TRGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 2, 2002

Á

1105

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

Mr. Ken Foster (Canadian Director, Canadian Council, Amalgamated Transit Union)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty (National Director, United Steelworkers of America)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht (President, National Association of Professional Drivers)

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

The Chair

Mr. Gouk

Mr. Ken Foster

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Randy Graham (International Vice President, Amalgamated Transit Union)

Á

1145

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Mr. Dennis Dunster (Staff reprensentative, Ottawa Sub-National, United Steelworkers of America)

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Dennis Dunster

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Dennis Dunster

Á

1150

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Jim Gouk

Á

1155

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ)

Â

1200

Mr. Ken Foster

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Â

1205

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Mr. Dennis Dunster

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Â

1215

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Â

1220

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Mr. Alex Shepherd

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Â

1225

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Â

1230

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Randy Graham

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Randy Graham

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Randy Graham

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Ken Foster

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Dennis Dunster

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Paul Szabo

Â

1235

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Randy Graham

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Â

1240

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Dennis Dunster

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Randy Graham

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Â

1245

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Ken Foster

The Chair

Mr. Darren Liebrecht

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

---

NUMBER 063

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 2, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're studying truckers' hours of operation and related matters with regard to border crossings.

    Today, we have several witnesses. I understand one is going to be joining us via teleconference, and we're going to introduce him in a minute. First, though, from the Amalgamated Transit Union, we have Ken Foster. From the United Steelworkers, we have Lawrence McBrearty. And I think the gentleman we see on the television is Darren Liebrecht, from the National Association of Professional Drivers.

    We want to start with the Canadian Council of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

    Mr. Ken Foster (Canadian Director, Canadian Council, Amalgamated Transit Union): I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to thank you for allowing us to appear before the committee to make our brief presentation. If I can, I want to take just a minute to introduce three other colleagues who are with me. Mr. Gary Dorion is the president of our eastern Greyhound local in Canada; Randy Graham is an international vice-president; and Len Munter is the president of our Greyhound local in western Canada. Of course, my name is Ken Foster, and I'm the Canadian director of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

    I sent in a presentation. I'm certainly not going to go through all of it, but I'm going to address a number of issues in it that are certainly key components of the proposed changes in regard to hours of service. I'll just refer to them by page number, beginning at the bottom of page 2 of 13.

    Many times when we've appeared before different committees, we have addressed the idea of separating the bus industry from the trucking industry. We feel it's very much needed. You certainly can't compare the job of a bus operator to the job of a long-distance truck driver. I'm not taking anything away from either side, but we feel they have to be separated because they're two different industries. Again, I just wanted to mention that.

    Going to page 3 of 13 of our submission, I just refer to part I, on “on duty time”. We submit that the definition of “on duty time” is far too broad under the proposed regulations, and that the definition of “on duty time” as set out in the current federal regulations should be maintained.

    I now want to go to page 5 of 13, and part IV, the consecutive eight hours of off-duty time. I do want to go through the proposed regulation on this. It states that the regulations require that a driver must have a minimum of eight consecutive hours off in a given 24-hour day. To the council's knowledge, the minimum of eight consecutive hours is based on fatigue studies centring on the trucking industry. The council is unaware of any studies that have focused on the busing industry and the requirements of its drivers.

    As a rule, bus drivers follow much more regular and predictable schedules than truck drivers do. Many drive the same routes for years, allowing for regular sleep and break patterns to develop. They are unlike truck drivers, whose schedules may be much more unpredictable and therefore more wearing. From our position, we submit that proposed regulation 6(2) should not apply to bus drivers unless and until industry-specific studies are made that confirm the necessity for eight consecutive hours of off-duty time vis-à-vis buses in order to ensure safe driving conditions.

    At the bottom of page 6 is the council's position on strict liability. Given the responsibility placed on the driver by the regulations to drive safely, the regulations should therefore take the next logical step and specifically mandate the driver with the right to refuse work when, in his opinion, acceptance of the assignment would create a safety hazard. The council has proposed language for this section, and it can be found at page 10 of the written submissions that we submitted in September.

    Again on page 7, under part VII are comments regarding supplementary off-duty time and the council's position on cycles and supplementary time off. We submit that cycles lasting more than seven days create scheduling problems, particularly among charters and spare-board drivers--and spare-board drivers are drivers who are not on a fixed schedule but are available to fill sudden vacancies or assist during an emergency, such as a bus breakdown. In the case of both charters and spare-board drivers, their schedules are not fixed or easily anticipated. The council proposes that no cycle go beyond a seven-day period.

    In addition, a driver should be deemed to commence a new cycle each time that driver has 24 consecutive hours of off-duty time. This would ensure that drivers receive sufficient time off for the purposes of safe driving, while not penalizing drivers without a regular schedule, such as charters and spare-board drivers.

    On page 8 of 13, part VIII deals with electronic recording devices. Our position is that electronic recording devices should be mandatory. This would reduce the chances for abuse of the system, and would also reduce the drivers' administrative obligations.

    On page 9, in part X, are comments in regard to the application requirements for permits and special permits. The experience of the union and the union membership with regard to the application process for permits is that it's time-consuming, inefficient, and often causes excessive delay in creating new schedules and routes. The fact that written permission from other provincial directors would now be an additional requirement can only add to the current problems of delay. The council submits that serious consideration must be given to creating some form of centralized application process that is streamlined and guarantees that permit applications will be processed within a reasonable period of time.

    At the bottom of page 9, under part XI, is our position regarding supplementary documents. The proposed regulations do not define what would constitute supporting documents. Given the strict onus placed on drivers to comply with the regulations in all aspects, a definition of “supporting documents” is necessary to ensure that drivers understand what their responsibilities are under the new provisions.

    On page 10, under part XII, is the council's position on tampering with logbooks. Given the serious consequences resulting from a violation of the regulations, the council submits that the regulations should be amended to provide that a driver would be found to be in violation of the regulations only when tampering or mutilation is intentional. The council has proposed suggested language for this provision at page 15 of our written submissions.

    On page 11 of 13, you'll find our position regarding the onus on motor carriers. The council applauds the higher onus that the addition places on motor carriers to actively comply with the act. However, the new section is no substitute for active monitoring by various provincial and federal inspectors. The council submits that the federal and provincial inspectors are not uniform in how they interpret or enforce the act and its regulations. This creates confusion and uncertainty in the industry. A uniform set of guidelines and protocols that would apply to all inspectors, as agreed to by the federal and provincial governments, would dramatically reduce the problems currently in existence in this regard.

    On page 12 of 13 is our position regarding out-of-service declarations. The council submits that a penalty as severe as an out-of-service declaration can only be justified when there was evidence of intent. That evidence must indicate proof, at least at the civil level, of a balance of probabilities. The council has proposed specific language for the amended provisions, and that language can be found on page 17 of our submission.

    At the bottom of page 12 of 13 is the council's position regarding the definition of “adverse driving conditions”. It is submitted that, even where forewarned of adverse driving conditions, a driver may still legitimately need extra on-duty time to safely finish his or her route. The definition of “adverse driving conditions” should be amended to include any adverse conditions, whether they were known to the driver before he or she or commenced his or her route or not. The council has again proposed language for this, and it can be found on page 17 of our written submission.

    Finally, on page 13, regarding the contents of the daily logbook, we submit that this additional requirement is unnecessary and should be deleted from the proposed regulations.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say again that I hope the committee and the government or the legislators will look at separating the two acts for the busing industry and the trucking industry.

    On behalf of the council, I want to thank the standing committee for its considerations.

Á  (1110)  

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

    We'll now hear from Lawrence McBrearty, from the United Steelworkers of America.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty (National Director, United Steelworkers of America): Thank you.

    Our union, the United Steelworkers of America, represents over 180,000 workers in various industries throughout Canada, including thousands of workers within the rail, marine, air, and trucking sectors of the transportation industry. We represent over 5,000 workers in the trucking industry, employed in companies such as Highland Transport, C.C. Canada Limited, CANPAR Transport Ltd., and Bulk Systems, as well as truckers servicing various open-pit mining operations in Canada. Within those companies, employees are compensated as hourly, flat-rated, mileage-rated, and, in many instances, dependent owner-operators.

    It is our intention to bring to the committee's attention the dramatic changes that have occurred in the trucking industry over the last fifteen years. It has been our experience that the working conditions, wages, safety, and quality of life of workers in this vital industry have sadly diminished over this period. We are especially concerned about the current proposal to increase the hours of service for truck drivers in Canada. We respectfully submit that increasing the hours of work for drivers who are already stretched to the limit both physically and financially will only make the situation worse.

