? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Shall clause 1 stand postponed? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. On clause 6, we have an amendment from Senator Spivak. Senator Spivak: I move: That Bill S-3 be amended in clause 6, on page 6, by replacing line 9 with the following: "spection, entry on premises and the provision of information;" Let me explain, honourable senators. The proposed change restores the authority to the federal government to make regulations that require a bus or trucking firm to provide information related to safety. It is found in section 3 of the existing act. Bill S-3 replaces section 3 and moves regulatory authority to section 16(1)(d), but deletes the phrase "and the provision of information," I think that they should provide information. That is to say, it should be in the regulations to provide information related to safety. Senator Finestone: I was looking at section 16, too. I wonder if your concern, senator, is not answered in 16.1, which refers to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council is the one who makes the regulations. Within those regulations, the Governor in Council has the obligation, the right or the choice to do what you have just asked to do, senator. As I understand it, you want to say "and the addition of information." Senator Spivak: I am only suggesting that it should state that. It was in the previous act. The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Shall clause 6, as amended, carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 7 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 8 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. There is a suggested amendment to clause 9. The amendment states: That Bill S-3 be amended in clause 9, on page 8, (a) by adding after line 26 the following:
"ANNUAL REPORT
25. (1) The Minister shall prepare an annual report and cause a copy of it to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister completes it. (2) The annual report of the Minister shall contain the following in respect of the year: (a) the available statistical information respecting trends of highway accidents in Canada involving motor vehicles operated by extra-provincial bus undertakings and extra-provincial truck undertakings; and (b) a progress report on the implementation of rules and standards respecting the safe operation of extra-provincial bus undertakings and of extra-prov incial truck undertakings."; and (b) by replacing line 27 with the following: "26.(1) The Minister shall, after the expiry". Are there any comments? Senator Spivak: Yes, I have one, Madam Chair. The Chairman: We have to deal with this amendment first. Do you have another amendment? Senator Spivak: Yes, I have a sub-amendment. The Chairman: We have to deal with the amendment first. We will then deal with the sub-amendment. Senator Spivak: I think I have to move it now. The Chairman: Go ahead, Senator Spivak. Senator Spivak: After the words in a) "bus undertakings and extra-provincial truck undertakings; and". I wish to remove the "and". The line I want to have put in is: "reported separately for bus undertakings and truck undertakings; and" We need to know separately the information on truck accidents alone. If they are lumped together, we do not know. This way we can get a true picture of highway death and injury tolls which result from trucking accidents. The Chairman: You want to add to the amendment I just read; is that right? Senator Spivak: Yes. Senator Poulin: I really like the idea of an annual report. Senator Spivak: This sub-amendment has nothing to do with that. I agree with everything that is in the proposed amendment. I am just adding one little thing. Senator Poulin: What burden will that place on the depart ment? The Chairman: Are we here to relieve the department of burdens? I think we are here to do our job, Senator Poulin. It is a big department. They can handle it. Senator Finestone: It seems to me that it is a good idea to have them reporting separately. I suggest that consideration be given to this sub-amendment. The sub-amendment enlightens what you are doing in the main amendment, Madam Chairman. The Chairman: Do you agree with the sub-amendment of Senator Spivak? Senator Finestone: Yes. Senator Poulin: Senator Spivak, when I asked my question about the burden, you said that is not part of the annual report. Am I reading this in the wrong way? You said a separate report. Senator Spivak: I thought you were thinking that this was would be different from the annual report. I did not use my words properly. Senator Poulin: In other legislation, Madam Chair, do we give direction on annual reports? In other words, there is a long-standing tradition in our government for annual reports that contain important information on either the results or the annual activities of the department or the agency. I am wondering why Senator Spivak feels it is necessary to go that extra step and give direction to the department on what should be contained in the annual report. That is my question. The Chairman: This was done in 1987. We are not inventing anything today. We are just following what has been done before. Senator Poulin: Madam Chair, when you say "this" was done, what is the "this"? The Chairman: Giving instructions concerning an annual report. Senator Finestone: Madam Chair, if the sub-amendment of Senator Spivak been received favourably, I would like to move its acceptance. I also move the acceptance of the total amendment to clause 9 of Bill S-3. The