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, May 29, 2001

• 1032

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Our order of the day is Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We have with us today William Elliott, the assistant deputy minister; Derek Sweet, the acting director general, road safety and motor vehicle regulation; and Elizabeth MacNab, counsel, legal services.

[Translation]

Mr. William J.S. Elliott (Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): Good morning, everyone. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment on Transport Canada's activities related to Bill S-3, an Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1987 as well as other consequential acts.

I would like to run through a brief history, describe our present efforts and explain what we plan to do with the amended act. I will then be pleased to answer questions.

The Motor Vehicle Transport Act was born in 1954 to allow provincial governments to regulate extra-provincial motor carriers in like manner—that is, in the same way-as they regulate local carriers, those operating only within the home province.

As a Privy Council decision had made clear that without the act, provinces do not have the constitutional authority to regulate extra-provincial carriers, federal legislation was necessary to maintain the status quo of provinces regulating all motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction.

[English]

Thirty years later, in 1987, Parliament amended the Motor Vehicle Transport Act to reflect economic deregulation of the trucking industry. Safety fitness became the sole criterion for obtaining a permit to operate a truck. Bus regulation provisions remained as they had been.

• 1035

The extra-provincial truck undertaking licensing regulations under the act provided rudimentary guidance for the provinces to establish safety fitness for truck operators.

In parallel, Mr. Chairman, in 1987 the federal and provincial governments signed a memorandum of understanding to establish and implement a national safety code for motor carriers applicable to both bus and truck operators. The existing federal-provincial-territorial Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, referred to as the CCMTA, undertook to coordinate the national safety code, and committees were established to develop and maintain the safety standards that made up the code. Transport Canada has played a prominent role on these committees. The implementation and enforcement of the national safety code standards are, however, as in the past, carried out entirely by provincial governments.

There are 15 national safety code standards implemented to varying degrees in all provinces. Provincial governments have full constitutional authority to regulate their own local carriers and have responsibility for the safe operation of all motor vehicles using their roads.

Provincial authorities exercise discretion in implementing the national safety code standards under their own legislation and regulations and as a result, implementation is not identical in all parts of the country. This is a concern for safety advocates, who see a potential difference in the enforcement of safety standards, and also a concern for the national and international motor carrier industry that must conform with a patchwork of regulations and with differences in enforcement practices.

Transport Canada has worked over the years through the CCMTA committees to promote consistent national application of all the standards.

There is also direct federal funding to provincial governments toward the implementation of the code. A total of $51 million has been contributed to date, and the funding currently continues at the rate of about $5 million per year.

In the mid-1990s an effective system for safety rating motor carriers seemed to be possible considering the advances in communication technology. The CCMTA therefore struck a project group to develop standard number 14, safety rating. Transport Canada chairs the project group on safety rating, and a standard was approved by the CCMTA board in November 1999. The project group consists of representatives of all Canadian provinces and territories, the trucking industry, the shipping industry, public interest groups, and the U.S. government.

The objectives of safety rating as stated in standard 14 are to improve the safety of commercial vehicle operations, to encourage the economic competitiveness of safe Canadian motor carriers, and to encourage motor carrier safety education and continuous improvement.

Further, the introduction to the standard opens with the statement “Responsibility for motor carrier safety resides, first and foremost, with motor carrier management”. This is very important. With many thousands of vehicles operating in every corner of our country and into the United States and Mexico, no government can take responsibility for all aspects of commercial vehicle safety. The full cooperation of each and every motor carrier is an essential ingredient of safe road transportation.

Safety rating provides a regulatory environment that encourages safe management and flags unsafe practices so that enforcement officials can take action against delinquent motor carriers.

[Translation]

This approach is supported by governments which must fin effective means of removing unsafe carriers from the road, and by the mainstream industries that live by, or depend upon, efficient operation of commercial vehicles.

Under standard no. 14, provincial governments assign a safety rating to each motor carrier registered in their province. The framework describes the rating methodology so that similar motor carrier performance should produce the same safety rating regardless of where it is registered. This is very important.

• 1040

The standard specifies that the information be captured in a “carrier profile”. That is the real on-road safety performance of each motor carrier based on actual collisions, traffic violations, compliance and roadside inspections and the results of facility audits.

The carrier profile is maintained by the province where the motor carrier registers its vehicles. The information going into the profile is, however, from all jurisdictions where the motor carrier operates.

This system, when fully operational, will provides an indicator of safe operation and a timely indicator of unsafe practice.

[English]

I'd like to stress, Mr. Chairman, that this is an umbrella regulatory system seeking to improve safety management by companies that operate commercial vehicles. The existing day-to-day enforcement activities, including policing, roadside inspections, and company safety audits, are an integral part of the system. An individual commercial vehicle or driver found to be unsafe can be placed out of service at any time and at any place regardless of the carrier's safety rating.

Standard number 14 describes how governments assign safety ratings to motor carriers. All Canadian provinces and territories were represented in its development, and all agree with its principles.

Because provincial governments do not have the constitutional authority to regulate extra-provincial motor carrier undertakings, federal legislation is essential for the national implementation of safety rating. The Motor Vehicle Transport Act, Mr. Chairman, is that legislation. Bill S-3 adapts the 1987 act to allow provinces to safety rate federal bus and truck operators.

Bill S-3 has the stated objectives to focus motor carrier safety regulation on the national safety code and to apply operating standards consistently across Canada. The bill provides specific regulatory authority to set standards for the issuance by provinces of safety fitness certificates to extra-provincial motor carriers.

The planned regulations will adopt by reference the national safety code standard number 14. The current status is that all provinces agree in principle with standard number 14 and all jurisdictions are implementing the standard. The larger provinces have legislation, regulations, and enforcement in place, and some smaller provinces are equally advanced.

There remain some differences, many based on the long history of each province exercising its constitutional or delegated authority according to its own operating environment and perceived needs.

[Translation]

Transport Canada respects those regional differences while believing that consistent application of safety standards is vital, primarily to ensure that commercial vehicles are operated as safely as we know how, but also to provide an efficient and credible regulatory environment for all vital bus and truck industries.

There remains much work to be done. Each province must have its own legislation and regulations in place. The information systems essential to safety rating need to be refined to record, transmit and calculate the specified information with consistent results in all jurisdictions.

[English]

It is important to establish what needs to be harmonized for safety regulation to be effective and efficient and what can be different without affecting the overall regulatory regime. The national safety rating standard has raised the profile of certain issues, and Transport Canada is chairing a CCMTA working group struck to address consistency.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Bill S-3 reflects the evolution of motor carrier safety regulation and provides essential authority to put into place a national safety rating regime. This regime does not address the detail of safety standards, but it establishes a safety management environment to encourage continuous improvement by motor carriers while also providing governments with timely warning of unsafe practices, allowing prioritization of the safety enforcement effort.

• 1045

Transport Canada will continue to work closely with provincial governments through CCMTA to promote the safety of national and international motor carrier operations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You're welcome.

Mr. Laframboise, you have ten minutes.

[Translation]

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

My first question is going to be very simple. Given what you have said, and I quote:

The current status is that all provinces agree in principle with standard no. 14 and all jurisdictions are implementing the standard. The larger provinces have legislation, regulations and enforcement in place and some smaller provinces are equally advanced,

Why not wait until the provinces have harmonized before tabling this piece of legislation? As far as I know, the province of Quebec is not currently asking you to amend the 1987 Motor Vehicle Transport Act.

Why introduce this right away when you know very well that it cannot be implemented across Canada right now? Why?

[English]

Mr. William Elliott: Well, as I attempted to explain in my opening remarks, the provinces... I guess fundamentally the question relates to the relative constitutional jurisdiction of provinces versus the federal government.

We have constitutional authority with respect to interprovincial undertakings, and the provinces have authority with respect to activities within their own borders, but what we are after is one system across the country. In order to provide an adequate basis for provinces to apply the standard that's been agreed upon to interprovincial activities, federal legislation is required.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I still do not understand, Mr. Chairman. The government is introducing legislation that guarantees Canadian citizens—this is what Bill S-3 does—that they will have a safety regime and practically guarantees that, once this bill is passed, Transport Canada will be able to ensure road safety with a national standard, but you know very well that that is impossible right now.

We have not yet been able, for all sorts of reasons, to harmonize this regime among the provinces, and it is not because the provinces are not co-operating with one another. You know that they are making this effort. You have struck working groups. The work is still ongoing, and we now have this bill before us. I find this very disturbing, and I think that you surely said in your first answer that the federal government wanted to demonstrate its authority and show everyone again that it has powers in this area. No one is challenging that, not even the provinces. The only thing that they are telling you is that they are discussing this issue and that they have not yet completed their harmonization efforts. Once again, I come back to my question: why have you introduced this bill right now, when the provinces have not yet been able to harmonize their regimes?

Mr. William Elliott: This will allow us to achieve harmonization between the provinces and the federal government and the regulations. This bill gives a legislative basis for federal and provincial regulations.

[English]

I guess your question relates to the order in which we do things. I certainly don't contest your suggestion that we have not finished our work with respect to this specific issue or with respect to harmonization more broadly. But the harmonization will be brought about by first of all the standard being established and then implemented by regulations that are based on both provincial and federal legislation. So the steps include agreement on the standard, and then federal legislation and provincial legislation, and federal regulation and provincial regulation.

• 1050

I have just one other comment. You spoke at the beginning about us guaranteeing safety. It's not a question of us guaranteeing safety. As I also indicated in my opening remarks, road safety is a shared responsibility. We certainly can do and are trying to do our best to establish a framework that will allow provinces, by way of their own regulation and enforcement activities—but also carriers themselves—to take steps to improve road safety. Although, as I indicate and as you indicate, much needs to be done with respect to improving harmonization and safety, certainly we would say that much has already been accomplished. Looking at the standards that have been agreed upon and the record with respect to the number of accidents and incidents does indicate that we're moving in the right direction.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I would like to end off by saying that I do not agree with your statement. In my opinion, you should have waited, since the provinces and the various organizations are working to improve things and since other standards will have to be implemented. The hours of work in the trucking industry, for example, could have been included with the other aspects in a bill to improve safety or the safety component of this bill. It is not true to say that this is not a bill on safety. That is not the objective indicated in clause 3 of the bill. That provision states:

(a) the regulatory regime for those undertakings is focussed on safety performance...

(b) the operating standards that apply to those undertakings are applied consistently across Canada.

Anyone reading this gets the impression that once this bill is passed, it will quickly become possible to guarantee greater highway safety in a uniform way across Canada. But that is not the case. That is why I maintain that this bill has been introduced too early, that it should have been improved, for example, by including hours of work and the whole context and concept of trucking safety in all parts of Canada. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. William Elliott: Well, I guess I would agree that in an ideal world we would do everything at once. But we do believe that this legislation and the introduction of the safety rating system, which as I indicated has the support of all the provinces to our understanding, will in fact improve the ability for provinces to share information that's available to help in the targeting of enforcement activity and to make information available to the public that will contribute positively to road safety. There are certainly other issues, including hours of service, that need to be addressed and that we're in the process—again, in cooperation with the provinces—of addressing.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that the province of Quebec has not given its approval for the bill to be introduced at this time. When you say that you have the support of the provinces, that the provinces have agreed on standard no. 14, that they are working to harmonize their own systems with one another and that they have understood, I would respond that the province of Quebec, at least, has understood that it is too early to ask the federal government to make legislative changes. It is not the government of Quebec that has asked you to introduce a bill right now. I can send you a letter from the minister in the next few minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mario.

• 1055

Mr. Elliott or Mr. Sweet, I think Mario's question was a good one. Is it that the legislation is part of the framework in order to put the regulation in? The legislation does not encumber or tell the provinces what to do, but it is part of the framework in which you reach agreement—which obviously you're looking for—on the safety of the general public. But you're also looking at interprovincial trade and the removal of barriers and that type of stuff to harmonize. Obviously provinces will have differences, and I know that Quebec probably has quite a few.

But is it a chicken-and-egg situation we're arguing here? Does the legislation come before the regulation, or is the legislation one of the tools that you require in order to work with the provinces to improve the safety and harmonization of trucking?

Mr. William Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think there are some questions about timing and potentially some options with respect to the order in which you do things, but certainly you have to have legislation in place before you can bring forth regulations pursuant to that legislation.

Without us providing the base for the regulation of extra-provincial activity in cooperation with the provinces, you invite a situation where there would be different rules in place with respect to carriers operating within a province than there are with respect to carriers operating interprovincially. The provinces and we agree that this is not an ideal system. Carriers, I think, want to have one regime that is understood and applied in a consistent manner, and that's the objective we are all striving for.

Now, it's true that we don't have a perfectly harmonized system. As I remarked, one of the objectives is to try and find what needs to be the same and what regional variations can exist without undermining the integrity of the overall system.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bagnell of the Liberals for ten minutes.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Just on the same point, I know it's not up to the provinces when we put legislation forward, but are there ongoing meetings that aren't finished with the provinces, including Quebec, that have information that should be input to this bill?

