TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 11, 2001

• 1002

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, in accordance with Standing Order 108, I'd like to start the proceedings.

As you know, we are studying truckers' hours of operation. We had this one day, and it would appear that there's one part of our study that could be completed in a very short period of time.

We're going to hear this morning from the Canadian Trucking Alliance and from Teamsters Canada. Maybe they could introduce themselves, and then each one will give us a little dissertation, and we'll go into a round of questioning.

Welcome, and thank you for being here, gentlemen.

Mr. David Bradley (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance): Thank you. I'm David Bradley, CEO of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, and with me is Graham Cooper, CTA's senior vice-president.

Mr. Larry MacDonald (International Vice-President, Teamsters Canada): I'm Larry MacDonald, international vice-president with Teamsters Canada.

Mr. François Laporte (Director of Government Affairs, Teamsters Canada): And I'm François Laporte, director of government affairs for Teamsters Canada.

Mr. David Bradley: Would you like me to begin?

The Chair: Yes, that's a good idea.

Mr. David Bradley: Thank you very much, Chairman and members of the committee. We really appreciate your taking the time to deal with this issue. We know that since September 11, the work of the committee has taken on a great new importance and responsibility. This is an issue, however, that is extremely important to the trucking industry and to safety in general, and it's one we have been working on now for ten years.

Ten years ago, Canada and the United States got together and conducted the first and only joint study of fatigue amongst truck drivers. It used real truck drivers on revenue runs crossing into and out of Canada and into and out of the United States. The results of that study laid the basis for an examination by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators of possible changes to the federal hours of service regulation.

It should be remembered that the existing regulations are basically mirrored after regulations that were developed in the United States in the 1930s and have changed very little, if at all, since then. Surely our industry has changed and surely we know more about fatigue than they did back in the 1930s.

• 1005

When the CCMTA got together, they formed a project group composed of all stakeholders, not only industry representatives but government representatives from each of the provinces and territories and the federal government, safety advocacy groups, and other groups. Virtually anyone who wanted their say had their say.

The basis upon which we proceeded was that the existing rules are antiquated, cumbersome, difficult to manage, difficult to enforce, and in fact can contribute to fatigue. We were told when we were mandated that the project group had to come up with proposed changes that were consistent with what we know of the science of fatigue and that were consistent with fatigue management principles. In what can only be heralded as a major achievement, because it happens very rarely, we find, in trucking regulation, the CCMTA reached a consensus position, and that position I know you're aware of.

I know we're here principally to talk about the agreement between CTA and the Teamsters, but it's extremely important to look at the whole package and the benefits of the whole package. That package would importantly increase the minimum daily rest time by 25%. It would reduce the daily work time from the existing situation by 12.5%. It would eliminate some of the more cumbersome and therefore more complex parts of the regulation that allow for cycle-switching, which allow people now to legally drive 104 hours in a week. Those would be gone. It would establish meaningful and appropriate rest and recovery periods.

This is a major step forward in terms of improving safety, yet at the same time it takes account of the needs of truck drivers. It tries to provide flexibility in a safety-sensitive way that will allow them to get either to their final destination or more importantly home, as opposed to being stuck out in the middle of nowhere having to spend their existence in a sleeper berth or at a motel somewhere. So it touches all the right buttons, we believe.

There was one area, though, where the Teamsters and the trucking industry had, I think it's fair to say, a slight difference of opinion, and that was with regard to the daily driving shift.

The regulation as proposed by the CCMTA allows a driver to be on duty for 14 hours a day maximum, but requires them to have 10 hours off duty. So that comes to 24, which brings you in line with your natural body clock. It did not distinguish, in that on-duty time, between the hours driving and the hours working.

The Teamsters did not want to see the maximum driving period on one work shift increased, and theoretically the rule would have allowed that. It could have allowed a guy to drive 14 hours, even though it was understood I think by everybody that he would have to do a circle check and those kinds of things.

Notwithstanding that, it was never our intention, as industry, to bump up that driving shift beyond the existing 13 hours. So we have agreed with the Teamsters that we would split that 14 hours on duty into a maximum of 13 hours driving, as is currently the case, plus one additional hour for other duties.

With that you have the two major spokesgroups for the industry—CTA, representing the motor carriers, and we represent about 4,000 trucking companies across Canada; and the Teamsters, who are the major representatives of organized labour in our industry—coming together to recommend to you and therefore to the minister and the CCMTA that we amend the 14-10 provision, but that in so doing, we adopt all the other portions of the CCMTA proposal and move on to modernize, enhance, and facilitate fatigue management in the trucking industry by adopting the proposed regulation with that change as soon as possible.

• 1010

I thank you very much for the time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Laporte.

[Translation]

Mr. François Laporte: Thank you. Since we have simultaneous interpretation, I will make my presentation in French.

Our presence here today means that the two largest groups in the trucking industry have agreed on a proposal to change the standard for truck drivers with respect to hours driven.

However, I would point out that the draft, as proposed, has yet to be amended. It is to be sent back to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators to be amended to reflect the agreement between the two parties. We represent 105,000 workers in Canada. Of those 105,000 workers, between 40,000 and 45,000 are connected to the trucking or motor carrier industry.

Originally, our opposition to the draft stemmed from the fact that there was no distinction made between hours driven and hours of service, meaning that drivers could theoretically have been spending 14 hours behind the wheel. We have daily experience with trucking. We're not talking about scientific experiments here, but real hands-on experience. We deal with this on a daily basis. We know for a fact that our drivers, and especially those who own their own trucks, will spend an extra hour behind the wheel if given an opportunity to do so. Their income is dependent on the time they spend driving. So they certainly won't deprive themselves of an hour of driving time, since seven additional driving hours mean they will be making more money.

Where this has an impact, of course, is on highway safety. It has a considerable impact on drivers' quality of life as well, since their workload is increased, but it also affects competition within the industry, where we would have unionized carriers subject to a limitation of 14 or 13 hours a day; sometimes, however, within specific collective agreements, it can be even less than 13 or 14 hours a day. Certain collective agreements are structured around 12 hours of driving a day. Another form of competition could thus have developed that might have resulted in 14-hour driving days. That would have lead to a competitive imbalance between unionized carriers and non-unionized carriers. So, we're talking here about the impact on competitiveness, on drivers' quality of life and on highway safety.

In the United States, our organization has 1.4 million members, and we have closely followed developments there with respect to changes to hours driven. Mr. Bradley mentioned that there had been a study done on fatigue. We have followed those studies closely. In terms of how fatigue develops in a truck driver, the results show that fatigue becomes an important factor after eight hours of driving and that it starts to have serious consequences after 12 or 13 hours of driving. Based on the experiences of our own members, the 14th hour is the one where there is a fairly significant if not dramatic increase in the risk of accidents involving users of the highway system. Our opposition to the 14-hour standard was based on those arguments.

Now we have agreed with the Canadian Trucking Alliance on the principle of returning to separate definitions of hours driven and hours of service. We have agreed to maintain the distinction between the two. As for the other changes, we see the extension of the rest period as good news. The length of the mandatory rest period for truck drivers is being increased by two hours. That is an important step forward.

• 1015

As regards cycle changes, and the ability to move from one cycle to another, we are removing that option with these proposed changes, which will simplify the regime. It will also make enforcement easier for provincial authorities, who are responsible for making highway checks and enforcing the highway safety code.