Chairman: Shall the sub-amendment carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall the amendment carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall the clause, as amended, carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. The Chairman: There is another amendment to the same clause. It states: That Bill S-3 be amended in clause 9, on page 9, by replacing lines 1 to 5 with the following: "(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament during the first thirty sitting days of that House following its completion." Senator Kinsella: Madam Chair, I have no difficulty with that amendment. Is it the intent to exclude the report being made available to the council of ministers? The Chairman: What I am told is that as soon as the report is presented to each House of Parliament, the council will receive a copy. Senator Kinsella: Is the intent not to have a statutory requirement that the minister's report would be made available to our partners in Confederation? The Chairman: Do you want to keep the wording such that the minister makes the report available to the council? Senator Kinsella: I hesitate, Madam Chair, because I have not participated in the study of this bill. However, the point is that this council of ministers is the federal-provincial-territorial council of ministers. They are the ministers who are directly involved on a day-to-day basis. I would have thought that the government's position would be to try to work closer and closer with those ministers. Unless there is a rationale for excluding, my recommendation would be to keep that section in. Senator Finestone: Madam Chairman, I am not that familiar with this piece of legislation. I was listening to what Senator Kinsella said, but I had tried to make sense of it myself. If you look on page 9, you have 25(2). I do not know why you would want to remove 25(2). I would like to suggest that this should be 25(3). Do not remove the first five lines. I would add that at line 6, and it would become (3). Then it would make sense to me, if that meets with your approval. Senator Poulin: Would you please repeat it? The Chairman: Bill S-3 would be amended by adding on page 9, at line 6, the following: "(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament during the first thirty sitting days of that House following its completion." We will not change (2). Shall the amendment carry? Senator Hubley: I just have one question. Are we looking at two different times for this? We are looking at during the first 30 sitting days of the House, and over here we are looking at the next meeting of the council. Is there any reason why they should be the same, or does it make any difference? Senator Kinsella: I would think that they would be quite different. The federal-provincial-territorial Ministers of Transport are meeting from time to time, I would assume. Adding now subsection 3 speaks to the timeliness of reports being made to the ministers, when they get the report, to table it in both Houses of Parliament. The Chairman: The minister shall make the report available, it says, "at the next meeting of the council after its completion." However, there are two time frames. Senator Poulin: Do I understand what Senator Finestone has said correctly? In other words, we are keeping what has been added in page 9? The Chairman: Yes. We keep (2), which is what I just read, adding on page 9, at line 6, the following: (3) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House... Senator Poulin: Agreed. The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 9, as amended, carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 10 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 11 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 12 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. The Chairman: Do you have an amendment to clause 13? Senator Spivak: I have an amendment here. Since my copy is being photocopied, we can wait. Senator Finestone: Can I ask a question, Madam Chairman? We had a serious discussion at one point about putting a sunset clause in, so that after three or five years there would be a review of the legislation. The Chairman: It is in there. Senator Finestone: If I may, it says "coming into force." Is there another section that you could draw to my attention as a sunset clause? The Chairman: It is section 25, on page 8. Senator Finestone: Thank you very much. Senator Sparrow: Section 12, on page 9: The definition of "public carrier" in section 2 of the Canada Grain Act is replaced by the following... Have you got the definition of "public carrier" in the Canada Grain Act with you now? The Chairman: No. I do not know if some of the senior officials have it here. Senator Spivak: It says "any railway company." Are you worried it would exclude someone? Senator Sparrow: I want to know what the phrase "extra- provincial truck undertaking" means. The Chairman: The definition of "public carrier" in the Canada Grain Act is on page 9a, last paragraph. Is that what you want to know? Martin Brennan, Consultant, Brennan and Associates: The old expressions were usually "extra-provincial carriers," someone who worked outside the boundaries of the province, connecting another province, or international. To avoid using the two expressions, the more popular expression now is "extra- provin cial." It is any service that goes outside the province, whether it be international or interprovincial. Senator Finestone: If it has changed to make it more efficient by not having to use both words, has