TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 3, 2001

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): I think I see a quorum. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Subject to Standing Order 108(2), today we're going to hear from officials from the Department of Transport on the subject of hours of service in the trucking industry.

At the outset I want to apologize for the fact that you haven't got the letter from the minister that asked us to look into this topic. We did agree the last time that we'd do it. The clerk has the letter in translation for the French version. I will take the rap. I think in future I will instruct the clerk that these things should go directly to committee members. There are no secrets about them. The darned thing was in the paper, and there's no excuse that you didn't get that letter. Apparently you're going to have that letter some time today.

Welcome to officials of the transport department. Please introduce yourselves. I'm sure you've got your script down. You have five minutes to give us a dissertation about the work, and then there'll be questions, unless the committee thinks you need a little more time than that. Would five minutes be enough time for you to express the general principles here covered in the study?

Mr. Malcolm McHattie (Acting Director, Road Safety Programs, Department of Transport): We would appreciate 10 minutes, please, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. I said five, but is it all right with the committee? Is there unanimous consent?

Okay, away you go, starting now. I'm counting.

Mr. Malcolm McHattie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Malcolm McHattie, acting director, road safety programs. We're the branch of Transport Canada that is responsible for federal motor carrier safety programs. My colleague, Brian Orrbine, chief, motor carrier safety, has been the key person involved in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators review of the National Safety Code Standard 9, hours of service regulations. Mr. Orrbine has prepared a brief background and will answer your questions.

• 1111

• 1114

Mr. Brian Orrbine (Senior Policy Advisor, Road Safety Programs, Department of Transport): Thank you, Malcolm.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As Malcolm noted, I am the chief of motor carrier safety in the road safety directorate of Transport Canada. I have been involved with this issue since 1996, and I've had the pleasure of being on the steering committee of the landmark Canada-U.S. study on driver fatigue and alertness, which tabled its report in December of 1996.

• 1115

Since 1996 I have also been a member of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators project group on hours of service and the chair of the working group assigned the task of developing proposed changes to the rules. I am currently the chair of that CCMTA project group.

At the outset, I believe it's important to set the proper context about this often discussed and often misunderstood issue. I would like to provide the committee with a brief historical perspective.

The rules that govern the hours of service a commercial driver can operate either a truck or a bus in Canada are contained in federal, provincial, and territorial regulations. The federal regulations under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, cover the operations of extra-provincial vehicles, while intra-provincial regulations under provincial authority govern strictly local undertakings operating solely within a province or a territory. The extra-provincial rules have been in place since the Privy Council decision in 1954 determined that the federal government was responsible for extra-provincial undertakings. That decision was the impetus for the federal legislation, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1954, which delegated the federal powers to the provinces and territories. Under that act regulations were promulgated over the years covering licensing and drivers' hours of service.

In 1987, with the impending move to economic deregulation of the trucking industry, the National Safety Code was developed and agreed to by all federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions. Its purpose was to ensure that motor carriers would not sacrifice safety as a result of increased competition. In the National Safety Code, which is composed of 15 standards, standard 9 contains the hours of service rules. I might add that the National Safety Code as it currently stands does not carry with it the force of law, but is being used as a template to harmonize regulations across all jurisdictions.

In addition to being the repository for the standards, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators is structured to provide a forum for debate and includes all the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, along with about 400 associate members.

The original regulations governing hours of service were contained in the Canada Labour Code and were transferred to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act in 1987. The regulations were then amended in 1989, and once again in 1994. Those regulations are the ones currently in place.

Provincial regulations vary with respect to their history and their particular jurisdiction. The regulations currently in place across Canada were developed, especially in the early days, in the absence of good research to provide guidance. They were the best attempt of regulators, based on the available information at that time, to control driver fatigue. During the past 25 years a significant amount of scientific research has been undertaken in an attempt to provide a better understanding about fatigue and possible fatigue countermeasures. While the scientific community has been very active, simple and conclusive solutions remain somewhat elusive. The research has provided the regulators with better knowledge, upon which better decisions can be taken. I would be remiss if I didn't state that the solutions are far from complete. Research is continuing on many fronts to find better answers to the issue.

I would like to shift my comments to explain how the government and stakeholders have been addressing the hours of service. Since the beginning of the discussions, there is one aspect all parties can agree upon, that the current rules do not reflect the research into fatigue. They are also too complicated for drivers and motor carriers to understand, and equally difficult for enforcement officials to administer. Changes are needed, and to that end the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators began the process to review the issue. That effort was started back in the early 1990s, but was put on hold in light of a significant research effort that was in progress at the time co-sponsored by Transport Canada and our counterparts in the United States.

The results of that effort were completed in December 1996, with Transport Canada issuing the report early in 1997. It was at that point that the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators committee re-energized the process and commenced a review of the issue in detail. A working group was formed, chaired by me. The membership was open to all interested parties and the group consisted of regulators from each jurisdiction, bus and truck industry representatives, scientists, researchers, labour unions, representatives from the United States, and other interested parties, such as the Canadian Automobile Association and Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways, to name a few.

• 1120

During the early days of those discussions, it was important that each member learn more about the science behind the issue. To that end, meetings were scheduled with scientists and doctors to present the research on fatigue. We all quickly learned that while important lessons could be gained from the science, many of the decisions will continue to be subjective.

Over the next two years, countless meetings and discussions continued to address the regulations. It was agreed that the CCMTA standard on hours of service would be the focus of those discussions, but since it was somewhat out of date, the federal regulation would serve as a template.

As I noted previously, the rules are complex and the committee sought guidance from experts. In 1997, Transport Canada established an expert panel in shift work, sleep, and human performance to assist the committee in developing options for changes to the rules. Their report was tabled in September 1998, and it contained suggested changes for consideration.

While not all of the recommendations from the expert panel were adopted, I am pleased to say that many were implemented or adopted in part. The panel's work provided the project group with valuable insights and solutions. I would add that the work of the expert panel attempted to consider the impact of their recommendations on industry and on the geographical realities as they exist in Canada.

Once that expert panel was available, it provided a sound basis upon which to begin the task of building consensus for developing changes to the rules. To further assist the project group, a series of consultations were held with a predetermined list of interested parties. I should note, however, that this was not to be considered as the national consultation effort, but more to assist in developing the draft proposal. From various disciplines, 33 stakeholders were contacted.

One of the more difficult aspects of our review has been to relate the issue of fatigue to the data that Transport Canada collects on collisions and, more specifically, to their causal factors. Data on the impact that fatigue has had in collisions is minimal at best. For example, in 1998, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 360 fatal collisions involving heavy vehicles in Canada. Only two of those collisions were attributable to fatigue or drivers who fell asleep, as determined in the police reports.

We know this is likely underreported because of the difficulty law enforcement agencies have in identifying fatigue as a causal factor. Furthermore, studies from the U.S., from the University of Michigan, suggest that in collisions involving heavy vehicles and automobiles, the majority of the collisions were determined to be the primary fault of the automobile driver. Similar findings have been found in Finland.

Canada is not alone in its desire to improve the rules that govern hours of service. In the U.S., they have followed a path very similar to that of Canada. In May of last year, the Department of Transportation issued a notice of proposed rule-making and a request for comments on their proposals. As a result, comments were indeed received, to the tune of about 70,000 letters, e-mails, and briefs.

There are those who have suggested Canada should follow the U.S. proposals. I'd point out that the U.S.-proposed changes have undergone intense lobbying, to the extent that those proposals were tied in to their appropriations. As a result, they have been put on hold until October of this year. My point is that comparisons to the United States may be a bit premature at this point, given that their ultimate resolution is unknown.

I would like to note that while Transport Canada believes we should draw the current round of discussions to a conclusion as quickly as possible, it does not mean we are closing the books on this issue. I noted earlier that we do not have answers to all of the questions on this issue. Therefore, we are continuing our involvement in and support of ongoing research. I'll just cite a few very quickly.

We're involved in an examination of potential technological aids to determine fatigue. It's a very large study with the U.S. We're examining the merits of a fatigue management program that addresses both lifestyle and medical issues, such as sleep apnea. We're supporting more research into the issue of rest recovery over extended periods of time. We're also working with Quebec and Ontario in learning more about the electronic recording devices, the so-called black boxes. The intent is to learn more about fatigue and possible countermeasures, and to incorporate any developments within the rules.

I hope this overview provides the committee with a sense of the effort that the parties have gone to at this point to address the issue. One important element from our perspective remains to be completed, and that is public consultations on the issue.

• 1125

I should add that the Province of Alberta did conduct public consultations within that province last fall, and will soon be issuing a report on its findings.