For all those reasons, our organization has reached an agreement with the Canadian Trucking Alliance, and it is our hope that the amendments we are proposing will be accepted by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and that it will make amends by changing the draft to reflect the agreement between our two organizations.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll start with a round of questions. Darrel, do you have any questions?

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): I'm comfortable with what's been said, but I have just one question.

In number 2 of your news release, it says:

a driver should accumulate no more than 14 hours on duty before taking at least 8 consecutive hours off duty, provided also that a driver takes at least 20 hours off duty within a 48-hour period.

Would you explain that to me?

Mr. David Bradley: That refers to an averaging provision that is in the proposed regulation that would look at things over a two-day period. This is where some of the flexibility would come into play. We want to make sure that in allowing drivers some flexibility to get to home terminal, they would have to make up the rest during the 48-hour period.

Graham, did you want to make a comment on that?

Mr. Graham Cooper (Senior Vice-President, Canadian Trucking Alliance): I would just add one thing. These provisions of course are somewhat complex. It's not rocket science, but if you're not familiar with the background, it can get a bit technical. Suffice it to say that the averaging proposal is consistent with the fatigue management approach that this entire agreement tries to embody.

A couple of years ago, we sought some input from some pretty prominent scientists. One of them was Colonel Greg Belenky, from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Washington. He's one of the foremost experts in this area in the world. He said that he particularly liked the 48-hour averaging provision, because from their laboratory work, they found that's how people work in real life. It's those kinds of things that we collectively, industry and government, in the CCMTA process, have tried to embody in this proposal.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Thank you. I also want to thank you all for coming here today. I'm glad to see that both outfits are working together on this. I appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The member is quite right. It's good to see that the CTA and Teamsters have been able to deal with an extremely important issue. We've received lots of communication from a number of parties on the issue. The safety of an industry that delivers the majority of our economy has to be taken care of.

Teamsters represents a little over 100,000 drivers. The independents are not speaking here today. It's important that we, the committee, understand what the position or concerns of the independents might be and how you might address those. Maybe you could inform the committee.

Mr. François Laporte: If I may speak on that, just for your information, within the 45,000 drivers we represent, I would say 15% to 20% of them are owner-operators. So I don't know exactly what you mean by “independent”.

[Translation]

I would like to be given a more precise definition of what you referred to as "independents", because a number of our members also own their own trucks.

[English]

Mr. David Bradley: Certainly we also have independent operators who belong to our organization. However, the major spokesgroups for the independent operators have all indicated their support for the CCMTA proposal. They were lobbied quite hard by some of the opponents to the regulation, who thought perhaps they could find a chink in the trucking industry's armour, and those attempts were rebuffed.

• 1020

What the independents were extremely worried about was a significant reduction in the hours they could operate, because for them, it would hit directly at their income. While I don't speak for these organizations, I think I can safely say they are supportive of the CCMTA proposal.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay. It's important to know that you're not aware of any serious concerns about what's being proposed.

Mr. David Bradley: No. I just repeat that no proposed regulation—and I've been around for more than fifteen years, sitting around tables like this and others—no regulation has gone through the level of scientific study and the level of discussion amongst all stakeholders that this one has. It's almost disproportionate, I think, in terms of its broad interest, in terms of the public domain. In order to ensure that we have that proper balance between safety and flexibility, we've gone through ten years of discussion. I'm aware of who the opponents are, but in terms of the trucking industry, there's certainly a high degree of consensus on this issue.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay.

Obviously making changes in the regulations is one thing. Getting them accepted and implemented and utilized is going to be equally important. What are the plans of and how would the Teamsters and the CTA proceed from here to ensure that the intent of the changes in fact is adopted by the carriers and the drivers? What kinds of monitoring or educational material or programs would be undertaken to ensure that we get the appropriate effect of the changes being proposed?

Mr. David Bradley: I'll go first from the carrier point of view.

CTA, through the provincial trucking associations—and we are a federation of the provincial trucking associations—is ideally situated to communicate to the industry at large, and we'll use every means at our disposal, whether it's some of the booklets you see in front of you, which were part of a program we launched four or five years ago, or whether it's through the Internet, on-board use of computer training, CD-ROM. You name it, we'll be out there.

This is an extremely important regulation for our industry. It's also one, I should remind people, that forms part of the safety rating of any carrier organization. Therefore it's extremely important that we do have compliance with the regulation.

Further down the road, though, some important technological advancements are in the works, and CTA is involved in a number of joint Canada-U.S. efforts to look at different types of monitoring technology, whether it's Actigraphs or other things that we believe in the future will assist with compliance.

It's important to recognize that there was a proposal in the United States a couple of years ago, which has since died, that was attempting to resolve some of the same issues. One of the chief areas of opposition to the U.S. proposal came from the enforcement community in the United States through an organization called the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. They felt that the U.S. proposal at the time was far too cumbersome and far too restrictive and that there would be a compliance problem.

In developing the CCMTA proposal, the enforcement communities for each of the provincial governments—because again, it's the provincial governments that will do the enforcement—have been involved every step of the way, and we've heard no such opposition, from an enforcement perspective, to the proposed new regulation.

[Translation]

Mr. François Laporte: As far as we're concerned, one of the important factors in terms of enforcement relates to the need for consistent regulations. At the present time, there is no consistency across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions enforce rules related to hours driven, while others have completely different rules. In Alberta, for example, there is no limit on seven- or six-day cycles. There are only daily and weekly limits.

• 1025

We believe that these changes should apply across all provinces and territories to make them easier to enforce, easier for drivers to understand, and facilitate such things as training.

As regards our own organization, if the changes are adopted, we will obviously have to provide training to our shop stewards, because this will bring into play the whole collective bargaining process in terms of work hours and discussions with employers. Our people at the bargaining table will have to be aware of the new ground rules. We will also have to make our members aware of these new rules, and this will of course be done in cooperation with employers, since they distribute the workload. We are prepared to cooperate with employers in that regard. We will certainly do our share. We will provide training to all shop stewards and negotiators in our locals. Once again, I want to emphasize that the system will be simpler and easier to understand and enforce if there is consistency all across the country and the proposed rules are adopted by all jurisdictions.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you very much. That's it for me.

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

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

Mr. Laporte, I must admit I was somewhat unsettled to hear about your agreement. It is probably very much to your credit, but I want to be sure I understand. You represent 105,000 workers. Approximately what percentage of them are paid by the kilometer?

Mr. François Laporte: They are all paid by the kilometer. In situations where truck drivers are paid by the hour, it is because there is waiting time, for example. Some of our collective agreements include clauses that deal with that, but as a general rule, people are paid when they're driving. So the majority are paid by the kilometer. However, drivers who make deliveries in the beer or non-alcoholic beverage industry are paid on the basis of a different system. But in terms of long-haul trucking, people are paid by the kilometer.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's what I thought, but I wanted to hear it from you. The reason I find this unsettling is that earlier, you said that 8 hours of work was ideal and that after 12 hours, the consequences could be serious. That's what you said. I am using your own words, Mr. Laporte. And yet you have negotiated a 13-hour standard. I have a problem with that. If we are going to change the regulations, why not ensure that they reflect a desire to act responsibly towards...

