TRGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

1145

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Bob Evans (Executive Director, Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways (CRASH))

1150

1155

The Chair

Ms. Alison M. Smiley (Individual Presentation)

1200

1205

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan--Shuswap, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Darrel Stinson

1210

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Ms. Alison Smiley

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

1215

Mr. Bob Evans

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

1220

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Bob Evans

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

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

Mr. Bob Evans

1225

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Ms. Alison Smiley

1230

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Ms. Alison Smiley

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Alison Smiley

1235

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Alison Smiley

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1240

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Pankiw

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Pankiw

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Bob Evans

Mr. Pankiw

Mr. Bob Evans

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Pankiw

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Pankiw

1245

Mr. Pankiw

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Jim Pankiw

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Bob Evans

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Pankiw

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Pankiw

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mr. Pankiw

Ms. Alison Smiley

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1250

Ms. Alison Smiley

M. Laframboise

Mr. Bob Evans

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1255

Ms. Alison Smiley

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Pankiw

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Bob Evans

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Ms. Alison Smiley

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

1300

Ms. Alison Smiley

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Bob Evans

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Bob Evans

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis)

Mr. Pankiw

Mr. Cannis

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

NUMBER 052

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1145)

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

Sorry for the delay to the presenters, the Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways, and Dr. Smiley. We apologize. We had some unexpected business in the House, but we're ready to go.

Let me welcome you to our committee. You may take anywhere between five and ten minutes each for your presentations. Then we'll go to questions from the members.

Mr. Evans, we'll start with you.

Mr. Bob Evans (Executive Director, Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways (CRASH)): Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone, although I guess it's good noon, or close to it.

Every year sees between 500 and 600 Canadians killed in accidents involving large trucks. In the written brief CRASH provided to this committee some time ago, we recommended harmonization of the Canadian proposals with the safer American hours-of-service regulations. That is still our preferred position.

However, in the time I have today I would like to suggest an alternate minimal course this committee should seriously consider. If this committee is not ready to take on the CCMTA proposals in any complete way, you should at least make the three modest-change proposals I will detail now. These are steps that respond to clear safety risks in the Canadian proposals. These amendments recognize the fatigue science, and enhance honesty and accountability.

This committee has been asked to open up the hours-of-service proposal to reduce the daily driving limit to 13 hours. That change should not be made without at least also adding the improvements I will suggest now. As I said, there are three of them.

First, change the minimum reset period from 36 hours to 48 hours. The reset, to refresh your memory, is the closest thing a trucker gets to a weekend. The driver takes a reset after 70 hours of working over a five-day period. The now-intended 36-hour reset, which I'm saying should in fact be 48 hours, compares with a normal weekend most people get of 64 hours. Most people get 64-hour weekends; truck drivers get 36 hours.

The real central problem with the 36-hour reset is that the night driver will get only one night for sleeping each week. Fatigue experts tell us that the single night of sleep after the permissible five consecutive nights of driving is not enough for recovery from accumulated sleep deprivation. The Canadian panel of fatigue experts said that night drivers must have at least two consecutive nights of sleep each week. The new American hours-of-service proposal in fact requires two nights of sleep each week. By increasing the minimum reset period from 36 hours to 48 hours, we will do something very important: we'll ensure that night drivers get their two consecutive nights of sleep every week, which the science says is needed.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance argues that a 36-hour reset is okay because night drivers will get something called principal sleep periods. This concept of principal sleeps--presumably day sleeps--conveniently ignores the call of fatigue experts for at least two nights for sleeping per week. As the study of circadian rhythms has shown, the human body craves night sleeps, not principal sleeps, whatever that is.

Add just 12 hours to the proposed reset period, to bring it from 36 to 48 hours, and you will enable night drivers to get the two consecutive night sleeps the science says is essential. The driver will be more rested and lives will be saved.

The second amendment I would like to propose this committee recommend is that the new Canadian hours-of-service regulations require a mandated phase-in of electronic on-board recorders.

Á (1150)

Electronic recorders are needed to combat the epidemic of cheating on hours worked with today's disgraced paper logbook system. Everyone in the industry knows that the paper logs are commonly referred to as comic books or liar books. A survey by the prestigious U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that three-quarters of truck drivers violated hours-of-service regulations.

A suggestion that a low level of recorded convictions for log violations shows there is no cheating problem in Canada is frankly laughable. As every trucker will tell you, that low conviction rate shows how easy it is to cheat with today's paper logs and get away with it.

Cheating on logbooks means that drivers are working still more hours than the very generous limits permitted by regulation. When some drivers cheat, this puts pressure on the many other drivers who find legal limits to be enough.