    In reviewing the industry since 1985, we could easily say it has been the best of times and the worst of times. There have been massive changes within the industry during this period, with the advent of deregulation, free trade, and NAFTA. The dramatic changes that have occurred have caused great problems in an industry considered stable in past years. Virtually overnight, hundreds of small, regional carriers were created, cutting large trucking firms out of a market once dominated by large, national carriers such as CP Express, CN Route, Glengarry Transport, and others. Medium-sized carriers fell victim to the increased competition created by deregulation. At the same time, the number of dependent and independent owner-operators increased dramatically.

    Through the utilization of owner-operators, companies saw an opportunity to increase their revenues while at the same time decreasing their overhead and capital expenditures. This opportunity was stated very clearly in the report of the Load Broker/Owner Operator Task Force sponsored by the Canadian Council of Motor Transportation Administrators. That report listed these reasons for the use of owner-operators: less capital risk for trucking operations, since they transfer capital risk for the equipment investment to owner-operators; greater flexibility during periods of rapid growth; the possibility of low-cost labour; and greater productivity by reducing the carriers’ extra administrative costs. The advantages gained by the carriers were clearly at the expense of the owner-operators.

    While it is not our intent to burden the committee with statistics--I'm sure you've heard enough by now--we do feel it is important for you to hear some relevant facts supplied by Statistics Canada's Trucking in Canada, 2000. It mentions that the trucking industry generated $17.6 billion in total revenues in 2000, resulting in net operating revenues of $930 million. The profit margin increased by 5.3 percent. The operating ratio, or the ratio of expenses to revenues, declined steadily from 1993, when it was 96¢. In 2000, it was 93¢. In fact, expenses divided by revenue meant that for every 93¢ expended, companies earned $1. And over 300 new trucking companies started up in 2000.

    As you can see, the overall economic position of industry owners has improved over the last few years. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for workers in the industry. Since 1985, it has been our experience that the wages and working conditions of the workers we represent have been reduced as a result of the changes within the industry. The explosion in the competition brought about by deregulation, the FTA, and NAFTA, has placed downward pressure on wages and benefits, while increasing hours of work. In addition, the number of unionized workers within the industry has dropped, while we, through the collective bargaining process, have been able to maintain or reduce and minimize the reductions for our members. Non-unionized workers have been more adversely affected.

    As a result of the conditions within the industry, workers have been leaving it at a high rate. It has become impossible for many to earn a decent living and maintain a quality of life. Consequently, the carriers are now facing a serious shortage of qualified drivers. This situation will only worsen, as approximately 30 percent of the workforce is expected to retire within the next five years. It is a fact that there is currently a 50,000-person shortage within the trucking industry in Canada.

    The Steelworkers are strongly opposed to the proposed increase in the hours of work for truckers, an increase that could raise those hours up to possibly 84 hours per week. It is our opinion and has been our experience that the existing hours of work are already excessive. Proposing an increase in this time flies in the face of logic. You have already heard other presenters opposed to this proposal speak of the consequences that will result if it is adopted. We concur with those views.

    It is a fact that, due to low wages and working conditions, drivers are pressured to falsify their logbooks, with the full knowledge of their employers, in order to meet the demands of those employers and to earn a decent living. Drivers are subject to extremely long hours, many of which they are not compensated for, and they suffer financially and physically as a result of the current conditions of their hours of work. In addition, their family life suffers due to their constant absence from home. If and when they get home, they are too tired to participate in any normal family life. It is no wonder that the industry cannot attract or retain drivers. If the current conditions are driving workers out of the industry, what will happen if the hours of work are increased?

    The main proponents of this proposal are the industry owners. The conditions they have created are now causing serious problems for them. Their solution to the lack of drivers is to increase the workload for the remaining drivers, but it will simply not work. The Steelworkers do not have a magic solution to this problem. The trucking industry is facing many problems, and it will take a concerted effort from all the stakeholders to resolve those problems. However, we can say with certainty that increasing the hours of work will only make a bad situation worse. The key to correcting the problem is not increasing the hours of work. Rather, it is improving the working conditions and wages of workers. It is only by improving earnings and conditions of work that the industry will be able to attract and retain the workers it needs.

    It is true that the hiring of more drivers and the lowering of hours of work will have a cost. We say these costs must be borne to ensure that workers in this vital industry have the same quality of life that all Canadians strive for. This proposed increase in the hours of work for truck drivers is of great importance to all of us. Further evidence of the importance of this issue to the public came to light in the report from the recent Ipsos-Reid survey indicating that 85 percent of Canadians are against this proposal. They have every right to be concerned. The highways in this land are travelled by all. We have an obligation to ensure that the health and safety of both the trucking workforce and the travelling public are protected.

    As Mr. David Bradley, president of the Ontario Trucking Association, stated at the 74th annual meeting in 2001,

it will be important to ensure that independent operators--the backbone of many trucking operations--are dealt with fairly and able to make a decent return on their investment. If they cannot, the incidence of owner-operators turning in their rigs and keys to the dealers will continue.

We agree with this sentiment, and pledge to work with all the shareholders in the trucking industry to ensure that workers are dealt with fairly.

    This committee has grave responsibilities before it, and we know you will not take those responsibilities lightly. The decisions you make will have an immediate impact on all the workers in the trucking industry, but they also have the potential to impact all Canadians. We strongly urge you to recommend that there be no increase in the existing hours of work, and that a further investigation be undertaken with a view to reducing the current hours of work.

    We thank you for the opportunity to be able to present this to you. We are open to any questions.

Á  (1120)  

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

    We'll now listen to Darren Liebrecht, from the National Association of Professional Drivers.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht (President, National Association of Professional Drivers): Thank you very much.

    My name is Darren Liebrecht. I'm the president of the National Association of Professional Drivers. I'm also the official spokesperson of a new group that has now formed in western Canada, the Canadian Alliance of Truckers' Associations. We represent owner-operators and professional drivers across Canada, and we have an office that is going to be opening in Nova Scotia in September.

    With me is David Radu, a member of ours out of Alberta. Unfortunately for us, we were unable to get any of our executive directors here today. All of our executives and members are employed in the trucking industry as owner-operators and/or professional drivers, and they are transient all over North America at this particular moment.

    We received short notice of this meeting, but we are very pleased to be here today to submit a little bit more on what we submitted back in September. I believe everyone has our notes in front of him or her at this time, in relation to what we submitted on September 7, 2001.

Á  (1125)  

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: We have the notes. If you want to refer to them, go right ahead.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: One of the problems we have found within the consultation draft on the hours of service is the fact that there has actually been no consideration of the economics of trucking. The hours of service definitely need to be improved. We need to take the 23-hour clock on which we are currently working--the one that gives an operator the opportunity to work 16 hours a day--and increase that clock to 24 hours, so that the off-duty time requirement is exceeded to the nine-hour maximum. This will give operators the opportunity to sleep eight hours and take an hour for sustenance intake.

    The biggest problem with the rest requirements in a commercial vehicle is the length requirement in the trucking industry for super-B operators who are confined to a 36- to 38-inch space for sleeping. In terms of a lot of the problems taking place right now within the trucking industry, there has not been any real overview or in-depth review of the other components of the transportation industry that could help to increase the hours of service.

    Right now, we have problems with falsified logbooks, driver fatigue, driver training, collisions and fatalities, and unfair business practices between the owner-operators and the carriers they work for. We've had shutdowns across this country periodically over the last few years, with protests and the like, but we cannot seem to find that this proposal for the changes to the hours of service will eliminate any of these problems.

    We believe--and I believe this as a professional driver myself--that driver fatigue does not occur inside the truck itself. It actually starts to take place when a driver is put into a position in which he has to take his eight hours off duty. Most drivers either cannot sleep or have problems sleeping over a running diesel engine. Given that we are on the north side of the 49th parallel, we have extremely harsh winters. This means our drivers are leaving their trucks running and are trying to sleep over a diesel engine, which only gives them about four or five hours to get any recuperative sleep. In winter conditions, when you're exposed to severe cold, you have no choice but to keep that heat coming inside the truck. In the same sense, in the summertime, when you're working or trying to sleep in 35-degree weather, you again leave your truck running just to keep the air conditioning on in order to keep yourself cool and get that sustained rest.

    One of the problems we've found is that when a driver is sitting in the passenger seat of a truck, eating his lunch, having a cup of coffee, and so on, he has to log that time as “on duty, not driving”. That seems to take away the ability of a driver to actually unwind, rest, and so on.