Mr. Derek Sweet (Acting Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I'll preface my response by simply making the observation that the safety rating system that Mr. Elliott described in his opening remarks is really quite a complex undertaking. It involves, for example, the capturing of on-road motor carrier safety performance data from every jurisdiction in which the motor carrier operates, sending that data back to the home province—if you like, the province of registration—and having that province construct the safety rating.

There are a number of quite significant activities going on at the same time. We have a number of parallel streams underway and actually have had, Mr. Chairman, for some time. We certainly have the bill that's before us today, and we've been working on that for some time.

Mr. Elliott mentioned the regulation. We have been working for about six or nine months now actively with the provinces to jointly develop, in fact, the regulation that will implement the safety rating system. We have over the last three or four years worked with the provinces to develop a safety rating standard itself. Each province has over the last two years, I would suggest, been devoting a significant amount of effort to implementing the quite complex and complicated data manipulation systems that are required in order to capture and assess the data that I mentioned earlier. All of this is being done jointly with the provinces and the federal government.

Mr. Elliott mentioned the CCMTA, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. This is the group that has oversight administrative function, if you like, for motor carrier safety in Canada. All of this activity is being carried out jointly under the auspices of the CCMTA.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

Trucks are involved in 500 accidents a year. Maybe one-sixth of Canadian accidents have been of pretty high-profile importance to Canadians lately. Can you tell us where trucking safety fits into the department's priorities?

• 1100

Mr. William Elliott: Safe transport is one of the primary objectives of the department. The figures indicate that trucks are involved in a high number of road fatalities and injuries, and therefore they are a major target for safety measures, both on our part and on the part of the provinces. Bill S-3 itself is safety legislation related to motor carriers' safety. In our view it is an important and major initiative to deal with the issue of heavy trucks.

I would like to stress, Mr. Chairman, that preventing heavy commercial vehicle accidents involves addressing many factors. As I said at the outset, safety really is a shared responsibility. There is a role for the federal government, there is a role for provinces, and there are important roles for the operators themselves. We have established a road safety vision with a number of targets, and again, that vision and those targets were established jointly in cooperation with all stakeholders. Heavy truck safety is a major concern, and it is being addressed on a number of fronts.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

The Chair: You have lots of time.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Commercial vehicle hours of service are very controversial, the time the vehicles are on the road. The committee has heard from Transport Canada officials on this issue and the proposals to change regulations that are currently in train across the country. Does the department see this bill affecting the way these hours of service are regulated?

Mr. William Elliott: The short answer is, no. The bill deals with the national safety code, and the specific standard is standard 14. Hours of service are also dealt with in the national safety code, but that's a different number, number 9. There is some linkage between safety rating and standard 9, just as there is a linkage between safety ratings and all standards and regulations. As we've indicated, the rating is really an umbrella.

The information that will be used to determine a rating will be information that includes a carrier's on-road performance and on-road record with respect to violations of regulations. For instance, if you had a carrier that violated the Highway Traffic Act, that would go into the database with respect to that carrier's safety rating. Similarly, if you had a carrier that violated the regulation relating to hours of service, that would also be information in the database.

This bill does nothing to address or change what the standard is and what the regulation is with respect to hours of service. That is another standard, which is certainly very topical and somewhat controversial, and I know the minister has requested, Mr. Chairman, that the committee examine the issue of hours of service.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: That's all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: All right.

I'll go to Bev Desjarlais of the NDP, while Brian gets organized there.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Elliott, although we're not necessarily addressing the hours of service, as you indicated, within the act, it's certainly within the realm of the committee to put hours of service in the act. Is it something that could be addressed in the act?

Mr. William Elliott: That's an interesting question. The reason I hesitate is that the scope of this bill does not include hours of service, which is another standard. It's a technical question as to whether or not it would be open to the committee to entertain including that and whether or not that would be within the scope of the bill. Frankly, I'm not the appropriate person to answer that question.

• 1105

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But the bill is dealing with safety. If we consider hours of service under the code, safety, the bill could have the effect of regulating, but within the bill, rather than just under regulation. There could be hours of service.

Mr. Derek Sweet: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the intent of the bill is to create a flexible safety framework through regulating by reference. The intent is, for example with standard number 14, that the regulation would be quite short and would make reference to standard 14. That is, the regulation wouldn't duplicate the standard itself. We see an important advantage here, that the standard that would be referred to is a standard jointly developed with provinces. So the development of these standards is very much a federal-provincial-territorial thing. These standards do change from time to time. They are living documents.

So, Mr. Chairman, by having the regulations simply, if I can put it that way, make reference to the standard, whenever the standard changes, the regulation also changes. So you automatically, if you like, have an up-to-date and current legislative framework. That is how we intend to proceed with standard 14.

The honourable member has made reference to hours of service, currently a federal standard under the existing MVTA. The current regulation is very detailed and duplicates the national safety code standard number 9. What we would intend to do, through the other exercise Mr. Elliott mentioned, reference to this committee of the hours of service regime, is amend the national safety code standard, then change the federal regulation to, again, simply refer to that standard, so that we have a component of a safety regime that is always up to date and current.

The intent certainly was, though—if I could, Mr. Chairman—that the hours of service exercise, which is being looked at independently by CCMTA, proceed separately. When the standard has been agreed upon, after appropriate consultation, examination by this committee, and so on, then we would simply make reference to that standard as a regulation, and we would have the new federal regulation.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The certification process will reflect the safety code, or the safety standard, for certain criteria within the safety code?

Mr. Derek Sweet: Yes. The member makes reference to certification. As members may be aware, the safety rating regime will have effect, if you like, through a safety fitness certificate. Every provincial carrier will, under standard 14, be required to have a safety rating. If that safety rating is acceptable, that carrier will be provided by the relevant province with a safety fitness certificate. This will be that carrier's permission to operate anywhere in Canada.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: What type of safety fitness criteria are used, say, with trucks coming from Mexico or trucks within Mexico? I'm making a supposition that Mexico has a series of safety processes in place and there's a certification process there. So what type of system do they have there?

Mr. Derek Sweet: Mr. Chairman, the bill does have a provision to enable us to enter into arrangements with foreign countries with respect to safety ratings or safety rating documentation. The bill enables us, for example—I'll use the United States for the moment, I will get to Mexico—as a federal government to enter in an arrangement with the United States to recognize their safety rating system. They aren't identical, but they are similar in objective.

• 1110

The intent then would be that we and the provincial governments would accept carriers that have been rated in the United States to operate in Canada, and similarly, the United States authorities would accept safety ratings done by the provinces.

Mexico is making great strides in motor vehicle safety, in our judgment. To be frank, I think we all recognize that they were starting from a little further back.

We've been dealing with the issue of motor carrier supervision, as we call it, which includes safety ratings, in a North America context, within the purview of the North American Free Trade Agreement. There has been a committee in place for several years now, to deal with the harmonization of truck safety standards in North America, and that involves Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

So we are discussing the matter of safety ratings, safety rating equivalency and harmonization, within the NAFTA context. As members will recognize, there is a move afoot to open the southern border of the United States to allow more significant traffic between the United States and Mexico. The United States and Mexico are working on that very hard. We are a part of those discussions, albeit somewhat peripherally, as I'm sure you can understand. But it's clear that once there is greater traffic between Mexico and the United States, any Mexican operator will need to meet United States safety requirements to operate in the United States. Clearly, one has to operate in the United States to get to Mexico. The Canadian and the American regimes are very similar, so I think we're quite confident that, with the passage of time, we will have a safety regime in North America that is substantially harmonized.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I guess I'm leading from Mr. Laframboise's question, but this bill in essence gives the okay for this process to take place before we can be assured that we're necessarily in agreement with the standards that are being used.

It's my understanding that under section 9, I believe, if the U.S. accepts the Mexican standard or the Mexican standard falls within the U.S. guidelines, Canada then falls into stream right behind, even though we may not necessarily agree. Under the free trade agreements, we're bound by that. As a result, the interprovincial trucking that would take place with these vehicles would also be bound by that.

Mr. Derek Sweet: With all due respect, I would have to disagree with the member's suggestion that we would be bound. In fact, we would not be bound. The bill we have before us really establishes a framework; it's enabling legislation. Beneath that framework we would enact regulations and standards, always done in cooperation and jointly with the provinces, and we would not, I would suggest, put in place any standard or regulation that would disadvantage Canada or with which we and the provinces were not in agreement.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: With all due respect, on the industry committee right now we're changing patent legislation to meet a trade agreement. So to suggest that we wouldn't change our standards to meet a trade agreement is just not an acceptable comment.

The Chair: You have about a minute, or have you finished?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you, that's fine.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Canadian Alliance, for ten minutes.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To have safe air travel in the country you need safe airports. To have safe marine travel you need safe harbours. To have safe rail transportation you need a safe rail bed.

I'm of the view that our infrastructure and highways in this country are in serious shape. From a safety standpoint, I would take the position that this would be near the top of the list as far as highway safety in this country is concerned, the highway system that our buses, our interprovincial cargo, and so on, have to move across. Does this bill do anything to address that problem?

Mr. William Elliott: This bill doesn't deal with highways or funding for highways.

• 1115

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Why not? If safety is the criterion, why isn't this in the parameters of this bill?

Mr. William Elliott: As I indicated earlier, I guess in an ideal world one could do everything at once. But in the world in which we live, we must do things in incremental and manageable steps. In our view, this bill is a positive step forward with respect to road safety, but we certainly don't purport or suggest that this bill addresses all issues with respect to safety.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I assume that in preparing a bill and making amendments, you would receive a lot of input from the relevant players in the business—the bus industry, the trucking industry, and so on.

I'm curious. Was there any feedback from those industry people as to the state of the highways and as to their concerns about safety with the highway infrastructure in the country?

Mr. Derek Sweet: The member brings up the issue of consultation. It is the view of the department that we've had extensive consultations that preceded the development of this bill. The Department of Transport produced two policy documents, three or four years ago, each in succession, that were thoroughly disseminated and discussed with all the major stakeholders involved in motor carrier safety.

We're going back three or four years here, and I'm trying desperately to recall whether or not the highway funding was brought up. I think I'm on fairly safe ground to indicate to you that it wasn't, or if it was, it was only in a very—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: The question was whether they had brought to your attention the safety of the highways, not the funding, the condition of the highways in this country.

Mr. Derek Sweet: I guess I'm equating the two. I don't believe that was ever a significant issue, because the bill that we are deliberating is really an updating of the existing Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which deals solely with motor carrier safety and does not at all get into the issue of, as Mr. Elliott has mentioned, the state of the infrastructure.

Mr. William Elliott: Certainly the minister and the department have heard from the industry and others about concerns with respect to the infrastructure and funding related to infrastructure, maintenance, and improvement, but not in the context of this bill.

The Chair: It's probably a bit of a stretch, but I suspect that if you're talking about safety, you're talking about a person who operates a vehicle, you're talking about a vehicle itself and how the person drives it and manages it, and to some degree the road system: are there bottlenecks; is it built in a safe form?

Again, we have all the provinces, who regulate the structure of the highway within their jurisdiction, and I would suspect maybe the federal government would come in between, where there are connectors. But we're probably a little bit off the topic here in that engineers will determine the structure of that highway, whether it's actually safe. It doesn't depend on which jurisdiction it's in. Either it's a federal highway or a provincial highway, and they're supposed to be safe for the trucks to operate on.

Brian, is that where you're heading?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: The only point I'm trying to make is, if you're looking at a safe system, these things are not watertight compartments. You can't separate them. If you're flying into airports that are not safe, no matter how safe your airplanes and your pilots are, you have problems. I think common sense would dictate that.

So I don't think we should be approaching safety in a watertight compartment approach. I seriously don't know of a single province that would turn down federal funding for highway improvements. The number one highway and the interprovincial systems across the country are east-west systems, so if we want an east-west economy, maybe we should invest in the infrastructure that makes an east-west economy work.

• 1120

I wanted to raise another point in connection with that. A lot of the shift into trucking, I would say, is because we're falling behind in keeping our rail system up to date. Three years ago Mr. Justice Estey made a fairly comprehensive report on updating and modernizing our rail system, and before my very eyes in Saskatchewan I see movement to trucks from rail. And everybody is shaking their head at this, from an environmental standpoint, an energy standpoint, all sorts of standpoints, because we're shifting into truck not by choice but because our system has fallen behind on the rail side.

In a lot of ways I wish we would not get in water-tight compartments and look at the whole transportation system. Do we want to shift things from rail onto trucks in this country and move things that way? I'm not exactly sure we do. I'm not exactly sure it's the safer way of doing things either. But it's a point I want to raise in this area that I have a concern about, because I think I see a lot of foot-dragging in the rail area.

With this bill another area I'm wondering about, and maybe you gentlemen could address it, is that the provinces I know of seem to have an elaborate system in place to protect vested interests in busing and trucking transportation and so on. They have elaborate bureaucracies and licensing provisions, and they're very restrictive on allowing competition and entry into the system. So it's very hard for a new player to get into the picture and so on. And something that's really bothered me is that when we got into free trade with the U.S. we wanted to create a competitive economy and be able to deal with the Americans and the bigger players in the world, and have our economy grow and expand and so on, and still in the year 2001 we have a lot of things in this country east-west that just aren't good.

