TRGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.))

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Bert Titcomb (Secretary, Transport 2000 Canada)

Á

1115

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Jim Gouk

Á

1125

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Á

1130

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Á

1135

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Bert Titcomb

M. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Á

1140

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Á

1145

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Á

1150

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Paul Szabo

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Â

1200

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Jim Gouk

Â

1205

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Â

1210

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Alex Shepherd

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bert Titcomb

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Â

1215

Â

1220

The Chair

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Bert Titcomb

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

---

NUMBER 062

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.)): I see a quorum, so I'll call the meeting to order.

    We have Lisa MacGillivray of the Canadian Industrial Transportation Association, who's going to talk about hours of service and transborder issues.

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray (President, Canadian Industrial Transportation Association): Good morning, members of the standing committee. It is good to be here once again.

    We are a national organization representing shippers, those who buy transportation services. As an aggregate, CITA members purchase over $20 billion annually in transportation and associated services. They contribute over $120 billion to the GDP of Canada.

    Standard number 9, the hours of service for commercial trucking, is one of the standards of the National Safety Code. Those esteemed members who have been here during previous appearances by the CITA may recall that the National Safety Code is something near and dear to our hearts. It has been worked on since 1987, with the partial deregulation of trucking. CITA is a firm supporter of the National Safety Code and is on record as voicing some amount of exasperation at the now 15 years it has taken to get these 14 standards off the boardroom table and into practice.

    The current hours of service regulations are difficult to enforce and, from many accounts, difficult to administer. CITA applauds Transport Canada for its in-depth research, in conjunction with U.S. officials, to determine the effects of fatigue on truck drivers. We also applaud the provincial and the federal representatives of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators for their hard work most recently to amend these outdated standards and introduce new proposals.

    In short, CITA supports the hours of service proposals submitted by the CCMTA for consideration. Shippers believe the increased harmonization between jurisdictions and the simplification of the standards will make it easier to conduct trade, but most important is the tying of the regime to actual human fatigue cycles, which will increase safety, as well as delivering a level of dignity and flexibility to professional truck drivers.

    I'll move on now to cross-border trucking issues. Much has been said of the tragic events of September 2001. We suspect that a fair amount of effort, research, and interest has been directed to border congestion. In fact, in a recent speech the Minister of Transport indicated that it was time to get serious about the situation and make some hard decisions about where transportation investment should go. It is my view that what Canada witnessed in the direct aftermath of September 11 is less a breakdown in transportation, but rather a graphic representation of the severe shortcomings of Canada's infrastructure, particularly at the Canada-U.S. border.

    There are a number of things that happened directly after September 11. U.S. border guards went on the highest level of alert, low-risk border programs were suspended, and for a period of time the border was actually closed. The following things aggravated an already critical situation.

    There was a lack of adequate facilities in the final kilometres before the border crossings. This is an ongoing problem, and I cannot stress enough that it was not created by terrorists. There is often nowhere for non-regular or complicated loads to pull over, review their documentation, and place it in order prior to pulling up in front of a guard kiosk.

    There was a lack of real-time communications to alert shippers and truckers as to what the real border situation was. It took CITA a number of hours to get the word out to our members to stop sending shipments to the border on September 11, because the line-up was just getting too long and loads weren't going anywhere. We had difficulties with that, because we couldn't get a real idea of what was going on.

    There is a chronic understaffing at border crossings, particularly on the U.S. side, and until then there was a rather respectful operating distance between the Canadian and the U.S. border officials.

Á  (1110)  

    Many of these issues were reacted to in a most admirable fashion by the professional men and women in the trenches. The Ontario Provincial Police began traffic control, in some cases pulling highly perishable commodities, such as livestock, out of the queue to get them across before an even greater mess and loss was created. Canada and U.S. border guards came together in an ultimate case study in common sense. Canadians were trained in U.S. standards, and they helped alleviate the congestion.

    The result of this situation is the development and ongoing implementation of the Manley-Ridge 30-point plan. CITA is monitoring this progress and is satisfied that it is addressing the needs of the importers and exporters at border crossings, but there's still a lot of work to be done.

    Beyond cross-border issues that required attention before September 11 and certainly require attention now is the issue of cabotage. While this is primarily a trucking issue and an operational issue, Canadian shippers end up paying the bills for these inefficiencies. They're spending too much to transport to the U.S., because of the lack of agreement between U.S. customs and U.S. immigration. On the other hand, many of my trade associate members have spoken to me about the somewhat lax enforcement of Canada's cabotage rules on U.S.-based carriers. There is an equity here that needs balancing. To that end, CITA respectfully recommends that Canada step up its effort to negotiate a fair resolution with the American government on issues of cabotage.

    This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions the members pose.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Titcomb, would you like to start now?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb (Secretary, Transport 2000 Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am representing Transport 2000 Canada. I hold several positions there: national office manager, secretary, and editor of the bimonthly newsletter. I'd like to start by reading our mission statement.

    Transport 2000 Canada represents the interests of public transportation by promoting socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable policies, programs, services, and actions.

    I'll present a summary of what I plan to talk about today.

    Transport 2000 Canada is strongly opposed to any revision to increase the hours of service for commercial drivers in Canada. Our reasons are as follows.

    The proposal to permit commercial drivers to operate a truck or bus up to 14 hours a day and 84 hours a week was rejected by several international experts as being likely to result in more fatigue-related accidents involving tractor-trailers. Two of these experts were hired by Transport Canada, which then ignored their recommendations.

    In September 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine published a special article entitled “The Sleep of Long-Haul Truck Drivers”. The article detailed a series of round-the-clock electrophysiological and performance monitorings of four groups of 20 male truck drivers. The article compared four driving schedules, two in the U.S.A., which were five ten-hour trips of day and night driving, and two in Canada, which were four thirteen-hour trips of late night to morning driving. During the study the trucks involved were driven about 327,000 kilometres. The report concluded by stating, “long-haul truck drivers obtained less sleep than is required for alertness on the job.... The greatest vulnerability to sleep or sleep-like states is in the late night and early morning hours”. The article listed 34 references.