    I'm a driver from British Columbia who drives across to Montreal. Another big problem my organization has found across Canada is that there are not enough rest stop locations. We received some information from Stan Gibson, a driver out of Nova Scotia who travels the 401, travels to Quebec, and so on. Just like in British Columbia here, by nine o'clock at night, most of the truck stops there--and they're few and far between in British Columbia, too--do not have ample parking spaces so that these drivers can pull over to get the required rest that they need. When a driver decides to pull over on an on-ramp or off-ramp on the side of the highway in order to try to get some recuperative sleep, he is subject to highway fines for being there. That seems to be a constant problem as well.

    So in regard to these problems, we would like to see things changed. In order to do that, though, we believe an in-depth review is needed. This in-depth review of the industry has to be done from the professional drivers’ perspective. The professional drivers are the only ones who know the problems are out on the highway. They are the ones dealing with it on a daily basis. They are the ones who are subject to it on a continuum. What’s actually happening out there is not being disclosed to anyone. The owner-operators and professional drivers have no body to go to at the national level in order to discuss these problems or open up and disclose the things that are taking place: excess hours, bullying, and the unscrupulous carriers that are out there. Not all of the carriers are doing it, but a number of them put themselves into that position.

    What we would like to see is some review like the one done in 2001 by Transport Canada, Vision and balance: Canada Transportation Act Review. Transport made a number of excellent suggestions in that document, which we have read over and over again. Re-regulating some past legislation is a key element to improving safety within the trucking industry. It's also a key element that will benefit society effectively, but we have to look at the mitigating circumstances that this industry places on professional drivers. In order to do that, we need to be able to collectively bring together the drivers' concerns.

    Moreover, the Canada Transportation Act ensures that consumers receive the lowest total cost for the modes of transportation that they use. However, the act overlooks the bottom line of the costs associated with transporting goods to market. The federal government has created the commercial harm test, which it uses for industry in order to protect shippers against overcharging and so on. Yet it hasn't created any commercial harm test in this industry for the people employed as drivers. At some point, we would therefore like to see a more in-depth look at how this commercial harm test can be created.

    We have far too much competition in this industry. Over the last fifteen years, through deregulation and the full implementation of it in 2001, things have not gotten any better; they have in fact gotten worse. We have a number of groups and very large carriers within our society, including TransX, TCT Logistics, Mullen Transportation, Canadian Freightways, Vancam, and so on, and they are all in direct competition with one another.

    One of the prime examples that we have out here is the chip haulers. We have three major chip haulers in British Columbia: Bulk Systems, Arrow Transport Systems, and TC Chambers. These three individual companies are unable to set a reasonable rate with their owner-operators in mind. We have one individual carrier going into Weyerhaeuser mills and setting down a rate, and then we have the next one going into Weyerhaeuser mills and cutting that rate by two dollars. The third one walking into that same facility and is cutting the rate by three dollars. This is driving the rates down so low that drivers and people within this industry who want to save their businesses are being forced to be more involved with the falsifying of logbooks. We don't condone that and we don't agree with it, but it is going to be a constant reality of what's going on in this industry unless we start to look at the economics of it.

    There's more to the trucking industry than its economics alone, but with the increased demand for owner-operators to large carriers and small carriers, we are becoming the cash absorbers for these facilities. We walk in with our equipment, we insure that equipment in the carrier's name, we pay for the fuel, we pay for the maintenance, and we pay for the tires, but we receive no remuneration for our loading and unloading time, layovers, so on. If these situations continue, an individual could be loading a truck for two or three hours but he won't be logging those hours as on-duty time.

    I'm not sure if you're following what I'm saying here.

    The Chair: We are listening. I know you're a fair distance away, but most of us have a handle on what you're trying to say. We have a handle on it because we're hearing about problems in the industry as well.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Right.

    The pricing competition has become fierce, secretive, and unbalanced. Unrealistically low pricing signals sent to industry by the carriers are coming at the owner-operators' expense, not at the expense of the carriers themselves.

    If you were to drive around to talk to specific carriers and owner-operators within your region, within our region, and so on, you would notice that the owner-operator fleets that they employ are operating trucks that are five years old or less. The equipment the carrier is operating is ten, fifteen, or even twenty years old, and they're still operating the equipment.

    And we're facing other problems in this industry. In this equipment that the carriers own and are constantly working on just to maintain it, we have a problem with horsepower-to-weight ratio. When we have a problem with horsepower-to-weight ratio, it causes a safety concern for the motoring public on our highways. A specific number of individual carriers out there are not complying with the safety requirements, maintenance schedules, and so on with regard to their equipment, and they're forcing drivers to take loads. Now, when I say they're forcing drivers to take these loads and take this equipment out when it’s not safe to do so or when the driver doesn't deem it to be safe, a consequence is attached to that driver if he doesn't move that load. That consequence is a suspension, termination, and a black mark against any of the references he needs to move on to further employment.

    So the unrealistically low pricing signals being sent to industry, without the consideration of the bottom line of the owner-operators transporting these goods to market, are going to continuously create problems and bring on a more drastic bankruptcy situation across Canada.

    The living expenses for an owner-operator that are the everyday components of driving a truck are fuel, tires--

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Darren, I don't want to disrupt you, but how much more do you have left in your presentation? We have two other guests here. You've given us a lot of information, but your presentation is only supposed to be ten minutes.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: It's only supposed to be ten minutes?

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Haven't I only been talking for five?

    The Chair: No, you're way over. You're at twelve minutes now, so could I get you to wrap it up?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I'll wrap it up in a couple of seconds.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Drivers need an alternative to the problems within the trucking industry. Drivers need a national body that is sanctioned by the government. In order to increase safety and make the National Safety Code, hours of service, and everything work, we would like to see an ombudsman's office created to oversee federally what's going on within the transportation industry. This office would act on behalf of the drivers, in order that the drivers could feel that they could trust and have confidence in the office’s individuals when talking to them. The ombudsman's office could go in, do an authorized audit, monitor, impose the required changes, and so on, yet drivers would feel that their anonymity is going to be protected so that they're not going to suffer any retribution at the end of the day.

    A national rate standard that is in line with the tariffs that were once a part of our industry back in the late 1980s needs to be brought back into this industry. We need a level playing field. Currently, we do not have a level playing field in this industry. With the number of carriers that are going broke--TCTs, Frontrunners, and so forth--we need to close the door on the issuance of new licences. We have far too much competition in this industry.

    The gentlemen who just spoke said 300 new carriers opened up in 2000. We need to decrease these numbers. We need to allow the carriers that are now in business to stay in business. We need to allow them the opportunity to keep their employable people working, rather than subjecting the owner-operators to the fact that they're going to lose a month's worth of wages, which could be in excess of $15,000-$18,000. Once one month is gone from an owner-operator's revenues, that owner-operator is not able to make up that truck payment and is forced into a bankruptcy situation.

    There's more to talk about and more to look at, and I really hope this committee takes it to heart and realizes that a lot more discussion needs to take place. A lot more review needs to happen. Rather than just looking at the hours of service, we have to look at the Canada Transportation Act and so on, and come to some sort of harmonization within this industry.

    I thank the committee for allowing us to have this time to speak on behalf of our members and alliance members. I will forward the notes that we have written here, because I wasn't able to get through them. Again, though, I thank you, and hopefully we can discuss this a little further.

    The Chair: Thank you, Darren.

    I don't know if you recognize the format, but we're basically opening up the floor to rounds of questioning by members of Parliament now. The first round is ten minutes per member, and then we're going to go to five minutes after we've heard from each member from all the parties.

    We'll start with Jim Gouk, from the Canadian Alliance, for ten minutes.

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

    I have a few questions that I'd like to go through for each of the three groups that made presentations. They're as much for clarification as they are to get further information.

    To the Amalgamated Transit Union, one of the problems we have is that some groups want shorter hours and some want longer ones. We're always going to have a conflict, so this is one of the things we have to try to sort out.

    I just want you to clarify one of the things I have a problem with. You stated that you want drivers to have the right to refuse to drive when, in their opinion, there is a problem. That means it would be a subjective decision, so I just want to clarify that this is what you have in mind. If the regulation were worded in that way and the driver said that, in his opinion, something was wrong, it would be prima facie proof that there was indeed something wrong and he would have the right to refuse. But would that not give drivers the opportunity to refuse to drive for virtually any reason, because they've said their opinion is that it's unsafe to drive?

    Mr. Ken Foster: If I can answer that, Mr. Chairman, I consider a driver of a bus to be in the same category as the captain of a ship, and I use the term “cargo”. We work with live people. We transport people. If he or she feels it's unsafe, I feel the driver should therefore have the option to make the decision on whether or not to proceed at that time.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I would just like to see a change in your proposal to make it more objective. It would have to deal with specific points and would have to be an objective opinion, as opposed to being one's subjective opinion that it's unsafe.