Does this bill do anything about freeing up the grip that the provincial regimes seem to have with vested interests in busing and trucking?

Mr. William Elliott: The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is that the bill does not address this issue. The honourable member raises a number of very important questions and issues, including relating to investments in infrastructure and intermodal questions. I would indicate, Mr. Chairman, that those issues are of concern to the Minister of Transport and to the department. The minister has recently indicated that he is beginning a series of discussions to look at a blueprint for transportation into the future, where those sorts of global or holistic questions will be discussed.

Again, I would not want to leave the committee, Mr. Chairman, with the impression that the minister or the department was not interested in these issues, but most of the questions the honourable member raises are neither within the scope of this bill nor within the scope of my responsibilities as the assistant deputy minister for safety and security. They are important issues. They are issues the minister has indicated he's very interested in engaging Canadians in addressing. I'm not in a position to provide any more comment than that.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I have another question. We're drinking water here today, and if I understand the water situation in Canada, the only province that really has a safe drinking water policy in place in this country today is the province of Alberta. The simple thing Alberta did, and it was very simple, was to adopt the American policy, which was a very high standard on drinking water. We can get into royal commissions on something like this in this country and all sorts of things, but sometimes the answer is so simple.

The only reason I raised this is Mr. Sweet mentioned that our policies are very similar to the American policies, and it crossed my mind that if we want to make the world simpler, if our policies are almost identical to the American policies, why don't we just adopt the American regulatory regime and make life simpler for everybody, including the economy?

• 1125

I'm sure that's not within the ambit of your authority either, but I'm just raising it.

The Chair: We'll move on to the next questioner. Mr. Shepherd of the Liberals.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): We'd have a long debate if you opened the door to that one.

I'm interested in something that happened to me a number of years ago. As you know, in my riding, Durham, General Motors is a big producer of truck chassis. And also in that area you get people who fabricate truck bodies. So what would happen is that a truck chassis was sold to an aftermarket user, who then fabricated the truck body itself.

I'm assuming that we're talking about motor vehicle safety; necessarily you're not going to tell me that's outside of the ambit of this legislation.

What was happening is they would extend the truck body by creating a longer platform on the back of the truck. But what happens is the brake lighting system and so forth was of the vintage of the original chassis, which was underneath the extension of a steel platform. And what has happened in a number of cases are some very serious fatalities and accidents because at night you can't see that because it's not lit. In other words, that extension over the back of the truck body is not lit. And we've had a number of incidents where people actually tried to go around these vehicles at night and actually went underneath them and were decapitated.

When I got involved in this I discovered that there didn't seem to be a big regulatory regime of what to do with fabricated truck bodies. Can you address that for me? Is that somehow dealt with in all of this?

Mr. Derek Sweet: I hate to disappoint the honourable member, Mr. Chairman, but the answer is no. However, matters of new vehicle safety standards are a federal responsibility. They are dealt with by Mr. Elliott's organization and mine under the purview of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as opposed to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides the federal government with the authority to regulate safety standards for new vehicles.

The issue the honourable member raises is a complicated one, as we're really talking, as I understand it, about a fabricator taking a chassis from an original equipment manufacturer and modifying that in some respect and then putting it on the road. This is an area that is somewhat difficult for us, in that our jurisdiction extends only to the sale of the original piece of equipment to the fabricator. We do rely on provincial authorities to enforce, as you've correctly stated, the aftermarket. Anything that transpires with a vehicle after the vehicle is sold is not of a federal responsibility, but rather that of the provinces.

If it is any comfort, these are issues that are discussed to some significant degree within the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, the CCMTA. And, Mr. Chairman, if this is a particular issue we could undertake to pursue it and see what discussions might have been held or are being held at this moment on this sort of issue.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Maybe it's outside of the ambit of your legislation again, but while the trucks I see are different types of fabricated trucks, there are also these big trucks that carry garbage, big garbage containers, and they have a steel projectile out the back of them that is not illuminated. It's the same kind of issue.

So I would think if we're talking about motor vehicle safety, surely we have to... You're saying it's a different piece of legislation, the companion piece of legislation with this, but if we're concerned about motor vehicle safety, obviously we have to be concerned about that, I would think.

• 1130

There's more fabrication going on than ever before. I think a number of these truck chassis are just sold to fabricators, who reinvent the truck to some extent.

Mr. Derek Sweet: Mr. Chairman, it may be of interest to members that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to which I just referred, is in fact undergoing internal review at the moment in discussion with some of the major stakeholders. We'll be making significant progress on that this year. I would suggest it would not be beyond the purview of our examination to take a look at that particular issue. So we will endeavour to include that issue in our examination of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: You're presumably talking in this legislation about some kind of historical record-keeping of infractions or people's driving records more or less as a carrier—that type of concept.

Mr. Derek Sweet: Yes. In Bill S-3, Motor Vehicle Transport Act, that's correct, as Mr. Elliott mentioned. In establishing a safety rating many factors are taken into account. They include the driver's record, the vehicle inspection record, all of—

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is it done by carrier? I'm XYZ Transport Company and this is my record. Is that correct?

Mr. Derek Sweet: That's correct.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So what happens if XYZ Transport Company decides to reinvent itself tomorrow as Algoma Trucking? Do those records travel with it, or does it in fact start off with a fresh new record?

Mr. Derek Sweet: No, as a matter of fact, standard 14 has provisions in it for the transition or metamorphosis of one firm into another. There are provisions in there that the records of the former firm must attach to the new entity that is being proposed. So the province is well aware of any previous safety history.

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise, more questions from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: All the provinces have adopted standard no. 14. Have we understood this correctly? Do you agree with me?

Mr. Derek Sweet: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Currently, provinces are working hard on harmonization with your department. Is this true? You said, Mr. Sweet, that you had been discussing this for the past six or nine months and that the discussions were not finished yet. I feel that there will be much more discussion before we succeed in harmonizing. Have I understood correctly?

Mr. Derek Sweet: Yes. There are only a few details left to settle, and the discussions are going very well, I believe.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: This is where you and I disagree. You say that there are a few details left to settle. This is entirely based on the safety rating. Basically, everywhere in Canada, we should be able to follow a company or a trucker, draw up the list of violations and obtain, in digital form, as we all hope, a description of his file. Is this what you mean?

Mr. Derek Sweet: Yes, this is what I mean.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Theoretically, the bill should be acceptable to the provinces. They should have asked for it because, basically, the standards are not applied by the federal government. They are implemented by the territories, not by you. You have no inspectors on the roads. You have no one to look after safety. The standards are implemented not by you, but by every territory and every province. Is this true?

Mr. Derek Sweet: It is.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Let me repeat that the province of Quebec, as we speak, did not ask you to adopt this bill for the simple reason that negotiations have not yet gone far enough. This is what I have some difficulty in understanding. Why should it be tabled now, while the provinces still need to agree on the standards? I listened to your speech. It is true that there are articles on including Canadian and American ratings and standards, but we will have to start by including our own ratings within Canadian provinces.

• 1135

Let me come back to my initial question. Why should this bill, based on standard no. 14, which is accepted by all the provinces with which we have a harmonization problem, be tabled at this time?

Now, let me address this to my colleagues. Transportation across Canada is not easy. This is a country of natural resources. We need only mention the weight allowed within each province. Some provinces have good reasons to tolerate heavier weights on their territory. It all depends on the kind of material being transported and on the kind of industry that exists in each province. So, this is not a simple matter.

As we speak, provinces are working very hard to harmonize, and I repeat that you are tabling your bill too soon. I still cannot get over it. The provinces, at least Quebec province, are not ready, simply because they have not had time to finish their analysis and their harmonization. Stop telling us that Quebec province agrees on tabling this bill as we speak. This is not so. I simply cannot get over it. Why should this bill be tabled now, while there is still much work to be done between territories and provinces to reach the same objective? They have all agreed on standard no. 14. All they want is to be able to apply it and to tell the people in their province and in Canada that we can now follow a company in every part of Canada. I cannot get over it. The delay might have allowed us to include in this bill the recommendations that Ms. Desjarlais made regarding working hours.

You tell me that we have to start somewhere. I am telling you that you are starting this too soon. If we had done this at the appropriate time, perhaps we could have had a slightly more consistent project which would have included working hours. So once again, I ask: why now?

Mr. William Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We absolutely agree with the honourable member that it is not easy, but we also agree with the provinces.

[English]

As the honourable member mentioned, there has been agreement between ourselves and the provinces with respect to standard 14. There has been agreement that we will proceed to put ourselves in a position to implement that standard by way of federal and provincial legislation and regulations. And as I indicated, some provinces have already introduced legislation. There are some details to be worked out with respect to implementation. But as I said earlier, I think it's a question of the steps one might take.

The minister and others have raised concerns about the consistent application of the national safety code. In our view, it would not be advisable to wait until there was unanimous agreement about everything and every detail before proceeding in areas were there is agreement and where progress can be made. I suppose if the events had unfolded differently, we might have come forward with changes to another standard. One might ask why we can't deal with all standards at the same time. But as I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, there are 15 standards. The difficulties we have encountered with respect to bringing about our shared goal of harmonization would not, in our view, be achieved any faster by waiting until we resolve every issue before we proceed on any issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing left. The standards are not applied by the federal government. Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not even have the means to apply them. Thus, you have to reach an agreement with the provinces. I still do not understand.

• 1140

You are telling me that without unanimity, if there are files on which we do not agree... What will you do to the province that decides to refuse because it is not ready yet? Will you impose this on it? What kind of structure have you developed to force it to accept? You do not even have anything like this in your bill. You have no structure to force them to comply.

You have to reach an agreement. You are tabling a bill in which, as we speak, there is no agreement. I do not understand. Let me repeat that I do not understand. As far as I am concerned, with the existing structure, you must reach a consensus with the provinces, and I think that is the message that they are sending you. If you are saying that you no longer need any consensus, tell me how you will ensure compliance. Have you implemented some means to force provinces to comply? Do you have your own networks for inspection and auditing in the provinces that do not comply? You are not prepared for that. You need a consensus.

If you tell me that you no longer need a consensus, as you said earlier, we have a problem, because this entire bill is based on a consensus with the provinces, and this is for one good reason: they are the ones who apply it in the field. You have no way to apply it, unless you tell me today that you are going to launch an entire implementation operation and that you will hire your own inspectors. If this is the case, we should be advised.

[English]

Mr. William Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the honourable member: we need a consensus. I also agree with the honourable member that we are not out there on the roads and highways of Canada with enforcement officers. We do rely on the provinces to do the enforcement.

Where I am perhaps somewhat confused is with respect to the notion or suggestion that we're prepared to proceed unilaterally or without consensus. That's not the case at all. We're proceeding with respect to a standard we do have consensus on. We're proceeding with the introduction of this legislation pursuant to our consensus with the provinces that we and the provinces would move forward with legislation and regulation.

There will be a need for us to agree to a number of things, including timing with respect to implementation. When the legislation and regulations are brought into force, we would see that being done in consensus with the provinces. The honourable member is absolutely correct: we rely on the provinces to carry out the enforcement activity. They are the ones who will be assigning the ratings contemplated in the bill. They are the ones who will be gathering and sharing the data that is contemplated in the bill. So we're in complete agreement with almost everything the honourable member has said.

I guess I am concerned that there seems to be some indication that we think we can proceed on our own. That's not our intention at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a final brief statement to tell the witness that the province of Quebec has not agreed. Stop saying that Quebec has agreed to your bill. Stop that. As we speak, Quebec has not agreed. This is simple. I do not want to have to come back to this again. You have intervened three times to say that all the provinces agree. The province of Quebec does not agree with tabling this bill at this time, and I hope that my colleagues will verify this in their respective provinces.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thanks, Mario.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here. Just two quick comments before I ask three short questions in my five minutes.

First, on the issues my friend Mr. Laframboise raises, it's my understanding that at some point it's important for the federal government to pass its legislation. Whether it's first in the line or last in the line, we have to do this. I would suggest better earlier than later in order to, shall we say, create or assist with any momentum.

• 1145

So is it fair to say that passing this legislation now or soon in no way compromises the provinces and their own particular legislative timetables? We're not putting sticks in the spokes of any of the provinces or territories by doing this now, I understand.

Mr. William Elliott: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Again, the standard and the plan to move forward with legislation were developed through the CCMTA, which includes representation of federal government, various stakeholders, and all the provinces and territories.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Second, there is the issue Mrs. Desjarlais raised in the context of this, the hours of service, and Larry Bagnell raised it as well. I see it as like when the architects and builders have designed and are building a hospital to recognize current emergency room and operating room procedures, but also to accommodate whatever changes might be anticipated in the future. So this is a platform that now accommodates the current hours of service and will accommodate whatever new hours of service rules are in place later on. While there may be a link that way, there's no organic link between the bill and the details of the hours of service. Just for the record, have I characterized that correctly?

Mr. William Elliott: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Whatever is finally decided with respect to changes to the standard dealing with hours of service would not, we anticipate, require any change to this bill or the legislation.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Okay.