We all share the roads with trucks and buses, and we want those roads to be as safe as possible. While the issue is near and dear to the hearts of many Canadians, not all parties can agree on what the rules should be. To that end, we understand it is important to gain a broader perspective on this very important issue.

You will note that I have not taken the opportunity to delve into the details of the specific issues or the proposed changes. These are contained in the document that was provided. It's referred to as the policy paper, and I understand that you have a copy or will have a copy. I'm the author of that paper, and it contains details of the proposed changes and a brief synopsis of the rationale for those.

I thank you for the opportunity to allow me to provide these brief remarks on the issue. I am available to answer any questions you may have or to provide, if you wish, clarification on the subject.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Orrbine.

I call on Mr. Hill of the Canadian Alliance to make the first intervention, for ten minutes.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today on a very important issue.

I'll start by saying I'm a little disappointed that I just received this. I would assume all committee members have just received the proposed revisions. Could you maybe enlighten me as to why? Was it just printed this morning? We would have been able to... I have a copy, but it was just placed in front of me. It would have been very helpful if we could have had the proposed revisions at some point previously.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm not sure that's a question for our witnesses. For all members who took advantage of briefings by the department, I believe hours of service would have been included in those briefings. I know Jay took advantage of those, so I'm not sure this really is new information. I'll rest my case.

Mr. Jay Hill: The point I'm making is that there's a dramatic difference between having a five-minute... I had a three-hour briefing when I took over as transport critic for the official opposition. It might have been mentioned in passing that the department was proposing to make some changes to that. But it's dramatically different if you actually have the text of the proposed changes in front of you so that you can go through it in some detail. It would have been helpful if we could have had that a little bit more ahead of time, but maybe some of the fault rests with me, I don't know.

In your remarks you referred to the fact that the intent is to simplify the rules, the regulations, because the present rules are too complicated. I'd just like to make a brief statement on that.

I've been a member of Parliament for only seven and a half years, but it has been my observation that any time government gets involved and sets out, with the best of intentions, to simplify something, the end result is far from simple. So I wish you well on that.

I noticed in your opening remarks that you mentioned something about 33 stakeholders or stakeholder groups. Could you expand upon that a little bit? How widespread in the industry is the notification that this is coming down the pipe?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chair, the question is a simple one, but it may take a bit of time to explain. I'll do my best to be brief.

All of the discussions that have taken place at the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators' table involve upwards of some 40 members from different disciplines, be they from the trucking industry, public interest groups, etc. During the early days, when we looked at trying to find the starting point of where we could go with these possible changes, everyone in the committee, everyone you spoke to, had an opinion on what hours of service should be, on what sleep should be, and how much sleep is enough. To help to guide the committee, we thought we would deal with a group of focused individuals.

To answer Mr. Hill's question, I will just turn to the list of stakeholders, and perhaps I can just name a few of the organizations. That might provide an insight as to who was there. As well, Mr. Chairman, I'd be quite prepared to offer that document for the committee's review, should members so wish.

• 1130

Mr. Jay Hill: While you're finding that list—and it would be helpful—maybe I could ask a supplementary.

I'll preface my question by saying I used to be an owner-operator myself. As part of our farming operation, my brother and I ran a long-distance trucking operation to try to subsidize the farm, at one point. I therefore have some understanding of this issue we're facing and the regulations that are already in place that constrain truck operators. As far as knowledge of the proposed changes is concerned, how widespread is it amongst owner-operators, for example? I'm thinking of a person who would have one or two or three trucks.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Sitting at the CCMTA table are representatives from different disciplines. Of course, we have the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which represents the larger discipline. We also have the Owner/Operator Independent Driver Association, which represents many more members in the U.S., but they are representatives of independent operators in Canada. One of the problems Mr. Hill raises is the fact that, because much of this industry tends to be single-vehicles owners and operators and is somewhat unorganized—if I can use that term—it's very difficult to get the message out to individuals.

With respect to the consultations, I would like to preface my response by saying that, as I noted in my remarks, those efforts were not intended to be the national consultation effort on hours of service. They were meant to provide the committee with some guidance in terms of how it could address this matter.

Represented on those consultations were each of the provincial governments—and they would have been the transportation highway and safety individuals. From the commercial trucking side, there were the various trucking associations, the petroleum services association, the Truckers Association of Nova Scotia, for example, the teamsters union, the Owner/Operator Independent Driver Association, and another owner-operator association called Com-Car. The bus industry was represented by both the Canadian Bus Association and the motorcoach association.

As for public interest groups—again, if I can use that terminology—they included Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Auto Workers, and the Canadian Fertilizer Institute.

So it was quite a diverse group of individuals who tried to help guide the early stages of this effort.

The Chair: Two minutes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up on that a little bit, I appreciate the fact that you do recognize that it's difficult at best to get the message out to these independent owner-operators in terms of what changes might be coming down the pipe, and to solicit their input on those, to get feedback, if you will. What are you planning? Are you planning anything to try to communicate to them that some very profound—I hesitate to use the word “serious”—changes could be considered that would affect their livelihood?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: During the last several months, the main debate that has gone on in that committee has been the method by which consultations would be undertaken. About a year ago, the provinces agreed to conduct public consultations on the issues in each of their jurisdictions. Quite honestly, we were hoping at that point that those sessions would involve interested parties from around the various provinces.

There then came a call for Transport Canada to lead national consultations. At that point, the debate went back and forth with respect to the format, how these would be done, etc. No resolution could be found at that point.

So the objective would be to try to consult as wide a group as possible.

Mr. Jay Hill: I appreciate that.

• 1135

Just so I can understand the process that's led up to today, what I got from that is that originally there was a feeling that the provinces were committed to holding public consultation, presumably at major centres throughout the province in question, and that then they would advertise it sufficiently, hopefully, so that any and all owner-operators, for example, would know that the meeting was convened for that purpose. And then there's a sense that they reneged on that and came back to Transport Canada and asked that you people hold those consultations. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: If we go back to about a year ago when the discussions took place, the discussions concerning public consultations were very preliminary at that point. We were still developing the rules and the proposed changes. When the discussion got around to public consultations, the first brush at that was an offer by the provinces to conduct those consultations. And indeed one province, Alberta, last fall conducted a series of, I believe, six public sessions, advertising in the paper, inviting both industry and the public to appear and comment on the proposed rule changes. Those sessions were held.

Preliminary results from that really did not show that there was anything significant that the committee had not addressed. We have not seen the report yet; I mentioned in my opening remarks that it's forthcoming.

I might add that the consultation aspect is based on a policy paper that was developed back in November 1999. That policy paper contains the essence of all the proposed changes. The document that was referred to earlier, called the draft standard, is a further and more clinical view of what those changes are in a very early draft stage.

There was no mandate for the committee to make any changes to that draft standard that would be in violation of what is said in the actual policy paper. So there should be no surprises in that document outside of possible word differences.

The Chair: Okay. You're out of time.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm out of time? Well, I'll have to wait for the next round.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll get John Christopher just to give a quick blurb since it looks like we're going to undertake a study. Maybe he can tell us how this study plan comes together so we can have some ideas as to what we're going to do.

Two minutes, maybe, John.

Mr. John Christopher (Committee Researcher): I think this is something that's going to be discussed after the witnesses, but I think there was some consensus or some feeling by the committee members that we could be part of the public policy process by hearing from some of the individuals and getting input from them for the policy that's coming out. And this may be a way to broaden what Mr. Hill was talking about.

In the consult—

The Chair: Exactly, and we'll get a chance to have some input into it.

I didn't see anybody from the Liberals.

Oh, okay. Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'll defer to Mr. Szabo. I'll go afterwards. How's that?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Well, thank you, gentleman.

It's a very interesting subject, and I think you noted that it's complex and that there's ongoing research, and we have vested interests pulling in different directions.

I guess, for people who are involved in policy development and legislation, one of the important things we'd like to know is: what is the priority, and what is the urgency of making any changes? How high is this on the listing? Where is it on the radar? I didn't sense any intensity from your presentation. It was quite low-key. I'm curious as to why.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Your question, Mr. Szabo, is a very good one. Again, I'll fumble through my mountain of paper to try to give you—

Mr. Paul Szabo: Close your book, and speak to me like we're policy brainstorming. Speak to me.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: If I look at the statistical base upon which one draws policy direction—where do you spend your time, and which issue do you look at when it comes to road safety?—certain things come to mind. One is drinking and driving; one is use of seat belts; one is the high-risk driver. When you combine the fatalities that occur in Canada for those three items, of the around 3,000 people who die, unfortunately, on Canada's roads, over 2,500 of them come from that sector.