    In the U.S.A. regulators have proposed a 12 hour a day driving limit and a 60-hour work week, with mandatory on-board electronic recorders to verify that drivers are following the rules. In Canada truck drivers are required to keep a log book, but there have been numerous instances where drivers have falsified the entries.

Á  (1115)  

     In the U.S.A. each year over 110,000 people are injured and more than 5,000 killed in motor vehicle accidents involving commercial trucks. In Canada there are between 500 and 600 deaths per year. Estimates of the percentage of crashes that are partially or completely attributable to fatigue range from 1% to 56%, depending on the database examined and the level of detail available from crash investigators.

    There has been a significant increase in the number of trucks on Canadian highways. In 1991 every day 19,680 trucks crossed the Canada-U.S.A. border. By the year 2000 the daily truck traffic at the border had almost doubled to 37,360 rigs. Many of these trucks are driven by inexperienced drivers. Judging from the number of truck accidents on sharp curves, it is obvious that these drivers have little or no knowledge of the centrifugal forces acting on their vehicles or the importance of knowing the location of the centre of gravity of their load. Many of these accidents are attributed to the load shifting. In reality, the load shifts after the truck starts to tip over.

    Most truck accidents are fatal to the driver of the other vehicle, particularly if it is an automobile. A car weighing one tonne has little chance when hit by a 40-tonne truck. In Canada someone dies every 15 hours in a truck-related crash.

    In 1999 the Canadian Trucking Alliance issued an urgent appeal for 50,000 new drivers, even calling on the federal government to rewrite immigration rules to help recruit foreign drivers. The yearly turnover of drivers for many trucking companies is 100%.

    Numerous highway safety inspections in Canada have determined that one out of every four big rigs is unsafe at any speed. Many trucks frequently travel well over the speed limit in all weather conditions. One small error by a tired driver in a poorly maintained truck can have very serious consequences for all other vehicles on the same road.

    Using information recently made public by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, the CAA calculated that tractor-trailers and other heavy trucks are involved in 12.5% of fatal accidents in the province, even though these trucks make up only 2.6% of the vehicles on the road.

    On April 25 this year Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways released the results of a new national poll on how Canadians view trucking safety issues. The survey was conducted between April 2 and April 7 among a representative sample of 1,000 adult Canadians. Principal findings of this new poll include the following.

    Four in five Canadians say the growing number of tractor-trailers has made travel on our highways and roads more dangerous.

    Canadians strongly oppose any attempt to allow extra-long, multi-trailer trucks on our roads. Nine in ten oppose the use of trucks with two 53-foot trailers. Canadians are almost unanimous, at 95%, in their opposition to triple-trailer trucks.

    Canadians are again nearly unanimous, 91%, in their belief that the long hours the truck drivers can be required to work place too much stress on humans.

    There is strong support for restricting truck driver hours on Canada's roads. Eight in ten favour reducing the 13-hour driving shift allowed in Canada to the American limit of 10 hours. A strong majority, 85%, favour restricting the number of hours a trucker can work per week to the proposed American limit of 60 hours, rather than the 84 hours planned here.

    Eight in ten Canadians favour a rule requiring that all big trucks be equipped with electronic devices to counter the cheating on hours worked.

    In conclusion, Transport 2000 Canada states categorically that we are strongly opposed to any revision to increase the hours of service for commercial drivers in Canada.

    I'd be glad to take any questions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We will begin with the official opposition. Jim.

    Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I have some differing questions for our two witnesses. There's a potential conflict between their two positions.

    First, Ms. MacGillivray, when you mention cabotage, I assume what you're really looking for is that there should be the ability for Canadian truckers to travel point-to-point in the States, and Americans up here, only if we get some equitable agreement with the United States. How does your industry feel that would affect the Canadian trucking industry? They're allowed to do something there, and something as immense as the United States is allowed to do it here. How is that going to balance out for our industry up here?

Á  (1120)  

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: It's such a cliché, but let's just get to the level playing field and see how that goes. At this point, with this idea that we'll let the equipment in, but not the driver, it becomes an issue in that it offers a challenge to the truck operator to claim the right efficiencies in the service offerings.

    Will it ever balance out? I'm not sure. I'm not a trucking expert, from the operational point of view.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: If I may intercede, I don't want to direct you, but I'm not concerned so much about total balance, I'm just concerned about the actual impact on the Canadian trucking industry. Is it going to be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental for the Canadian trucking industry if we have open cabotage on both sides of the border?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: From what I understand from some of my trade associate members and the indications from some of my members who do have their own fleets, for the Canadian operations it would be beneficial that there be greater balance to the cabotage rules between Canada and the U.S.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay.

    We heard from Mr. Titcomb specifics of hours his organization would like to see. Do you have a number of hours of operation, from your organization's perspective, for daily and weekly driving times for drivers from Canada?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: Transport Canada is offering a number of options for the companies and for the drivers to tailor their hours of service to the services they are providing. That is what my members find interesting. It allows them to deal with peak time, as in the fertilizer industry, where they basically have six weeks to ship 50% or more of their product in the domestic markets. That's a very short-term sort of allowance.

    With the National Safety Code, with the safety ratings, facility audits, and that sort of thing, the mutual introduction of those two standards will allow enforcement officials to go in and audit the log books in comparison with the operators' records and see if they jibe. So there is the opportunity to find the few bad apples out there who might be changing some of their data.