I have a couple of very short questions. With the safety ratings, if there's a company ABC Trucking—I hope there isn't one somewhere—would a member of the public be able to go to a provincial website and see their safety rating record, if a consumer or subcontractor wanted to know that?

Mr. Derek Sweet: That's quite right, Mr. Chair. In fact, I believe in Ontario today one can look up the website, wherever the website is, and get the safety rating of any firm. The intent is that all safety ratings be available to the public.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: The Senate has sent the bill to us with an amendment having to do with annual reporting to Parliament. I'm wondering if you are able to explain what the amendment proposes. Because I want to advise my colleagues that we will be moving an amendment here to effectively withdraw the Senate's amendment. I was wondering if it would be possible to explain the intended reporting as it was prior to the amendment and what the Senate amendment attempts to do. I thought I would like to give notice to my colleagues of that.

Mr. Derek Sweet: The current Motor Vehicle Transport Act does have an annual reporting requirement that expired several years ago. There was a sunset clause, if you like, for reporting requirements in that act. When the report was required, it was really of two parts. It was required that the department provide a report on the safety performance of the motor carrier industry. The second part was a report on the status of implementation of national safety code standards.

We worked very hard at producing those reports, and I think in all we produced five annual reports, but, Mr. Chairman, it was a very difficult exercise in the following respect. Motor carrier safety data generally are obtained with difficulty. We get all our data from the provinces, and the issue is not so much cooperation with the provinces, but simply capturing all of these data. It can be somewhat out of date, quite frankly. Our latest collision statistics, for example, are for two years ago.

With respect to implementation of the national safety code standards, these are very detailed, as honourable members know. It's a significant challenge to get any meaningful indication of the extent of implementation of all these details in each province. So I would have to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the reports that were produced... I can certainly say they were out of date the moment they hit the street. As a result, I'm not really sure how meaningful the information was. I might add that, as I understand it, the Senate amendment proposes a similar sort of reporting arrangement.

• 1150

Having said that, I should add that the department does produce a number of other statistical reports, and I think it's our view that just about everything the Senate wished to see by way of data and information is available from material we currently provide in one way or another.

The Chair: Okay, you're out of time.

We'll begin the five-minute round with Madam Desjarlais of the NDP.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you. I know I'm only going to get five minutes, and there are a number of comments I want to get in, as well as some questions for you.

On page 11 of our binders—it's clause 5, new section 7—it talks about the safety fitness certificate. I think as people listen to this and they keep hearing about this safety fitness certificate, everybody would get the impression that it's like when you get your car safetied and you get this report, so you're able to go and register. But I think if we read closely—you don't even have to read too closely—it clarifies proposed subsection 7(2), “A safety fitness certificate need not be in any particular form”, by saying:

Provinces will “safety-rate” all extra-provincial motor carriers such that an authority to operate issued by province to an extra-provincial motor carrier will itself be a safety certificate.

So the fact that the provinces license this vehicle to operate is automatically taken as the safety certificate. There's no absolute documentation a carrier will have that says “I have a safety certificate, so I'm able to operate”.

I wanted to make that really clear, because it's emphasized at numerous points that there's no safety certificate as such required. We have inter-provincial, and actually cross-border, trucking going on as well.

Then under clause 6 we have “Exemptions, regulations, foreign carriers and offence and punishment”. With exemptions, we see that subsection (2) “allows the Minister to attach terms and conditions to the exemptions”. I want you to remember back to what you told me before, that we would never do this.

Since exemption may apply to a safety standard, a new subsection provides for terms and conditions to be attached to the exemption.

Then we move right along, and I want to follow Mr. Laframboise's line of questioning. Who's going to police this? We have no safety certificate required to go with the vehicle, it's just what every province issues allowing the truck or bus to operate or bus. So who's going to police the situation?

Then we have a comment being made that you can just zap up on the Internet and you can find out everybody's safety rating. Then, Mr. Sweet, you tell us that it's really hard to get motor safety data, they're difficult to obtain, somewhat out of date. Now tell me how I should be reassured by your motor vehicle safety act.

Mr. Derek Sweet: With respect to data, I was referring to the national compiled data we at Transport Canada produced. It is given to us by provinces. We then take the raw data, massage it, and produce a national report.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: With all due respect, you've just said the data are inaccurate. You're basing what you're going to do on those data. The provinces are giving you the data. If they're useless data, what's the point of having them?

Mr. Derek Sweet: If I could just finish, Mr. Chairman, the data the provinces will be getting from a safety carrier are virtually live data. They contain accurate and current depictions of a motor carrier's safety performance. We at the federal level are not interested, quite frankly, in obtaining those sorts of data. They for those who are responsible for enforcing the act, the provinces. They will use these data to build safety ratings. We would be interested in some aggregation of the data.

• 1155

The honourable member mentioned two or three other points. She is quite correct in saying that the safety certificate need not be in any particular form. We think this is simply a modern sort of arrangement, whereby a carrier or driver need not necessarily have a card or some specific form of identification in the cab. The fact that the carrier is operating is known to those who are enforcing.

The honourable member asked who was policing it, and the provinces are policing it. The provinces have significant resources devoted to effecting that policing arrangement. The provinces can very easily inquire, when any carrier comes into a weigh scale or a stop at the side of the road, as to what that carrier's safety rating is. They simply make an inquiry, electronically, of the base-plating jurisdiction.

With respect to exemptions, the honourable member noted that terms and conditions would be attached. The objective here is to simply give some degree of flexibility to accommodate certain situations, as they might arise. For example, it might be of interest to the federal government, the provinces, and carriers alike, as a matter of fact, to conduct some sort of research into some aspect of motor carrier safety. In this regard, we would have the ability, under terms and conditions that would not compromise safety—and these would be agreed to—to exempt a carrier from certain provisions, or allow such research to take place on a limited basis for a limited period time. It's simply a flexibility that's built into the act, but with what we feel are the appropriate safeguards.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's all. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, are you ready?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes.

Maybe in terms of just trying to educate myself on matters, if I were an interprovincial trucker in Canada trucking through virtually all of the provinces of the country, would I still be required to register in each individual province under their licensing and insurance arrangements, or would I be able to bypass much of that?

Mr. Derek Sweet: The answer is no. This act tries to establish one-stop shopping, if you like, whereby the carrier is registered in one province only, and that fleet would be able to traverse any province in Canada, by virtue of its having a safety fitness certificate.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Okay. Would an occasional trucker who comes from the U.S. into Canada be able to avail themselves of this procedure, as well?

Mr. Derek Sweet: The idea, as I indicated a few moments ago, is that we would establish an arrangement with the United States whereby we would have reciprocity. That is, the United States would undertake their examination of their carriers and declare them to be safe or otherwise. If they are safe—if they're on the road, presumably they're safe—they would be allowed to enter Canada under a reciprocal arrangement, just as our safe carriers would be allowed to work in the United States.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I have just a comment, before I get to any other questions. Just because the data comes from a province doesn't mean it isn't reliable. They have some good people and know how to collect data as well as the federal government. You don't suddenly become a lot brighter just because you move to Ottawa in this country. I just wanted to clear that point up. I'm sure the Manitoba and Saskatchewan governments' data would be good, from the standpoint of some people in the room anyway.

Does this deal with hazardous products and their movement by trucks?

Mr. Derek Sweet: No. Separate legislation, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, deals with those issues.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: This may be off topic, but is that fairly similar to the requirements in the U.S.?

Mr. Derek Sweet: That's not my particular area, but it is my understanding that the transportation of dangerous goods is generally governed by United Nations conventions, and the requirements are reasonably similar. Mr. Elliott may have a more precise answer on that.

Mr. William Elliott: That's my understanding. I also want to clarify, if I might, we're not suggesting that any province's data is unreliable.

• 1200

I think Mr. Sweet was referring specifically to the kinds of accumulated data required to be produced under the previous regime. As was pointed out, the whole notion of carrier rating is based on having good, reliable, current data.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I wasn't suggesting you folks were saying that, just to clear the record on that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Who were you suggesting was, Mr. Fitzpatrick?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: You were making some reference to provincial data, weren't you?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No, I was not. I was making reference to the fact that he had commented that the data wasn't accurate, yet we were going to be using that for safety certification.

The Chair: Let's keep the remarks through the chair, please.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I have just one more question. I understand that in the private sector today, organizations committed to quality and safety, such as Boeing manufacturing aircraft, where safety is very important, place a whole lot of emphasis on something called ISO standards. That means a lot to them, in terms of assuring quality, and management in those companies say that's a lot more important than government regulations.

Has your department ever given any consideration to bringing that concept into being, in a regulatory approach to safety?

Mr. William Elliot: Perhaps I can start with reference to other modes.

Mr. Sweet, as you indicated in the introduction, is the acting director general for road safety. I have responsibilities, as well, with respect to safety in other modes. In fact, that sort of concept is something the department is very interested in and actively engaged in. We've just brought into force regulations with respect to rail that require the introduction of safety management systems. Safety management systems are very much utilized in the aviation industry, and we are working closely with the aviation industry in the development of safety management systems, and ultimately regulations with respect to them.

The whole notion of the ISO system you talked about, and safety management systems, more broadly, also relates to a comment I made in my opening remarks that safety is a shared responsibility, and all of the players need to take that responsibility very seriously. You need to have systems, documentation, and processes in place to promote that safety culture and those safety practices.

Perhaps Mr. Sweet could respond.

Mr. Derek Sweet: On the national safety code, it's a very interesting question by the honourable member. The Canadian Standards Association, which is not ISO per se, but is clearly a very well-respected Canadian institution, has taken national safety code standard 14 under its wing and embellished it, to a certain extent. It now offers some capacity, in respect of carrier safety ratings. Therefore, a carrier could avail itself of the Canadian Standards Association, and provided it met the requirements of the CSA's version of standard 14, have the CSA's stamp of approval.

The Chair: Okay. Thanks, Brian. You're out of time.

Monsieur Serge Marcil of the Liberals for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): I was a bit late and I would like to know what a fitness certificate is. Currently, there is a Transport Act in Canada. Currently, in each province, to obtain a transportation licence, you have to respect certain standards, including safety standards. What is the idea behind this fitness certificate? I would like to know what this has changed in the current transportation system. I think that this is the crux of the matter. Why did you propose a fitness certificate?

• 1205

[English]

Mr. Derek Sweet: Mr. Chairman, the safety fitness certificate is required, or will be required, by the act. It will be required for each carrier to have a safety fitness certificate in order to operate. That certificate is accorded to any carrier which has an acceptable safety rating.

So standard 14 lays out the manner in which a safety rating will be determined. If it is an acceptable safety rating, then that particular carrier will be accorded a safety fitness certificate and, as we indicated earlier, be allowed to operate anywhere in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, I was asking the witness the reason for this new concept of a fitness certificate. There aren't any at the present time. Right now interprovincial transport companies are not required to comply with transport safety regulations.

You tell me that from now on, with the coming into force of this act, transport companies will require certification in order to travel throughout Canada. I can understand that. What I am asking is why there is this requirement. Are we experiencing more problems now than before?

Of course there must be some fee charged for this fitness certificate. There always seems to be some way of indirectly taxing citizens. That means that transport companies will have to pay for this certificate. There will be a charge just as is the case for licence plates or a transportation licence. The certificate will just be something extra.

What I want to know is why this extra is being added. Is there some urgent or basic problem requiring us Canadians to acknowledge that there is a big safety problem with the transport companies so that they have to be evaluated and given a rating? Standards will be set for them and they will have to comply with these standards in order to obtain a fitness certificate. With this certificate, they will be able to engage in interprovincial trade. The question is why have we come up with this system.

Mr. Derek Sweet: Mr. Chairman, we have come up with it for two main reasons. First of all,

[English]

safety, I think we all agree, is very important. Certainly it's the department's primary objective, as has been indicated. A safety fitness certificate is based solely on safety. It reflects that a carrier is a safe operator.

Secondly, we have the concept of one safety fitness certificate created in a consistent way across Canada.

[Translation]

So the second reason is that we are attempting to implement a system throughout Canada,

[English]

so that every carrier will be rated in a similar fashion. Therefore, we have confidence that any carrier on the road is safe and has been rated in a equitable manner.

Mr. Chairman, I might also add that this concept has been discussed with all stakeholders—provinces and, very importantly, industry included. I would suggest that industry would indicate to you that they are very much in favour of the concept and of having one authority to allow them to operate anywhere in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I agree. I am not against safety. I think we all agree on that point.

When I was in the Quebec government, we set up a particular safety system. We created a highway police so that checks could be made at any time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We could, and we still can stop trucks on the road to carry out inspections, etc.

There is still work to be done in Ontario, in the eastern and western provinces with respect to safety. I completely agree with the need for us to have a top-notch safety system for our roads and trucking. That is something we have always been in favour of.

• 1210

What I want to know is why we have this system but I haven't been getting an answer. I haven't got a full answer.