In any case, once they have been adopted, Mr. Laporte, wages will be adjusted accordingly. Even now, I personally do not feel that the kind of life you have to offer young people working in the trucking industry is a particularly attractive one. The fact is you are experiencing a shortage in a number of areas; you don't have enough drivers. The responsibility of any government is to ensure that people joining the industry, particularly young people, enjoy decent living conditions.

I can certainly understand that the people who have to live with it are defending these changes and that it represents an improvement for them. But I thought that our discussion here in Committee would focus on the future of the young people who will be working in an industry that, in terms of employability, is one of the engines of our economy. That is why, as I say, I find this somewhat disturbing. It seems to me that this was an opportunity to negotiate truly decent working conditions for your members.

Mr. François Laporte: I think it's important for me to clarify what I said earlier so that our position is clear. I said that fatigue was a significant factor after eight hours. I never said...

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You said that the consequences could be serious after 12 hours.

Mr. François Laporte: I said that the consequences could be serious after 12 hours, but to begin with, I stated that fatigue was a significant factor after eight hours.

Secondly, in terms of working conditions, drivers' wages, and so on, I would remind you of the deregulation that occurred in the trucking industry, where virtually overnight, multiple carriers entered the market, putting pressure on prices, which in turn meant tremendous pressure on labour relations and collective agreements.

• 1030

I have to admit that in order to save companies and save jobs, we were forced to make wage concessions. Even now, we may not have caught up completely because of deregulation. But we can't turn the clock back; that isn't going to happen.

Future working conditions and wages will be settled in the course of upcoming negotiations. I am certain that Mr. Bradley will give due consideration to what we are saying and that greater generosity will be demonstrated at the bargaining table.

In terms of hours driven, the industry has to survive. For many years now, the industry has operated on the basis of a 13-hour driving day regime. That certainly is not ideal. Our neighbours to the South obviously have shorter driving hours. I think everyone around this table is aware of that. But Canada's situation is different; it has its own industry which operates on the basis of a different structure.

We clearly would like everyone to have to work only 8 hours a day, but in this industry, the rules are the rules. I am inclined to blame all of this on deregulation. We are living in a competitive world now and that fact must not be forgotten. That is the reality.

I would like to make a final point. In terms of this agreement and the proposed changes, we have not negotiated working conditions relating to wages, as opposed to the number of hours per se. These are general rules and limitations intended to ensure public safety. That is what this is all about. Collective bargaining is a separate aspect of industry activity.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Don't misunderstand me, Mr. Laporte. If the hours driven standard were consistent with the kind of safety standard we want to enforce... You cited the example of the United States, where, in my opinion at least, they are a lot more realistic when it comes to safety. It can be controlled by tackling driving time. That's a good way of handling it. Even if deregulation did hurt you, by regulating hours of work, what will happen is that if people aren't being paid decent wages, they simply won't have any drivers. There will be an automatic adjustment.

That's why I say that this is a good opportunity to really tackle the problem, at least in the name of safety. That's why this Committee talked about the need to take a closer look at the driving time problem, given that other societies, including the United States, have done exactly that. We have an opportunity to do that now and that's why I have a problem with what you are saying today, which is that 13 hours of continuous driving is a reasonable standard.

Mr. François Laporte: That has been the reality for a number of years. People have been living with that. The entire industry is structured around that regime. It is on that basis that the industry pays its workers. Things have been operating that way for years. So, the question is: if we reduce driving time, will drivers' wages be adjusted? What kind of impact would that have on the industry? What would be the impact of that on the economy? I think we may want to talk about that...

Mr. Mario Laframboise: As I say, I was prepared to do that work in Committee. It is precisely in the name of safety and workers' quality of life that we should be asking ourselves these questions. Why? For the simple reason, as you pointed out earlier, that after driving a truck for 12 hours, particularly when wages are paid by the kilometer, drivers are in a hurry. They always drive as fast as the speed limit will allow. They have to be focussed and attentive all the time. You said it yourself: after 12 hours, there can be serious consequences. That is the reality.

The Americans know and understand that. I think our Committee has every reason to want to continue to take note of the agreements you have negotiated with the industry. You are basically doing what you can within the industry's limitations. That is pretty well the agreement you have. But I think there is a need to delve into this more deeply, in the name of safety and proper quality of life for your workers. I have no doubt that we can make significant progress in this area through our Committee work.

[English]

Mr. Larry MacDonald: I'd like to respond.

You have to understand what we're talking about here. I appreciate what you're saying, but this is a maximum we're talking about, a total maximum, of 14 hours. You heard Mr. Bradley say earlier, in his presentation to you, that the Teamsters had some differences when this thing started, and our big difference was the total hours.

• 1035

Understanding the industry, we're saying now that a driver could drive a total of 13 hours. We're talking about an hour's work, and that's true. We're all proposing it's going to take him a half-hour when he starts out to check his truck, do the walk-around check, make sure everything is proper and the load is secured, and so on and so forth. When he comes to finish that run, in a day of 13 hours, he does the same thing—that half-hour of shutting everything down and putting the equipment away. But in reality, we're talking about a maximum total of 14 hours on duty.

On the chances of them driving 13 hours, I don't think it's going to be a daily thing for them. There are all kinds of obstacles or things that happen during the day: mechanical breakdown, freight not ready to move, being tied up at the border. It goes on and on in the day of a driver...that you can actually get in and probably do that kind of time.

We're talking about a maximum. Our difference with the Trucking Alliance was that we wanted it very clearly defined on the hours of driving and the hours of work. Under the proposal, without this amendment, it said 14 hours of service, 14 hours of driving. You could technically drive for 14 hours; but it didn't speak to how many hours you could work.

If you start going backwards from what I just said, if you're held up at the border for three hours, if you have a mechanical problem, a flat tire, a breakdown, or whatever the case may be, you could be talking about 16 to 17 hours a day.

We know these are minimum standards that we've set with the trucking association. We feel this time, as François has said to you, that 13 hours has been the norm in the industry for a long time. But again, I think you have to look at the whole package here and all the work that's gone into it. We have taken into consideration the major changes made in the Transportation Act, with more hours off the cycle, all of these things, not just focused on the hours of driving. You have 14 hours as a max, but you have work time included in that 14 hours—breakdown time and the whole gamut.

Would we like to see 10 hours a day? Probably, but the industry doesn't function on that and it never has. You say—maybe I heard your comment wrong—maybe the industry can adjust. I doubt if they will. You're going to have the other problem. It doesn't matter what rules you put in, the honest people are going to abide by them, and those who are not honest are going to break the rules anyway and probably drive 15 to 16 hours a day. It becomes a matter of policing. If you get the provinces and everybody working on this and put it together, you'll have to give it an opportunity to see it through.

Mr. David Bradley: I would just like to make a couple of comments.

First, you seem to suggest that the U.S. is moving in another direction. I alluded to the fact in my commentary that indeed there was a proposed rule that was introduced in the United States a couple of years ago, but that was dead on arrival. In fact, legislation has been passed in the United States to pre-empt further consideration. There's been all kinds of commentary on what the U.S. rule would and wouldn't accomplish. So we may very well find, in a couple of years hence, that the United States will adopt something similar to what we hope to see in Canada.