the law been changed so that it is clear in that regard? It is very easy for us to say it has just become common to use "extra," where it meant international as well as national. Given the FTAA or the FTA, we certainly heard enough questions about Mexico and voiced our concerns in that regard. Pardon me if I am off the wall, but that is one of the things I remember. Do we need a definition in the new act, Madam Chair? Perhaps you could check that and we can make a decision. I do not know with whom you should consult. The Chairman: We have people from the department. Senator Kinsella: With regard to the change to correct the Motor Vehicle Act, 1987, to the Motor Vehicle Transportation Act, the only difference between "public carrier" as defined in the bill and what is in the Canada Grain Act, as the explanatory notes provide, is the date of 1987. What is the significance of that? The Chairman: I can ask an official to come and explain it to us. Ms MacNab, can you give us the information, please? Elizabeth MacNab, Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada: Could you please repeat the question so that I know exactly what I am answering? Senator Finestone: Do we have a written definition of extra-provincial truck undertaking? Mr. Brennan answered a question about the difference between trucks that travel across borders, be they provincial borders or international borders between Mexico, U.S.A. and Canada or just Canada and U.S. Is there anyplace where we have a definition of what "extra- provincial" means? Ms MacNab: The only definition that I know of is in the existing Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987. Senator Finestone: Perhaps I misunderstood Mr. Brennan. I know the question came from our colleagues here, but Canada has signed various international agreements. Do we need more clarity for the term "extra-provincial truck"? Senator Spivak: Are you asking whether it applies to foreign trucks? Senator Finestone: Yes. Senator Spivak: That is a good question. Ms MacNab: Yes, it would apply to foreign trucks. Senator Finestone: How do we know that? There is no definition for "extra-provincial" anywhere. Ms MacNab: An extra-provincial undertaking is one that operates either from inside a province to outside that particular province, or one that operates from outside that province into a province. Senator Finestone: What about the ones that cross the border from here to the United States? Ms MacNab: That is right. It does not matter whether the truck is operating between Ontario and Quebec or New York and Quebec. It is considered to be extra-provincial transport. Senator Sparrow: Are you not asking the definition? The definition appears somewhere. Senator Kinsella: My question to the department official is this. Why did the department change the definition? Why have you included this clause 12? The only difference I can see between the current Canada Grain Act at section 12 and what is being proposed in this amendment is the date 1987. Why are you making this proposal? Ms MacNab: We are also amending the title of the act so that it is no longer the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, comma, 1987. It becomes simply the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. Senator Kinsella: My question is focussed on the only change that is being made. The answer is because we changed the title. Ms MacNab: That is right. Senator Kinsella: That is the only reason we have here, for this clause. Ms MacNab: That is right. Senator Kinsella: Then it has changed; it is a technical correction. The Chairman: Senator Spivak, you have an amendment? Senator Spivak: On page 10, clause 13, I would move: That Bill S-3 be amended in clause 13, on page line 10: (a) by replacing line 1 with the following: "13. (1) The provisions of this act and the" and, (b) by adding, after line 5, the following: "(2) No provision of this act shall come into force until the Minister of Transport has caused a report to be made to both Houses of Parliament to the effect that the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers has been fully implemented in every province." Now, I did not undertake this lightly. You may not agree with it, that is fine, but I want to explain why I did this. First, by the way, it is in order legally. I checked that because I was not sure myself whether it was in order. You may remember the department officials came and said that the code had mostly been implemented. When we looked at the annual report, the code was not fully implemented. When we looked at the "secret" document from the Canadian Trucking Alliance, they said nothing had been implemented, or something to that effect. I believe it was in 1987 that the National Safety Code was supposed to be implemented. Perhaps this amendment would aid the provinces in coming to a quick conclusion. Perhaps there are other difficulties that I do not know about. We were told that clause 14 will work; however, I am of the opinion that a sharp, hard message is needed to implement the National Safety Code in every province. That is my reasoning. The Chairman: This seems to be a very drastic step that will cause more harm than good. Senator Spivak: I know it is drastic. I could not think of another way of doing this. Senator Poulin: I understand Senator Spivak's objective. I heard from the very first witnesses about the rationale for this bill. After the challenge of bringing together federal and provincial regulators and the provincial administrative processes, they had reached