Here is my second question. Quebec is not necessarily against this bill but it is not ready to implement it in its entirety immediately. If the bill were passed and a Canadian province was not ready to put it into effect, what would happen? Would it be given an additional time period? We always hear about consensus. There is supposed to be a consensus at the provincial and territorial levels for the improvement of road safety. We had a problem with firearms and we adopted Canadian legislation. There are provinces that were not ready to implement it. In the case of this particular legislation, if a province, either New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Ontario, was not ready to put it into effect, what would happen?

[English]

The Chair: No questions, Serge?

Mr. William Elliott: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps I might just underscore that... With respect to the honourable member's earlier question, I'd like us to keep in mind that the safety certificates are issued by the provinces. So one province—Quebec, for example—would issue a safety certificate, and that would be recognized by all other jurisdictions in Canada.

With respect to the form of the certificate, as I said in my opening remarks, it's important to establish what needs to be harmonized for safety regulation to be effective and efficient and what can be different without affecting the overall regulatory regime. We did not feel that it was necessary to impose one standard form of document. The important thing is that the basis for a province to issue a certificate is the same in all provinces, and the rating that one province would give would be the same rating based on the same kind of information.

With respect to implementation, it is true that different jurisdictions—including, we hope, the federal government—will be bringing forward legislation and regulations at a slightly different time, but the end game or the objective is to implement them in harmony with one another. So we don't anticipate a situation where we would be actually moving forward with implementation without the support and coordination by all of the provinces. We will bring into force the regulations at the same time as the province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba, and all other provinces and territories so that the regime will be up and running across the country.

So that's why, perhaps, I didn't explain myself as well as I might have. I was a little bit confused by questions relating to us acting unilaterally, because that's not our plan. That's not our intention; that's not what we are doing. We may be passing or hoping that you will pass legislation at a slightly different time than any particular province. As I indicated in my opening remarks, some provinces have already passed their legislation, but implementation will happen in concert and in a coordinated fashion.

The Chair: Okay.

Mario, you had some further questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, to follow up on the comments of my colleague Mr. Marcil, let me say that Quebec is not against standard no. 14 and you know this for a fact. Interprovincial transport is very competitive. So, when safety ratings apply, they must apply uniformly throughout Canada for the various companies in each province to be competitive. Thus a province has no interest in penalizing its companies if the rating is not applied throughout Canada. That is where the problem arises. There is not yet an agreement for the harmonization of ratings.

You answered Mr. St. Denis' question earlier. It is a fact that if you pass this bill, it will not mean change, but it is also true that if you do not pass it, nothing will change anything either. The negotiations between the provinces will continue. The provinces will keep on talking and attempting to bring about this harmonization since they all share the same aim at the present time, one which you also share, namely coming to an agreement. But this agreement has not yet been reached.

• 1215

So I come back to my original question: why table this bill at the present time since in any case there is no way for you to require the provinces to implement it? The provinces will be the ones applying it. A province has no interest in penalizing its companies by applying this rating if it is not uniform throughout Canada since there is interprovincial competition. So there must be a consensus. I cannot get over the fact that as officials, you are recommending that the government apply this at the present time. It could have been the result of a desire on the part of all provinces and the federal government. There is no urgency. Just as its adoption will not penalize anyone, by the same token the failure to adopt will not result in any change. The provinces that apply standard no. 14 will continue to do so and those that do not will keep on looking for a consensus.

The message conveyed by the passage of this bill would be that there is a safety standard, but in actual fact, there is not yet any harmonization. In my view, there is no urgency for the adoption of this bill.

I agree with the government of Quebec. If a province is to act responsibly, once the bill is adopted, it will have to comply and I think that would be in the interest of everyone. However, we must ensure that our companies will not be penalized in their competition with companies in other provinces. That means that the standard must be the same everywhere and everyone must have the same concern for safety so that the best companies will continue to exist and those that leave something to be desired will be penalized in a uniform fashion throughout Canada.

[English]

Mr. William Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The common objective is to have a harmonized system in place. In order to bring that about, we need to have federal regulation and regulation by each of the other jurisdictions in Canada. We have to have supporting systems in place, including those for the gathering and sharing of information, and we have to have a common, cooperative approach with respect to implementation.

I suppose it is an option for the federal government to wait until everyone else has done their part to get ready and then to bring forward our legislation. It doesn't seem to us that this is the most cooperative way to move forward.

We think that it's in the interests of Canadians and of safety to do what we can to bring forth this regime as early as possible. To sit back and wait for all of the other pieces to come into place certainly doesn't guarantee that we'll have the regime up and running any sooner. In fact, we think that we'll be in a better position to have the regime in place in cooperation with the provinces and territories sooner by moving forward with the things we need to do on our part to provide, in this instance, the legislative basis for federal regulation.

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

I'll go to Mr. Fitzpatrick for five minutes.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I think the point that is good about the bill is the point of one-stop shopping in Canada. Too often, I think, the federal government has not taken its constitutional powers seriously about promoting east-west commerce in this country, and I think this is a good point.

I do recall many years ago talking to a trucker who was lamenting all the provincial regulatory requirements he had to go through to do business in this country, and if that eliminates that part of the problem, that's a real plus out of this bill.

I think the federal government should start, when it's talking about safety and transportation issues and so on... It seems to me the easy part is to come out with regulations and legislation. The resources needed to put things into place usually take money, and it seems too often that this part of the equation is left to the provinces.

As we know in this country—and much lip service is paid to it—the federal government's in a position to provide standards across the country. We have big disparities in the resources available in various provinces across the country. So to be talking about safe highway transportation in this country, interprovincially, without dealing with infrastructure is missing out on a big part of the equation. I can understand why the federal government doesn't want to get into that area, because that means dollars to get into that sort of thing.

• 1220

I've found since I've been down here that when it comes to dollars, the federal government isn't usually so enthusiastic about the matter; they like to leave that to the provinces. That would be my comment. But I do think that one point about the bill, at least clearing up the regulatory provincial mess, is an improvement over what we've had before.

The Chair: Thanks, Brian.

I'm told I'm out of time. Somehow I thought we had until 12:30, so if the officials will respond briefly, if they want to, that will be the last point.

Mr. William Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly we welcome the honourable member's comments.

As the minister has said, the federal government in the last budget did indicate what I believe the minister would describe as a modest investment in road infrastructure. Certainly the minister is not of the view that this matches the demand. There is a need for more funding to be invested in Canada's road infrastructure.

The Chair: Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation today. I think it was helpful, and we appreciate your input. Thanks for coming.

A voice: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm not going to continue working.

For the committee, we have maybe three to five days left, and there are a number of things we have to do. If you look at the one circled at the bottom of the list, we'll start with that first.

I understand from our researcher, Mr. Christopher... We had the air day. The way we intend to handle this is that he will bring back what he thought he heard you say and what he thought he heard the witnesses say. We will have a look at it and massage it to make sure it is in our words, then he will tell us how we should dispose of it, either tabled in the House or with a letter to the Minister of Transport.

We're asking that we dedicate June 5 to that. If someone would so move, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, sir.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Based on a casual discussion around the table at one our recent meetings about Bill S-3 in which it was thought that two or three meetings would be sufficient, I'm just wondering if we'd also have time on June 5 to hear any last witnesses, if necessary, and get to clause-by-clause.

The Chair: So you want those two in this?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I certainly think an air day report is a good thing—

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: —but if we can do all things on June 5... Maybe you're worried about the House rising, if that's what your concern is.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: If I had to flip a coin and pick between getting Bill S-3 dealt with or the air day report, I would be obligated to say that Bill S-3 would be my own priority.

The Chair: Well, this is the work of the committee, if you want to—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's just my opinion.

The Chair: Okay. Do you want it moved then, that the committee proceed with Bill S-3, and that we deal with—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, and time permitting, the air day report.

The Chair: Is there discussion on the motion? Yes, Madam Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: What's the panic?

With all due respect, I'm sure everybody has very full days over the next week when other things have been plugged in as well. There are certainly some bills for which there was indication that there's an importance they get through the House. But I see absolutely no reason Bill S-3 has to be rushed through. Why we're trying to fit everything in on June 5 is beyond me.

The Chair: It wouldn't be rushed through; it depends on how far the committee gets with it. He's just saying if there is time left over...

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: We were talking about clause-by-clause.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On Bev's comments, I don't think “panic” or “rush” are the appropriate words.

We'll have heard from, I think, a fair range of witnesses by Thursday—and Tuesday, if necessary. I see no reason we can't dispense with it. As we heard, we'd be helping the whole national cause of moving transport safety issues forward by dealing with this and putting it behind us.

The air day report is also very important, but I think in terms of legislation, I see no compelling reason we would not do the clause-by-clause on Bill S-3 at the first opportunity, which hopefully would be Tuesday.

• 1225

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The researchers were asking that the clerk be authorized to ask stakeholders to come and make presentations by September 2001 in regard to the hours of service for trucking. Is there a motion from the floor?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I so move.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What was that motion, again?

The Clerk of the Committee: It was something that was discussed at one of the last meetings, that I send out a letter on behalf of the committee asking for interested stakeholders to submit briefs so the committee can consider them and then decide which witnesses they want to hear from.

This is set up so that I can do this across the summer. When the members come back after the summer adjournment, I can have the briefs ready for them, translated, and then the committee can decide how many days they want to spend with witnesses, and whether they want to have the witnesses heard here in Ottawa, or travel. It's really to help give the committee members a chance to explore the different opinions of different witnesses before we decide which witnesses the committee wants to hear from.

The Chair: It's just a procedure.

Are all in favour of that motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Madam Desjarlais is opposed. Don't forget, Madam Desjarlais, you could let the clerk know which witnesses you would like to come, as well.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's what my concern is, but I saw no point in getting into it. A lot of people who might want to make briefs may not be in a position to do that over the summer months either.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Can we have the next witnesses here please, the Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways. Mr. Evans, are you ready? Could you proceed? We'll try to keep you to your exact five minutes, and leave the rest of the time for questions by the committee.

Mr. Bob Evans (Executive Director, Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways): We shouldn't have any problem with that.

The Chair: Okay, you may proceed.

Mr. Bob Evans: Thank you very much.

Honourable members, Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways is very pleased to be invited to provide input to Bill S-3. CRASH is a national non-profit association that works to ensure that public views and concerns are considered when governments develop and implement policies affecting trucking safety.

I think it's worth it for all of us to remember that trucking safety is about people. It's not about trucks.

In a typical year in Canada, almost 600 people are killed and 12,000 injured in some 40,000 big-truck crashes. With the growing volume and size of trucks on our roads, it is important they be operated as safely as possible.

The poor track record of provinces implementing the national safety code during the past 12 years is unacceptable when the safety of Canadians is at stake. My association is concerned that the planned continuing delegation of interprovincial trucking safety responsibilities of the provinces will mean more years of inconsistency. That's our central concern.

Canada will be unprepared to deal with the new continental industry structures under NAFTA, particularly the coming operation of Mexican trucks in Canada. We fear that individual provinces will be incapable of properly regulating the safety of continental trucking firms, particularly those based in Mexico.

• 1230

In large measure, I think I have to tell you that CRASH views Bill S-3 as irrelevant as long as the federal government fails to assume its constitutional jurisdiction to regulate the safety of international and interprovincial trucking.

Having said that, our organization strongly endorses two amendments made at the Senate to improve transparency and accountability of this bill. One amendment calls for the results of the four-year statutory review of the new legislation to be brought to Parliament instead of just to the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, which operates in secret. The other Senate amendment requires the minister to table in Parliament annual reports on the truck and bus safety situation.

We would like to see that latter report include an annual updating of provincial conformance with the national safety code. I think that's very important. Indeed, given the concerns expressed by so many about the inconsistency of Canadian trucking regulation, we frankly cannot imagine Parliament not wanting to be updated on provincial conformance with the national safety code on a regular basis.

CRASH supports the concept of the safety rating system that I guess can be identified as the centrepiece of the focus of Bill S-3. It is appropriate, indeed essential, to have the capability to identify the bad guys and therefore act to turn their performance around or get them out of the system. We have absolutely no quarrel with the basic concept of a safety rating system.

However, we do have some reservations about the safety rating system. We are, frankly, yet to be convinced that Canada will achieve a satisfactorily consistent safety rating system. Furthermore, we are very concerned that the safety rating approach will be employed to bring about a shift from today's prescriptive-based safety regulation to a so-called performance-based regulatory system.

Let me take a minute to use an analogy to try to explain the difference here.

The establishment of a blood alcohol limit in the conduct of random breathalyzer tests reflects reliance on a prescriptive system. We're trying to identify a problem before it happens. If that standard in testing were to be eliminated in favour of simply identifying and penalizing drunken drivers after they have caused accidents, we would have a performance-based system.

We are wary of the possibility of future overdependence on a performance-based system for trucking safety regulation, because this creates a type of roulette system where anybody can get into the trucking business, and that's essentially the situation we have, and then government tries later on to deal with those firms that kill or maim. With about 10,000 for-hire trucking firms alone and great economic pressure to cut corners on costs, this is an inherently dangerous situation. Rather than regulators proactively ensuring the safety of every carrier on the road, victims will pay the price for identifying the bad apples.