    There's another thing that I'm curious about. I certainly agree that there needs to be a division between long-haul bus drivers and long-haul truck drivers, for the very reasons you said. They're very different types of situations. They're not different because of the cargo, as it were, that is carried. As you said, the routes are pretty standard; bus drivers drive the same routes all the time.

    Have you looked at a Pony Express type of operation, for lack of a better description? A driver could drive a certain distance on a regular route, get off at a certain point, and lay over in a hotel room, motel room, or whatever facilities the company provides? Another driver who had just finished a layover could then take the bus on the next leg, and the driver from the first leg could pick up a bus coming back the other way after he has had his rest period. Do you have an opinion on the concept of setting that up? Is it done? Has it been looked at? What are your thoughts on that?

    Mr. Randy Graham (International Vice President, Amalgamated Transit Union): Yes, that is done when we have fixed-route service in the industry's, say, line haulage, line-run operations, which Greyhound and similar companies provide.

    The difference, though, is with charter and tour operators. Charter and tour operators have people on the bus and have a destination that they must get to. That's different from the trucking industry, in which someone may feel some form of fatigue and may have the opportunity to pull over. It's a different thing when we have perhaps fifty people on a bus and they have to get to a destination. Sometimes that is planned or pre-planned, and because of competition, people then have to make as full a day of it as they might think is possible. That's the creation of our problem in comparison to that of the trucking industry itself. It's one of our main points in regard to dividing our needs from the needs of the trucking industry itself.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I do understand and accept the need for some division. Each has to be considered on its own merit. I'm sure long-haul truckers wouldn't want to have the bus industry, per se, setting standards they would have to comply with as truckers. There are some unique concerns.

    With regard to the Steelworkers' presentation, the one thing I'm troubled with…. In asking questions, what we often do is play devil's advocate in order to let you justify your position. One of the challenges we're faced with is that we have some groups saying that they want shorter hours, but that they also don't like the big trucks and want smaller trucks. But they don't want more trucks on the highway either. They say there are too many trucks on the highway now. They don't want the trucks in the middle-sized grades driven for longer periods, or even for as long as they're currently being driven in some cases. The consequence is the bottom line, which is financial, as you pointed out yourself.

    You suggested that you want to have improved working conditions and wages, and specifically a reduction of the hours to a point that is lower than where they are now while ideally paying better wages to attract more people. Of course, someone has to bite the bullet on that. The very profit margins that you have expressed are at about 4.5 percent, so how does this cost get dealt with? First of all, do we have a great increase in the cost of shipping stuff, thus making the goods more expensive and putting you into competition with rail, maybe tilting the balance that way and resulting in less jobs for truckers? Everything we do causes an impact somewhere else.

    Have you looked at this, and is your bottom line that you want to improve working conditions, letting the fallout fall where it may?

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: As we mentioned, the situation in the trucking industry is such that--and I agree with my brother here that the buses should be separate from trucking, because busing is not the same type of haulage, with the same perspective--there are huge amounts of problems inside the industry. The problem is not only a question of increasing or lowering the hours of work; it's more vague and larger than that.

    I have Dennis Dunster with me. He has some 25 years of experience in the trucking industry, and he's one of our staff representatives assigned to provide service to our members on that. I think he can answer your question.

    Mr. Dennis Dunster (Staff reprensentative, Ottawa Sub-National, United Steelworkers of America): In answer to that question, sir--and I thought it was clear in our submission--there would obviously be a cost to improving a number of problems within the industry. Ultimately, that cost would have to be borne through higher freight rates, and the public would end up having maybe a slight increase. I couldn't give you a precise figure for what it would be. There would be a slight increase in the cost of transported goods, but I think that's a cost that would have to be borne.

    We've heard from the gentleman in Kamloops and from other presenters that the people who are getting benefits from the current situation are either the carriers or, more importantly, the shippers, who are in effect getting subsidized shipping rates. The rates that we were carrying on goods in 2001 were almost identical to the rates we were carrying in 1985.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Could I just pose one question to you, though? I would assume you're here representing the interests of truckers in general, and long-haulers in particular.

    Mr. Dennis Dunster: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Long-haul trucking competes with or is competed against by rail. That is, at times rail dominates because it is more economical for it to carry goods, and sometimes things tilt back the other way a little bit. So if you raise the cost of trucking, are you not raising the risk of tilting the balance toward putting more goods on rail, therefore resulting in less jobs for truckers?

    Mr. Dennis Dunster: There's no doubt that could happen, but the problem in the industry right now is a shortage of drivers. If that shift did occur, then, it would be absorbed with no loss of jobs.

    We're not here saying every piece of traffic in Canada has to be carried by trucks. There are various ways of transporting goods. But we're here to represent and speak on behalf of the workers in the industry. At the end of the day, I think whatever we do to improve that will improve things for everybody.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Jim Gouk: It's interesting, because we have the National Association of Professional Drivers with us from Kamloops, and they feel there are too many trucking operators out there right now, yet you want to actually see something that would curtail the problem. If they say the problem is that there are too many operators already, maybe you can understand a bit of the conundrum that we have to deal with as committee members. We have one group saying the problem is one thing, while another group at the same table is basically saying, no, it's the exact opposite.

    I would go to Kamloops now, but I don't know how much time I have left.

    The Chair: You're pretty close to going over your time, but go ahead, Jim. I'm being generous this morning.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I just want to clarify something. First of all, as one quick thing, you feel passenger time for a driver should not count in terms of duty time. Is that correct?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Yes, that's absolutely correct.

    We feel strongly about this because, if the driver is driving 200 miles to pick up his truck and he's in a pleasure vehicle--a car, a pickup truck, and so on--there's no loggable limit there. When he's riding as a passenger in a commercial vehicle while going out to pick up his truck, that time should fall within the same category. It shouldn't matter whether he’s in a commercial vehicle or whether he’s in a station wagon. If he’s sitting in the passenger seat, he should be able to log that as off-duty. Now, if you're heading out for eight hours to pick up a truck and you have the option of climbing into a sleeper berth while travelling as a passenger in that vehicle, you're still able to log that all as off-duty time.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: I was pretty sure of that, but I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding later, when we don't have access to you.

    From what you were saying in terms of wage problems and so on, am I correct in assuming that you would like to see some kind of pay scale that is set by some authority and one that everyone has to pay?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I'd like to see it go back to the tariff system, in which carriers have to submit their tariffs to government. That system shows that super-Bs are in alignment with other super-B operators, and that van divisions are in alignment with other van divisions, all from a point A to a point B destination, whether it's from Vancouver to Calgary or Vancouver to Toronto. At the same time, I do agree with what the last gentleman said in regard to the problems with wages and so forth in this industry.

    My biggest problem with what's going on right now is that we live in a metric society but are still charging a mileage rate. We could actually keep the rates the same within this industry and not change a single penny if we switched over to the kilometre system.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Normally when you adjust miles to kilometres--I was in the construction industry and we changed from yards to metres and so on--you certainly cross your fingers and hope there is an adjustment in the price as well as in the measurement.

    You talk in terms of a tariff system and say tariffs have to be submitted and be comparable. If Company A put in and their rate was five dollars, and Company B put in and their rate was four dollars, would Company B have to raise their rate to five dollars, or would Company A have to cut theirs to four?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Company A would get to scrutinize Company B. If companies A, C, D, and E were all comparable, Company B would either have to get into line, or companies A, C, D, and E would have the right to say that they don't agree that this individual, B, should get a licence.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: So if someone wanted to operate for a lower amount, the others could force him to either raise his rates or get out of business?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: In a sense, yes, but that's the way it worked years ago. When an individual came in and applied for a carrier licence, he had to submit his tariff. That tariff and application were scrutinized by the industry. If the industry disagreed that the individual should be allowed in because of the low rate he was willing to offer to the consuming public, then he was not given an opportunity to operate unless he went to an arbitration hearing.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: You mentioned the difference in the age of vehicles. Somebody may be driving a new vehicle and have pretty high payments. Another person may be a mechanic who keeps his 10-year-old rig in superb condition, but because he doesn't have those payments, he has the ability to put the same profit in his pocket on a lower tariff. Is that taken into consideration?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: That is taken into consideration, but in that sense, you would be talking about an independent operator. An independent operator is an operator who has his own running authority. He has one truck and one set of trailers, and he’s out there providing a service to his own customers.