• 1140

When you look at fatigue as a causal factor in collisions, you don't find any statistical base. At least all of the information that we have seen, including the U.S. research reports, shows that fatigue is a factor in maybe 1% to 2%. Having said that, as I mentioned earlier, everybody believes the rules should change.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's a lot of words to say, I think, that a significant proportion of road hazards, or fatalities, or accidents is attributable to commercial vehicles—trucks, buses, etc.—and it's growing. Is that what you're saying?

If I were in your position, I would come before members of Parliament and probably say “In the last 10 years, or since we've done this, here is what's happened, and here are the numbers as far as fatalities, changes, or whatever”. If I were making legislation, I probably wouldn't look for a medical research study on fatigue because I'm sure it's already been done. I certainly would want to set a driver limit time at a conservative time, below where fatigue kicks in, obviously knowing of individual differences of people and knowing about drugs and all other good things.

This doesn't seem like rocket science to me. But when I looked at this proposal, daily off-duty time makes a lot of sense to me. Then we get into deferred daily off-duty time, splitting of off-duty time, and supplementary off-duty time, and if you're north of the 60th parallel—60° latitude—there are different rules. No wonder people are confused. I'm confused. It seems to me that human beings are human beings.

So I didn't sense the urgency. Quite frankly, I would probably just say, until you come to me and light a fire in front of the committee to say that something's necessary here, there's no reason for us to talk about this. I'm sure you're here because you believe that; it's just that you didn't communicate that.

Listen, for my question—and now I've got to defer to Mr. St. Denis—am I correct in assuming that people who have an economic interest in those drivers being on the road are opposed to any more conservatism in the limits on which you can drive; and that the unions, the drivers, and this kind of stuff want to have more time to recover and to rest, etc.? Is it a business versus an individual thing? Is that what it comes down to?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Again, it's a difficult question, but I'll attempt to answer this with some clarity.

The discussions that have taken place have been involving many different parties. Industry's work with the committee has been to try to find solutions to improve things. I'll give you one example.

There is a provision in the current rules that the driver is supposed to have eight hours of off-duty at night. There is a rule that allows a driver to say “Once a week I can reduce that to four hours”. Pretty well everyone, including industry, said that makes absolutely no sense. Why would you cut back on the most important element of all of this, and that is sleep? So during the discussions, industry has of course wanted to maintain certain issues, has been providing some flexibility, and has asked for flexibility in the discussions to allow them to deal with certain situations. One example is the one that Mr. Szabo mentions about it being eight hours, and then it goes to ten, and then you can use two hours some other time. That is to reflect the reality that in the middle of the night, if you're tired, you have a capability in the rules to pull over and get some sleep.

So we have many interests on the committee looking at trying to bring the hours down considerably. We have others who wish to maintain them where they are. We have others who come in the middle of the road. There is no consensus.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I can tell you that I hear you. I think I tend to agree with Mr. Hill, though. Even on a brief review of this, I think I agree with the statement you made in your own testimony—that this is too complex for some people to understand. Once you get the rules... and it's right in your statement that the complexity of this has to be dealt with. Once you've reached that part, then it doesn't matter how scientific your stuff is. If people don't understand, then they can't be expected to behave in a proper fashion. You certainly can't be expected to enforce or police the darn thing, because you're not sure where the heck you are in anything.

• 1145

I hope we're going to get this simplified to the point where the principal issues of safety of the public and the drivers come first, everybody who has a vested interest clearly understands the rules, and exceptions will be as limited as possible. With any legislation, as soon as you have exceptions, you get into deep trouble.

Mr. Shepherd was going to ask a question. Do you need the rest of my time?

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I have a question on Mr. Szabo's point.

The Chair: You have three minutes left, because I have to go to the opposition.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Fine.

On Mr. Szabo's point, he touched on the issue about north of 60°. It struck me right away when I looked at that. What happens magically north of 60°? Can you somehow drive longer distances and not be fatigued? How does that work?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: I would suggest that wherever you are in Canada fatigue happens no matter what line of work you're in.

The conditions that exist north of the 60th parallel are contained in the current regulations. They allow certain extensions beyond the normal hours. That is to reflect the—if I can be polite and use the term—somewhat harsh conditions and the relative remoteness in the northern climate. To think an arbitrary amount of time is assessed would mean the driver would have to stop in the middle of nowhere—again, if I can use that expression—because they have exceeded the basic hours. It does not appear to be a safe way to proceed.

We have that today in the rules. We have the proposed changes that do simplify some of those issues. I won't go into detail. It's to provide folks in remote northern areas with some flexibility given the remoteness of the climate.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I would have thought with trucks today a lot of them have sleeping compartments so that would be irrelevant. That's not necessarily the case?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: That's not necessarily the case.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I see your section 19 says the director who issues a permit may amend, cancel, or suspend under certain conditions. Why use the word “may” instead of “shall?”

The Chair: Okay, that's the last question.

Mr. Orrbine, please respond.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: We've had debate among the committee with the reworking of the new rules in terms of whether to use may or shall. The provincial regulators, the folks who issue the actual permits, continually look for a bit of flexibility to allow them to assess the safety performance of a carrier. If a motor carrier comes to them with a request for a special exemption or an extension, they would like to be able to use their discretion based on the performance of the motor carrier. In other words, deny the request, grant the request, or cancel the request, if a motor carrier violates the terms of that provision.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Orrbine.

Mrs. Desjarlais of the NDP, you have ten minutes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for appearing today.

I'm assuming you brought along these copies?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: No.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Out of curiosity, who presented this to us today?

The Chair: It came from the department, apparently.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

I want to make a point on Mr. Hill's comment. We could have had this earlier. The date on it is March 28, 2001. It could have been sent to us. It's not the committee members on this side who know when the government is going to put this legislation or the request forward. I think we know it came from the Minister of Transport. He made the request. If there was some forethought, which I'm sure there was, it could have been given to us earlier. We could have asked some more in-depth questions.

There's a lot of manoeuvring and scheduling involved here. The kind of thing going on here is whether or not you get the chickens up at 6 o'clock or put them to bed at 8. Then if they are going to lay extra long between 9 and 10, we're going to have them up again. So it's a lot of that within here.

• 1150

I don't see within these regulations a lot of science, a lot of technical explanation. It's a matter of scheduling, and scheduling people's sleep time and work time. That's what we're talking about here.

As someone who worked in a hospital but is not a nurse—and I always clarify this, because everybody thinks you're a nurse if you work in a hospital—and who has seen the ramifications of scheduling and scheduling changes and how that affects people, I often say to someone when they're proposing situations where you have people working 70 hours a week with only so much time off, I want you to consider that being your surgeon and going in to do your heart surgery, or the doctor going in and doing the appendectomy on your child. If you want them to work under those kinds of conditions and you're going to feel safe about it, then by all means suggest having truck drivers on the road doing those kinds of things. I want people to sort of try to impose that in other areas where it's going to have a life-and-death effect on the public.

In regard to the time off and the lengths of time and specifically north of 60 was mentioned and allowing the need for time off, is that because there are specifics where, say, the road from Yellowknife to Edmonton is a certain distance... Are we basing this on the fact that there's not one little rest stop in between, not one little place along the road? Is that what it's based on?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Most of the discussion that has occurred on the issue of north of 60 has been guided by the advice coming from the territories in terms of their road conditions. There are few roads, to start with, as I think most of us know. And there's also this issue called ice roads, which in the winter—and winter lasts a long time up there—can be anywhere. So to pull over safely, to devise a system to allow safe harbour, is very difficult in the northern climes. Because of that, the request has been made by the territories to provide some flexibility for them to deal with that specific situation. In the rest of Canada there are more opportunities to allow safe harbour. So that's why the slight difference exists north of the 60th parallel.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Would it not seem reasonable to suggest that because of those kinds of situations, instead of having one driver, you have two, or that you absolutely say that you must have a sleeper in a vehicle going those distances?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: There's probably a yes answer and a no answer to that one.

In terms of mandatorily requiring a sleeper berth, to my knowledge that discussion has never taken place. The problem with having a second driver is if the driver is sitting in the seat alongside the primary driver, that driver is on duty, though not driving. So the clock is ticking for both individuals as they go down the road. The individual driving has a different set of criteria, but that individual is also on duty. Sitting in the seat alongside the driver is not restful and therefore counts as on-duty time, so there's no advantage to doing this.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But if he were snoozing in the sleeper, would it be considered the same?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: If you have a sleeper berth, the individual can go back, lie down, get uninterrupted sleep. As per the rules today, that would be counted as off duty and therefore would apply in that situation, absolutely.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I want to thank you for making the point that the consultations you had were not to be considered the national consultations. I think that's extremely important, because there was someone missing from that stakeholder group you talked about, and that was all the rest of the people on the highways who have had to deal with driving when there are a number of trucks on the road. I'd be quite willing to say that, yes, most truck drivers drive very safely and they have a lot at stake. But I think what you will find when you get public input is some of the concern the public has with particular areas of the country where the drivers sort of rule the roost. There is concern over it.