While it is true that the safety rating system will have a proactive element by virtue of providing for safety audits, and that's part of the process intended, those audits are not mandatory.

The safety rating scheme, as we understand it, is going to be, in many respects, ineffective, because the majority of carriers are going to be rated as “satisfactory unaudited”. That is, they're going to be there, but their safety performance will not have been audited. We'll only catch them if they do something wrong.

Perhaps of less direct concern to the committee here relating to the bill, but another concern of my organization, is that some provinces have talked about creating “excellent” categories in connection with the safety rating system. The categories at this point are “satisfactory”, “satisfactory unaudited”, “conditional”, and I guess “out”, whatever you'd call that, but some of the provinces are also talking about an “excellent” category. We're concerned that the “excellent” category may be used by some provinces to reward certain safer carriers by allowing them to then take greater risks with public safety—for example, by allowing them to have their drivers work longer hours, or by allowing them to operate larger trucks.

• 1235

I will conclude very quickly. Permit me to reiterate that the poor record of the provinces in terms of implementing the national safety code during the past 12 years has been unacceptable. Continuing the delegation of trucking safety policy to the provinces leaves Canada unprepared to deal with the new continental industry structures and the operation of Mexican trucks into Canada. CRASH views Bill S-3 as largely irrelevant if the federal government fails to assume its constitutional jurisdiction to regulate international interprovincial trucking.

Having said that, we strongly endorse amendments made to the bill by the Senate that require the Minister of Transport to report directly to Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

We will go quickly to Brian, in five-minute rounds, because our time is short.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: In regard to leaving the provinces to enforce the regulations, I'll take that one on a bit.

We have Criminal Code laws that are passed by the federal government. We have provincial and municipal police forces that enforce those laws. I'm not exactly clear on your point on this. Are you saying that provinces are not capable of enforcing safe standards and requirements?

Mr. Bob Evans: Our concern is consistency. The national safety code was set up so that all provinces would get together and row in the same direction. In fact, years later, we've had all sorts of commitments—oh, yes, we're going to get together, we're going to work together—but we still have situations where hours-of-work regulations currently are different in some provinces. We have different sizes and weights of trucks from one province to another. We have all sorts of variances. It's a patchwork.

There has been this commitment. We understand the situation in the federal government that really delegated a lot of powers over trucking safety to the provinces on the understanding that the provinces would, in fact, row together. There have been all sorts of commitments, all sorts of efforts. The national safety code obviously is an effort to bring this about, and it really hasn't happened. There is a lot of inconsistency.

I know the trucking industry is concerned because it costs them money to have to deal with different regulations, different limits, and so on, in one province as opposed to another. Our concern is that we see nothing in this bill that is substantively going to change that situation.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: So you're saying that under this bill, the provinces are pretty well allowed to set their own safety requirements?

Mr. Bob Evans: We're saying, judge by history; judge what has happened over the last many years that we haven't all pulled together. We haven't pulled together in the same direction, we haven't pulled together at the same rate, and we simply don't see adequate teeth in this bill to change that situation.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: So the bill should have some clear-cut guidelines on safety requirements in the trucking industry.

Mr. Bob Evans: We tried that. We say, well, we all have to work together, here are some guidelines, come and work together with this province, and they don't in many cases. That's certainly our take.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What's your position on the hours question?

Mr. Bob Evans: Quite frankly, I promised the clerk of this committee not to talk on hours.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Okay.

Mr. Bob Evans: I'll make one comment, if I may. That is, clearly my association hopes that there will be full, real, serious, open public hearings on this issue, that Canadians and all their representatives organizations who represent concerned Canadians on this problem—and there are a lot of them—have a real and full opportunity to be part of the debate. We sincerely hope that is going to happen in the months ahead.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Does your organization see any role for the federal government in terms of the actual highway infrastructure in the country, or is that an area that should be left to the provinces and we stay out of it, or what?

• 1240

Mr. Bob Evans: It's not a subject that we have pursued in depth. If there are opportunities for federal involvement in infrastructure that's going to contribute seriously to safety, it's not something we would condemn out of hand. That's for sure.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Evans, standards are an ongoing thing. As knowledge and information increases and technology improves, then the standards can be moved. It's not as if there's an end to the pipe in this process. It can be continuously improved. If I understand you correctly, rather than just passing legislation and assuming we get the result that we want, we should have something in place to really ensure that these things are happening and that we're measuring and monitoring these things and getting the results that we're supposedly getting from passing legislation.

Mr. Bob Evans: We think it's very important that you have the benefit of regular reports on what's happening. We think that's absolutely vital. We don't think any argument about how these reports are difficult to produce is a valid response to what we view as a very critical need to get a real reading on where we stand on this issue.

The Chair: Thanks, Brian. One quick question, because you're out of time pretty well.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: With regard to the organization you represent, Mr. Evans, who are the stakeholders and the people who fund your organization?

Mr. Bob Evans: We represent the public. We've been around for about four years now. We're very careful. We do public surveys, and one of the things—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: But who funds your organization?

Mr. Bob Evans: We're funded by our members, by unions, by the Railway Association of Canada.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Okay. The members would be...

Mr. Bob Evans: Members of the general public. We have a mailing list of about 2,500 now.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Are you funded by the government at all?

Mr. Bob Evans: We keep asking. The answer is no. But if you have any way of getting us money, we'd love to come and talk to you.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Oh, we're to decrease spending here, not increase it.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis of the Liberals, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Evans, for being here.

I think Mr. Fitzpatrick asked a relevant question, because it's usually obvious from an organization that comes forward who they represent. For example, we have the Trucking Alliance up next. I guess if we asked them, they'd say their members are trucking companies, presumably. Or the shippers council or CITA are fairly obvious.

You mention that you have 2,500 members. Could I just pay my ten bucks and join? You mention the Railway Association of Canada is there. They probably contribute to your operations as well. It's just helpful to know whence the comments come, because clearly, with no disrespect to the railways, they would have a particular perspective on issues relevant to trucking. So we want to be careful when we compare conductors of trains to drivers of trucks. We're comparing two very different industries, and while very responsible and important jobs, two different kinds of jobs. I think it's very important to keep in mind whence the comments come, notwithstanding that those are very important comments.

On the Senate amendments, which you have taken pains to point out that you support, I have been giving my colleagues casual notice that the government is not going to be supporting them in that regard. You make a comment on page three, with the phrase “which operates in secret.” My understanding is that all the information that would be provided pursuant to a Senate amendment is in fact there. Since you use the expression “which operates in secret”, you may want to clarify or confirm or underline that this is really what you mean—information is being withheld from the public deliberately under the bill as it was framed prior to the Senate amendment. I'm just wondering if you could clarify that for the benefit of my colleagues. Then I'll pass to the next questioner.

• 1245

Mr. Bob Evans: Yes, I think that suggestion was really made to us by a member of the Senate Committee we appeared before. The observation was that you're talking about reporting to a council of ministers and the council of ministers' meetings are secret. That's my recollection of it.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: You're characterizing a comment of a senator at a committee meeting, basically? Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Laframboise of the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, if the federal government does not subsidize you, do not give up. It will do so eventually. Just don't advocate the abolition of the provinces.

There is, however, one point on which I am in agreement with you. In this bill, there is nothing that would bring about any change for the simple reason that it is a project based on co-operation with the provinces. In every second or third paragraph reference is made to an agreement with the provinces and the need to come to an agreement with the provinces. But harsh reality remains, sir, namely that the enforcement of safety standards is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, unless you are actually suggesting that the provinces withdraw from this jurisdiction to allow the federal government to adopt a system of monitoring, integration and enforcement of standards.

The provinces are working hard in their attempts at harmonization because they do have their safety standards and the citizens of the provinces cannot accept any failure on the part of the trucking industry to comply with safety. That is a reality. The federal government has a national standard but there are also provincial standards that have been enforced for decades in each of the provinces. The citizens in the provinces have been complaining too. Everyone is attempting to find a reasonable standard.

I agree that this bill does not contain much. Would it have been interesting from your point of view if hours of work were also dealt with in this bill? From the very beginning, we have been telling the government that since there is no urgency at the national level, since harmonization between the provinces has not yet taken place, it could have taken advantage of this Bill S-3 to include hours of work. In such a case, committee discussions could have dealt with all safety issues relating to highway transport.

Mr. Bob Evans: If this committee were to deal with the issue of working hours in September, we would very much like to have the opportunity to appear before you. We have very specific points of view, very well-documented points of view on this issue, and we hope to have the opportunity to share that with you.

The clerk asked me not to deal with working hours today. We found this request entirely reasonable because there are other issues before us today. I would certainly hope that we will look at working hours at another time. We really hope that we will be able to present CRASH's point of view on the issue at some point.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Now I want to get back to my question. Don't you think that the government could have used the opportunity to include hours of work in Bill S-3?

Mr. Bob Evans: In this bill?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Yes.

Mr. Bob Evans: There is a regulation dealing with working hours which is currently a matter of federal jurisdiction, for reasons which are not entirely clear to me. You are asking me very interesting questions. Many aspects of road safety policy are a matter of provincial responsibility, but for some reason, working hours fall under federal regulation.

[English]

The Chair: Are you finished, Mario? Okay.

Mrs. Desjarlais of the NDP for five minutes.

• 1250

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I won't comment on the clerk mentioning to you that you can't talk of hours of service. But he can't tell us we can't talk of hours of service.

Mr. Bob Evans: I'm not mad at the clerk, by the way.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You did comment too that it was your hope that there would be public hearings on that issue because there is great concern. I want to emphasize that this is the impression I get from people out there too, that there is a desire for public consultations.

Quite frankly, the Minister of Transport has indicated he believes there's a need for public consultation. He just has to convince the parliamentary secretary there's a need for public consultation.

Now that I have got that point across, you indicated about the differences between the provinces' regulations where some provinces exempt those under 11,000 and others... What would be the criteria in the U.S.?

Mr. Bob Evans: The criterion in the U.S. is 10,000 tons, which is the equivalent of 4.5 metric tonnes, which is the threshold of most Canadian provinces—eight out of ten.

So Canada and the U.S. are on the same basis, with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan. There are some minor differences elsewhere, but they're very close.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are there any provinces in Canada that have higher rates of accidents with trucks over other provinces?

Mr. Bob Evans: We did a provincial report card a couple of years ago, and it's something my association would like to do again, because I think it's a very useful kind of study in which we compared the safety performance of each of the provinces.

What we discovered is that Alberta and Saskatchewan had significantly higher fatality and injury rates per capita from accidents involving large trucks than the national average.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Was there any documentation as to whether or not those were trucks in that higher category?

Mr. Bob Evans: It was based on trucks from 4.5 tonnes on up.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, 4.5.

It's in the bill—I should have kept the section out. But there's a fairly lengthy section in the bill that talks about if there are unfair practices taking place in a foreign country, the Canadian government can withdraw certificates and that kind of thing. As I said, it's a fairly long one—clause 7, proposed section 17.

It's probably the most lengthy clause in the whole bill from what I've seen so far. It's dealing with unfair practice in other countries. It doesn't necessarily say unfair safety practice; it just says unfair practice.

So my impression of this section, and I probably should have asked the departmental officials, was that it was dealing more with the economics rather than the safety. I'm just wondering if you have a comment on that section.

Mr. Bob Evans: No, we weren't particularly conscious of that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. Has there been any documentation through your organization with regard to vehicles carrying dangerous goods? What kinds of regulations are in place within the country?

Mr. Bob Evans: Our sense is that the regulation of vehicles carrying dangerous goods is pretty standard across the country. It's really an enforced practice.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is there stronger federal legislation regarding the carrying of dangerous goods?

Mr. Bob Evans: Our sense is, yes, that it's a really strong piece of regulation that's applied consistently.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So because there's strong federal legislation, generally we have a better safety practice in place.

Mr. Bob Evans: We think that kind of argument can be made simply by virtue of what we've seen happen over the last many years. We passed so much responsibility to the provinces, and said please, all come together, and then watched as they didn't.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Have you heard any concerns through your organization that the provinces don't have the dollars available to ensure that they are policing the safety of the trucks?

• 1255

Mr. Bob Evans: Certainly we suspect that in many respects dollars are a factor here and that the exclusion of certain trucks from the national safety code may be dollar-driven.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

Mr. Bob Evans: Yes, I think there are a number of respects. It looks like... I believe the trucking associations were quite prepared to support mandatory audits as part of the safety rating system. Ontario wanted mandatory audits. But a number of other provinces opposed mandatory audits. And my understanding of the situation is that the opposition was really because they felt they couldn't afford the cost.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Desjarlais. We're out of time.

Bob, I'm sure we're going to see you again when we do the hours of service. Thanks.

Mr. Bob Evans: I will look forward it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'd ask our next witnesses to be heard, because members of Parliament have to have lunch before they get back to question period.

From the Canadian Trucking Alliance we have Graham Cooper, senior vice-president, and David Bradley. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I assume you're ready to proceed. You may start your proceedings.

Mr. David Bradley (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance is pleased to be here today to talk to you about Bill S-3. I'm joined by Massimo Bergamini, CTA's vice-president of public affairs, and by Graham Cooper, who is CTA's senior vice-president.