    The other category is that of the owner-operator who is a dependent operator working for carriers. It's common practice across this country for carriers to hire owner-operators with trucks that are five years old or newer. If your truck exceeds the five years, they'll give you an extra two years' grace, but then you have to replace that truck.

    Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thanks, Jim.

    We'll go to Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have a few opening comments to make, following which I will have two questions for each group of witnesses. I would ask that they respond in the order in which they made their presentations.

    First of all, I cannot overemphasize the gravity of the situation for your industry. You have made some very timely presentations to our committee today. The situation is grave indeed because in December, the government was poised to bring in regulations and legislative amendments immediately with a view to ensuring that the CCMTA recommendations which you have commented on today and the agreement between the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Teamsters, which bears some similarity to the CCMTA recommendations, passed into law. The committee was asked to give its unanimous consent and support and before the last session drew to a close, the government tabled an appropriate legislative amendment. Obviously, my NDP colleague as well as Bloc members strongly objected to the tabling of this proposed amendment. As a result, we find ourselves here today in committee discussing hours of work within the industry.

    This is indeed an important topic of discussion because the current Liberal government's philosophy is a continuation of the policy initiated in 1987 by the Conservative government with the move to deregulate the industry. This philosophy consists of allowing market forces to play out freely. Clearly, the Liberal government has embraced this philosophy, as has the Canadian Alliance. Rates are set by the market and the impact on your industry has been catastrophic. You have summarized these adverse effects for us. In order to maintain their competitive edge, companies overwork their employees.

    Right now, the only way to improve working conditions within your industry which is in crisis...You are experiencing a shortage of drivers and you are absolutely right in pointing out that the industry faces a shortage of 50,000 workers. Setting aside the fact that competition is too keen, the only way to breathe new life into your industry is to regulate hours of work. You people, the industry representatives, cannot agree on...While you may disagree, the majority of you have found the solution to your problem and agree that the CCMTA's proposal respecting hours of work isn't feasible. However, other groups, including the Teamsters and the ones who signed the agreement with the Canadian Trucking Alliance contend that the government can regulate however it wants and that ultimately, the industry will adjust.

    The clock is running, because the government is ready to introduce draft legislation and to move forward with the CCMTA's recommendations.

    I have two questions for each group. Firstly, have you had an opportunity to make your views known to the CCMTA and do you feel that this committee, under the direction of Transport Canada, has heard the message of industry workers?

  (1200)  

    Secondly, how do you feel about the agreement concluded between the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Teamsters?

    I'm interested in knowing where you stand. You're all union representatives and I know you're reluctant to pass judgment. However, I'm telling you that this agreement between the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Teamsters will give the government the credibility it needs to amend the legislation. Therefore, I'd like you to state your position so that the Liberals and Canadian Alliance members hear the message, realize the situation and see how you have been treated by the industry.

    So, two questions: first, how do you feel about the CCMTA, have you made your views known to this organizations, and do you think they have taken workers' demands into account? And second, where do you stand on the agreement between the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Teamsters?

[English]

    Mr. Ken Foster: In regard to the CCMTA, all I can say is that it's very difficult to find somebody within the CCMTA who can explain to you what they mean with regard to their proposed changes. I have yet to find anyone who could clarify exactly what their proposals really are, how they're going to control them and enforce them, or even what the regulations are going to be.

    We have not had a chance to appear before the CCMTA. We didn't even know we could appear before the CCMTA to make our views known. In some of the dealings I have had with the CCMTA, they've certainly seemed to know our position regarding the busing industry: that it should not be covered under the same act.

    In regard to the Teamsters, all I can say on that issue is that this is certainly the trucking alliance program. I feel there's no question about that. They have a strong lobby and a lot of money behind them, and all I can say is that I was very surprised when I heard the Teamsters had struck up an alliance with the Canadian Trucking Alliance. That certainly was done without any discussion with us.

    After the discussions I had with the Teamsters, we thought they were onside with us and were pursing the same goals we were pursuing: to leave the industry the way it is and certainly not increase the hours of work in regard to the busing industry. They claimed to speak on behalf of the busing industry, but I made it very clear to them that they do not speak on behalf of the busing industry.

    That's about all I have to say on that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Before I answer your two questions, in our opinion...I heard some of the testimony presented by the gentleman from Kamloops. He talked about the rates in effect prior to deregulation and about the actual competitive climate after deregulation. In our presentation, we alluded to the fact that the problem became more acute after deregulation and the move to free trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

    You've raised two very good questions. To put it bluntly, the answer to your first question is no, we weren't invited to share our views and we never met with CCMTA officials. We know where they stand on this issue, but we were never invited to meet with them or to share our views with anyone.

    As for the agreement, the existence of which I only recently learned of, between the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Teamsters Union, I have to say that personally, I haven't had any discussions with the Teamsters Union. I can appreciate their position and I understand their reasons, but as far as discussions between ourselves and union officials go, I definitely think that if unions representing transport industry workers could get together and talk, they would agree on a number of issues. For instance, they would surely arrive at a consensus on such matters as the exclusion of bus transportation. There is a substantial difference between transporting human beings and shipping cardboard boxes.

    On the issue of whether or not hours of work should be increased, we could possibly come to some sort of agreement. I believe I would have some valid arguments to put forward that would prove convincing to the vast majority of committee members, particularly in so far as quality of life is concerned. By increasing the number of hours of work, we would be increasing risk levels, not only for all Canadians and young people travelling on our roadways, but for truck drivers and bus drivers as well. The risks would be greater for everyone involved.

    I've never worked as a truck driver, but we represent 5,000 trucking industry workers. We also represent strip mine workers. At some point, everyone becomes fatigued and when fatigue sets in, a person becomes drowsy and accidents happen. The number of road accidents will likely increase. The whole issue of highway safety and public safety will come to the fore.

    Now then, if workers are required to work longer hours...Time on the job equals profits. Competition within the industry is fierce and it's slowly destroying the transportation industry. As you may recall, a few years ago, with the advent of free trade and deregulation, US trucking firms wanted to gain a toehold in Canada.

    There are ways of resolving the problem. One would be to sit stakeholders down with political parties in an effort to improve the channels of communication. What could be easier! I'm not here today to denigrate those who would voice their opinions. All I know is that the industry is in crisis and I'm sure everyone here agrees that the industry is gradually eroding from within. If we don't do something to make the competitive climate more civilized and working conditions and the trucking and other transportation industries more humane, and if we don't act to differentiate between transporting people and transporting cattle or cardboard boxes, well then...We need to take action on this front.

  (1205)  

    I strongly suggest that the committee allow union officials time to get together and exchange views. Along with the steelworkers, we have the Amalgamated Transit Union, the representatives of which are here today, the Teamsters and others. They may or may not have made representations to the committee. One thing is certain, however. The union movement always manages to agree. Major disagreements may erupt, but we're like politicians. At least we make an effort to come to an agreement and when we do finally take a stand, our position is clear.

    Today, it's possible we haven't stated our positions clearly. Maybe that explains why I suggest we be given more time. Unions are usually quick to act. In two hours, either we come to an agreement, or we don't.

[English]

    The Chair: Darren, do you have a response to the question from Mario?

  (1210)  

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I do.

    In regard to the CCMTA, at no time did they offer any explanation about the proposed changes to the hours of service, nor were we invited to meet with them, which I found a little disheartening. We stumbled across the hours-of-service issue because we're constantly on the government websites searching things out, seeing what's being proposed, looking at proposed bills, and so on. The CCMTA did not, at any time, offer us any opportunity to meet with them, and they never offered us any explanation about the changes to the hours of service.

    As for the Teamsters and the Canadian Trucking Alliance coming together, I don't believe that's favourable as far we're concerned. The Teamsters do not represent owner-operators in Canada. They do not do it effectively. Basically, owner-operators are paying dues to the Teamsters and are not getting any benefit out of doing that.

    I agree with the idea of separating buses and trucks. I also believe truckers are concerned about driver fatigue and about commercial vehicle accidents on the highway. The reason behind that belief is that we're all family men. I have three daughters and a wife, which means I leave four people at home when I'm out on the highway. They are using our roadways as well, and are constantly in contact with commercial vehicles. One of my biggest fears is that my family is going to be struck down by a commercial vehicle, yet I don't believe the problems with driver fatigue are as bad as they are being made out to be. I believe there's a lot less of a problem than some of the statistics have shown.

    With the current curriculum in commercial vehicle driver training, I believe that some individuals, like the new drivers and the young drivers, the hotshots on our highways, are not putting enough time and thought into the way in which they're operating a truck. They are not conditioned for what they are doing. They are being turned loose within 24 hours. I believe a good way to increase the numbers of drivers coming into this industry is to bring in trade apprenticeship designation federally across Canada.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    You're out of time, Mario, so I'll go to Bev.