On the working conditions—and François alluded to this—the mandate here was to put safety first and look at safety. That's not to say this proposal doesn't address working conditions. It indeed does; it reduces significantly the opportunity for work, over the existing regulations. It increases significantly the rest per day. It creates a situation that allows for further flexibility for the driver to be able to get home or get to his final destination.

• 1040

The proposals were put together with input from drivers and surveys of drivers. Drivers said to us, “Look, we want to be able to drive when we feel rested and rest when we're tired. We don't want to be artificially forced into the bunk in the middle of nowhere.” In Canada we don't have rest facilities like they have in the United States, and the like. In addition, the proposal calls for mandatory rest periods, which doesn't exist in the current regulations whatsoever.

If you're talking wages and those kinds of things, that's going to be determined in the marketplace by François and the carriers and others.

I refer you to some work that was done by StatsCan in the last couple of years. It shows a couple of interesting things. One is that truck driving is the major occupation for males in Canada. This is from the 1996 census. Over 225,000 Canadian males said that their primary occupation was truck driver. It is a tough profession, no doubt about it, and in today's fast-paced world it has become tougher. But it can't be all that bad if more Canadian males want to be truck drivers than any other occupation out there.

It also talks about the hours they're working. It shows that most are not driving anywhere near the maximum. But you can't devise a regulation. You have to devise a regulation that deals with the extremes, so that flexibility is there when it's required. We can't move Toronto closer to Montreal. That would solve a lot of our problems. If we could move Calgary closer to Toronto and shorten those distances, you could have a regulation that perhaps accommodated fewer hours.

That's one of the differences between the Canadian and U.S. marketplaces. They have a hub-and-spoke economy with shorter distances; we don't. We have three or four major cities spread widely across the board, but at the end of the day there's no evidence that we use the same scientific basis for the proposals as the Americans.

There are differences in the rules now between Canada and the United States. But if you go back to the six-year study that was done, it showed that even though the limits, in terms of daily driving, were different between the United States and Canada, the problem was that drivers in both countries were getting the same amount of rest, which wasn't sufficient. That is what this proposal intends to address.

In addition, if you look at some of the recent legislation that's been coming out of the U.S. Congress to deal with safety concerns, particularly with regard to Mexican drivers coming into the United States, you'll see that the testimony in Congress is filled with glowing reports that the Canadian trucking industry and Canadian drivers are the safest in North America. They'd like to have more Canadian drivers operating into and out of the United States. So from a safety perspective, I don't think we have very much to learn from the Americans, quite frankly.

The Chair: You're out of time, so I'll move to Mr. Alcock. Maybe you can come back with another round later on.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm frankly pleased to see you've managed to reach an agreement on this. That's very helpful to the work we have to do.

I want to raise an issue that is not directly affected by the agreement you've reached here. It's part of this whole issue of providing a regulatory regime that ensures safe operation of the vehicles, but also creates some problems in certain sectors when we make national rules for people that broadly affect the operation of the vehicles. I suspect you guys have had some discussion about this, although I'd like to hear the arguments, if I may.

I'm from Manitoba. I expect it affects other industries, if you differentiate between long-haul truckers, who are doing what seems to be the core of your business, whether hauling into the U.S. or across the country for hours at a time—I had a brother-in-law who was doing that for some period of time—and the kind of seasonal problems we run into.

The one example is the anhydrous fertilizer industry on the prairies, which has very short windows in the fall and spring to get the material onto the ground. One of the problems they've run into is not so much the hours of work, because they agree you can only work so many hours a day before it creates a problem, but the reset requirement, where you can only work so many days before you have to take some time off.

• 1045

One of the complications this was causing them is when you only have two or three weeks to do this. Often it's not the long-haul drivers who are being hired, because those guys are doing their work, which tends to be spread over the year; you're hiring students and people off the farm and so on for very intensive two- or three-week periods, one in the fall and one in the spring. But they get caught in that reset problem.

Is this something your committee has talked about, and can you offer me any advice on how we might deal with that?

Mr. David Bradley: Yes. That's been very much a point of discussion, and clearly the Manitoba trucking industry has had a lot to say, and there have been some others as well.

I guess from a starting point, what you have to look at is safety is safety is safety. At the same time, one does have to look at peculiar circumstances where you have certain periods of activity, that it's not an ongoing thing.

From CCMTA there's a proposal for 120 hours in a 14-day duty cycle. That was specifically proposed by the Manitoba trucking industry and is something that in some parts of the country perhaps isn't as important, but certainly in Manitoba and a few other areas it is extremely important. That exists now, and there's no indication that that imposes any problems in terms of safety. I think that provides them with some flexibility.

In terms of the reset, that's one area—and I'm not sure you've received this paper—where the draft of the CCMTA regulation needs to be tweaked. In fact, I think it is incorrect the way it's written, and I think that's been acknowledged. The reset is a voluntary measure, so if it doesn't work one doesn't have to use the reset.

The reset is designed for the driver who's a thousand miles away from home, who has run out of hours and wants to shut down and get the rest but doesn't want to have to spend next week up in northern Ontario somewhere in his bunk, or across the prairies. “Reset” is really the wrong word; it's a rest and recovery provision. It says that if you're operating on the 70 hours in seven days cycle, once you've had 36 hours of rest, you can reset your clock.

Perhaps I can explain what I'm trying to say here in a little more detail. Thirty-six hours allows for two rest periods that the scientists say is what is required to eliminate cumulative fatigue. That's where the 36 comes in. A lot of people would like 24, but from a scientific point of view, we've been convinced that it doesn't quite do the job.

There is another thing that the reset or rest and recovery period does. Under the existing regulation you have a crazy situation where a guy can have an entire weekend off, show up to work on Monday, and only be able to work until noon because of what he did six, seven, or eight days previously. That makes no sense. Most guys will have at least 36 hours off over the course of a weekend so they can start the clock at zero again on the Monday. Again, I think that helps.

We would like to see uniformity or harmonization, as an industry, but at the same time we do recognize that there are different local issues, and we have become used to the fact, or we accept the fact, that in some jurisdictions for certain circumstances, either by permit or order of regulation, they may allow something different for their domestic industry. All I can say in that case is that they have to justify to themselves that this isn't going to imperil safety.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd be interested in the response from the drivers also, but to clarify something here, what I am told is that the drivers they're drawing on are not necessarily the pool of long-haul drivers. There may be some of those who get picked up in this, but the case they make is that you've got these regulations for the long-haul drivers—and everybody agrees, safety is paramount and these are important considerations when guys are behind the wheel all the time—but you have a group of drivers who get accessed in the short term. Often they are guys off the farm who've got their crops off and who are now going to drive for a couple of weeks hauling anhydrous ammonia to get it on before freeze-up or before melt in the spring.

• 1050

It's not to say safety isn't a concern here, but these guys are driving for two or three weeks and they're done. They're not continuing to drive. But because the company is subject to federal regulation, all drivers, regardless of the task they get and their driving history and such, get subjected to the same set of rules. One of the questions they raise is, is it possible to perhaps have classes of drivers or have some differentiation of drivers within that?

If that's not realistic, I'd be interested to hear what the drivers have to say, because I don't understand what the realities are.

Mr. David Bradley: I'll give you a quick answer. That has been tried in the United States. In their proposed rule, which as I've said has since died, they tried to come up with all these categories, and it just made for a dog's breakfast.