agreements but the issue of timing was still not settled. If we as legislators imposed a timing, would we not be interfering in those ongoing negotiations? Senator Spivak: I have two responses. My amendment does not say anything about timing. It says the act shall come into force. Second, I am putting forward my concerns about the safety code. In the 14 years since 1987, has not every province had time to implement a safety code? We have statements from some provinces refusing to implement certain portions. Alberta is one. The amendment is drastic, but I think the Canadian public would be very interested in seeing the Senate make a difference in this particular area, if there are no other impediments. Perhaps there is a legal reason that I do not know about. I put it forward for your consideration . Senator Finestone: The principle you are trying to address appeals to me. I am not sure I like the dramatic and drastic effort. Throughout the course of all our hearings from the first time I joined this committee, every single set of witnesses said we need consistency across the country. A business person in Quebec who is loading lumber to be delivered to Alberta, needs to know all the standards for loading and for bills of lading and for all the other issues covered by standard 14. The will behind changes in the bill is for consistency across the land. In order to effect that consistency I hearken back to what was in the personal information and electronic commerce bill, in which there was the undertaking that the Governor in Council would make regulations that would specify certain issues, like the standards you wanted to undertake. Those standards would have to be met. If the Governor in Council were satisfied that the legislation in a province was substantially similar to this legislation, then the provincial legislation would take precedence. If a province does not make regulations, or if a province makes regulations that are not acceptable and do not meet substantially similar undertakings - which include the safety of the driver, the roads and our children and families - then their laws do not have precedence until they come into collaboration with the federal law. I remember that that was a very important discussion when we were talking about the personal information electronics document bill. I clearly recall that when Ontario suggested that it would pass regulations totally outside of what was being proposed in the federal legislation, it was deemed unacceptable by the Privacy Commissioner. Therefore, they were asked to return to the table and redraft their bill. It seems to me that if we have the greater interest of Canadians at heart, then we would be prepared to say that the Governor in Council takes the responsibility. They think this is a good bill. If they think these changes are in the interests of the drivers, the business people and the Canadian public, then this is the kind of law we want across the land. The provinces will have to adjust according to what they see will fit their set-up, at least within the parameters of what we think is the bottom line. Madam Chairman, the reason I have given this long story is that I had asked your staff to draft an amendment to clause 13 that would reflect that will. I understand from them that I could find what I have proposed in clause 16. Could the ministry officials explain where can the intent that federal legislation will take precedence be found? Senator Spivak: Do we now have two amendments on the table? Senator Finestone: No. I thought it would be part of your "coming into force" provisions. Senator Spivak: Are you amending my amendment? Senator Finestone: I wonder if that is where the amendment I want should be. Or should it be under clause 16? Or is it duplicative according to the research staff of the ministry? Senator Spivak: I think this is the other way around. Is this not the National Safety Code that the provinces are to implement? Senator Finestone: No. It is on page 16. Senator Spivak: I do not understand that. It refers to exemptions. Senator Finestone: That is right. Senator Spivak: It is not for implementation. What we are talking about could be done here, but I do not know how, at the moment. It seems to me that in an area like this, you do not want to do a whole bunch of different things. You want to do one national code. This is only talking about exemptions. What is it that you are saying that would make it that they would have to implement it, and not exempt? The Chairman: When I say that this amendment seems too drastic, it is because we have to take into account that there is a council of ministers who negotiate - who sit together and work together. If we wait until the National Safety Code is fully implemented in every province, there will never be one standard. We will seize the whole process. Senator Spivak: I agree with you, Madam Chair. The point is: Do we not want the National Safety Code to be implemented? The Chairman: Of course. If we put it in the bill, we are almost commanding the council of ministers. I do not think we should do that. Senator Spivak: I do not understand Senator Finestone's approach. Could you explain it again for me, please? The Chairman: Senator Poulin asked to speak on the amendment. Senator Poulin: I think Senator Spivak is putting her finger on one of the major challenges in this country. When the Chair speaks, she speaks as a former provincial minister. This is a shared jurisdiction; it places federal legislators in a very delicate position. Senator Spivak: It is no different from the Canada Health Act, which is a national standard, even though health is a provincial responsibility. Senator Poulin: I understand what you are trying to do. Senator Spivak: I know what this is. We have been waiting since 1987 and there are important parts of this that have not been implemented. We have provinces saying that they will never implement it. I believe that Saskatchewan or Manitoba are putting huge truck trailers on the roads. The roads cannot take it. We are putting money into the roads to subsidize them. Frankly, I would rather that we take the taxes away from the railways, but that is a different subject. The Chairman: I thought we were dealing with a sensitive approach here. We are telling the federal Minister of Transport what to do with his provincial counterparts. Senator Spivak: I understand that. The Chairman: This is a very delicate and sensitive area. Senator Spivak: Sometimes we need strong measures. The Chairman: I know how you feel about it. I will give the floor to Senator Finestone and then we will go on. Senator Finestone: Madam Chairman, this is the first time I have dealt with legislation per se in the Senate. Thus, I have just learned something. I can make an amendment at third reading. I am told that the appropriate place to locate the amendment, if it is received favourably and if it fits into the context of the bill, would be under clause 9. My thought was to do it by way of the Governor in Council. With the new rules under the social security business you need to have at least six provinces agreeing with what you are doing. They are working with the council of ministers. The council of ministers must be satisfied with the hours of work and rest, with the way they have loaded the truck, the bill of lading and numerous other things in order to give this "certificate of fitness." I thought it went beyond a certificate of fitness. I thought it went to other principles. The certificate of fitness does not say whether they loaded the truck properly. Safety fitness does not tell you if the driver has been respecting the hours of work and the hours of rest so that he is not suffering from extra fatigue and may have a dreadful accident on the highway. I did not think this was the place for that. I gather that my concerns, which I realized only yesterday, were not transmitted in an effective way to the people who came to draft this. Maybe you will tell me who your drafter was and I can take my concern to your drafter. Senator Spivak: No, it is the legal counsel, the law clerk. Senator Finestone: I have to go to the law clerk. It goes beyond section 9, because section 9 does not cover the other issues. The Chairman: It is very sensitive. I do not think it will help the Minister of Transport with the Council of Ministers. I do not think we will implement one safety standard if we wait until every province implements safety standards. Senator Finestone: Madam Chair, my intent is not to stop the implementation of this bill tomorrow morning. The intent is that federal jurisdiction will prevail until such time as each province is prepared to sign on with what is found in this document. If they do not sign on, then this rule will prevail. When they sign on, then it is their responsibility. If P.E.I. signs on and Nova Scotia does not, there will have to be the same even playing field because the law is the same in both provinces irrespective of who has signed on and who has not. I do not know if that makes sense, but that is what made sense in the electronic commerce bill. The Chairman: I will call the vote anyway. Senator Finestone: How do you object in this structure? If I object now, am I allowed to bring in an amendment? The Chairman: Sure, in the house. Senator Spivak: That will give us a chance to think about it. Senator Kinsella: I would like to speak in favour of Senator Spivak's motion, but from the perspective of a tactical consider ation, rather than from the substantive argument she is making. As I listen to the debate here, it seems that all honourable senators are in agreement and have the same objective. The question becomes, how do we achieve the objectives within the context of this bill? I draw our attention to the fact that this is an S-bill. It is a government bill, but started in the Senate. It means that it will be subjected to very careful study in the other place. If the Senators are concerned with the principle that they have just been articulating and are not sure which way to have it captured, then the amendment that Senator Spivak has brought forward might be considered by many senators to be draconian. However, from a tactical consideration, it will draw attention. If it is accepted by the whole Senate, with the amendment contained therein, there will be an opportunity, when it goes to the other place, to take it out if it is considered not workable. You are armed with a good principle. It seems to me, it is incumbent not to abandon the principle. Someone might have a better idea than Senator Spivak's amendment. Senator Spivak: There might be a better idea. If this is not accepted here, can it be attacked again in the house, or not? The Chairman: At third reading, it can be. Senator Spivak: That is all I can say. I like Senator Kinsella's approach. Senator Finestone: We may put our Chairman in a difficult spot. The Chairman: I think Senator Kinsella has a high regard for what is being done in the other place. I would not say they scrutinize the bills as much as we do here. I count on us to do