In the area of the consultations you had, can you tell me where those consultations were held? Were there ones set aside in certain cities, certain regions of the country? How many meetings did you have?

• 1155

Mr. Brian Orrbine: The consultations with the 33 stakeholders that I referred to were very focused. I will provide the actual report, which lists the location. I don't want to misrepresent the fact that those were not viewed as the public consultations; they were really guidance. And I remember our consultant saying he's going across the country again. So it was wide, and it applied to pretty well all areas of the country. I can make that report available.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, so there weren't just four or six meetings, there were ongoing meetings throughout...

Mr. Brian Orrbine: There were 33 individual meetings held. This was not one session where 33 stakeholders were brought into a room to discuss it. We had a consultant engaged and asked the consultant to go and consult on various aspects with respect to the interested parties, go and sit down with them, discuss the issues.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, so they weren't group meetings; they were individual.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: That's correct.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Your comment on the information that came forth was that it was the stakeholders who had sort of given the guidance. You also commented that not very many of these accidents have been attributed to fatigue. But there is an indication through your comments today that there's no way of monitoring fatigue. So really there's no way of saying that fatigue isn't the reason either.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: That's right. I think I was specifically careful in my comments to make sure everyone on the committee understands that we rely on police accident reporting to determine the cause of an accident or a fatality in an accident. One of the most difficult things to do is to determine whether fatigue was there. Unfortunately, the consequences are often drastic or the individual is very wide awake. So police enforcement officers appearing on the scene, aside from taking care of the injured and clearing the highway, if they have to try to determine whether someone is fatigued, quite honestly I think that might be a somewhat impossible task. There is no simple, easy test that can be given at roadside or in a specific case to help an officer determine fatigue.

So the comment is quite valid, and really that is why I included it in my comments, to present the picture that while the statistics are very low, no matter where you look, we believe they're under-reported. We just do not know the extent of that under-reporting.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc of the Liberals.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen.

I'm interested a little bit in the federal-provincial dynamic. I recognize that the federal government has a shared jurisdiction in terms of interprovincial or international trucking, and I recognize that the provinces perhaps have different regimes in different provincial jurisdictions. From your experience to this point, is there an easy consensus emerging among provincial partners? How do you see the federal-provincial dynamic working as this issue moves forward?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: The November 1999 policy paper captures the proposed changes that were agreed to by all provincial, territorial, and federal representatives. From a regulator's perspective, we have agreement on the proposed changes. There is some fine-tuning that's still probably required. That's not meant to say that everybody in the room agrees with those proposed changes, but from a regulator's perspective, I would suggest to you we have reached consensus, and that's contained in that November policy paper.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Are provincial legislatures or provincial transportation departments undertaking broad consultations on their own, or are they trying to do it in a concerted way, or is it a patchwork quilt of different consultations?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: As I mentioned earlier, the only jurisdiction to actually conduct consultations was Alberta. I would suggest that for the most part the provinces would much prefer a national consultation effort, which differs from the original stated policy.

Everyone agrees public consultation is important. It's just a question of how it is done and how the voices of Canadians can best be heard. That's why there have been calls to the federal transport minister to hold national hearings or national consultations on the subject. And some of those are coming from some of those provinces.

• 1200

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I'd share my time with Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you very much.

First, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the remarks some members made earlier. It seems to me that when we call witnesses, we should get all pertinent documents beforehand. And even in the case of future witnesses we will be hearing, and on other matters concerning transportation, we should get a copy of documents sent to the Department of Transport, be it briefs or other documents. We should automatically get these at least one or two weeks in advance.

Then, people around this table wonÂt have to complain that we did not get the information in time. I think it is a question of having elementary respect toward parliamentarians. We look a bit stupid sometimes; we receive the documents when we get to the hearing of the committee.

That being said, I thank you very much for your presentation, You say on page 9 that according to the statistics there were 360 fatal collisions involving heavy vehicles Canada. How many non-fatal collisions involving heavy vehicles were there in Canada? There were other collisions in which people were maimed for the rest of their life, lost limbs, etc.

[English]

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Annually, in Canada, approximately 3,000 people die on Canada's roads. The number varies but it's specifically around 3,000 per year. Of those 360 fatal collisions that I mentioned, I believe the number is 505 individuals who died in those collisions, so roughly 500 out of the 3,000 involved commercial vehicles.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: You donÂt quite answer my question. How many collisions not causing death but involving heavy vehicles where there?

I understand that 3,000 people died in road accidents, about 500 of which were directly related to a collision with a heavy vehicle. But there must also have been collisions causing material loss.

If you donÂt mind, I will follow my line of thought. Right now the whole document deals only with one subject: fatigue. We tend to link all road accidents with fatigue and we are therefore preparing changes to the rules in order to require a maximum number of hours a day or a week, etc. interrupted with rest time.

However you say in your document, also on page 9, that according to the most recent studies, in Finland, about 17% of all fatal collisions involving trucks were caused by fatigue. It is quite a small percentage. What I find a bit peculiar is that with the number you will give us... Do you have the answer to my question on the number of collisions?

[English]

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chairman, I think I can be a little clearer on this issue.

When Transport Canada tracks collisions that occur, we look at two things, collisions involving two vehicles or more, as well as the number of individuals involved in those collisions. For example, in 1998, that same year wherein I made the reference to the 360 fatalities, there were 33,596, almost 36,000, collisions on Canada's roads.

When you look at a breakdown of the causation factors for those collisions, you'll find that—and here again is one of the problems with the data limitations—of those 36,000 collisions, the police reported 31,000 as being apparently normal. So the numbers quickly fall from there to many other areas outside of fatigue. Fatigue is what I would call one small but important element.

• 1205

The other aspect raised by Mr. LeBlanc is the issue of the causation of collisions. When you look at truck collisions, there are two reports that come to mind. One is a report produced in the United States, and the other is a report of what's happening in the province of Ontario. In both those reports you'll find that in two-thirds to three-quarters of all truck collisions, the primary cause of that collision was the automobile driver. So the numbers become very watered down with respect to the actual ability to pinpoint fatigue or other specific causes relative to the truck. You first have to eliminate the factor that says three-quarters of the commercial vehicle accidents are not the primary fault of the trucker. So the numbers become very small.

The Chair: A very quick question, Serge.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: On CanadaÂs roads, there were 33,600 collisions involving... I am not talking about who was responsible. ItÂs not that. Were those collisions involving trucks or does this number refer to all accidents, car, motorcycle, etc.? Are we only talking about accidents involving a truck?

[English]

Mr. Brian Orrbine: The reporting statistics that Transport Canada tabulates involve trucks involved in collisions. We do not try to assess blame in terms of who was responsible. The references I made to those other reports and studies try to put that in perspective, but we don't. That's a full picture involving property damage collisions, injury collisions and fatal collisions. So whereas trucks are involved in 20% of the fatalities that occur in Canada, when you start trying to work that down in terms of causation factors, you'll find that things like fatigue don't tend to show a very high percentage within that. Other factors like drinking and driving, non-use of seat belts, the high-risk driver, tend to account for most of the problems.

When you look at commercial vehicles specifically, you end up with a very high percentage being in an apparently normal “condition”.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Orrbine.

We'll go to Mr. Hill, and then I'll go to my Conservative friend over there, Mr. Doyle, who's been waiting for quite awhile.

Mr. Jay Hill: I think Mr. LeBlanc touched on one of the issues I'd like to raise. Before I get to that I'll just say, in response to Mr. Shepherd's questions about north of 60, that having worked in the north myself for a considerable amount of my lifetime I think there's a dramatic difference when you start looking at the degree of risk, the degree of danger. Yes, truckers get fatigued no matter where they work. It doesn't matter if they're travelling at the north pole or downtown Toronto, people get tired. Nobody's immune to it.

But I would relate that north of 60, by and large, as the witness said, there are few roads. Many of them are ice roads. I've travelled on some of them. And there's a dramatic difference between the risk, because if you fall asleep and drive off the road up there, you might run over a few swamp spruce; if you're driving down the 401 between Windsor and Toronto and you veer off the road, you'll perhaps run over a minivan or a bus full of children.

So people should bear that in mind when they look at variances, or exemptions or exceptions, or whatever you want to call it. I think that's one of the problems. I'd perhaps ask the witnesses to respond to this—and this is where I'm getting to the point that Mr. LeBlanc was trying to make—that it's difficult to arrive at a consensus in a huge country the size of Canada, where the conditions vary so tremendously.