One of the things we're trying to do here is create a rule that people can understand. Also, drivers move between different scenarios at different times. I mean, it can be a short haul today and a long haul tomorrow, so it becomes too cumbersome.

The trucking industry takes a lot of heat for accidents, for shoddy equipment, for non-compliance by people who aren't in the trucking industry but who operate trucks. From our point of view, if this is a safety rule, then everyone should comply with it. But as I say, I suspect that in some provinces where there is provincial regulation—where those vehicles don't cross borders—history has shown that they may do something different in certain circumstances.

Mr. Reg Alcock: In my understanding, the big companies tend to be the ones with better safety records, because they tend to pay more attention to the maintenance of the trucks. I don't want to blanket everybody with this, but there is that presentation made, that they tend to have the resources to make sure the trucks are maintained, the drivers are trained, all of those kinds of things.

What you're doing by taking that attitude is excluding them from working in this area. It strikes me that one of the complaints about governments all the time is that they make these blanket rules that affect everybody broadly, so we're always dealing with the lowest common denominator, or there's no individualization in it.

Your industry can track a bag of potato chips as it moves across the country. Are you telling me you can't track your driving patterns and your drivers, the history of your drivers? I mean, it just seems—

Mr. David Bradley: No, I didn't say that at all. Of course we—

Mr. Reg Alcock: Well, you said it was too complicated with this guy driving here or driving there—

Mr. David Bradley: What I said was it's too complicated to establish rules surrounding that and then to enforce those rules. Ask the RCMP officer on the road if he can track it. Right now, they can't. One of the problems of the existing regulations is that there are three cycles and drivers can switch at will, and they can't enforce it. They only thing they can enforce right now, on the roadside, is whether you have a log book.

I'll let Graham—

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd be interested to hear from the drivers, frankly.

[Translation]

Mr. François Laporte: In relation to your earlier question about the 36 hours—the so-called reset—originally, our vision was based more on 48 hours. As Mr. Bradley mentioned a few minutes ago, employers were saying that 24 hours would be ideal. We were saying that 48 hours would be ideal. After reviewing the situation, we reached a compromise: 36 hours.

It's also important to remember that there is a significant increase here in the number of hours of daily rest. We are going from 8 hours to 10 hours. Coupled with that factor, the 36 hours are fully acceptable to our drivers.

In terms of the different operations carried out by carriers, as regards the people we represent, when drivers are assigned to a long haul operation, their past work in carrying out other operations is generally taken into account. If, for one reason or another, there are transfers, we can go from a long haul trucking operation to a cartage operation. Our collective agreements require that carriers take into account both driving time and workloads.

• 1055

As for non-unionized carriers, I obviously cannot speak on their behalf. Perhaps David or Graham could provide further clarification in that regard. But according to our collective agreements, when a driver changes from one type of operation to another—say from a local delivery operation to a long haul delivery operation—his hours of work are recorded in his log book.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Reg.

I'll go to Bev.

Mr. Graham Cooper: Mr. Chairman, if I may just make one very brief comment—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): This is not on my time, by the way.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Graham Cooper: Mr. Alcock, I'd like to just clarify the situation you've raised with respect to the fertilizer industry in particular.

There's the fertilizer industry or farming in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There's the oilfield service sector in Alberta, and so forth across the country. There are always going to be things that are a little different from the norm. Over the past seven or more years, we've tried to almost start with a clean sheet of paper, to develop an hours of service regulation that makes sense.

Then for those groups you've been discussing, we've tried to take a look to see what we could do by way of regional permits and the like, bearing in mind that with every permit applied for there had to be a demonstration of economic need and safety. As David said earlier, a truck is a truck, whether it's hauling anhydrous ammonia or potato chips.

The Chair: I'll go to Bev, and then maybe you can come back with another question.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I want to respond to that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'll just premise that remark by saying if you're someone on the road, such as a school bus with 60 children, a truck carrying potato chips might seem a whole lot different from a truck with anhydrous ammonia or some other flammable measure. So I certainly don't see them as being the same.

Just on the hours of work, there were some discussions by this committee back in 1999, and there was a commitment, I believe, by this committee a few months back that in-depth committee work would be done on the issue of trucking hours. We had some plans to have some discussion with people in the U.S., when the transportation committee went there a few weeks ago, but that fell through because it couldn't be arranged.

So the committee that's working now has done little or no work, as far as hearing witnesses, apart from the Teamsters or the Trucking Alliance. I think we had a few people from Manitoba. But this committee has not heard from any ordinary Canadians—the literally thousands of people I have received letters from over the last three years expressing concern over increased truck-driving hours.

It's certainly my hope that the committee is going to do an in-depth study on this issue, and not just base our decision and our thoughts on the truck-driving hours purely on the presentations of a few witnesses.

Apart from that, is it possible that either of your organizations has had witnesses appear before you—other people from within Canada, or people from the municipalities, who have had some concerns about truck drivers' hours? Have any of your groups done that?

Mr. David Bradley: I couldn't tell you the number of groups I've spoken to over the last 10 years on these issues.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Municipalities and—

Mr. David Bradley: Absolutely. I've spoken to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the provincial groups, the CAA, you name it.

I can't respond to your comments on the committee process. I can only try to assure you that I don't know of any issue that's been consulted on as much as this one. The starting point, I think—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, I'm going to stop you there because I just wanted that part of the answer.

Mr. David Bradley: No, I would like to respond.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No, I only have so much time, and I asked—

Mr. David Bradley: This proposal does not increase truck-driver hours. I will also remind you—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I asked you if you had—

Mr. David Bradley: —that the supposed citizens' groups—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Chair, I asked for a short answer. I only have so much time, so I asked for a specific answer and I got it. I now want to ask my next question.

The Chair: Okay. Don't forget the chair. If you use the chair, then you won't have a—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You bet.

Again, I don't want to appear rude when I interrupt, but we only have so much time. We want to get our answers and get on to our next question because of that. It's not my intention to be rude, but to simply get as many answers as possible.

• 1100

You mentioned the CAA. I have received information from the CAA with great concerns over increased truck-driving hours, so I just want to comment on that as well.

On the specific hours, how many hours will a truck driver be able to drive in the course of seven days? I think people, generally, set their work weeks on the basis of seven 24-hour days. So under your changes, how many hours in total will a truck driver be able to drive within seven days?

Mr. David Bradley: The truck driver will be able to drive 70 hours. Then the driver will have to make a decision. He can, at that point, opt for a 36-hour reset, at which point he can return his clock to zero. That will allow, in that circumstance, for 84 hours in seven days. However, that is not 84 hours continuous; that's only after a 36-hour reset.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I understand, as you mentioned, it's very technical to get around all the scenarios possible, but in actuality a truck driver could do his 13 hours driving the truck, with an hour of leeway to do whatever, and then take two or three hours to drive home—that's not included, but you've premised that you don't want him stranded somewhere. So in essence, after taking two or three hours to drive home, that truck driver could have only a limited period of time in the course of the day to do whatever—sleep, visit with his family. Is that possible?

Mr. David Bradley: I'd have to look at the draft regulation, but I believe there is something in there that limits the commute to and from work. I guess it's possible. The guy has to get home.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: There was representation sometime back in committee about that hour coming in.