something, but not in the other place. Senator Sparrow: Perhaps you can answer the question to make it clear to me. If the minister is not satisfied with the cooperation or the participation of the province, the minister has the power to withdraw the allowance of the provinces to act, and the federal government can therefore act. Senator Spivak: Where is that? Mr. Brennan: I believe clause 9, on page 4, where the minister can withdraw the authority of the provincial government from issuing. Senator Spivak: That might be where you should put an amendment. Senator Finestone: That is what I was asking just now. Senator Spivak: Unfortunately, Senator Kinsella has to leave. That is where you might want to put the amendments. Madam Chairman, you want to deal with this tonight. That can be done in the House. The Chairman: You will still have third reading. Senator Sparrow: We know the difficulty in getting an amendment made in third reading. If an amendment is to be made, it is much easier done here than in the house itself. Senator Spivak: If that will strengthen it, I will be happy if it means that we will have a National Safety Code in every province. Senator Sparrow: It seems to me that in section 9, with the exceptions allowable, the minister can in fact enforce the act on the provinces. What this amendment is doing is to force them to do that, rather than delaying the process of negotiations. It gives the minister probably a greater threat and a greater reason for implementing the provisions of the act. Senator Spivak: They can blame the Senate. Senator Sparrow: Basically, those would be my comments. The Chairman: You are talking about clause 9? Senator Sparrow: Clause 9 gives the power to the minister. Senator Spivak's amendment at the end insists that either they have an agreement or they enforce the federal act. The Chairman: Is it not redundant? Senator Sparrow: No, it is not redundant because we can go on negotiating forever with a province that will not conform to this bill. This amendment can force the minister, if the provinces do not conform, to institute the provisions in any event, or withdraw the permission for the province to do the job. Senator Spivak: I may suggest, Madam Chair, if you are at all hesitant, that perhaps we should give senators a chance to think about it until next week, unless you are absolutely determined to have it today. It is okay with me. The Chairman: We have many bills to take care of here in committee. We have already scheduled meetings twice a week, because we have too much work to do. I would not want to push the adoption of Bill S-3, but we have so many bills to deal with before the end of the session that I do not think we should delay it. It would be better for us to adopt it tonight. Senator Sparrow: Let us reverse the process then. Let us adopt the amendment and then we can bring in a provision under third reading to do away with the amendment if necessary. The Chairman: You know what happens on third reading. You just said that. Senator Sparrow: My concern is the safety within the whole context. The Chairman: I would not rely on third reading. Senator Finestone: In the same vein as the tactics that were outlined, could we say something to the effect that this act shall be in force across this country until such time as each province adopts similar legislation? "Substantially similar" is the term I have heard used. Can we use "substantially similar legislation" to give national predomi nance? The Chairman: Again, I want to stress the importance of the Council of Ministers and their negotiating process. I do not think we should interfere with that. Senator Finestone: I do not want to interfere with that. The Chairman: That is why I say this is a draconian amendment. Senator Spivak: I think I understand Senator Finestone. She is not saying that we are interfering or that they should not negotiate. She is saying that they have it had since 1987; they should hurry up. This change will not stop the act from being enforced, I think. I do not know how to phrase it. Senator Finestone: I will try to bring my amendment in on third reading. I do not have it prepared. It is not fair to hold everyone up. Besides, all those artists are waiting for you. The Chairman: Shall Senator Spivak's amendment carry? Senator Spivak: Obviously not. The Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Is it agreed that this bill be adopted as amended? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. We also have written observations that are being distributed to you. We discussed this during our various meetings. These are comments about Bill S-3 that we want the Minister to read and to take into account. It states: In considering this bill, the Committee heard from a number of witnesses, including the Minister of Transport, several organizations representing different direct interests in highway transportation, from shipper groups, from Transport Canada officers, and from an individual who had worked as a truck-driver. I think that sums up the people who we met here. The purpose of Bill S-3 is to shift the Motor Vehicle Transport Act from its previous focus on economic regulatory matters to one of safety. Generally, the responsibi lities for extra provincial road transport remain delegated to the provinces as before, but safety certificates issued as a requirement for the carriers involved will depend on a certain level of compliance with the National Safety Code, the 15 part standard governing a number of commercial vehicle operational matters that