I've often remarked as I travelled in traffic to and from my place of residence in Ottawa, especially if it's during rush hour, and you encounter an 18-wheeler—having driven heavy trucks and B-trains myself—that you couldn't pay me enough to try to negotiate the traffic, even if you're wide awake. So I want to bring it to the committee's attention that there's a dramatic difference between an open road, where you're not going to meet somebody for 100 miles, and travelling in heavy traffic.

But isn't that the problem, the real fundamental difficulty with this, arriving at a consensus? I think Mr. LeBlanc called it that. And isn't that the reason why there exists variances in how the rules are applied, or having different rules for different parts of the country?

• 1210

Mr. Brian Orrbine: There are probably two reasons why that type of a situation exists. One, as I mentioned earlier, is the complexity of the rules. Unless the committee wishes, I would not torture you by trying to put you through some of the examples that make it very difficult to apply the rules that are currently in place.

Because there are so many options, variables and decisions that can be taken, it makes it very difficult to really come up with one standard way of doing things. Our objective, working with our provincial and territorial partners, is to come to one way in terms of the rules, the procedures, and the interpretations. We are working hard behind the scenes to get some consistency.

With respect to the diversity of Canada, because Canada is so large and because there are so many different elements that come to play, you'll find different groups wishing fro certain issues to be dealt with relative to them.

I'll cite an example, if I might. For example, when the CCMTA committee sat down and said “We're coming up with a basic set of rules”, we then received many requests from focused stakeholders—for example, the fertilizer industry or the Canadian Construction Association, saying they would like some exemptions from them.

As soon as you come out with a rule, interested parties, depending upon where you are in the country, come up with a request for change. It's difficult to come up with one harmonized set of rules to satisfy most individuals.

One of the areas in the document you received was intentionally left blank, and it's an area we're having great difficulty with, a ferry service on the east coast. Because of the ferry service to Newfoundland-Labrador and then Newfoundland, the driver, who is on the ferry for, say, six hours, is not off duty. It doesn't qualify for rest time, so what happens when the driver reaches Newfoundland? He can't go anywhere. He or she has done nothing for six or seven hours, maybe eight hours, waiting in line.

We don't have answers to all the issues, because there are unique situations in parts of the country that still do exist.

Mr. Jay Hill: To reinforce your comments and agree with you about unique situations, I will relate a couple of things.

One is in reply to Mrs. Desjarlais' suggestion, throwing it out there for debate, that some potential could be considered towards having sleepers on all trucks. Having worked in the oil field, I can tell her and the committee that this is not practical. For example, on big bed trucks, big winch trucks, there's no room on the deck to have a sleeper. That's the reality of working in the oil fields.

While we sit around here in our bubble in Ottawa and theorize about what might work, when you get out into the real world some things aren't working, and that replies to the uniqueness.

Likewise, someone mentioned a requirement for seat belts. I myself had an experience running a bulldozer in the oil patch where if I was wearing a seat belt, I wouldn't be sitting here today, I'd be drowned. Because when the Cat falls through the ice, you have seconds to get out from underneath the canopy and get off it before it goes under.

Just for the information of the group, that same winter this happened to me, a truck with a low bed hauling a bulldozer came down onto an ice bridge, up north of Fort Nelson, and the whole outfit went through the ice in a fast-flowing river. The driver got out, but if he would have been wearing a seat belt he'd probably be dead given the time you struggle with that as well as trying to get out of the vehicle. What I'm referring to is that what might be practical, again, on the highways and super highways does not necessarily work when you get out into the oil field and into the bush-type conditions.

I have one final question because I know I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, for this round. In the interest of trying to reach as many people as possible with these imposed changes, and getting feedback from them on how it may or may not affect their lives and the economics of their operations, has consideration been given to putting this document in its draft form on a website, for example, so we can tell people that at their office or even at home they have access to a website?

• 1215

If that is available, is there a way—I admit, although I've spent a lifetime running heavy equipment and trucks, I'm not very good at running computers—in which to interact with and provide feedback through the website?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: In discussions at the table with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, when we talked about how consultations would take place we briefly touched on the capability of having these proposed changes posted on a website to invite comment. The policy paper, the documents you recently received—those are posted on the CCMTA website right now. Whether the public knows to go to that site and offer comment, I'm not sure, quite honestly, and I don't know how they would find that out. But it is available.

At Transport Canada, having I guess a bit of the spokespersons role on this file on behalf of the rest of the jurisdictions, we receive a significant amount of comments and mail, etc., on both sides of this issue. We plan on putting a link on our site to the CCMTA site so that if someone dials into Transport Canada and would like to know what's going on with regard to hours of service, there's a direct link to the CCMTA site.

I say that because this is not a made-in-Transport-Canada issue. This is an issue in which we are a partner with all of the jurisdictions, and keeping it within the CCMTA environment respects that point.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think you're right, Mr. Hill, about the website. Just about everything we do should be transparent. Everybody should know about it.

Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for your presentation, sir. I have just a couple of brief questions.

First, how many of the recommendations of the expert panel on fatigue, which reported back in 1998, are incorporated in this report here?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Doyle, that is a good question. I don't have a specific number, but perhaps I would be permitted to suggest that we have incorporated a large majority of them. I know I'm not being very precise here, but a large majority of the recommendations have been incorporated completely, others partially, and others not at all. But I would suggest that a significant number of those recommendations were incorporated.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I see.

The Chair: Mr. Orrbine, possibly you would condense or simplify these things and send them back to the committee. We would appreciate it.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I recently had a letter from an individual. I didn't know how to answer it, so I'll pass it on to you and maybe you can make some comment on it.

Transport Canada had a document prepared for CCMTA back in February of 1998. According to Transport Canada, Canada allows the longest regulated driving hours in the world, at 13 hours. In the U.S. it's 10 hours, in the European Economic Community it is 9 hours, and in Australia the maximum driving hours vary by region between 11 and 12 hours.

Transport Canada went on to say that there is no research available that compares the driving performance of a 13-hour regime with that of a greater limit, say 14 hours. As a consequence, there is no justification to extend the driving hours beyond the current 13-hour limit. This is what they said back in 1998.

On the basis of what research, then, do you justify that extension? Can we pretty well take it for granted now that the research is there to justify that type of extension?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Doyle's question relates to documents that were produced during a very iterative process by the committee. Documents were produced and discussion papers were produced from time to time. As we started to become more involved in the issue, we started to learn more ourselves about what I'll call the “dos and don'ts” of looking at this issue.

• 1220

The specific point in the document about us having the longest hours was quite valid, I think. As a matter of fact, I probably made that comment at one of the meetings.

When we looked at making possible changes to the current rules, one of the areas the scientists guided us on was the fact that there is no difference between work and driving. Work is work. Whether you chop wood, drive a truck, or are on duty, work is work. Therefore, you should not distinguish between driving and working, as currently exists in the rules.

To simplify the rules, the committee decided we would combine those two. The issue was, what do you combine it to? Now, 14 hours was chosen by the committee, which is a reduction from the current 16-hour workday. The way the draft standard is written now, it suggests that you can drive or work up to 14 hours a day—currently, 13 hours a day.

The purpose behind this was that most drivers have an obligation to do what's called a pre-trip inspection, an examination of the vehicle. They have responsibilities that are counted as part of your on-duty time. So if the clock starts ticking at 14 hours by doing all of those pre-trip inspections and other requirements, the clock starts ticking down and you're probably—I say “probably” because it does vary—into just over 13 hours of time available to drive. So in fact where it appears we have increased driving time, for most individuals that has remained relatively in the same context it's in today. There are exceptions, but the objective was to do that.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I see.

I don't know if you saw the report that came out recently from CRASH. It was presented, I believe, to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety by one Dr. Elisa Braver on September 28, 2000. It goes over a number of studies done between 1987 and 1994. According to the report, crash risk increases by a factor of 1.8 if driving over eight hours, and 6.2 if driving more than nine hours.

Now, I don't know how valid this report is, but it seems to me this should be a concern. What is your opinion on these numbers, that the risk of a crash increases by a factor of 6.2 if you're driving more than nine hours, not to mention fourteen? Is there any validity, in your opinion, to that kind of report? Because it seems to me to be very valid. It's probably done by reputable firms. Certainly at the Toronto truck driver workload forum that report was presented by Dr. Elisa Braver.

I've given you some time here to formulate your answer. Do you have any opinion on this at all?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: If the member wishes to keep going, that would be good too.

I'm not a scientist, obviously, so I'm not qualified to comment on Dr. Braver's report. That particular researcher is well known. If I could offer the committee a suggestion, when the United States came out with their proposed rules, I believe they quoted the fact that there are 150 research works—Dr. Braver's is one—that one should review, I suppose, to try to draw some conclusions.