Mr. David Bradley: But again, the proposal does allow for 25% more rest time, to try to accommodate that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If they're in small-town Manitoba or Saskatchewan, we know the chance of them driving that far is not as great as in larger centres, where they might have to drive for two hours to get to their homes, which might not be in Toronto or Montreal. So you have a two-hour drive on very busy roads after you've put in a 14-hour day.

In your presentation you talk about 14 hours, and then I think there are eight consecutive hours off-duty. I think it's key to note it doesn't suggest sleep. It just says consecutive hours off-duty, which add on to the two hours that seem to be missing in the 13-plus ones, when you don't drive. You add the eight hours when you might want to get some rest, and two hours extra to make the 24-hour day. But if you take away another two that you may spend driving home, in essence you have someone driving for possibly 16 hours a day. So that person could drive seven days a week at 16 hours a day.

If he decides to reset his clock at 70 hours and still has that time when he has to drive home, he could be driving a little bit longer than the hours.

I've had the opportunity to see people working additional hours, specifically in the nursing profession, where they went from eight hours to 12 hours, and then sometimes worked overtime. They did it sometimes at their request, but in reality was it the best thing for patients and other people involved? Was it the best thing for the families involved? No, they did it for specific reasons. Someone had longer periods of time off here and there. In reality, was it best for everybody in question? There's a strong belief that that wasn't always the case, and that was working 12 hours. Then maybe they did some overtime here and there. They even had stricter guidelines as to how much time they could do in a week. It was quite limited.

So I'm concerned, quite frankly, that there's an opportunity within your presentation that it could be over the 70 hours and, based on Mr. Laporte's comments, that there has to be competition. As a result of deregulation—his words—there's more competition; there's more push for drivers to have to put in more hours because they have to make a living wage.

Maybe we're looking in the wrong direction here. Maybe we're not looking at the whole picture. Maybe we're looking only at what's best for truck drivers and the trucking industry, not necessarily the rest of the Canadian public, who are also involved. So I do have concerns about that. You mentioned looking at the legislation coming out of Congress in the U.S., and I think it is important that the committee look at that legislation before we make any points.

• 1105

You mentioned the weekly cap is 70 hours, but they can reset the hours.

Mr. Graham Cooper: Mrs. Desjarlais, may I respond to a couple of the points you've raised?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Sure.

Mr. Graham Cooper: Thank you very much.

First of all, there are two things that make people tired, and there's a significant amount of debate amongst the scientific community in terms of which is the more important. It's the amount of time you spend doing the job and the amount of sleep you get. One of the things that came out of the Canada-U.S. fatigue study, which was a $7 million U.S. six-year study, was a consensus amongst the scientists that the amount of time on task, the amount of time spent working, was less important than other factors such as the time of day and most importantly the amount of sleep.

Now, as we've said on a couple of occasions, this proposal provides 25% more rest opportunity. The reality of the situation is that you cannot regulate sleep. You can regulate only the amount of time people take off. In your example of somebody who drives two hours to get home because his terminal is in, I don't know, Montreal, and he lives in Laval, or whatever the case may be....

This booklet we passed around is part of a broad initiative to try to raise the level of awareness of drivers in terms of how best to use their off-duty time so that they do in fact get the right amount of sleep on an ongoing basis. The reason it's important to do that on a daily basis is that it is the biggest single factor that will help to combat cumulative fatigue.

The other point I'd like to make in response to a point you raised is this business of an 84-hour week. Let me just read something to you. It's very brief. I don't want to take up your time.

Dr. Ron Heslegrave, who is the chair of the research ethics board of the University of Toronto health network and has given some advice to the Canadian Trucking Alliance as well as to the CCMTA on these issues, made the following comment:

The issue of allowing commercial drivers to work up to 84 hours in a 7-day period is a scientific red herring. It is misleading unless evidence of sustained or residual cumulative fatigue after a period of restoration of function through adequate sleep can be provided.

He goes on to say that unless you were going to measure the driver's fitness for duty on day one of a week, it is immaterial to try to measure it on day seven.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I fully understand your point that the 84 hours might be seen as a red herring. But I live in a very large riding, and I also drive for very long periods of time, except my income isn't based solely on that time. I can be more flexible. I'm not going to have my income decreased if I don't do so many hours. I can adjust for how I'm feeling, if I'm too tired. I can take someone along with me to do part of the driving.

If my income were based solely on the number of hours I'm putting in, I'd possibly be less likely to have the benefit of saying, “Okay, I'm tired, I can't make this”, or “I have on-time delivery I can't take because I'm feeling too tired”. Although it sounds wonderful that there's going to be this flexibility for truck drivers, the reality is they don't have the flexibility based on the way the truck-driving industry operates, based on on-time delivery. They don't have that flexibility, and we have to work beyond the scope of that if we're looking at what's best for Canadians in general.

The Chair: Thanks, Bev.

We'll go to Val now.

I gave you 15 minutes. I wanted you to have your say.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I specifically want to clarify in my own mind how the hours work. I live in Vancouver, and things come from Calgary or Edmonton. It's 12 hours if you're clipping along and you don't stop.

What happens if a driver has used up his time and he's in Hope? Does he get to continue and go to Vancouver and drop off his load? Is this where you're averaged over the two days?

• 1110

Mr. David Bradley: This is where we're hoping the 14 hours is a buffer, a comfort zone, so as drivers meet unforeseen circumstances along the road, congestion and the like, in what would normally take maybe 10 or 12 hours, the 14 hours gives them that zone of reasonableness.

The rules are that once you've run out of your 14 hours, you're off, and there isn't a lot we can do about that. But we do believe in the lion's share of cases the 14 hours will provide that buffer.

Where the flexibility comes in is with regard to the time off under the 48-hour averaging. If a guy is stuck in the middle of nowhere and needs to begin his journey an hour early or something, he can do that, but in his very next shift, he'll have to add that hour to his rest time, which the scientists have told us is exactly what humans do—if they stay up too late one night, they sleep in the next day. It reaches a point, though, where there has to be a limit. That's the thing with regulation.

In the future, as we learn more and as we have potential body Actigraphs that can at any given moment in time determine a human being's fitness for duty, then maybe you can allow what many drivers have said to us—they want to drive when they feel rested and they want to rest when they're tired. Maybe then you can deal with that situation. But right now, we do have to have a regulation and we have to have a regulation that tries as best as possible to prevent abuse, but it's not going to look after each and every situation.

Ms. Val Meredith: When a person is doing long-distance driving—and I've done a lot of it in my life—you don't drive for 13 hours straight. For one thing, you usually run out of gas every four hours. Have you done studies? Does this research cover the average behind-the-wheel drive time of a trucker?

Mr. David Bradley: Statistics Canada looked at that—Graham is just looking it up. It is obviously less than the maximum. You're right, people have to eat and look after other functions. But regulations are written to deal with the extreme and try to prevent as much as possible abuse of the situation. That's what we've attempted to do.

Do you have it handy, Graham?

Mr. Graham Cooper: I do.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps what I could do is leave a copy of this with Mr. Cardegna. It's a fairly concise but somewhat detailed account by Statistics Canada.

The bottom line is that during the period studied, which was somewhere in excess of five years, if my memory serves me, the average truck driver drove—we're talking the entire population now, inter-city, local, and so forth—about 50 hours a week. That's what's happening in real life.