    So we believe it's a full package. Offering the flexibility is probably a good thing for trade. Coupling that with research on human condition and human fatigue factors, in our judgment, shows far better science at least than the current regime.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Titcomb, you mentioned your opposition to the double and triple trailers, the extra-long load, but your organization wants shorter driving hours. The net effect is that we will either have an incredible increase in the total number of trucks, driving shorter periods of time with smaller loads, or simply do a lot less shipping by truck, which is probably another subject. Would your organization be prepared to look at the longer loads, the double, and even the triple trailers, if there were a very rigid inspection system on them and a significant reduction in the time these drivers were allowed to drive, so the net result could be that they could still move x amount of goods, while driving less and without putting more total units on the road? Is that something worth looking at as a way to meet some of the goals of your organization?

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I think that's a possibility. However, I don't think we would particularly endorse these long trucks. If you're driving in the winter time, passing a truck with a single trailer is a major exercise. With a double or triple, you are now making the roads extremely unsafe, particularly in the winter time.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: But the quid pro quo might be that they'll pass one triple-trailer unit instead of three single-trailer units.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: But on the other hand, that one triple-trailer might just be enough that you end up in a snow bank.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: No matter how good a job we do here in this committee, with the outstanding information our witnesses provide to us, which we give due consideration to, we're never going to have a perfect system. I'm not saying this is the way we should go, I'm saying this is the way we have to look at things. We're saying we can't look at bigger trailers. You don't want to look at more units on the road. We want to cut down the hours of the time a driver can be behind the wheel. How do we balance this out? What gives? Is it the shipment of goods?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: It's a very simple answer. Put more trucks on rail, which has been done quite successfully in a number of countries.

    I'd like to return to one other point, the damage done to the highways by large trucks. You only have to drive down any of our major highways, particularly in the right-hand lane, and you can see the ruts that are forming. The Department of Highways does a good job of trying to seal up the cracks, but sooner or later the road has to replaced. I think these ruts lead to a very dangerous situation in cold weather. If you get any moisture freezing in there, it can become very hazardous for a car.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I agree with that, although the minute we start comparing this huge, lightly populated country to a densely populated, small country in other jurisdictions, we run into different situations. I would like to see a lot more stuff on rail than currently goes, but that isn't going to alter the fact that there are a whole lot of areas in this country where rail just isn't viable and they still have to address these issues of trucking. There we're talking long hours, more units, or longer units. There's only one of those three, or if you want to put in a fourth, we stop shipping so many goods and do without. I don't think the fourth is going to be an option, so we're faced with one of those three. In a survey I saw years ago in a municipality where I lived they told people to choose the three things they most wanted, and that's what they would endeavour to bring in. They said they wanted more parks, better roads, and lower taxes. Obviously, the three don't go together. In this case, all three can't go together either.

    What we're looking for is certainly what you're concerned about, but also what your solutions are. It has to fit inside that overall premise. Something's got to give. Which way do we go? Do we say let them drive long hours, but keep those big units off the road? Do we say put the bigger units on the road, but rigidly inspect them, with huge penalties for being unsafe, and cut down the hours? Do we simply put more units on the road, keep them small, and keep the driving hours short?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: These long units you're talking about are generally restricted to certain highways. Presumably, once they're on the highway, they're reasonably safe vehicles to operate. I think the problem comes when you get off the highway, which you must do either at the start or the finish, and get onto city streets to get to your terminal or destination. I think that's where you run into the major problem with these long units.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: What's the solution? Which of those three directions do we go in?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I don't think I could give you an honest answer.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay, that's good for now.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning, sir. I have a very short question. I should know the answer, but obviously I don't.

    Is the use of rail the same as roads, in the sense that the more you use the roads, the more work you need to reconstruct them, because you damage them every time you use them? Is it the same thing with rail?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: Probably to a smaller extent. With a steel wheel rolling on a steel rail, one of the advantages, of course, is that it has a very low coefficient of friction. Where you get wear on tracks is generally where you have curves. However, the railways do install lubricators, which are self-lubricating. As the train comes to a curve, they apply a grease to the flanges of the wheel, so that they decrease the wear on the track and decrease the friction.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: What about what they call the bed, where they lay these tracks?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: The ballast.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Does that need to be refurbished? Does it need to be repaired, replaced? I'm not talking about the physical tracks, but I'm talking about the ballast, the road bed itself.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I think you'll find most railways will restore ballast from time to time. I don't know how often that would be.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's unfortunate, because if we're talking of putting trucks on trains, is it going to be a cost factor? It always boils down to the same thing, it always boils down to cost with shipping, owning trucks, operating the distribution system. I'm sure Ms. MacGillivray can give us approximate figures as far as trucks are concerned, but as far as trains are concerned, if it's the case that the more use there is, the higher the costs are going to be, it might be a disadvantage to ship by train.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: There's one important distinction. The railways bear the cost of building and maintaining their right of way.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, but we know that if there is an extra cost, they're going to pass it on to the users. There might not be passengers, but there are going to be truck shippers. Right, Ms. MacGillivray?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: Yes, indeed.

    As far as modal transfer is concerned, let me tell you something that happened after 9/11, when the trucks started backing up. Of course, many of my members and other shippers immediately started phoning the railways to find out what they could do to get their shipments moving. We know the automotive industry has very strict, just-in-time delivery schedules. Other industries also have very strict schedules they must keep to. Unfortunately--and this is the ongoing problem with the debate on modal transfer--the railways at this time do not have the capacity to take the volume of trucks everyone thinks they can.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Do you know why they can't? Is it because there are not enough cars?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: There are a number of reasons, train scheduling, number of available cars, all sorts of things. Certainly, in the aftermath of the tragedies of September a very few shippers were able to get increased shipments onto the class one railways. The truckers who were using CP's expressway were able to fill a couple of trains, but they weren't taking new customers. Any shipper can tell you the wrong time to go looking for new service providers is in the middle of a crisis. It's an illustration, to a certain degree, of some of the difficulties we have if we're talking about a major policy change favouring one mode in a regulatory manner over the commercial disciplines that are already in place.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: So what I hear from you is that your members would not be allergic to using rail, if we could get a better system going. About 30 or 40 years ago, when they first started, they used to call it piggyback; I don't know if they still call it that. But your members would not be allergic to using rail?