Now, I can't admit to having read all of them, but I'm aware of the comments from Dr. Braver. The problem we face is that there are literally a hundred different opinions on this. Dr. Braver has her opinion, others have theirs. The difficulty the committee has had is in trying to take all of this knowledge and piecing it into a cohesive set of rules. No one particular study, including Dr. Braver's, is ever used as the definitive answer on this issue. That's again the problem. The silver bullet that everyone is looking for as an answer is still elusive. We cannot find it.

• 1225

So I'm sure the work is valid, but it's valid relative to all this other mountain of knowledge that's out there.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Could you explain to me—I'm not too well versed on some of the terminology you use—what is meant by the 36-hour reset?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chairman, I will try to make this painless for the committee, because we're now into a bit of the detail. I will do my best to quickly paint a picture, and I have to start with what happens on a day. We have a 24-hour day, a 10-hour off-duty time, a 14-hour workday. The 36-hour reset Mr. Doyle refers to is a period of time after a driver reaches a certain cumulative time. So for example, if we start driving today for 14 hours, we rest, tomorrow we drive for 14 hours, and we continue to do that till we hit the 70-hour point. That point happens to be on day five. You then are required to take a minimum of 36 hours off duty—that's a day and a half.

I'll briefly explain the day and a half. The researchers vary, but I think there's some consensus that you need anywhere from a real good first night's sleep to two good nights' sleep to recover from the effects of chronic fatigue. Therefore, in the example I used, your first night off you get your full night's sleep. As for your second night off, if you come back after the 36 hours, you don't get the full benefit of a complete night, but that only applies if you're chronically fatigued. Therefore, on day seven the driver can come back to work after the 36-hour off-duty period and work for another 14 hours. That is how the term you'll see, 84 hours, comes into play. It's not 84 consecutive hours, it's 70 hours followed by a significant off-duty period, and then you come back to work. That happens to be on day seven in this example. That's where you get the 84 hours. It's a period of rest that's required, mandatory—call it weekend rest.

The reason for the 36 hours is that you have to develop this in odd multiples. In other words, if a night-time driver finishes in the afternoon on their very last day, you want to bring the individual back to work at night. You don't want the individual back working during the day, because what you're doing is flipping that individual in respect of day and night—a whole other issue.

I don't know if that's clear or not.

The Chair: The question and the answer took a long time. We'll go to Serge, and we'll come back to Mr. Hill. You'll have another chance, Mr. Doyle, later on. And Ms. Desjarlais I'm sure has questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Doyle were willing to table his documents, it would be interesting reading for us.

On the other hand, as we often talk about causes, statistics show that the percentage relating to causes of accidents between heavy vehicles, trucks and cars is low. I have a hard time with the fact that it is so low.

For nine years, I travelled between my riding, Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, and Quebec City because I was a member of the National Assembly. The trip took three and a half hours each way. I sometimes made the return trip the same day because of my constituency activities. I can tell you one thing: it is in the evening that one encounters the largest number of trucks. I saw cars get off the road because they had a truck right on their back bumper and very often trucks passed me, at quite a high speed, when I was driving at 120 km/h. I admit there is always a cause when we are talking about road accidents, for example fatigue, but I think that the main cause is speeding.

• 1230

This brings me to a question that might complement that of Mr. Doyle. In all trucks there are data sheets for recording times of departure, days, etc. at least when the truck is in motion.

Are there statistics on accidents involving heavy vehicles? Do we know the percentage of accidents caused by heavy vehicles after 12 or 13 hours of driving? Is it possible to get those statistics given the fact that nowadays each truck has a log book?

[English]

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chairman, Monsieur LeBlanc is referring to the logbooks that track what drivers' on-duty times are, their driving times, and their rest times. To my knowledge, nobody in Canada, no federal, provincial, or territorial regulator, monitors or tracks what the driver reports in the logbook. It's a requirement within the regulations, but nobody maintains statistical data on what they show. I know corporations do, as a part of their driver pay system, where that's the basis upon which drivers are paid, but I'm not aware of any regulators that do that. I don't believe even the U.S. tabulates that either, outside of a specific study, should that be done.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: My name is Marcil. I understand your explanation.

Just like the Highway Code, regulations are made to be enforced even though it is often difficult to enforce them. All you need is a well-hidden policeman in the right spot. This is when the law gets enforced as such. Humans being humans, we often tend to forget traffic regulations.

Could we not match regulations, like those you are proposing, with obligations? Take the case of people whose driverÂs licence was suspended for drunken driving and who absolutely need their vehicle for work. We install an alarm system in their vehicle and in order to start it they must blow in the device. If their alcohol level is too high, the engine wonÂt start. The alarm may even ring when they are driving.

Given the growing importance of heavy traffic and because of the just-in-time delivery system, because there are no more stocks and hardly any storage, because life goes on 24 hours a day on CanadaÂs roads, could we not apply such measures? Business will say once again that it is a costly investment but in my mind human life is worth more than a jack-pot.

Finally, insofar as speed is concerned, could alarms not solve the problem? Was the issue ever raised?

[English]

The Chair: Those are two questions. I'll let Mr. Orrbine answer, and we'll go to Mr. Hill after that.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: At the outset, my apologies to Mr. Marcil. I was looking at the wrong sign.

Mr. Marcil raises two points. One is the issue of false logbooks, and these are the books that I noted earlier a driver's required to fill out. Those are inspected by provincial enforcement officers. What happens is, at the roadside an officer will pull over a vehicle—or it could be at a weigh station that you'll see on the roads—and in addition to looking at the condition of the vehicle, they will look at the driver's logbooks, to determine whether the driver is within the rules. If they determine that the driver is not within the rules, several things can happen. The driver can be taken out of service immediately for lying or for falsifying.

• 1235

Charges can be laid under the Contraventions Act and under provincial regulations, and often the fines are very steep. So there is a system to enforce the use of logbooks and the validity of what the driver is saying.

With regard to speed, I am the farthest thing from an expert on that issue, so I would be a bit out of my element here to talk about electronic devices that warn about speed.

The Chair: There are rules governing some vehicles, but obviously the enforcement agency is the police.

I'll go now to Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make a couple of points as a follow-up to Mr. Marcil. He said something along the lines of laws are usually enforced but truckers often forget the regulations. I think that's what he said. I'd like to point out that it has been my experience that the vast majority of truckers conduct themselves in a very professional manner and obey not only the laws but also the regulations they must comply with.

On the issue of speed, I'm not sure what road Mr. Marcil was travelling on, but he said he was travelling 120 km and a truck passed him. If there needs to be an alarm, perhaps the alarm needs to be in his car.

I just want to make the point that there have been many cases where truckers have found themselves in difficulty and in order to protect other motorists, pedestrians, or whatever, they have put their own lives at risk. I could cite a lot of examples of that happening over the years. I just don't want the committee—and I'm sure that wasn't Mr. Marcil's intent—to denigrate the trucking profession or the truckers themselves.

In your presentation you referred to there being insufficient data relating to the impact of fatigue. Later on in response to a question about that—I forget who raised it—you reiterated how difficult it is because you must rely on, for example, police reports to sort of allude to fatigue being a contributing factor in an accident. Through the consultative process, have you seen anything more that can be done to try to pull out data or at least to get us started down the path to where we can research this a bit more so that we can understand the severity of the problem?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: The issue is twofold, I think, Mr. Chairman. First, can you determine fatigue with an individual right in front of you? Can I look at Mr. Hill and determine whether or not he is fatigued at this point?

Mr. Jay Hill: I am. I'll admit it.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Enough to affect his performance, though, would be the key. We're all fatigued at times.

The difficulty we have is at the roadside. I'm not aware of any device or method to determine fatigue. It is a very difficult item to determine. Until some technological or medical way becomes apparent, perhaps the only way to do it is through a retrospective analysis of collisions. As I mentioned earlier, the police have a certain requirement to look after the injured and to clear the highways, etc., and the determination of fatigue, even for those who maybe are better trained at it than others, is a very difficult thing to do. Having a researcher or an investigator look retrospectively into the causes of collisions in order to determine that might be an answer. I'm being speculative here. I don't know of anything that's conclusive.

That is one of the problems with this issue. With all the good science, knowledge, research, information, and guidance we have received, it still requires individuals like ourselves who have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. It's very difficult to find some way to help you draw the line. There's guidance but there's no magic answer, at least that I have seen.

• 1240

Mr. Jay Hill: Referring to the study Mr. Doyle brought to your attention a few minutes ago, would it be fair to say that in a sense this whole issue is so intangible that it's very difficult to draw a circle around it because it would depend on so many things?