Now, clearly, there are individual differences in there, and François and his group will no doubt have their own experiences with that. But I think, as was said earlier, we're talking about a regulatory maximum here, as opposed to what's going on in real life.

Ms. Val Meredith: But in real life people don't drive for 84 hours in seven days. In real life, it's 50, maybe 60 hours.

Mr. Graham Cooper: That's right.

Ms. Val Meredith: It's been alluded to by a number of my colleagues here that it's mainly consumers, the ordinary Canadians who drive the highway, who are the ones concerned about the hours of driving. From listening to you folks, I get the impression you don't feel this concern is justified.

Mr. David Bradley: No, I would say concern over highway safety is always justified. I think safety is good business, and if anybody in our industry doesn't believe that, we want them off the highway. We talked about this when Bill S-3 was up before this committee.

• 1115

The problem is that this issue is not easily explained in a 15-second sound bite. It has been subject to some misinformation and playing on people's fears, and that's an albatross we carry, given that we share our workplace with the public.

But again, the proposed rules weren't written by the trucking industry for the trucking industry. These were rules written by all the provincial governments, the federal government, safety organizations, and anyone who had an interest in this, and there's been a lot of give and take. If all we were concerned about was our productivity, we would have fought against a 12.5% reduction in daily work time; we would have fought against a 20%, 25% increase in daily rest time. But we didn't; we encouraged it.

Somebody mentioned earlier that we have a driver shortage. We sure do. It's hard to get drivers now who want to do long-distance work. It's a very, very tough life. So we have to attempt to come up with regulations that treat them like human beings as well.

The public has every right to be concerned and to try to ensure to the greatest possible degree that the people they're sharing the road with are safe. I believe we have moved the yardsticks considerably in this regard. The performance of the industry based on all of the information available to us in terms of fatigue in relation to accidents and truck involvement in accidents shows that our industry has a good record. Is it good enough? No. We always have to be trying to improve, but I think this regulation moves us a long way.

One thing is clear: the existing regulations are contributing to fatigue. They're not trying to address fatigue, and we need to move on.

Ms. Val Meredith: I have one final question, Mr. Chair.

When you're dealing with human beings and with pressures, is there any responsibility for the employers, the people who are hiring these drivers, to make sure they're not allowing a driver behind the wheel who they feel has not had enough down time and is obviously showing signs of fatigue? Do the employers have a responsibility to be a little bit more vigilant?

Mr. David Bradley: Absolutely they do. There's not only a moral responsibility but a legal responsibility as well and a significant liability.

We do hear these stories—the folklore of drivers being pushed to the limit—and in an industry the size of ours, where you have thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands of workers, I have no doubt that on any given day there are bad employers and there are employees who want to push the envelope.

But for the vast majority of people in the industry, certainly for the people we represent...from within this vast majority, I'm afraid I know owners who lie awake at night worrying about these kinds of things. Many of them were drivers themselves at one point. This is why, in addition to whatever regulation is finally introduced, we need to have fatigue management and awareness programs for the drivers and for the supervisors.

We need to deal not only with management but with the dispatchers and those people as well—just as any industry needs to. We're not the only ones. This is an issue the airline industry is looking at. The railways are presently going through a rewrite of their hours of service regulations, which incidentally are rather interesting in comparison to ours. This is a responsibility we bear.

If you want to look at it at its most crass level, the insurance industry demands that we do this. Insurance is extremely hard to get these days. There are only three or four companies in Canada underwriting truck insurance as it is. If you don't have your record in order, not only are you going to pay through the nose, but you may not even get somebody to take your liability on.

The Chair: This is a good place to end. I'll go now to—

Mr. François Laporte: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair....

The Chair: Very, very quickly. We should make it perhaps a little shorter.

[Translation]

Mr. François Laporte: I just want to make one brief comment with respect to highway safety. I want to make the point that for our union organization, highway safety has always been, and always will be, a priority, because when we talk about the safety of highway users, we are also talking about the safety of our members and our drivers.

• 1120

When an accident does occur, obviously that is extremely unfortunate. Sometimes other individuals are affected, but our drivers are as well, as are their families. As far as we are concerned, we have collective agreements that have to be enforced and when our drivers are tired, when they realize they cannot continue their delivery, they have the option of stopping to rest. That has always been a key priority for us, and it always will be.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think I need to go on at length. The point has been made. Rather than bandy descriptions back and forth right now, let me just ask this.

Today what we're talking about is essentially the agreement you've reached on hours of work. That's it. The other considerations we'll be undertaking may involve the reset and these issues of regional differences and all of this kind of stuff.

The Chair: It was the work of the committee before we got into this September 11 situation. We were going to do a great many things, but we're having a lot of work, including Bill C-42, so....

Mr. Reg Alcock: But we will revisit this issue?

The Chair: Yes, if the committee wants to, I would certainly be willing to go along. By the time we start at this, what we said we were going to do...we are going to do some more work on it.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Okay.

The Chair: Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear you say that if we want to continue to work on this, we will be in a position to do so, because as you know, a draft report will soon be coming forward. I personally thought that we wanted to conclude our discussions on driving time fairly quickly.

That brings me back to my question, Mr. Laporte. I find what you have said unsettling. I will tell you why later. You mentioned that most of your collective agreements provide for no more than 12 hours of work. Did I understand you correctly?

Mr. François Laporte: Yes.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Why didn't you try to secure the same conditions for independent truckers, so that the standard could be brought down to 12 hours, thus avoiding stiff competition in the field?

Mr. François Laporte: For the simple reason that we were not negotiating collective agreements with Transport Canada, the provinces and the Canadian Trucking Alliance; we were negotiating industry standards. Collective agreements and working conditions set by specific companies... Once again, there is no standard collective agreement for all transportation companies across Canada. Some carriers have collective agreements that contain specific provisions that reflect their own service requirements. So, the purpose of our being there was not to negotiate collective agreements; we were there to take part in the work of a government or multipartite committee that included the entire industry. That is why we are here today. We weren't there to deal with collective agreements or resolve issues related to working conditions through collective bargaining.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: But there is a certain logic in the 12-hour standard. When you were negotiating previously and defending your members's interests with respect to the 12 hours, there were surely safety issues involved at the time, in terms of your collective agreements. I would repeat that you mentioned earlier that after 12 hours, the consequences can be serious. I see a certain logic in the proposal, except for the fact that you agreed to 13 hours. That's the difference.

Mr. François Laporte: Let me try to give you an example. There are minimum working standards that dictate general working conditions for all workers, and then there are specific conditions set out in collective agreements that are not of a general nature, but in fact exceed minimum working standards. That applies not only to the trucking industry but to any industry sector.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Except that the minimum standard would be 8 hours. From the safety standpoint, it would be 8 hours, and yet we are going to 12. No. As I said earlier, I am trying to understand this because the reason you cited earlier is probably the correct one: deregulation and competition. In the transportation industry in particular, where there is currently a labour shortage, what that means is that resources are stretched to the limits. I say that because I sold my interest in a transportation company just before running for Parliament. I know how it works. Chances are we will quickly do a report and never again talk about hours of work, except if a major accident occurs or something like that. That is what is going to happen. The Committee should have taken a look at this as early as 1999, but it didn't.