Á  (1135)  

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: If the price were right, they'd send it by carrier pigeon. Members don't have love affairs with trucks or with railways or with airplanes or with vessels. They're looking at the cost, at the ability to deliver in the right place and at the right price.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: So let's get into breeding pigeons.

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: Exactly. If the service is there, the price is right, and it's reliable, shippers will use whatever's out there.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Sir, do you think Transport 2000 would have figures on the costs of upkeep in the rail business?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I'm quite certain we can obtain those figures for you.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chair, could we ask that these figures be forwarded to us through the clerk?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: Could I just add a point about railways, particularly as we're talking freight here, and passenger travel is a different mode? CNR has become the major freight railway in North America. They've instigated a number of things that had never been done before, such as running freight trains on a schedule. There was a time when you ran a freight train only when you had enough cars, but nowadays freight trains operate like passenger trains, at least on the CNR. I think you can back me up, Lisa, on the fact that several major companies have made a decision to ship their goods by rail, Canadian Tire, Zellers, The Bay. There are several large companies that have made a switch in the last several years.

    M. Marcel Proulx: Okay, thank you very much. That's very interesting.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): You mentioned fatigue studies and the science of the fatigue studies. Can you tell me specifically which studies you were talking about?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: I was speaking to the one Transport Canada conducted. I can't remember the name of it, but I can get it for you.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It was done by Transport Canada themselves?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: In partnership with the U.S., I believe.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: And what exactly did that study indicate?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: From my understanding of it, they went out and conducted fatigue tests, seeing how many hours of sleep you need to recover or to get a full rest. I believe the number was between 6 and 8 hours. The problem, of course, with the current standards is that you might have 8 hours off, but generally speaking, when you get off work, you don't immediately dive into bed and fall dead asleep. There's wind-down time, you have to eat, you have to do different tasks of living and eating and breathing. So it wasn't straight sleep. From the proposal the CCMTA has submitted, they're trying to take those cycles and those very human routines into account, but still come up with something truck drivers can use to stay healthy and alert while driving.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Did you look at any studies other than the one you're specifically talking about?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: No.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So if there were three studies that indicated drivers needed 48 hours a week sleep time off and the one Transport Canada has decided to go with, that wouldn't bear on how you made the decision, you're just basing it on the Transport Canada study.

Á  (1140)  

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: That's right.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: A couple of my colleagues were asking questions, and I was thinking back to the previous transport committee and some of the discussions we had in regard to rail and truck traffic, specifically when my colleague from the Alliance said there are only three decisions. I kind of recall that there really is a number four decision. It's something you reflected on, Mr. Titcomb, hiring more drivers. My understanding was that part of the pressure the trucking companies have right now is that they don't have enough drivers. That's why they want them to be able to drive more hours, because they're finding it hard to get people into this industry, because it's so hard on individuals. Is that your impression of things as well?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: Very much so. I mentioned in my presentation that a lot of drivers are not familiar with the forces acting on their trucks going around a curve. At the office, probably about once every two weeks, I will get a call from a truck driver who believes Transport 2000 Canada is a shipping company and wants to know if we're hiring drivers. One day it was a lady who called, and she told me she had just graduated from this truck driving school in Hawkesbury. I said, in your course do you learn anything about centrifugal forces acting on a truck when you go around a curve or the centre of gravity? And her answered stunned me: she said, what are you talking about? That scares me. If we've got truck drivers driving around on our highways who have no idea that when you come to a curve, you'd better slow down before you hit the curve, because if you try to slow down when you're in the curve, it's probably too late. We see many accidents occurring on either the exit ramps or the entrance ramps of our four-lane highways. Usually, the answer is, well, the load shifted. In my opinion, the truck tipped, and then the load shifted. It's very difficult to tell, when you see an accident and the load is spilled on the road.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: With some of the new transport trucks, the ones that have the computerized systems, would it be shown if the load goes off-balance?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: Not being a truck driver, I can't honestly say, but if you do the physics, the truck driver has a very narrow margin of error when he's going into a curve, particularly if he has a high load with a high centre of gravity. It's very easy to tip a truck over.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are you aware whether or not there is any kind of graduated system for truck drivers? Do they just go and get a licence to haul for however many trucks, or is there a graduated system related to the weight of the truck they drive, the size of the truck, the type of product they're carrying?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I don't believe there is, and I just continue what this lady said. She said she got a call from a trucking company. She didn't identify the name of the company, but they wanted her to come down--I think it was over the Christmas holidays--pick up a load, and deliver it to the States. She said to them, just a minute, if I'm going to drive for you, I'd like to spend several weeks with one of your drivers to get familiar with the way you do your business, your routes, and what not, and then you give me a test to see if I am capable of handling a truck. Here is a company prepared to hire somebody fresh out of a trucking school, put her on a truck, and send her down to the States.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The province of Manitoba, I believe, has put in place an apprenticeship program for truckers. It started, actually, as a result of the type of advertisement you talk about, where they were looking to possibly have immigration of drivers. There were a number of us who had our voices heard in saying this is not acceptable, we need more truck drivers trained, and we need them trained properly, not just drivers a company will take on under a human resources program, so that while they're getting part of it paid for, they'll have them along as the person to unload the truck, really not giving them an apprenticeship as such in driving the trucks. So there is a program being put in place now to try to alleviate some of those concerns. You wouldn't be aware of whether or not it's available anywhere else?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: No, I'm not aware of that.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm sorry, most of my questions are really for the representative from Transport 2000. In regard to the length of trucks, I'm actually one of these people who was really annoyed when Saskatchewan, a few years back, decided to extend the length of trucks and the weights. They said they were only going to do it after a certain time of night. When I travelled home to Saskatchewan, I used to travel in the evening and night. I was a little ticked off, to say the least. So knowing I could contact the deputy minister of transport, I voiced my grave concerns. I understand Saskatchewan doesn't have that in place any longer, but it bothered me that they would expect these trucks to be on the road, and drivers who wouldn't necessarily know it was going to be a longer truck would be driving at night trying to pass.