Earlier I referred to the stress of driving in heavy traffic, especially in an 18-wheeler in downtown Ottawa or Toronto during rush hour. Having been a driver myself, I would think that has to be a lot more fatiguing than being on the open road where you can kind of put it in cruise control. You're alert and everything, but you're not confronted with that constant stress of a small car darting in front and cutting you off as soon as you've left a safe following distance between you and the vehicle ahead of you. That has to be much more fatiguing.

It would also depend to a certain extent on the individual driver. Some people would probably be much more resistant to fatigue under certain conditions than others would and could function quite well.

Is that part of the problem in trying to develop something that is ironclad? We have the problem of trying to have a uniform set of rules that would apply in Tuktoyaktuk and Toronto and also to individuals and different types of driving conditions even within a province.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Hill has hit on one of the fundamental problems, if I can call it that, with regard to this issue. I made reference during my earlier remarks to the very large Canada-U.S. fatigue study. It cost over $7 million, and it took six or seven years to complete.

The results that came out of that landmark study showed—this is not rocket science or possibly a surprise to many on the committee—there's such a large variance amongst those individuals day to day that to come up with a very simple solution is very difficult, although not impossible.

One of the findings of that study showed that the time of day is more important than the length of time on duty, something that's not intuitive to most of us. We think the longer one works, the more tired one gets. Some researchers, as Mr. Doyle mentioned, attest to that. Other researchers don't necessarily buy that.

The conclusion of that study was that one should get better rest. That's the easy part. The hard part is now saying, how do we determine the extent to which we do that? How do we do this and be fair to everyone this applies to?

There are no rules for the general driving public, but then there are commercial vehicles. A commercial vehicle driver is better trained at driving a particular vehicle, but he or she is a human being and is like all of us. The doctor working in the middle of the night involves the same problem. We are all faced with those similar kinds of issues. To say when is enough still requires a subjective decision.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hill.

We could go over our time, but I want to remind the committee that we do have the matter of Mrs. Desjarlais' motion.

I'll now go to Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials for being here.

I have a series of shorter questions. I appreciated some of the excellent questions from my colleagues around the table.

I'd like to add my own voice to Jay's and Serge's about truck drivers in general. If a person has one bad incident with a truck, it's not fair to blame all truck drivers. It's just that they happen to be big and in your face because of the size of the vehicle they drive. I think the vast majority of drivers would certainly conduct their business in a way that is as safe as they can manage.

The purpose of all this is to make it safer. In the minds of those who have, at least to a degree, accepted the proposals, they must believe it makes the driving world safer. There can be disagreement over whether it is safe or not, or, if it is safer, if it's safe enough. I think it's probably part of what we as a committee will try to come to agreement—or disagreement—on over the weeks ahead.

• 1245

I'll start by asking to what extent does the improvement of the hours-of-service regime add to not only safety but also the quality of life and health for the drivers themselves? I think that has to be part of it too. There's a workplace issue for drivers. If we make the workplace regime better for them, safer for those on the road, and also better for the worker and the driver, then it adds to safety in an indirect way. I'm wondering if quality of life and health issues for the drivers themselves are part of all this.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chairman, Mr. St. Denis' question is an interesting one. It brings into focus something we have not discussed here this morning. We do believe qualify of life is an important element and factors into things like fatigue and the reduction of fatigue.

The proposed changes you see before you are indeed improvements over what exists today. I don't think anyone, even my staunchest adversary, would disagree with that. The question you raise, is it enough, tends to be more of the discussion that goes on. It's a very valid observation. Is it enough? Has it gone far enough? Is it too far? Those are the kinds of questions. They're definitely improvements over what exists today.

With respect to quality of life, it becomes very difficult to try to come forward with a prescriptive set of regulations to ensure we do that. To address it, Transport Canada is working with the Province of Alberta, the U.S., and through other research, looking at a whole issue called the “fatigue management” program.

It's a different way of looking at this whole issue of fatigue. It's a lifestyle improvement. It involves working with the owners and shippers of the companies to make them understand what a driver's life is all about. Then if a driver has to pull over at the side of the road for safety reasons, or the driver is tired, it doesn't end up in serious repercussions for the driver.

This whole kind of lifestyle training, fatigue management, is something the Australians pioneered. We here in Canada think it has a lot of merit as an alternative to developing a certain set of regulatory requirements. We feel both are necessary if you want to start really attacking the heart of the issue, which is driver lifestyle.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: One of my colleagues asked, in a brief side conversation, if it might be possible to have a single sheet of paper saying where we were and where the proposals are.

Even here, the stakeholder groups think it's far enough. At some point, they all would have come down somewhere on the spectrum of “yea”, “not far enough”, or “too far”.

Would it be possible to have, on one or two sheets of paper, a quick and dirty summary on where you were, where this is, where some would want to see us go, and where others might want to see us back up? It would be a guidance to us, who are just inundated with paper.

I have a last very short question, Mr. Chair. At the end of the day, it is up to the provincial and territorial jurisdictions for intra-provincial truck drivers to set their own rules. I think the plan, when all is said and done, and if everybody agrees, is that the inter-provincial rules and the intra-provincial rules are all harmonized. What are the key big steps that will actually see us get there? What are the big benchmarks between where we are now, where the industry is now, and where it might be in a few months or a year?

I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1250

Mr. Brian Orrbine: With regard to your comment about preparing a one- or two-page document that provides the present and proposed in a chart that would show, maybe, the different sides of the issue, that's something I can very easily do. I think I'm dreaming about this stuff sometimes, so I can easily do that if it helps the committee.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Having nightmares or dreaming?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Maybe both sometimes, sir.

With respect to consistency and what we have today, I don't think I mentioned this during my remarks. Given that there are federal, provincial, and territorial regulations all addressing hours of service, if we were to line them up side by side now, we will find them to be virtually identical, with two exceptions. Those two exceptions are in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and they deal with the length of time someone can work before they must take time off over a week's period of time—Mr. Doyle referenced it as the 36-hour reset.

So if I were to characterize it, I would say we do have consistency now across Canada. We have some commitment and some indications from those two provinces that their intention is to be in line with the rest of us. So we're going down this road together, through that CCMTA process, to develop a set of rules that everyone can agree to and can be basically mirrored in individual regulation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Desjarlais from the NDP.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'll try to be quick because I have a few questions here. I'll ask you all the questions first, so I can get them all before I do my motion after.

The logbook that the truck drivers keep—does it indicate just hours or does it indicate condition of the road, weather conditions, what the traffic is like? Is anything like that included in it? Okay, that's question number one.

I've done a quick glance through, and I don't have the whole legislation. I'm just wondering if there are specific regulations regarding drivers who are carrying hazardous goods or dangerous goods—whether there's any differentiation in their hours of work.

Also, you mentioned that the fertilizer industry and the construction industry have some concerns about things, and somehow I found it hard to understand why those types of businesses were involved in this consultation process as compared to just people overall involved in trucking and the other groups, and whether industries specifically should have a say over what the regulations are and whether there should be a differentiation.

I had one more question. Is it maybe reasonable to suggest that it might be a request for the RCMP or whatever police force that, when they do a traffic evaluation, they make sure that they are recording hours of time that the driver's working, when was their last rest time, how many hours they've been at work?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Mr. Chairman, I'll start at the top.

With respect to the logbooks and whether the driver records the condition of the road, the driver does not unless there is a unique situation. There is a “remarks” section, which is blank, and anything abnormal, I would say, is an opportunity for the driver to include that. Normally it's just the change of status—I'm driving; I'm not driving; I'm sleeping; I'm driving. That's the main purpose behind it.

With respect to hazardous goods, my memory's blank at this point, but the one that I can remember is the Explosives Act. If my memory serves me, it has a reduced number of hours required for a driver should they be carrying explosives. It's lower than what exists for the general goods industry. I'm not 100% clear on the hazardous goods side, but I know that on the explosives side there are those kinds of limitations.

With respect to the fertilizer and construction industry, those are unsolicited requests that came to the committee from those individuals. Several industries have been following the discussions. The meetings that we have are open to the public. Only certain meetings are held in camera amongst our regulators for specific reasons, but the basic operation of the committee meeting is open to the public.

We seldom receive a lot of public participation, but in this case here, anyone who is guided or governed by these hours-of-service rules has been watching this on the sideline. What the construction association—I don't want to single them out—said was, “We have a very concise construction season in Canada in several places, and we would like to work longer hours if possible in those periods.” The fertilizer organizations said, “The planting season in Canada is extremely short and very critical. Can we have some exceptions beyond the current rules?” So those kinds of requests have come unsolicited to the committee.