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

    I recognize that there should be a back-and-forth between the opposition and the government. Alex can go ahead if he so wishes.

    The Chair: That's the way it should be.

    Alex, you have the floor.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you. My question is for the Steelworkers.

    In your presentation, you stated that a reduction in hours would somehow extrapolate into better rates for drivers or owner-operators. How does that work economically through the trucking industry? How do you know you won't just get people working fewer hours for less money?

    Mr. Dennis Dunster: We hope the conditions for the workers improve--i.e., the hours and a number of other things-- and that their wages improve, but there's going to be a cost, as we said earlier. I think that cost would be borne by the pubic at large, so to speak, but we have to start somewhere in order to improve the conditions. If we don't, what is happening now is just going to get worse. The elastic is stretched as far as it can go right now, so if we don't start somewhere to reverse this vicious circle that we're in, things are only going to get worse.

    The trucking industry is vital to the economy of Canada, so there have to be improvements. We need truck drivers.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm going to go back to Economics 101. Are you saying that because there's such a driver shortage, if you then impacted that situation with reduced hours, then the freight rates would have to increase, by definition? Is that the analysis?

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: What we're saying is that this is a very complex situation. I agree. If you touch one aspect, then because it's a ladder, you're touching other aspects.

    The industry needs about 50,000 more drivers. In the next five years, 30 percent of the current drivers are going to be eligible for retirement. Today, with around 50,000 drivers missing in the industry, there is a problem. Drivers are not going into the industry for a reason. It's not a question of training, because we can set up the training. There are ways to do that. But people are not going in because of the conditions, and two of the conditions are income and leisure time.

    If this new proposal goes through and you give flexibility to any employer across this country--or across the world, for that matter--to go to a maximum of 84 hours on the road in a week, why would those employers go to 40 hours? They'll go to 84. That's what the choice is.

    The question of all the conditions in the industry has to be looked at for the future. We're therefore saying to lower the hours, and then you'll probably introduce better conditions--and I'd also like to get into the question of the right of refusal later. If we create and maintain some living and working conditions in the industry, the industry will attract workers, and it will attract young workers. Who replaces the retirees of today? Young workers. Young workers will not work 84 hours a week.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Once again getting back to Economics 101, if I reduce the number of hours, then under the current situation and with no other changes in freight rates, I reduce the actual remuneration of the average truck driver. Based on your analysis, we would have a further exodus from the industry, with the remaining truck drivers making less money than they were making before.

    I don't know how you have make this direct correlation that freight rates are somehow going to increase. Why would they increase in a free-market economy? Your only increase will be in the scarcity of drivers. That's your argument.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Either we're going to have a civilized transportation industry in Canada or we're not. Our union wasn't one that criticized the $12 or $24 change at the airports. I am not criticizing, but if I want to maintain health care in Canada, I'm going to probably pay a little more--and I'm ready to do that, by the way, for my health care especially.

    But I agree with what you're saying. If you touch the question of the hours, you're touching the question of the income of the drivers, but you're also touching the tariffs and you're touching off huge consequences. That's why we also say in our presentation that the problem in the trucking industry is not just the hours. The problem is a lot larger than that.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Getting back to--

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I hope the commission will give us more time so that the unions can get together and come to a solution on the issue of hours.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Getting back to Kamloops, Darren is arguing that there should be bars to entry. Well, he didn't say bars to entry, but he did say there should be longer training periods and that we could actually control the number of people getting into this industry that way. He just said you can get 24 hours' training and away you go. I presume the argument, the bottom line, is that it's easy to get in, that the industry itself is actually easy to access. I presume that I could go out tomorrow and get a week-long course, and that I could then be driving a truck. Therein lies the problem.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Not too safely, but you could. I wouldn't drive in front of you, but maybe--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Therein lies the pure economics of it. It's not a quota system, so we're constantly picking at the bottom. There's no strength in this industry. The workers have no strength.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: We have strength if we decide to apply it. I don't know that you'd like that, but we have strength.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: That's right.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I'm not suggesting that everybody at the table is agreeing, but I think we're saying that deregulation caused very big problems when it came in, and that the consequences were probably not evaluated. Years after the fact, we're starting to evaluate and we're starting to face the consequences of deregulation, the FTA, and the NAFTA. In a very short period of time, we're also going to be facing the consequences of the NAFTA being extended to other countries of the Americas.

    The unions and workers have strength. If we put our strengths together...if you're asking a couple of the unions at the table to shut down the industry to solve the problem, we can do that, too. That would be very easy to do. But then we're creating another problem.

    If you permit me, Mr. Chair, I'd like to go back a little bit to the question of the right of refusal. In every other industry, every working man and woman who works in an office or in a mine has, under part II of the Canada Labour Code, a right to refuse work when he or she considers it dangerous. And you can also go to provincial legislation. Most provinces still have something. If every working man and woman and young worker is eligible for that protection either through provincial legislation or in the federal jurisdiction, why in hell isn't a truck driver eligible for it also? If any person knows there's a danger there, it is the driver, and nobody else.

    On the right to refuse, my understanding is that if I personally see a danger in my work conditions, I have a right to refuse to work. The member of Parliament who asked about it is no longer here, but that's the answer I wanted to give him. The right to refuse is an individual right. But all of this includes what your question is, and that's how we will solve the big picture.

    The question of increasing the hours is only adding to the existing problem. If some sort of forum were set up with the labour unions, the CCMTA, and definitely the people from the governments and the parties, we could get together to at least try to agree on what the problems are. But right now, we're not even agreeing on what the problems are. Before we find a solution and are not part of the problem but part of that solution, I think we have to identify where the problems are. In our opinion--and I believe it's the same for a lot of presenters here; I've seen other presenters' presentations--the problem does not reside in the hours of work in the industry, but in the working conditions for the people in that industry.

    Was that long enough to answer your question?

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Yes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you, Alex.

    Bev, you had some questions.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, thank you.

    First off, I'll try to ask the questions to all three, but some are definitely quite specific.

    Darren, you made the point that if a driver is sitting in the passenger seat of his vehicle and is being driven somewhere, that time shouldn't be considered as time driving. You also made the point that it's not possible to sleep in a vehicle if it's running. I'm just wondering how that relates to the safety factor if someone ultimately ends up being on the road for three hours longer, based on the fact that they've had to drive somewhere else. Is that time included in their work time? Do you understand what I'm asking?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Yes, I do understand what you're asking.

    We would like to think a driver would exercise discretion, his own ability, and his own knowledge of when to pull over and go to sleep.

    We have a problem with team drivers in this industry right now, and it's an unfortunate situation. We have trucks that are running twenty hours a day, seven days a week. The drivers are taking an hour off for dinner, and they're taking an hour off for lunch.

    We had an experience here in Kamloops last year in which a team unit pulled over at the brake check spot at the top of a hill. The two drivers switched. The co-driver who jumped out of the sleeper and into the driver's seat filled out his logbook and proceeded down the hill. By the time he actually woke up, he was doing 140 kilometres an hour and flipped that truck over. That was an unsafe situation, and the reason it was unsafe was that there wasn't ample time available for that co-driver to wake up after jumping out of the sleeper.

    In the submission that we handed in on September 7, 2001, we made a suggestion. Team units should be placed into situations in which any transferring of duties must be done at a truck-stop facility, where the co-driver coming out of the sleeper can wash his face, have a coffee, and wake up. It should not happen on the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere, because it's dangerous to the motoring public. And I fear any problems with the motoring public.

    I hope that answers your question.

  (1225)  

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, that's fine.