    My question is in regard to passing lines on highways. We see the surveyors out there putting the dots on the road. You can pass, this is relatively safe; if you're passing, you should be able to see anything coming. Would it have a bearing on how the highways are set up now if we started allowing longer vehicles on the road, regarding whether or not they should be indicating it's safe passing?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I would think so, definitely. Obviously, if you have two 53-foot trailers, you're talking over 100 feet. You would need a lot longer space to pass that truck.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: How many cars could you normally pass in that length of time, would you say, as compared to the one truck? I'm trying to get the rough average of a vehicle on the road now.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: You're getting very technical here.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's been a long time since I took my driver training, so I can't recall.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: A lot would depend on the relative speeds too. If a truck is doing as I see many doing on the Queensway or the 401, barreling along at 120 kilometres an hour--

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Those are the ones I usually see at 1:30.

    A voice: One vehicle-length for 10 kilometres.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, so one vehicle-length for 10 kilometres. So we're trying to pass a truck in that length of time, for whatever reason, they're spraying a good batch of snow in front of you and you're trying to pass, or whatever.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I think I'd end up taking the train.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's fine for now.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for coming to see us.

    Recently, there was a newspaper story that basically was alarmed that the government proposal is to allow truckers to drive 84 hours a week. It is not very comprehensive in addressing the whole question, but it does leave the issue in the minds of the public. Do you think this matter has had fair enough exposure to elicit informed public response?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: Discussion gets fairly heated when we're talking about shared infrastructure, such as a highway. What isn't said is that the 84-hour standard is but one of, I think, three. Not every truck driver could be working a particular cycle. Some of what we're hearing here today speaks more to enforcement, speaks to a lack of driver training, and I think, generally speaking, the trucking industry continues to have perception problems. There are a lot of very good professional truck drivers out there, and unfortunately, they're painted with the same brush as the bad ones. So they have a lot of work to do in that regard.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: In the U.S. they're limiting truck drivers to 60 hours. I understand that in Europe it's 48. Why in Canada are we going to 84?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I hear you. There certainly is a perception that there are too many trucks on the road and they're impeding others' ability to be mobile. It also is a political matter. There's no recognition of the economic contribution and its linkage in a multimodal system. Quite frankly, the reaction I have received from people who have communicated with me is that the concerns are insensitive to truckers: if anybody is driving that many hours during a particular week, even though there might a 36-hour reset, it's still too much.

    How do we communicate to Canadians that an 84-hour week followed by a 36-hour reset is still safe? Somehow it just doesn't resonate with reasonable thinking.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: Are you saying you feel 84 hours is a safe situation?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: No, I'm not saying that. If we say 84 hours with a 36-hour reset is a safe scenario, based on the testimony of people we've had before us, I don't believe that would resonate with the public at large. A reasonable person simply would not equate 84 hours, under any circumstances, as representing a safe scenario. If a reasonable person would come to that conclusion without being an expert, how do you justify having that number, as opposed to something comparable to other jurisdictions? Don't assume that I'm on one side or the other. I'm asking you the question. If somebody suggests to you that 84 hours are okay, do you think the public at large, who are the ones we have to represent, could possibly rationalize that under any scenario, regardless of what the reset time might be?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I referred to the poll that was taken in April, and there was a very strong majority in favour of restricting the number of hours a trucker can work per week; 85% is a pretty strong majority.

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: Canada is a victim of its geography. It is obviously a very contentious issue, and I can't pretend to be able to give you the answer and the way out. There could be standards set as to who would get that particular model. I alluded to the fact that we could tie this into a national safety code. Show us the people who have programs in place to address the workload, to train their drivers properly, to ensure that generally speaking, they are being good corporate and social citizens to this country, and—

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Lisa, I really like your idealism, but the reality we've heard, quite frankly, is that the situation relating the trucking worker and those who use the trucker is not good. Truckers are, in fact, at a disadvantage. They work long hours, the pay is not exceptional, they are put at risk, and they are put in a situation where they have no choice but to fudge log books, to get around any way possible, because they have to do this. The lifestyle is lousy. It seems to me the representation of unions is really bizarre compared to what unions do for other working groups.

    Mr. Chairman, it's really an issue I hope we will to be able to address in our report, the responsibilities of different interest groups. It can't be a simple solution; this is a complex problem. It's not just how many hours we are going to let people work. What is the environment in which all of these people must work--the labour unions, the workers, the truckers, the consumers, etc.? You have to balance those issues and must have a ceiling on each element of that, and one of them, certainly, would be safety.

    I'm sorry, but if it has an economic impact that would cripple the country, unless we expose ourselves to levels of risk or impairment of safety, I think the appropriate response of legislatures would be, tough . There are certain things that have to come first. So how do we now negotiate a real comprehensive solution to a complex problem, rather than simply articulating some sort of mathematical formula for whether or not I can drive any more hours before I get a few hours sleep? This is not rocket science, this is reasonable people saying what is the right thing to do, and it's going to take movement, I think, on a number of fronts, not simply just the legislative.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Jim.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: We heard a lot of statistics offered about the incredible number of highway accidents and deaths that occur, and those statistics are real and horrifying. But I have very near me a very deadly section of highway, the Rogers Pass, and every year, particularly in the winter, there are a tremendous number of trucking accidents and fatalities there. The vast majority of them are cars from the opposite direction crossing the line and slamming into the truck. They add to the statistics, but it isn't really relevant, because it's not the trucker who caused them. In some cases, drivers have gone incredibly out of the way to avoid the accidents.