• 1255

Finally, on the police evaluation, to my knowledge we have not had significant discussions with the law enforcement agencies about improving their ability to detect fatigue. All police reports indicate the cause, but unfortunately, as I mentioned to the member on the other side, most of them show apparently normal conditions. I think that would be a very long-term and very difficult one because even the folks who deal with this issue have trouble determining the extent to which fatigue becomes unacceptable.

The Chair: That's it for you, Bev?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just following on it, because you've mentioned... I wasn't necessarily suggesting that police decide whether or not fatigue was in place. I was suggesting, should the police ask, “How long have you been driving?”; “When was your last stop?“, that kind of thing, in among all the questions you have. For the record, that's what I was suggesting.

The other thing is, those meetings you had—were they advertised publicly?

Mr. Brian Orrbine: The meetings held at the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators are posted on their website, but there are no newspaper advertisements or anything like that. But should someone wish to surf in the CCMTA, they could find out when the next meeting is, and, as I mentioned, it is open to the public. The only difference is that, if you're not a member of that organization, you don't receive any material in advance.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Orrbine and Mr. McHattie. We appreciate this. This is the kickoff for this study. Obviously we'll have to come up with a work plan, have a look at it, and come up with recommendations. We appreciate your input and thank you for your contribution.

Mr. Brian Orrbine: Thank you.

The Chair: I'll give you a couple of minutes to go, and then Mrs. Desjarlais will make her motion, should we have a notice of motion on file.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think everybody's got a copy of the motion now. Just for the number of members who are here for the first time this Parliament and weren't with the transport committee in the last one—and I think the chair will acknowledge this—we kept hearing at some point that the motor vehicle act was going to come up in the last Parliament. A number of us were on transport and I think got a ton of information regarding truck driving hours, and different things happening with bus deregulation, and all that kind of stuff, but with the airline merger and a number of other issues, we never got around to it.

It's my belief that, in this area with the truck driver hours and bus driver hours, there is real concern in the public as to hours increasing and the hazards on the road with trucks. On that note... not suggesting that truck drivers are bad, because I think overall the majority do follow the rules and do recognize that it's their life on the line as well. But it's to ensure that all of them do know that we have the rules in place so that all will follow.

I think it's important that we have public discussion. It hasn't taken place. Only certain aspects of the industry have been involved in the CCMTA's results, so the motion I want to put forth... You've all read it, so I'm not going to... Or do you want me to read it?

The Chair: It would be a good idea to read it for the record, yes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'll read it for the record.

I move that in order to add to our body of knowledge and allow broader public input as suggested by the Minister of Transport, the committee conduct open hearings across the country to consult directly with Canadians about commercial vehicles drivers' hours of service.

Further to that, if the committee finds it necessary that we might want to review what happens in the U.S. as well... whether that's a matter of going to Washington or somewhere, or for that matter Mexico, because under the North American Free Trade Agreement... And I mean this seriously, because what's happening in the U.S. right now is that there is concern over Mexico's regulations. We're all being tied together because of globalization. So if we're going to do a comprehensive review, we may want to do that. Personally, I'm greatly concerned about having the public consultation in Canada first, but I understand that the committee may want to go further than that.

The Chair: Thank you. You have moved the motion, and Mr. St. Denis wants to discuss it.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1300

Bev makes a compelling argument, with the exception of, for the moment anyway, “across the country”. With the exception of that, I totally support her motion. But that we immediately agree to go travelling—not that we never do, but at the present time—I think it's a bit premature to decide that right now. First of all, we're hoping that the provinces and territories will undertake their consultations, as they said they would. Alberta has done it. But I'm afraid of jumping in—going to their capitals in advance of them having decided to do that.

If you'll allow me to finish, Bev, I think it would be more appropriate first to assemble a list of witnesses to see where they all are. We can't go see a thousand truck drivers across the country. That's not practical, nor would it add to the body of knowledge. We need to hear from a representative sample of all the stakeholders.

While supporting the spirit of Bev's motion, with the exception of at the present time agreeing that we go travelling, in the absence of a plan or of knowing what the provinces and territories are going to do with their consultation, I would just ask that we either take a vote on it, or that Bev could bring it back up a little later on, once we have a better idea of what the witness list is like. Getting an idea of the U.S. situation is probably a good idea, but how we do that remains open.

So as it stands, if we're going to vote, I wouldn't be able to support that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Jay Hill of the Alliance Party.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, likewise, I'm caught in the middle of this. I certainly support the intent of the motion, but to my knowledge... First of all, I apologize, as I've had other duties elsewhere, and thus I've missed a few meetings in the recent past. But I certainly would like to see some discussion of our priorities—where we're going, how much time we have as a committee—before we jump in and take on more work.

I agree completely with the mover that this is certainly something that's necessary. There was some comment made, I think by Mr. Szabo, to the witnesses about the urgency of it. It's not that it isn't an important issue, as the parliamentary secretary has said, but we have to view it in the context of all the other things on the plate of the committee. It's compounded, as we all know, because the committee is a dual committee. How much time do we have?

I'm a bit surprised at the parliamentary secretary. He didn't immediately jump on the suggestion that we at least conduct these hearings in Mexico next winter, but...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jay Hill: With regard to the motion, though, I would ask the mover to perhaps consider providing the committee with some more insight as to her intent as far as the timeline. It just says “conduct open hearings across the country”. Well, does that mean now? Obviously that's not possible. Does it mean over the summer recess? Does it mean next fall, or when we can slot it in? I think that's a valid concern that all committee members would share.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, there are other suggestions that have been proposed to the committee about future business of the committee, and this would seem to be part of that. Unfortunately, we again don't have an opportunity to deal with that agenda item with sufficient time for debate. In view of the fact that I think this is really a prioritization and maybe a consensus determination on behalf of this committee, I would suggest that the motion simply be stood until the next meeting, so that we can have time to address plans and priorities for this committee.

The Chair: Mr. Doyle, and then Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I just want to support the motion, but I want to be clear on what the parliamentary secretary was saying. Was he saying that once we get a catalogue of people across the country, we could very well travel to these areas?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'm not saying that I have in my mind that it's travel or not travel. I'm saying, absent of a more specific plan—who the witnesses are, what our objectives are—in the context of all the other committee's business, it might be that 95% of the consultation—I'm only surmising—that we'd want to do could be done here. And we don't know what the provinces are going to do.

So I just think it's premature. I'm not prejudging the outcome. I'm just saying it's premature at this time, Norm.

The Chair: Serge Marcil of the Liberal Party.

• 1305

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, to rectify what I said earlier about truck drivers, I want to say here that in my mind truck drivers are professional. I was not questioning the quality of the drivers nor their professionalism. I often question the business people more than I do drivers.

That being said, I find this a bit premature. I would like the Committee on Transport to have at least a well-established program of priorities before deciding. Somebody else could propose another motion of consultation on another subject and there will come a time where we wonÂt be able to honour... I think that we would need a game plan.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Serge.

Bev, in light of what we heard, could you maybe leave it with me for a little while? Let's work with the staff and come back later on.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Actually I just want to clarify some comments and some questions that came up with regard to the timelines.

I don't believe there's any great urgency that we travel and do this right now. It's just come before us for discussion. I think it is an issue where we are going to have to travel throughout the country in all fairness to all regions of this country.

I'm not willing to accept the parliamentary secretary's comments that we need to wait and see what the provinces do. This is a national issue. This is talking trucking throughout the country. It shouldn't just consider what Saskatchewan or Alberta says, because quite frankly I made a point of having discussions with the Deputy Minister of Transport in Saskatchewan when they changed some of their regulations in regard to hours, and I'm not happy with the changes they made.

What you will find is that in some of those provinces they have increased risk of accidents because of their rules. What we need to look at is what's best for all truck drivers throughout all of Canada, because that's what we're talking about here. So I think there is a need to go over all. There was a conference that was going to meet in regard to the trucking situation and hours. The ten largest truck driving firms in Canada are in Winnipeg, and they were not going to have any meetings in Winnipeg.

So I think we need to look at all that. It's not just a matter of expecting people who are able to get to Ottawa to meet. I think this committee hasn't been flippant about its travel. It hasn't been in the past, and I don't think it should be. It's my experience, with all the information I've received and the comments from people through the last Parliament and even in the last little while, that there is concern throughout the country. I don't think there's any urgency to travel. I think it's something that we could even look at in September or October. I don't think there is an urgency now or through the summer.

I do want to put the motion forward now, because I think we need to get on with it. I've seen this committee drag its feet and then get caught up in what I consider not necessarily the most pressing issue for all the Canadians. But we end up dealing with it. This is an issue that's pressing to all Canadians. I think it needs to be dealt with.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned until next Tuesday.