• 1125

Today, we will be presented with a report. What you are probably hoping is that this file can finally be closed, but I think we are missing a good opportunity to reinvigorate the industry and especially to attract young people to it. Earlier, this gentleman was saying that most of those who work in the industry are men, and that's quite true. I have looked at the analysis. But these people had no choice. Often they are truck drivers, and your population is aging. They have been through deregulation and suffered additional pressures. All your members, or most of them, have experienced that. There is no renewal occurring that would set an example for other industry sectors. I think you have missed an opportunity. That is my personal view.

Mr. François Laporte: Sometimes you come up against interesting paradoxes in life. I represent workers who have payments to make on their houses, and financial obligations. If our people tell me, when we consult them, that a dramatic drop in driving time would result in lower wages for them, to the point where they couldn't make ends meet, I have to listen. Otherwise, I am not serving their interests.

When we talk about regulations, I assume we are generally talking about a compromise between the public interest and individual interests. Currently, the industry is living with a system based on 13 hours of driving a day. The rest period has been extended, and we have consulted our members about this. We consulted our members not only in Quebec, but all across the country. We have 50 locals scattered from Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland, and we held broad consultations on this. Regulations are never perfect. They deal with extremes and the fact is we have to live with certain economic realities.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So, your fear is that your members will suffer significant losses, that there won't be the appropriate adjustment.

Mr. François Laporte: We are just trying to limit the damage for everyone involved, while at the same time giving due consideration to the public interest.

[English]

The Chair: Mario, thank you.

Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Again, I'd like to thank you for showing up here today and also congratulate you. I know how hard it is sometimes to get two people even to agree, let alone the number you represent. You've done a great deal of work there.

I have a couple of quick questions. If this agreement were to go forward, would it only pertain in Canada or would it also somehow apply in the United States for long-hauls crossing the border?

I'll go back to number two again, because for me it answers a lot of the questions. The way I read it, basically it's a 28-hour time off there in the 48 hours. I see some heads shaking.

Mr. David Bradley: It's 20 hours. Perhaps the easiest thing would be to leave some description of this proposal.

In terms of your first question, no, these federal rules only apply in Canada, but they apply to U.S. carriers while operating in Canada.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Okay.

Mr. David Bradley: Similarly, when we operate in the United States we abide by U.S. rules, whatever they are.

Again, perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, but given the failure of the previous U.S. proposal, and there is no legislation in the United States right now, and from talking to both the government and the industry people in the United States, I believe this proposal has the prospect of becoming a more compatible regime.... I don't think we'll have the same rules. I don't think we need to; it doesn't make sense. But certainly the prospect for compatible rules would be increased by moving forward.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: One other thing in regard to the drivers, I have a number of relatives who are drivers.

This all sounds a little strange to most people, but one of you mentioned the downtime, and I agree, it's one of the complaints I hear all the time. It's very, very seldom a driver shows up and the load is ready to go right away. In most cases they're down two hours, and it could be more. I know they use it to sleep or whatever until it's ready. But you're accumulating all of that here in this 14 hours.

• 1130

Mr. David Bradley: Yes, we are. That's the rule if you're in care and control of the vehicle. If you're inching up a line, you're in care and control of that vehicle.

Again, it depends on the segment of the industry. If you take what we call the less-than-truckload segment of the industry, the guys who make several pickups and deliveries in a day, they're not travelling particularly long distances, but they're potentially being delayed at every customer they arrive at. They need the 14 hours. If they could just drive as the crow flies, they probably wouldn't need 14, but they need the 14 to take into account the fact that these days they do a lot of time waiting at shipping docks.

When you mentioned responsibilities from a safety perspective, one of the responsibilities here is our customer. The shipper we serve has to work with the industry to make sure, in setting their demands, that we're able to meet them reasonably as well.

The Chair: Okay, Darrel. That's it.

Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm just following up Mr. Stinson's question. In those situations where the driver has to wait the extra couple of hours, are there situations where if he's paid by the kilometre, then he's actually making less money for the number of hours worked?

[Translation]

Mr. François Laporte: It varies depending on the collective agreement. Where there is no union organization or collective agreement in place or where a number of drivers own their own trucks, if they aren't on the road, I assume they are not getting paid. We have some clauses in our collective agreements that provide for payment of waiting time spent at clients' facilities.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In reality, unless every truck driver has some kind of an agreement in place that is going to ensure his income has stability, we can still have situations where drivers are driving as much as 84 hours or even more at some point unless there are some kinds of controls in place to make sure that doesn't happen. Is it simply on the basis of not...?

Mr. Larry MacDonald: You're never going to; that's an impossibility. As you say, there are 200,000-and-some people out there.

We feel you control under collective bargaining and collective agreements things such as the rules. Companies set the rules. The rules are individual, but you have all kinds of owner-operators out there who are not controlled by anybody and who run all over. This whole idea is to try to bring some rules in to get some kind of uniformity across the country and make drivers abide by them. It has to be policed.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, and there have to be ways of doing that; otherwise the risk is there.

Is there information given out to drivers letting them know—and I think there needs to be a real push for information out letting them know—that they can have a legal liability, a very strong legal liability, if they're driving while they're fatigued?

I know it's not easy to prove, but more and more those are things that are being investigated in accidents, things that come up in some accidents. Whether it's related to the truck driver's responsibility or somebody else's, more and more we're recognizing that fatigue can be as much of a hindrance as driving while impaired because it's an impairment in a certain way.

Are drivers informed by their union representation that they have a legal liability, that they could be brought to court and charged if there is a serious accident and it can be proved that they were quite fatigued?

Mr. Larry MacDonald: Certainly, we inform our membership. We have of course a web page. We have the net. We even put disagreements on there, everything we do. The members are certainly informed through that. We have a national magazine that is put out to speak to these issues and many others.

Our membership is well informed, and they know what their legal obligations are, including the owner-operator side of it. But interestingly, when we were arguing over this point about hours of driving, we had drivers who—many of them, I can tell you—said no, we want to drive more hours.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: We had to force hockey players to wear helmets because it was a safety issue. We had to force people to wear seat belts because it was safe. We have a heck of a time getting farm safety recognized, so....

• 1135

Mr. Larry MacDonald: I don't disagree with you. I think that was said earlier. I think we all want to see safety be the first priority put out there and see everybody follow it. The idea here is really that you're trying to level this playing field so everything is level and everybody is competing and operating under the same rules and regulations. But it's not a perfect world, and we know it's going to happen.

Mr. Graham Cooper: Mr. Chairman, may I make one final comment on that point?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Graham Cooper: During the development of the proposals, we consulted extensively with drivers across the country, as did our colleagues from the Teamsters. The fact is that these people make their living behind the wheel. They are not going to put themselves at risk, and they have given...in that booklet we referred to, a lot of that material came from the drivers themselves, who have a lot of personal experiences with different ways of detecting and alleviating fatigue. This is not a question of these people wanting to put themselves at risk. They want a safe working environment. They're working with us through that kind of material, and there's lots more of it to try to get that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming. We appreciate your input.

The committee obviously wants to go at this more rigorously, but I imagine you would like to settle this at this point. Perhaps when we do some more work, we'll come back with a more comprehensive report with regard to how we might try to deal with some of the other problems.

What I'll do is suspend for two minutes, and we'll come right back in camera to deal with this report.