    I'd like to come back to one issue, and then I have one other point. I would ask both of you this, but particularly Mr. Titcomb, because we addressed this already. If we're talking about driving around Ottawa, you can have a guy stop at 40 hours, and a different driver goes in and away you go. That's fine. When you're talking long distance hauling, it's just like two gears: every time one turns, it affects all the other ones. You have to change a specific gear size in order to change the relationship all the way down the line. If we want to address hours of trucking and to use a dramatic shift, if we want to go from 80 hours to 40 hours, and we still want to move the goods, assuming that ceasing to move goods is not a factor, we need to have twice as many trucks, they need to be twice as big, or we need to double the cost of shipping goods. There is no alternative to that. You do one of those four things. You have the hours driven, the size of the trucks, the number of the trucks, or the cost.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: Or double the number of drivers.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Double the cost, yes. You can't drive half way to point A, say I'm out of time, and go back and get another driver.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I remember years ago moving from Ontario out to Alberta, and as I recall, that transport van had two drivers. They rotated all the way out.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Is that going to meet the parameters of so many hours off? It's all well and good to say you're not behind the wheel. Is that a solution, from your group's perspective?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I think it would be one solution.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay. You would find it better to have the person continuously in transit in a truck during periods when he's not behind the wheel, as opposed to having, say, a larger vehicle with inspections and regulations pertaining to it?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: A lot of the trucks nowadays on the road have these sleeping cabs. I've never been in one, but I understand they're pretty comfortable. It wouldn't be my choice for sleeping, but obviously, a driver could sleep in those vehicles. They must.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: To go on a different tack, and I would address this to both of you, what about mechanical devices? In rail, because of the fact that it's a long boring trek, they have deadman devices. If the engineer does not maintain control and attention, the train will stop, because he has not fulfilled his responsibilities.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: They have more than that, they have the black box.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Would you favour something like that in trucks, so that a driver has to continually do certain tasks in order to keep the vehicle operative, and if they weren't done, the vehicle would slow down and come to a stop?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: Very definitely, we'd like to see a device on a truck, but I think more to monitor the number of hours the truck is in operation. But that would be a useful addition, monitoring the mechanical shape of the truck, because every time there's a road inspection, something like 25% of the trucks get pulled off the road.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: When I talk about mechanical conditions, I'm talking about the alertness of the driver for a longer haul, and if there were some kind of device that measured his alertness and stopped the vehicle if it fell below some required level.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: We would certainly endorse that.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Also, in respect of centrifugal force, I guess there are devices that could also be incorporated. I'm sure you understand that if you have a truck bed that's tilted to the right and loaded, it can boot around a left hand corner pretty well, but not a right hand one. So there are all kinds of considerations that could be made in regard to design of vehicles that might start addressing these things as well.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: That's true, but also, on a curve, the design of the road has an important bearing, because you get into what they call a super-elevation, which counteracts this centrifugal force. You've probably experienced some roads where the road is actually tilted in the opposite direction, which creates a very dangerous situation.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Ms. MacGillivray, what's your attitude towards devices that would test the alertness of drivers during long hauls?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: I think this is something a trucking company could better answer, but from a shipper's perspective, sure, why not? They are not our employees. It's not something they would generally look into, I guess, as a matter of course, but again, it feeds into their safety rating.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I address this to Mr. Titcomb. If you have two drivers, so that they can sleep and rotate, then, obviously, you have two people who have to make a living instead of one. Conceptually, that's great, but I don't know any truck drivers who are rich because they drive a truck. If they own a fleet of trucks and they operate very well, maybe they make good money, but being a driver is generally not a wealthy occupation. They drive long distance because they get paid by mileage and they have to put those miles in to collect and pay for the rigs, their licences, and everything else. Now we say, you must have a rig with sleeping accommodations, two drivers instead of one, rotation and ways to prove it. Conceptually, that's great. I accept that. Believe me, I want a solution to this and I want safety, but all of a sudden, you have two people trying to make a living driving the same distance. How do we address that? It's all well and good to say you just pay them more, it's very simple. I think Ms. MacGillivray would have quite a bit to say about that one. How do we balance that up?

    With everything we do, we have to balance it against the effect. We want to solve the problems on the highway, we want smaller trucks, fewer trucks, we want them to drive more slowly, we want them to drive fewer hours. That sounds great. Actually, if we got them off the road completely, we wouldn't have any trucking accidents, but that's not a reality.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: No, I agree.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: What I want to find is a balance. You're saying now, let's get away from the idea that we can cut the time down to half, a third, a quarter, whatever, and still not have more trucks, bigger trucks, but there's the cost factor.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I was just offering another solution over the three you proposed.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I said you'd double the cost, and that's exactly what you'd do. You're going to have two drivers instead of one, so the choices are longer hours, bigger trucks, more trucks, or more cost. You're saying we should go the more cost route.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: It's one of the unfortunate things I think the trucking companies would have to live with if that were the solution that was forced on them.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I just wanted to be clear on what your position is. We hear a lot of testimony, and you guys come with some very sincere, well thought out plans, but at the end of the day, when you've left, I have to review what you've said and what your position is. I want to make sure I know what your position is. So out of all the potential things, what you're saying is, shorter hours, no more trucks, not bigger, but more people, so that each drives less, which increases the costs. That is the effect of all those choices we come down to that we then have to live with.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: As I said, I was just offering a fourth proposal in addition to the three you tabled before.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I did put cost in there. I said, if you cut the hours down, we have to either double the size of the trucks, double the number of trucks, or double the cost. It was one of those choices.