has been drawn up jointly between the provinces, the territories and the federal government. The Committee is concerned that the time frame for the implementation of the standards in this code is falling short of what some provinces had promised to do. Although the bill contains measures to encourage provinces to be vigilant in this matter, things are clearly falling behind schedule. This concern is reflected in amendments which the committee has made to the bill. One calls for annual reports of commercial vehicle accident statistics to be made by the Minister to Parliament. The other calls for the results of the four year mandatory review of the new act also to be brought directly to the attention of Parliamentarians. The Committee heard much concern about the matter of hours of service or, put in its simplest terms, the rules which govern how long a truck driver can stay behind the wheel without getting some rest. Added to this were some practical concerns about night driving, excessive waiting times for loading and unloading, and general worries about working conditions. Some of these concerns will be matters to be covered under new or revised regulations under this bill. To the extent that they are, this committee urges the government to examine all proposed regulations most meticulously with a view to ensuring not only that they contribute as much to safety as can reasonably be expected, but that they are also as consistent as possible with fostering a fair, tolerant and safe work environment. Senator Spivak: Unfortunately, I have to leave shortly to be on a committee. May I comment? I do not think that the committee is concerned about the time frame, et cetera. That is very mild. I think we should say that since 1987 we have been awaiting the implementation of the National Safety Code. The Chairman: To which paragraph are you referring? Senator Spivak: I refer to Paragraph 3. It would be easy to stipulate how much. Perhaps the researcher could do that because it is very little. The other thing is with regard to hours of service. I would like to see - and I do not know whether you all agree - a specific reference to 84 hours being a standard that the Canadian public would not approve. That is in the last part. The Chairman: Where do you get the 84 hours? Senator Spivak: The committee heard much concern about hours of service. The number 84 is being proposed. Senator Finestone: Yes, that is after studies in the United States and Canada. The Chairman: You want to mention it here? Senator Spivak: Yes, because it is being ignored. Senator Finestone: On the other hand, Madam Chairman, the witnesses who told us about the study indicated that Canada had longer hours than the United States because of our geography. Towns and cities are farther apart. That is what I read. You do not want a driver who is way up north to say, after 70 hours, that he must find a city. Senator Spivak: As the court says, justice does not care about cost. Frankly, that is the single most dangerous thing on the road - fatigued drivers. We ought not to allow our standard to be ten hours longer than the United States, no matter what our geography is. The Chairman: We can add something but we should not refer to a specific number. Senator Spivak: That is up to you. I just want to make our objection stronger. The Chairman: Senators, any other observations? The observations reflect the discussions we have had here. Senator Finestone: This is very well drafted. I have two concerns. In the second line of the second paragraph, you talk about moving from a previous focus on economic and regulatory matters to a focus on safety. I think that is fantastic. You say that responsibilities for extra-provincial road transport generally remain with the provinces as before. I thought we said that the federal government still has responsibility for interprovin cial and cross-border. Am I wrong? Mr. Brennan: The administration and day-to-day checking of drivers and loads and licences are all done by the provincial governments on behalf of the federal government. They will also check their own things for internal provincial movements as well; otherwise you would end up with two tiers running everything. Senator Finestone: The federal government, you are saying, has delegated authority to the provinces, but therefore it falls under the safety code of Canada that we have adopted. Is that right? Mr. Brennan: The safety code has been put together from the various regulations that exist in all the provinces to get the best coverage and to create an umbrella that covers the whole country. Senator Sparrow: It does not necessarily cover the whole country. It is different in some provinces. Mr. Brennan: Certain provinces implement the code in different ways. Weight limits may differ. The Chairman: We gave them the powers to do it. Senator Finestone: You say that is right. The extra-provincial trucking standards should be the same; either we have them or we do not have them. Can we add, at the bottom, that we are very concerned that the national standards be adopted by all the provinces to provide consistency across the land? The Chairman: We would not need the amendment then. We can add it to the observations. Senator Finestone: We should reinforce that broad safety concern. The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill as amended and with observations? Hon. Senators: Yes. The Chairman: Agreed. Our next meeting is on May 8 at 9:30. Senator Finestone will be our witness on Bill S-7 next week. The committee adjourned.