    Again to you, Darren, you mentioned the industry standard in terms of the model of the 1980s. Was that related to the tariffs that you were talking about?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I'm not sure. I think I mentioned that the tariffs ended in late 1989, I believe.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Can you explain to me what that model was?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I'll tell you what happened. Anybody wanting to get involved with commercial transportation had to go in to the commercial transportation department within their own province. They had to submit what they were proposing to do as a carrier, what commodity they were proposing to haul, and how much they were proposing to haul it for. That submission was then opened to the public--“the public” meaning everybody already conducting business in the industry--who could go in, scrutinize the application, and look at what the individual was planning on charging to move freight. If his rates weren't consistent with what everybody else was charging, everybody else could oppose the licensing of that individual until he got in line with them.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In following that through, then, was there give and take? Could a person justify why their costs were less, or were things done along the lines of having a cartel in place in order to maintain rates at a certain level?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I think it was a protection mechanism for the industry itself. But in the same sense, when they got rid of it, we moved to being an industry of great secrecy. Currently, nothing on any bills of lading or waybills is available to drivers when they pull in to pick up a load. Nothing says exactly what that load is being moved for. There's no full disclosure; full disclosure is missing in this industry. A driver might be told by the carrier he works for that pulling a load from Regina to Vancouver pays $2,200. The driver might then get his pay settlement at the end of the month and find out the load only paid $1,400. That driver probably would have refused that load 99 percent of the time. Unfortunately, though, that's the harsh reality of our industry today.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: To all who are here, I have a question. Is it your perception that, because of the rates truckers are being paid, goods are essentially being shipped with the ultimate cost to the consumer being a false cost, because the wages and safety standards that truckers have to work under are being maintained at an excessively low level? Is that a fair statement?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I don't know that it's a fair statement. The costs being borne by the consumer on the products that they purchase are not in balance with the rates being applied for moving that product. The freight rates haven't changed in approximately fifteen years, but the yearly inflation index for a can of Campbell's mushroom soup.... Fifteen years ago, you could purchase that soup for 46¢, but today you're buying it for $1.08. In other words, we're still moving that product for the same amount of money, yet they're charging more for it at the retail end. So to move a full trailer in that capacity, there would be a marginal increase to the consumer. Now, my family and all of our members' families are consumers. When we're out on the road, they're at home consuming. When we're on the road, we're consuming.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Darren, from your perspective, then, you're saying--and I guess I'm going to associate it with what the farmers would be saying--that although all this money is being spent on their goods, it is not going to the producers, it’s going to someone else. The cost isn't being decreased. Someone's getting that money, but it's not the truckers.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: That's right, and this has happened because of the commercial harm test that was put in place in favour of industry and the shipping community.

  (1230)  

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Do I have time for more, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Yes, you do.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: On the issue of whether the busing industry and the trucking industry should be dealt with separately, I generally don't have any problem accepting that. There is a definite difference in type of industry. However, if it's being suggested that a driver should be driving longer if he is driving a busload of passengers and has to get them somewhere--and I got that impression, much to my chagrin--then that wouldn't be acceptable, from my perspective.

    Mr. Randy Graham: That may have been the impression I left, but that was definitely not what I was saying.

    Actually, in this industry, we have vehicles about which everybody has a discussion on the mechanical end in terms of what's here and what the ability is. I find it amazing that it's completely different from the labour code, in which we talk about workers' rights and how those things are. The right to refuse seems to get lost in the mix. The right to refuse allows you the opportunity to refuse, and there are checks and balances to make sure you're not abusing that opportunity.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So you're not suggesting--

    Mr. Randy Graham: We're definitely not suggesting anything like that. We're saying it might in fact even be the opposite.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You're saying you should have driving times that are even lower.

    Mr. Randy Graham: The reality is that we have pressure added because we have 50 or 55 people on that vehicle, and that means we have to be able to go down the road and do those things. We might not have the opportunity to take that break or be able to do the things that are involved there. There are hidden pressures in the industry as that industry is created. If anybody can do whatever they want to within those hours....

    We've talked about logbooks being abused today. You've heard that. If you make it so that more opportunity is there or more hours are there, then you provide more opportunities for abuse. That really creates an additional problem for us.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

    Do I still have time, or does Mr. Szabo want to question? I can come back.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo can finish off.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I'd like to thank all of you for your input. We've obviously had some differing views on the issue of hours of safety. We have had some input from experts regarding fatigue issues, so I'm wondering if each of your groups might want to comment on whether or not you have looked at or examined recent studies with regard to fatigue issues related to truck drivers. What was your assessment of that research, and do you agree or disagree with it?

    Mr. Ken Foster: I'd like to speak very briefly on that. In terms of the studies that we have looked at, read, and tried to analyse, most of the studies have indicated that an increase in working hours is certainly not in the best interests of the travelling public.

    In regard to our particular industry, we haven't had a study done on the busing industry. The industry has never had one done, and the government has never had one done. All of them have basically been done in regard to the trucking industry, and, again, they're dealing with hours totally different from those that we deal with.

    Therefore, I certainly agree especially with the study the government did, but the government seems to be ignoring the recommendations not to proceed with the increase in hours of service.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Do any other witnesses want to comment?

    Mr. Dennis Dunster: I agree with what he just said.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Yes, I'd like to say that I have read a few studies on driver fatigue and so forth. What I've found is that most of the studies that have been written and the comments that have been made have not really been taken from the driver's perspective. David Bradley, of the OTA, the CTA, and so forth, was quite involved with driver fatigue statistics and so on. However, I don't believe he brought any really cognitive information forward that could actually be utilized, that would actually back up what was being said in the statistics on driver fatigue.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: To follow up on that, do you think we should pursue other sources of evidence with regard to independent driver fatigue assessments that you feel would be acceptable to you?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: Yes, I most definitely do. I believe we need to get to the root problem when it comes to driver fatigue. Then again, I know that I and a number of others would say driver fatigue is directly related to the economics of this industry. You're only being remunerated a certain amount of money to do what you have to do. If you're not being remunerated for all the free services you do--the loading and unloading, the tarping, the chaining, and all the other stuff that goes along with trucking—then you have to make up that time somewhere so that you can increase your revenues and sustain your business.

    If you spend three hours loading, you have to try to get creative with your logbook to show that you only spent an hour loading, and you're then going to spend those additional two hours on the road. I don't like to say it and nobody wants to hear it, but it's an absolute fact of this industry.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to see if you can give us some guidance with regard to the different kinds of driving. Obviously you have long hauls, busing, driving, and a number of different scenarios that people who drive commercial vehicles are exposed to, as well as different working requirements. That makes me ask the question about whether or not one size of solution fits all. Or should a range of driving be permitted, given the nature of the driving being done?

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I think there is a solution to the problems within this industry. Unfortunately, though, the same reply that we've received over the last two years is that the industry is going to have to sort itself out. Well, the industry is not able to sort itself out. The reason the industry is not able to sort itself out is that you can't bring the owners of these various groups together to discuss the problems and what's going on.

    Do I see a solution to this? I do indeed see a solution to this, but it's going to take a lot of in-depth correspondence between the ninety associations in Canada that represent owner-operators and company drivers, in order to facilitate these solutions. Again, it goes right back to how much is expected to be given away by an owner-operator or by a professional driver.

    We look at it in this capacity: Most contracts are written favourably for the carriers employing the drivers. The contracts are always in favour of the carriers, not in favour of the drivers. There's a requirement that you give up one hour on the A end and that you give one hour on the B end for loading and unloading. Well, if you're following in what I'm saying, a person is giving up over $20,000 a year in revenues that he could be taking home to his family if he does that five days a week. That's where the problem lies. The problem lies with revenue.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Maybe there are other comments here.

    Mr. Randy Graham: There's already a difference today when we talk about distance. While there's a difference for somebody driving maybe between Ottawa and Montreal or Ottawa and Toronto, local van service is certainly not in the same category for people who drive short distances. So I think there already are provisions today, at least federally, that look out for what those things are.

    Maybe there are even different problems in the busing industry, as we have differences in our line-haul operation, as compared to our charter tour work. For a charter, somebody might be in charge of that same vehicle for 21 days or for a time period like that, and that's different from somebody who returns to their home at least maybe every second day. There could be differences with that.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Anyone else?

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: On driver fatigue, I think you were asking if we think there should be a further in-depth study on this by all the parties involved. I would definitely say yes, but I just want to make sure that, if such a decision is taken to bed, the unions would be considered as stakeholders and would be involved, because we weren't involved in the question of wanting to increase the hours of work.

    Definitely, we totally agree that there's a question of revenue on the question of short hauls and long hauls, but I'll let Dennis Dunster answer that. Before it passes to Dennis, though, I just want to add something on your first question.

    We have to keep in mind the study released one week ago. It was done across Canada, and it showed that 85 percent of Canadians are against the proposal we're talking about today.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: The last issue may be...oh, sorry.

    Mr. Dennis Dunster: I'd like to respond to part of your question on whether or not there's one fix for the whole industry. I don't think so. As Lawrence has stated, some kind of forum has to be put together so that some of the issues can be addressed.

    Many things--and this may answer the other gentleman's question--can be done to improve the conditions without increasing the costs. A lot of things contribute to fatigue, and being away from home for long periods of time can be one of them. If the carriers were to develop, let's say, more efficient systems for moving their freight--you could have switches, whereby a driver would go halfway and then come back--all kinds of things could be done to improve the quality for those workers. If you improve the quality, you're going to reduce the fatigue.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay, I have to get my last question in here.