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: If I can go back to freight trains, they have always had either an engineer or a fireman, nowadays two engineers, and about halfway through the run they trade positions.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: If we could make the trucks bigger, but much smaller than trains, we could have two as well. I'm not being facetious, I'm saying that was part of that relationship. If you keep everything else down, you're left only with twice as many drivers, and given that a driver can't come back and pick up another one, that means the two have to travel the entire trip, so we double the cost of the labour aspect, which is the trade-off you're saying we then have to make in order to accommodate these other changes.

    I'm not disputing your argument with you. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what your proposal really is.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Alex Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Ms. MacGillivray, the question I've asked a number of people on the private sector side is this. Do we have some statistics on the actual cost per kilometre, tonne-mile, whatever those numbers are, in Canada relative to other jurisdictions, the actual cost to the industry of providing the service? There must be a way to quantify the cost of trucking. I know it must be different in different regions of the country and so forth, but there must be some kind of study to actually show those statistics somewhere.

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: I'm not aware of that sort of study. The provinces individually might look into certain aspects. The cost per tonne-mile, if you want to use that, is something the railways measure, but they measure it based on their major commodity groups. The issue with trucking is that you have so many different configurations, both between provinces and within provinces. You have full load trucks, you have less than full load trucks, you have the different weights of the commodities, the different distances. You have to consider the operational input of each carrier. Such a study would certainly be beyond the means of my little organization.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay. So what's happening in reality, then? Obviously, truckers go back and forth across the border. Air Canada, for instance, has been very successful at doing a lot of transborder things and being very competitive with U.S. airlines, because they're somewhat cheaper. Does that kind of tendency flow into the trucking business? Are Canadian truckers being used more than their American counterparts to move north-south traffic?

  (1210)  

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: They can get into the U.S., no problem, and there's a lot of southbound trade. We're an exporting nation, that's our trade direction. The issue is trying to find a load coming back into Canada. They are allowed that positioning load, as long as it's on the way. If, say, you're going from Toronto to Dallas, you might be able to pick up a load in Dallas to take to Detroit if that will get you another load from Detroit back to Toronto.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: The question I'm asking is, if we could quantify shipments that originated in the United States and ended in Canada, of that market what percentage would be serviced by Canadian truckers, as opposed to their American counterparts?

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: I wouldn't have the answer to that question. I could probably try to dig it out for you.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: What I'm getting at, clearly, is the competitive nature of the Canadian trucking industry vis-à-vis their American counterparts.

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: In addition to the trade flows, one of the major issues they also have is the disparity between the Canadian and the U.S. dollar. If they're Canadians being paid in Canadian dollars and having to buy U.S. services while they're down there, it's obviously very vexing.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Sure, these are all factors, but what I'm trying to do--and maybe it's not in your best interest to do it, I don't know--by the time I'm through is take the actual cost of trucking, take away the difference in the dollar and all those things, and see if Canadian truckers are cheaper to ship on than their American counterparts? Are they more competitive? You don't know.

    Okay.

    The Chair: Alex, as usual, is a bean counter, and it was a good round of questioning.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: The problem is that the economics of trucking are not that viable, and the trucking hours are symptoms of a bigger problem.

    The Chair: Thank you. You always come out of the box.

    I want to remind our witnesses that any information you do bring back or is asked for should come through the clerk, so that everybody can share it.

    Ms. Desjarlais, you had some further questions?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Bert, just roughly, what's the number of hours a driver can drive right now? I know it differs from province to province, but generally, what are the accepted hours now?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I regret I don't have a number for you.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

    So the 84 hours is an increase?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: I believe so.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In the U.S. they now drive 70, and they're looking for a reduction to 60. Is that correct?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: That's correct.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

    As many of us probably know here, what's really missing is an opportunity to talk to a number of different truck drivers and people from the industry, so that we can get a greater perspective of the problems that are out there. I for one, quite frankly, am not opposed to the trucking industry and see within our country an absolute need for a viable trucking industry. We don't have rail lines everywhere, so I think we have to address the fact that we need truckers out there, because of the nature of our geography. What we want to do is make sure we keep our roads safe for everybody, including the truck drivers. Perhaps we have a number of drivers who don't know how truck drivers deal with what those loads are like, but I think that has to be recognized.

    I have received hundreds of signatures and petitions from truck drivers greatly concerned about the increase in the hours. I'm just getting the signatures, because they're being sent to me, I'm not there speaking individually to those drivers, but the ones who do give me more lengthy letters and comments are opposed to the increase. I think it would be great if all members of Parliament at least had an opportunity to hear from more and to hear from municipalities that are dealing with large volumes of truck traffic. I travelled in the St. Stephen, New Brunswick area. I know how many trucks go through there. I cringe for the people who live there, with the amount of truck traffic. I recognize how serious it would be if drivers were allowed to drive 84 hours. I've travelled the 401, the different border crossings.

    I was travelling by air the last few days, and I made a point of looking down when I was flying in and out of Toronto, to do a quick count of trucks and cars over the same space of time, and it was shocking. At times it was equal, the number of trucks and cars, and to think, with that amount of traffic, that anyone should be allowed to travel 84 hours.... I recognize that not every driver is going to be driving 84 hours. But I also recognize that we aren't insisting, and Transport Canada hasn't insisted, that black boxes be put in to ensure that drivers don't drive 84 hours. I think that's a critical point here. Every single witness who has given any indication about the log books, doesn't believe them. I've yet to hear one who said it's gospel truth what's in those log books. Yet we don't have regulations that are going to insist on a black box. It's absolutely critical if we're dealing with any degree of hours.