Bill S-3 is not a bill that we can oppose, clearly. Anything that is going to assist us in bringing about some consistency and improve safety is something that we must, of course, support. But at the same time, we have difficulty in getting overly enthusiastic about this bill.

Although the industry has an enviable safety record—and that's evidenced in the submission that we've provided to you—we do want further improvement in our industry, and the public is demanding further improvement. That's a responsibility we bear in the trucking industry for sharing our workplace with the public. Most people and companies in the trucking industry recognize that safety is good business. Those that don't not only pose a hazard to the public, but they also distort our marketplace. As you know, in a deregulated environment, there are literally tens of thousands of trucking companies operating out there, and it's a very hypercompetitive marketplace.

What we want, what we need as an industry, and what we think the regulators need is to be able to identify the good operators and to be able to identify the bad operators as well—to be able to distinguish between the good and the bad so that the scarce enforcement resources that are available to government can be allocated more efficiently.

To do that, though, we have to have some basis of determining who is good and bad, and that needs to be done with precision, because it's going to have an impact upon companies' businesses. It has to be fair across all different carriers, regardless of size and regardless of domicile, and it has to be equitable as well.

Now, during his comments to the Senate when this bill was first introduced, Minister David Collenette said that these amendments establish carrier safety as the primary focus of the federal regulation and create tools for insuring national consistency in safety performance regulation. How could we possibly be opposed to that? Again, as I said, we must be necessarily supportive of all of those.

But as our submission details, the national safety code for trucks, which was this made-in-Canada solution or response to the public safety concerns with regard to the economic deregulation of our industry, is in tatters. Fourteen years after its initial implementation, not one of the 16 national safety code standards has been uniformly adopted and/or uniformly enforced across the provinces.

• 1300

The centrepiece of the bill is the implementation of a new national carrier safety rating system, which is what we think we need and is something the CTA has strongly supported. We've worked tirelessly, in cooperation with the federal government and the provincial governments, in working to develop it over the last several years.

But here's where we come to the nub of the problem with Bill S-3 and why our enthusiasm for the bill is somewhat tempered or constrained. As I said, the national safety code is neither national nor a code. At best, you could say it's a patchwork quilt of good intentions at this point in time. The so-called national carrier safety rating system upon which the bill is predicated does not exist.

In our submission... and I'm sure you've heard of the independent research that was conducted for Transport Canada, which really had the kind of language you usually don't see in this type of report and which exposed the fact that there's really no consistency across the provincial jurisdictions in Canada at the present time in terms of safety ratings.

Moreover, I have to say that we have little faith that the current mechanism that Canada relies upon in developing national standards in regulations governing extra-provincial trucking will ever result in a consistent national safety rating system. That's a rather damning statement, but that's how we feel about the current process.

Now, things can be resurrected, I think, and this bill can play an important part, but a couple of things have to happen.

First, we believe that the federal government should exercise its constitutional authority over extra-provincial trucking. It does have the constitutional authority. It has delegated the administration of that authority, however, to the provinces.

The federal Minister of Transport, we believe, must take a lead in this area—not without the provinces, but he must lead—and the federal government should fund the implementation of the national safety code, but on a performance basis. In other words, if provinces don't subscribe to the national standards, they won't get the funding.

Secondly, if funding is not enough to bring the provinces on side, then we believe the minister must be prepared to act under proposed section 9 of the bill and withdraw provincial authority to issue federal safety certificates.

We have a number of proposed amendments that are included in our submission. I won't go through the legal wording, but I will take you through them.

First, we'd like to say that our initial submission to the Senate called for a requirement for the minister to report to Parliament on an annual basis. We believe that accountability is important, and we are pleased to see that this has been included in the bill that you have before you.

In terms of the amendments that we think need to be undertaken, first, with respect to the proposed section 3 in the bill, what we're proposing keeps all of the amendments to section 3 of the act that you have in the bill in front of you. It also, under the proposed section 36 contained in our submission, maintains the authority of the federal government to make safety regulations under the MVTA—these are the parts in the current section 3 of the existing MVTA—until all other sections of the act come into force. I'll explain why that's important in a moment.

We believe that in the proposed section 9—withdrawal of power to issue safety fitness certificates—we should eliminate ministerial discretion. If after an appropriate period of time we have reached a consensus across the provinces and territories in terms of a national safety code standard, at that point we believe the minister should not have discretion in dealing with any province or group of provinces that decide not to implement the national standard. Therefore, we need to have a change in the wording in that regard.

The Chair: You have approximately one minute.

Mr. David Bradley: I'll be finished in 30 seconds.

The Chair: Good lad.

Mr. David Bradley: Finally, we are not attempting to force the minister's hand in this regard. Our proposed amendments to clause 13, which deals with the coming into force of this bill, would give the minister sufficient flexibility and time to work in cooperation with the provinces in order to bring about consistency of standards and, in particular, a consistency of standard in the national carrier safety rating system, which presently doesn't exist.

Thank you very much, and we'd be more than pleased to try to answer your questions.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Alliance Party, please. You have five minutes.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Thank you.

Sir, you basically represent a substantial portion of the trucking industry. Would that be correct?

• 1305

Mr. David Bradley: Yes. We represent trucking companies. Our federation has in excess of 3,000 members, and they in turn would represent probably 70% of the for-hire trucking revenues generated in Canada.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: If I understand what you've said here, you would like to see the national safety code become a mandatory requirement right across the country, and the federal government should be using its ability with funding and so on, and the ability not to issue certificates and so on, to have provinces step in line and get with this thing. Is that correct?

Mr. David Bradley: Basically. I think the power of pulling the authority would be a last-ditch attempt. I think what we're calling for here is leadership: leadership for the federal government to exercise its constitutional authority, number one, and then to provide some meaningful funding towards the national safety code to bring the provinces on line.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What would your association think if the federal government actually took a very assertive position on its constitutional powers under the Constitution and actually took provinces to court under these sections and got firm rulings that they have this power over... I'm quite sure—

Mr. David Bradley: I believe that has been tried in the past, and as yet I don't think the federal government has prevailed. I don't know why we need to go to court in a situation where they clearly do have the constitutional authority. And I think the question is more one of leadership and accountability than it is of constitutional—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: But that's my point. It's a clear area of jurisdiction here we're discussing. It's about ongoing discussions with provinces and so on who think they have the jurisdiction in the area and so on.

If you can't get something resolved, it seems to me somebody has to decide these things. That's how we do things.

Mr. David Bradley: Ultimately, you're correct. I think we've tried to use a cooperative model since the 1950s. Certainly that model is responsible for the development of the national safety code that we have today. And I think any objective observer would suggest that we have failed.

I don't know that we need to scrap the cooperative approach. And I suspect there would be a significant push back from some provinces in that regard. But after we have exhausted all of the cooperative efforts, then clearly, yes, I think the federal government has the responsibility and should exercise that responsibility, particularly in a case where we do achieve national consensus with regard to a standard but what's implemented or what's enforced in the jurisdictions is quite different from what they'd agreed to when they were sitting around the standards table.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Trucking is a big part of the economy. Goods are moved by truck. It's one of our chief forms of moving product in the country. And we are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement and so on, so I think it's perfectly relevant to compare the regime we have in this country with what exists in the United States. And what is the situation in the United States? Do they have these sorts of problems we're talking about, or do they have some uniform system across the country? How does it work?

Mr. David Bradley: Their system is not perfect, but in terms of the pre-eminence of federal regulation, they have resolved that issue and they've done that through the highway trust fund, where basically they have linked the ability for states to obtain federal funding for highways to other national policy priorities. For example, in its bluntest form, if you want this funding for highways then you're going to have to get onside with the national safety standards. So they have a little more at their disposal, say, than the moral suasion, which is basically all the federal government of Canada has presently at its disposal.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I like that concept you mention about the funding. And something that has been talked a lot about is all the fuel tax that's collected by the federal government in Canada. A lot of people ask why that money doesn't get put into a fund and be used for legitimate transportation infrastructure spending such as highway improvements and so on. To do the sorts of things you're suggesting, would your association be kind of inclined to be supportive of those sorts of initiatives?

Mr. David Bradley: Certainly we would, because presently the federal excise taxes on fuel serve no policy purpose whatsoever, other than to generate revenue.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll move to Mr. St. Denis of the Liberals. Five minutes.

• 1310

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

I can't help but notice that Mr. Fitzpatrick's questions with regard to pushing the provinces into cooperation and submission is contrary to the Alliance platform, which is to give more authority to the provinces.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Not on interprovincial trade and commerce.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I wanted to mention that in passing there, Brian, but at least you're consistent from meeting to meeting on that.

It's certainly my sense that there's a lot of frustration on the part of your alliance, the Trucking Alliance, as distinguished from the Reform Alliance.

Mr. David Bradley: We had the name first, by the way.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes.

In the Trucking Alliance, I sense, Mr. Bradley, a frustration that, yes, you support this legislation but you'd like to see more. You'd like to see things going faster; you're frustrated that we aren't already where we should be when it comes to bringing the provinces and territories together on the national safety code. I wonder if you or your colleagues could briefly give us one or two examples of what happens now, why it costs your members more under the current regime, why there's more red tape, which might underline why it's important that the federal government show some leadership by getting this bill done now and then using whatever methods are appropriate to get all the players onside for the benefit of the industry.

Could you give me a couple of examples of what the problems are now?

Mr. David Bradley: Sure, we can do that. To be clear what we're saying, though, we believe that objective would be enhanced by implementing the amendments we're proposing. But I'll ask Mr. Cooper to speak on that, specifically as it pertains to the carrier safety rating so you can have a clear understanding of the debacle we're in right now.

Mr. Graham Cooper (Senior Vice-President, Canadian Trucking Alliance): One of the best examples I can give you of where these inconsistencies create practical difficulties is on the issue of the national safety code weight threshold for vehicles. Without getting into all the technicalities of it, the national safety code calls for a common weight threshold whereby all vehicles are to be covered by the NSC.

There are some provinces, principally in the west, that have not been able to, or are unwilling to, comply with that safety code standard for vehicle weight. As a result of that, you'd have a whole block of vehicles in the province of Alberta, for example, that would be excluded from some of the key provisions of the national safety code. And this comes right back to what we were talking about before with section 9.

If the minister and his provincial colleagues have had adequate time to work on consistency and agree on consistency, and to agree on an appropriate coming into force when consistency has been achieved, there should be no reason why at that point, if a province or a territory decides to step out of line and no longer applies the provisions of the national safety code, the proverbial stick should not come down.

The carrot that we were talking about earlier, the funding issue, which was discussed a few moments ago, we would see to be perhaps the more practical solution to some of these problems, but in terms of those kinds of things like the weight threshold, there's clearly an issue of political will at the provincial level. There's an issue of consensus building, and first and foremost in our view an issue of funding.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the interests of everybody having time, I'll pass.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Laframboise for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You represent 3,000 carriers. What percentage of the industry is that?

Mr. Massimo Bergamini (Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Trucking Alliance): This number represents about 70% of the industry.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why the provinces are not on board when 70% of the industry wants to create some kind of safety standard that would apply Canada-wide. It often happens that the problem that provinces are facing or those who are in charge of upholding these standards, is that they are in continuous opposition to the industry. What you are telling us today, is that the provinces will not accept to go along with this because they could not or would not want to ensure that a Canada-wide standard is respected. I have some difficulty understanding that. Would it be because provinces want to impose even stricter standards? Is that the reason?

• 1315

Mr. Graham Cooper: Mr. Laframboise, I will respond to your question in English, if that's all right with you.

[English]

The issue you raise is an excellent one. In part, it's one of funding. As I mentioned before, the resources may or may not be available to a particular province. There's also a certain amount of territorialism. Federal responsibility for extra-provincial road transport was devolved to the provinces over time, so there is some history there, where the provinces may feel that in some respects it is theirs.

The real issue we face today is that we have a lot of people, from all of the provinces, the territories, and the federal government, sitting around a table like this in an organization called the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, CCMTA, which you are no doubt familiar with. They can come to an agreement, and at the end of the day there is no way of closing the loop. In other words, there is no authority there that will say “What you've agreed to is all good stuff”. Everybody around that table has agreed to the bulk of the national safety code standards we're dealing with here, but without the funding and the so-called stick we refer to under proposed section 9, there's nothing that would require the provinces to do it.

To some extent, you have a situation where the provinces might say not necessarily that their regulations are tougher, but that they have invested a lot of money in them and they are slightly different—and they are different across the country. But there is no way, other than through the goodwill of the folks at that table, to take it to their deputy ministers and eventually their ministers and get everybody on side. There is no way to make sure the agreements made around the table of CCMTA and the council of deputy ministers, perhaps, find their way through to consistent regulation at the provincial level. That's the real issue.

Mr. David Bradley: If I could just add a comment in that regard, I think the record would show that the Canadian Trucking Alliance has been far out in front of governments with regard to safety and the tough standards we would like to see. There's no shortage of competition in our industry, and those bad apples that are out there do a disservice to everyone and should be out of the industry.