    The last issue has to do with what we've been hearing. There are different interests at the table, and they all have slightly different forces working on them. This committee is focusing on hours of work and on the safety ramifications of setting limits on whatever contiguous hours of driving can be put in place, along with whatever reset times, etc.

    Do you think we should even be concerned about the economics of the trucking industry, the working conditions of workers, etc., when we're considering the safety issues of the Canadian public?

    Mr. Randy Graham: I think they go hand-in-hand. The idea of the safety of the worker is also the safety reason of the public. The one group we haven't talked about here today is the school bus industry, which is also federally regulated in terms of hours of work. It does charter and tour work, and its drivers may then come back to do school runs and other things fitting into those categories, too. I don't know that any consideration has even been given to those things, even by us, since we hadn't mentioned them up to this time.

    So I think the question is whether we want safer roads today, or less safe roads. I don't think anybody can say that, through fatigue, the added opportunity in an 84-hour week, or any of those kinds of things, it would be any safer for anybody. So I think they tie into each other.

    On the economics, though, from our perspective, we're here speaking for the workers and for the people who are there and actually doing the job. That's why we bring the issue to the table.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I'd like to answer that one, please.

    The Chair: Very quickly.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Yes, quickly.

    Humans come first.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: That's a safe answer.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: It's a safe answer, and I'll tell you why it has to be a safe answer.

    You probably know we're lobbying on the Hill for amendments to the Criminal Code because of the explosion at Westray. We don't want to see a Westray on the highway either. Your question was whether or not we should be concerned about the safety of Canadians--and that definitely includes the workers--or about the economics, or mix the two together.

    The Chair: Bev, do you have any quick questions?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, and I want to premise my comments.

    Often, it's felt that we don't want to allow the trucking industry to survive, that we're against trucks being on the road, and that we want everything to go to rail. That's not the case. I therefore want to premise my comments by saying that I believe there's a need for a very flexible, quality trucking industry within Canada, as much as we need a strong rail system to move cargo and people. It's important that what we do here ensures that we maintain a very safe system.

    Just to follow up on Lawrence's comments about Westray, I obviously feel very strongly about that situation and don't want to see that type of a situation happen in any industry. But I just want to make a bit of a comment tying this to the economics of it.

    If it's economically sound when workers can lose their lives and companies can make a profit, they're going to keep doing that. Companies actually build into their balance sheets the idea that if they do something with x percentage of injuries or deaths, it's still cost-effective. To me, it's a given. Any accountant in industry will tell you that's built into company plans: “This is an acceptable amount because we're still making this much profit.” To me, that's not acceptable. Any death whatsoever is just not acceptable.

    Probably about eight years back, I read an article about a fellow who worked in the film industry in Hollywood. He had to work lengthy hours because there was a push to get a film through. He was working 16-hour days to get it done. One night, he was rushing to get home after a 16-hour day in order to get to his daughter's birthday party, and he obviously didn't make it.

    Whether you're an individual just driving home or you're someone going somewhere for your workplace, there are limits for the human body. I think we need to recognize those limits and acknowledge that nobody should be on the road if they're feeling tired, if they've been driving for long periods of time and fatigue sets in. It's hard to tell ordinary individuals that and to keep track of ordinary individuals who are doing it every day, but we still try to have preventative measures in place that say they shouldn't be out there, that they should stop to get rest or do whatever if they're tired.

    It has become very apparent to me that, within the trucking industry, it's almost next to impossible for drivers to be able to take the opportunity to stop and say that it's unsafe or that they need rest, and that’s because of the economics involved. I therefore think it's important that we make it economically sound for companies to have to do that. If we don't make sure corporate responsibility is imposed by having a system in place in which truckers are driving safe hours, the companies will continue to have drivers go that way.

    And I want comments from members here on another part. Just last week, there was a clipping--we get clippings from Transport Canada--on things related to different industries. One was a clipping about a trucker who was in an accident in the U.S. They were actually checking his receipts and looking at where he had stopped along the way. They were looking at proving that he had driven too many hours, resulting in an accident in which there were deaths. Quite frankly, we questioned the RCMP on that as a committee, asking if this is a standard practice within accident investigations, and if they check to see. To me, it seems like a sensible thing, but they don't do it.

    Obviously, times are changing. For any drivers who are driving on the roads and are over their times, if there are deaths, then I think you're going to see investigations happening. We're going to be saying that these drivers were driving too long, and we're going to be proving it. We'll know that they crossed the border at this time, that they gassed up at a certain spot at a certain time, and that there's no way they could have been there at that time and still have taken time off to rest.

    So it's crucially important that we do not force people to become criminals and be put in a position of liability for someone else's death because of the way the industry is set up.

    I'd just like your comments on that.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: On that, just as an example of an experience that we went through, about four years ago, we did have a driver who went to the U.S. on long hours. They checked his record at the border, etc. He was accused of criminal negligence and had to go to court in the U.S., facing a minimum $15,000 fine--and that was in U.S. currency. We had to send some of our lawyers down and hire a lawyer in the U.S. We won the case and cleared the case.

    But the case I'm talking about and the case you mentioned--the one that was publicized not too long ago--happen on a common basis. They happen all the time.

    Could I give a personal opinion? It's very short. I promise.

    The Chair: Well, we're getting short for time.

    You're basically saying there are probably mechanisms built in for today's world so that you can't get away with it. They're going to cost a lot of money, so, in the long term, it's better that everybody keeps those logbooks fairly and that they do the right things.

    Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I wouldn't say such a thing.

    In my personal opinion--and I think the member of Parliament mentioned it--the issue for the committee is the hours of work. Unfortunately, it was brought to our attention and that of other people at the table who presented, because it seems that some agreements have been made before. Anyway, I'm just suggesting that we may have an opportunity here, as Canadians and as stakeholders in the industry. That can happen if you give us a chance to get together and if the government takes the initiative to set up a forum in order to look at the real problems in the industry, including the hours of work.

    Looking only at the hours of work will not solve any problems in the industry. Doing that will only amplify and create other problems and other consequences that will be very hard not only for the economy of the country, but also for the working men and women who are in the industry, plus for Canadians.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Ken Foster: If I may just make a comment on that, we don't tend to run into too many problems in that regard. It’s funny, because we do run into some problems in an area that we just talked about it this morning. One of our companies, for instance, allows for a trip from Toronto to Niagara Falls, and they say the driver has 90 minutes to do that run. But when you have your logbooks checked by the Department of Transport, the DOT says it's impossible and you have to put down two hours. So now we have a 30-minute discrepancy between the company and the DOT. And not only that, but with that discrepancy, there's a half-hour's lost wages as well, but nobody's taken responsibility for those wages. And that's not just that one trip; we have many trips for which that happens.

    The Chair: Darren, you can respond very quickly.

    Mr. Darren Liebrecht: I'd like to make one quick comment.

    One of the biggest problems we have with the departments of transportation and highways, in terms of the people who are veterans in enforcement, is that there's not enough clear language across this country. There's not enough there to help those people interpret what they're reading.

    In regard to the Toronto-to-Niagara Falls run, it's not impossible to get there in two hours. It is possible to get there in an hour and a half while travelling at the posted speed limit on the QEW.

    On the RCMP, in British Columbia, I believe we only have 40 RCMP officers who are certified and qualified to inspect commercial vehicles and logbooks. The rest of the RCMP in this province don't have a clue what they're looking at, which is an unfortunate situation for this industry.

    What I'm finding through the research that we've done is that we've had 37,000 commercial vehicles accidents in the province of British Columbia alone. A large majority are taking place in the metro area of Vancouver. This is happening because the drivers who are doing P and D--or city pickup and delivery--don't go outside of the 160 kilometres, so they are not required to fill out a logbook and can therefore work 24 hours a day. If they were subjected to the same rules and regulations that we're subjected to, things might improve there.

    It's the same thing for a farmer. A farmer can come out of Dawson Creek and take his product to market in Vancouver, driving 16 hours on the way down to Vancouver. He can then turn around and drive straight back home if he doesn't get into an accident on the way.

    In other words, a lot of things in this industry need to be balanced out. It shouldn't matter that you're a farmer hauling a class-A truck with a trailer. You should still be bound by the same rules and regulations. If we want to bring balance to this industry and improve safety, we have to look at the number one issue. If we really and truly want this to work, we have to look at the economics of it.

    The Chair: That's the last word.

    Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. That was very well put. We appreciate your input. Our researcher is listening to it, and when we do our report, hopefully the balance will reflect what you've said to us.

    This committee is adjourned until Tuesday.