    A representative from the RCMP appeared before us. He indicated that when there is an accident with a truck, they don't necessarily check on the number of hours the driver has been driving. I don't think that every accident is the truck driver's fault, I'm sure a good many aren't. But we just recently have seen a Transport Canada clipping about an accident in the U.S. where they traced when the driver gassed up and crossed different points, because they were challenging the number of hours the driver drove. That was specifically what we were asking the RCMP: do you ask those questions? No. At this point it's going to be critical that anybody who has a family member or somebody injured in an accident with a truck driver start to challenge the investigative process, to ensure that driver wasn't driving over the number of hours.

    Trucking companies and, quite frankly, your shipping industry are going to be affected by negative publicity if it's found that drivers driving for certain companies are not using proper safety standards. That is going to affect everyone. I don't think for one second we have to have an unsafe system. We could have reasonable hour limits without there being a huge additional cost to the industry. You mentioned driving from Toronto to Dallas and possibly having to use two drivers. I guess, if the driver of the truck were going to make sure they stopped and had their rest, they wouldn't need to have two drivers, but we have a situation where we don't know that they're going to stop and have their rest. I think that's the key. We want drivers who aren't going over a safe limit.

  (1215)  

    My colleague Mr. Szabo was asking how we get the public onside with 84 hours being safe. My thought when he asked the question was, well, we don't, because it would be a lie to tell them it was safe. It's just not. We have one perspective that we should proceed with this and hope nobody is going to go over, but I am convinced it's unsafe if someone is driving 84 hours. It's just not safe. So it is a concern.

    I know rail was seen as environmentally the right way to go, and I recognize that. If I recall correctly from the last standing committee, I heard that CN or CP had indicated that they could increase the amount of cargo on their rail lines by 4 to 5 times. I'm not positive, but that seems to be a figure I recall. Part of their concern was that they have to accommodate passenger rail. When they're accommodating passenger rail, it makes it tough for them. That was their argument.

    I'm also aware--again we haven't maybe heard all the witnesses we should--that there are a number of manufacturers of trucks who are looking at much more environmentally sound trucks. Penske even three or four years ago was already looking towards that, because they knew it was coming. If they were going to survive as a trucking company, they would need to have more environmentally friendly trucks on the road, also to try to address wear and tear on the highways.

    So we don't have to kill the trucking industry. I recognize there has to be flexibility, because of the country. But I think it is crucially important that we, as a committee, do not lose sight of the most important thing, and that's safety on the highways for everybody there.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thanks, Bev. That's all quite interesting. There's a lot of information there. Hopefully, when we come to the decision, we'll consider all you said.

    Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to make one brief comment. Perhaps you'll have a chance to respond to the comments of my NDP colleague and of Mr. Szabo.

    Indeed, the issue of truckers' hours of work is very timely. However, we've moved well beyond this topic and are again questioning the advisability of opening up the rail transportation and shipping sectors.

    We're not experts on these matters. We don't sit on the same committee for 25 years, so following up on an issue is not a simple matter. I wouldn't want to be prevented from adopting progressive measures merely because of geographical considerations. In the United States, the hours of work regime is far more reasonable and their geography is fairly similar to ours. Distances may well be different in Europe, but with the common market, trade is conducted on a continent-wide basis as well.

    Have any countries successfully managed to strike a balance between the different transportation modes? Putting it another way, have some countries managed to hold consultations on domestic transportation and to implement a rational transportation regime for both passengers and goods?

    This is a challenge that we will need to address some day. As well, we need to expand our focus on transportation in Canada and increasingly, adopt a continental perspective.

[English]

    Mrs. Lisa McGillivray: I think countries are struggling with it. The ability to transport goods versus the ability to transport people and juggling all the social, environmental, economic interests amongst those things is something that, I would say, a fair majority of the jurisdictions have been struggling with over the last few years. We've seen what happened with the privatization push in Britain on their railways, and that's still a project in progress, to be polite about it. Australia has tried different methods of trying to balance these things, and often Canada is compared with Australia, because of the vastness of the geography. The challenge, of course, is the spacing between the urban centres and the fact that there's really not a lot between those urban centres. So you're having to traverse very long distances to get from origin to destination.

    We at CITA have been following this very closely. This country is currently reviewing its transportation policy under the transportation blueprint project, and we wait with baited breath for the release of that report in May or June. We're expecting it this spring. This project is supposed to be the one that is looking at transportation from a wide perspective.

    Mr. Szabo's right, transportation policy in this country is very much siloed. We look at one little thing and forget that it affects a whole chain of other things, so we end up making changes in one thing and creating a huge mess in another area. This is why modal transfer is a far more difficult concept than just saying, okay, everybody, stop shipping by truck or by boat and put everything onto rail. From environmental standpoints, airlines are the most polluting, then trucks, then rail, and then marine. So if we're taking it from that perspective, let's get rid of everything and just throw it all on a vessel. We know our trade patterns, our economy, and our people wouldn't adjust to that very well, so we have all these different modes.

    I think Canada has the ability and the potential right now to take the lead in balancing with the blueprint project, and perhaps that is the opportunity that's coming this year.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any further questions for our witnesses?

    Mr. Bert Titcomb: May I respond a little to what Mr. Harvey said? At Transport 2000 Canada we see a number of international magazines regarding transportation issues, and I'd like to refer to Switzerland. I know it's a very small country, but they have a major problem with a lot of truck traffic passing through the country. I believe the Swiss are very seriously considering having any truck traffic in transit loaded on a train and transported to the other border, where it would go back on the road again. That's a very extreme case, but this is the way they do things. Holland has some major problems with truck traffic, and I believe a new railway line was built from Germany right to the port in Rotterdam for transporting freight. These are some of the things that are being done in other countries.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. MacGillivray and Mr. Titcomb. We appreciate your intervention here today. Obviously, we're going to consider what you've had to say in our report.

    I'd like to suspend for a couple of minutes, and then we'll get into future business.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]