When you look at the safety performance data contained in our submission, which was compiled by Transport Canada, I wonder sometimes if at the more senior levels of the departments of transportation across the country, truck safety is an issue at all, or if they have other fish to fry.

It seems that when something goes wrong it becomes a big political issue. All of a sudden, there is all kinds of activity to try to do something, but once things calm down and the cameras go away, perhaps the commitment really isn't there. It's always been a question in my mind as to whether the commitment is there. I think that applies across all governments, not just federal or provincial.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: If you don't mind, I would simply like to say that if I understand you correctly, an issue of financing would be the stumbling block if everybody managed to agree. You are stating openly that there is a funding problem. Yet the changes that you are proposing do not contain a request for federal funding.

You are giving the federal government the possibility of withdrawing powers from the provinces, but you have never proposed an amendment where you would ask the federal government to contribute. If this is a Canada-wide standard and as such there is some difficulty with the funding, because certain territories, communities or provinces are in a financially difficult situation, why are you not asking the federal government to contribute its share? The federal government loves handing out gifts here, there, and everywhere; they could perhaps give you a little gift as well.

Mr. Massimo Bergamini: Mr. Laframboise, there are advisors to the committee who may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it is not within the committee's powers to propose spending measures in a bill such as this. I am not certain that the committee has the power to do so.

That being said, in our proposal, we state that there is a need for funding. I think that is an essential condition in order to arrive at a solution and it is clear in the text just as it was made very clear to you in our oral presentation today. That is one of the elements, one of the weaknesses of the current system, that is the lack of fiscal or financial means which would encourage the provinces to adopt a national standard.

• 1320

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Very well, correct me if I am wrong, but you do have every right to propose changes. You could have asked for legislative changes or amendments including some provisions for funds, or some such thing. You could have done that.

[English]

The Chair: I'll move to Larry Bagnell of the Liberals, five minutes.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Not that Quebec has any more say than any other province, but I'm curious as to whether your members from Quebec, or a majority of them, are in agreement with the suggested constitutional changes you mentioned near the beginning of your remarks.

Mr. David Bradley: Absolutely. CTA doesn't take any position without first going to its membership, and the Quebec Trucking Association and the Quebec delegates to the CTA wholeheartedly support this measure. They have to cross borders as well, and the patchwork we've got right now is not appropriate.

Putting aside the constitutional questions, this isn't an attack on Quebec. On many issues Quebec has indeed been a leader in bringing about national consensus on these issues. The problem that has occurred is the one Mr. Cooper described. Where we've reached consensus, which doesn't always happen, there is no mechanism then to bring it about on a uniform basis.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: My only other question is, given that laws are always changing and when they're amended, they never totally solve the problem or keep everyone happy, if this law were to go ahead without the amendments you suggest, would it be a plus or a minus?

Mr. David Bradley: It is baffling, and it's very difficult for us to categorize. Some provinces may perceive that the mere threat that they could lose their ability to issue safety certificates might cause some of them to get on board with a national consensus, but that's rather ephemeral. I wouldn't rely upon it, and frankly, I wouldn't expect to see a whole lot of change. That's why I said at the beginning that it's hard for us to oppose this and say don't go ahead with it. We don't want to be accused of being opposed to safety and all these things, but at the same time, it doesn't have the teeth we feel are required and justified under the circumstances.

Mr. Graham Cooper: If I could add one thing to that, as you've seen from our submission, the sections of the bill we've suggested be implemented now are those that would encourage the minister and his provincial counterparts to strive towards this illusive concept of consistency. In putting the bill in holus-bolus now, without any of the amendments we've suggested, the question has to be asked, what would change that hasn't been in place over the past 16 years to put the national safety code into effect? What we believe is that these amendments, by withholding the authority of the federal minister to regulate as he wants to, will encourage him to try to achieve consensus. Then, at a time when, in his opinion and in the opinion of his provincial colleagues, sufficient consistency is in place to regulate, in our view, that would perhaps add some impetus to this process we've been wrestling with for so many years.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

We'll go to Bev Desjarlais of the NDP for five minutes, and then I'll go to Serge, and last to Brian.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I apologize, because I missed the very beginning of your presentation. So if you read through the whole thing and I repeat something, I apologize off the top.

Mr. St. Denis commented that it's important that we get this rushing through, that we have this bill, because if we don't, it's going to cost more, there's more red tape. Has the issue of cost ever come up in regard to this bill, that what's happening right now is too costly and there's too much red tape?

Mr. David Bradley: I wouldn't say there's too much red tape, because then you're accused of wanting to soften regulations, and we're not opposed to tough regulations.

• 1325

Where the cost comes in is with the fact that you can't take a truck from Newfoundland to British Columbia and operate under the same rules in each jurisdiction. It's easier to take a truck from Toronto to the Mexico border than it is to take it across the country and to know what rules and which regime you're operating under. So that in and of itself, I think, introduces a degree of inefficiency and lack of productivity.

Where the competitive issues really come into play is in the fact that having different regulations, I think, naturally confers advantages on some carriers over others. To the extent that the carriers that are prepared to make the investment in safety and maintenance are able to use this patchwork quilt of a system to avoid making those investments, it's not so much a cost thing as that they're able then to price their service in such a way that they're able to compete against those carriers that are making that investment and are spending the money. So I'd rather look at it as an investment than as a cost, but there are costs associated with it.

It was part of the internal trade agreement, which was, of course, brought about with great fanfare. In Canada it was agreed that we would implement once again the national safety code of 1987 by January 1, 1992 or 1993—I can't recall the year. Once again we've failed. Only in Canada, it seems, would that be deemed to be an achievement, to get a deal that was agreed to in 1987 done in 1993—and we didn't do that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So the changes came in 1987, and it was delegated to the province for the administration. The minister at that time says safety is not going to be compromised, we'll have consultation. So as of 1985 they've been working with the provinces and consulting to come up with some kind of national standard that everybody's going to agree on. That's only 15 or 16 years ago, so if we pass this bill, they should have this resolved within six months. They've had all the discussion already, so it's going to be resolved right away if we pass it without making sure that those national standards are agreed to prior to passing legislation.

Then it goes on to say:

...the federal government was to have played a central role by providing funding to the provinces to implement the Code's standards.

I think that's the crux of the matter here. Each and every witness that comes before us indicates that funding is an issue. The provinces indicate funding is an issue, that's where they're coming from. And then the competition becomes an issue, because the provinces want the business, so there's the risk of having standards too high and their provinces aren't going to have the same competitive advantage. Then we read too about getting the funding from the gas taxes. It was really good that Brian was able to get that in there, because he's absolutely right.

So my question to you is, do you believe the provinces will come up with any kind of consensus in the near future, if not within the next five years, on national safety standards, or do you think the federal government needs to have those safety standards in place, that we should make sure they're in place, and then the provinces will come on line?

Mr. David Bradley: Without the amendments to the bill we are proposing, as we said in our submission, I have very little faith that we will see anything different from what we have today, and another 16 years will pass. It's a shame, because, as I said, this was the made in Canada response to economic deregulation. There was going to be a safety net for the public and a safety net for the safe operator through the national safety code. This is what distinguished us from the Americans, and it just hasn't happened, pure and simple.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Serge Marcil of the Liberals for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, everyone agrees that there should be a uniform system throughout the country to allow all of these carriers to work within the same framework, which would weed out the weakest, or... At any rate, let's say that everyone is in agreement.

The provinces also appear to be in agreement with the concept of such a bill, therefore on the adoption of standard no 14 and common regulations. The issue then is one of implementation.

• 1330

It would appear that the provinces now hold the power to manage this, within their capabilities, and that there is some disparity between the provinces as to the means at their disposal to implement such measures. Therefore, the solution would be to centralize everything in Ottawa and have the federal government take charge of implementing this project.

This would remove the power to regulate from the provinces. We would set national regulations, that the government in Ottawa would implement with the means at its disposal, which could cost a great deal of money, or we increase funding, the financial assistance granted to each of the provinces so that they can continue to assume the implementation uniformly from coast to coast.

Actually, the financial limitations of the provinces seem to be the major sticking point. If I correctly understood the interventions made by everyone and specifically yours, if financial assistance were given to the provinces, it would be easier for them to implement a uniform system.

[English]

Mr. David Bradley: Partly, yes. But we also say that where funding doesn't work, the minister shall—not may—exercise his authority to prohibit that province, or that group of provinces, from issuing safety certificates.

Mr. Graham Cooper: To add one thing and just clarify what may be a bit of a misapprehension or misunderstanding about the underlying components of Bill S-3, there's never ever from the very beginning been an intent that every province had to have an identical safety rating system in place.

If you can imagine, Bill S-3 is based on the national safety code standard 14, which is a kind of umbrella that sets some broad parameters so certain acid tests need to be met. But the big acid test is that a carrier that operates in Newfoundland, for example, and a carrier with the same kind of performance in British Columbia have to receive the same rating. We're talking only four ratings, so there are some pretty broad bands of performance here.

It's never been suggested that the provinces have to regulate in an entirely identical way, one among the others, but they do have to be sufficiently harmonized that they come up with equivalent ratings. I'd just like to make that point.

The other point is in terms of funding, and you are absolutely right, it seems to be a consensus that funding is a problem. While I'm obviously not privy to the details, my understanding is that Transport Canada has provided I think in the order of $7 million to the provinces for their systems, that's the bits and bytes, the software, and so forth that are needed to support the safety rating process.

I think that was well appreciated by the provinces. Sitting as an outsider at the table when those sorts of things were discussed to the extent that they were in my presence, I could see the provinces appreciated that funding for the systems.

The other bigger slice of the pie, though, is the ongoing funding the provinces appear in need of for implementation, enforcement, application, and so forth. I believe that's about $20 million over a five-year period, or a four-year period—I stand to be corrected on the periodicity, if you will, but it's $20 million. So $5 million a year divided among 10 provinces and three territories is not a lot of money for the kind of effort we're talking about here to get this thing done properly.

The Chair: Thank you, Serge. That's it.

For the hours of service, I think we may well have the provincial ministers here, so you probably could ask them some of these questions when they show up for the committee's edification.

Brian, you have the last word.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I just wanted to clear up one point that Brent raised, and you illustrate it very well. If we're trucking from here to Mexico and going through multiple states, we'd probably find it easier to go north-south than to go east-west.

Our party's taken the position that trade and commerce is an area over which the federal government has jurisdiction, and we should be breaking the internal barriers of east and west to bring this country together. The federal government really hasn't used its power and its leadership in that area.

• 1335

That's the only point I'm raising on that. There are other areas they are in that aren't involved with transportation that we would suggest they butt out of and stick to their knitting, but that's another point.

There was some mention here about thresholds in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and some other person may even have referred to higher rates of accidents and so on. I'm not going to get too involved in that without knowing the methods that were used to calculate that sort of thing, but I'm wondering...

I know they went through a revolution of sorts in rural Saskatchewan, for example rail line abandonment and major changes in transportation, and people have been forced into different modes of transportation whether they like it or not—trucking and so on. I think Alberta's in the same boat. I think both of those provinces have a lot larger highway network than a lot of other provinces have. I could be corrected on this, but I think Saskatchewan has as many miles of highway as the province of Ontario has.

Is there something in those two provinces with their agricultural nature that explains why they don't want to fall in line with thresholds, and why they may have a higher rate of accidents than other provinces?

Mr. David Bradley: I don't want to comment on the rates of accidents, because I don't have that information in front of me right now, so I don't know how different they are. But in those two provinces, the situation is that since 1985, the national safety code standard in terms of the weight threshold was that any truck 4,500 kilograms or greater in weight would be a national safety code truck. It would have to meet all the requirements in terms of that.

In both Saskatchewan and Alberta, they have selected a different number. In Alberta the number is 18,000 kilograms at present, and in Saskatchewan I think they've recently made a move to 11,000 kilograms. So it has to be a much heavier truck. The explanation for that, as I understand it... well, I guess there are a few explanations. One is a concern with regard to imposing the weight of regulation that would be imposed on the commercial carrier on the farmer, perhaps the oil patch, and those kinds of things. So it's more of an economic decision.

The problem we have with that is that the data show that the smaller vehicles are just as likely, if not more likely, to be involved in an accident as a bigger truck. But from a safety perspective, a truck is a truck is a truck. We can't have a situation where in certain jurisdictions trucks come under the rules and in others they simply don't, because those vehicles also can cross borders.

I think that's an issue, and I would imagine as well that someone must be either explicitly or implicitly looking at the accident performance of trucks versus other vehicles versus other pressures on the government, and making some determination that it is acceptable to exclude a larger part of the population than would be the case in other jurisdictions. You'd really have to ask them why they've chosen that, but I think that's part of the reason.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Did you say the provincial ministers are coming in?

The Chair: I'm hoping to have them when we do the hours of service.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: We could ask them and get to the root of this.

The Chair: That would be an appropriate place to do that.

On that last word, thank you, David, and your gang, for being here.

Thank you, committee, for your patience, and thanks to the staff.

We're adjourned until Thursday at 11 o'clock.