When we talk about electronic recorders to provide a tamper-proof record of each driver's hours of driving, we are not talking space science, and I think this is worth stressing. Electronic recorders in railway locomotives have been around for 50 years. In Canada the government believes it is essential to have black boxes on commercial aircraft and on railway locomotives. Yet far more people are killed in collisions involving large trucks.

I've been told that the rail and air modes complained about having to install electronic recorders. And you can imagine the arguments--oh, they cost too much; oh, this is going to be an invasion of privacy, etc. But the governments of the day said do it, and that was that. We understand that electronic recorders for trucks are now under study. I think we all know what that means. It means paralysis by analysis.

We at CRASH are concerned that Canada's refusal to bring information technology to the control of trucker hours plays into the hands of certain interests--the benefit from having drivers being able to get away with exceeding the regulated work limits. This situation places truckers and the rest of us at risk. The tools to do something about this are clearly here today. What is needed is the political will.

Finally, I'd like to suggest a third amendment. This committee should insist on a rewrite of article 12 of the proposed Canadian hours-of-service regulations. I'm not sure whether I should say article or section. Pardon me if I use the term article. As now drafted, article 12 gives Transport Canada officials carte blanche to exempt some trucking companies from all aspects of hours-of-service limits and reporting. Yes, this is supposedly only for research or pilot purposes, but the government needs to remind itself that there are people out on those roads, not guinea pigs.

Fundamental to addressing this matter of having no work limits for some truck drivers is recognition that the science shows sleep impairment affects drivers in very similar ways to alcohol impairment. It affects their attention. It affects their coordination. It affects their judgment. Of particular relevance, research consistently points to many fatigued drivers not realizing that they are impaired.

Let us take the proposed wording of article 12 and modify it to relate to alcohol impairment. Can you imagine Canadians accepting something such as the following: “12.(1) A federal director may issue a special permit exempting certain individuals from blood alcohol tests for the purposes of a research or pilot project”. I'd have to suggest to you that Canadians most properly would be up in arms. We can assure this committee that our public attitude research demonstrates that Canadians will be very angry when they learn of the proposed cavalier approach to protecting the public from the equally damning ravages of sleep-impaired truck drivers.

At the last meeting of the CCMTA working group on hours of service, my association proposed revised wording for article 12 to bring transparency, to bring some accountability, and to set some limits to Transport Canada's trucker fatigue tests on public roads.

Á (1155)

I understand this committee has been provided with copies of the page outlining the CRASH proposal. I encourage the committee to indicate that this modest set of surely very reasonable parameters for testing on public roads should be substituted for the carte blanche of article 12, as now written.

So there you have it, a normal proposal from CRASH. We are saying to you that the current hours-of-service proposal has particularly major flaws in three areas. We are talking about flaws that place the lives of road users at unacceptable risk.

We at CRASH would prefer that this committee recommend harmonization with the much safer American hours-of-service rules. But at the very least, please give serious consideration to recommending adoption of the three corrective actions I have just outlined.

These are amendments that reflect scientific guidance. These are amendments that cause little or no upset of honest business goals. These are amendments that the Canadian public will welcome--and I can assure you, we have the survey data to show that. These are amendments that will improve trade reciprocity and border access with the United States. These are amendments that are fair to business, fair to truckers, and fair to all road users. Most importantly, these are amendments that will save lives.

It's in your hands to make recommendations that will help provide Canadian citizens with the kind of road security they expect.

Establish a 48-hour reset, rather than 36, to ensure sleep recovery for night truckers. The employment of today's information technology--nothing fancy--to combat dangerous cheating on trucker hours and a role for workload and fatigue research that calls for transparency and limits, to ensure public safety.... Let's do this. Lives are at stake.

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

We'll go to Dr. Smiley.

Ms. Alison M. Smiley (Individual Presentation): It's a privilege to have this opportunity to speak to you this morning. I'm an ergonomist, and as an ergonomist my interest is in human performance, how to improve it, and how to reduce accidents through accommodating human limitations. In this particular case, the human limitation I am concerned about is the fact that we are not machines and need a certain number of hours of sleep. Secondly, we have an internal body clock that dictates that the best sleep is obtained when we take it at night, not during the day.

I want to briefly review the scientific evidence that was considered by both the U.S. and Canadian expert panels. I was on both of the panels. First of all, is fatigue a problem, generally? Secondly, what are the factors that really contribute to it? Thirdly, do the proposed regulations address the factors?

First is an overall picture. It's hard to know how many accidents involve fatigue because we don't have a “fatigalyzer” the way we have a breathalyzer. It takes more questions and more investigation to determine this. We have to rely on specialized studies.

The best estimate from the specialized studies is that fatigue is associated with about 5% to 10% of all crashes, which are mainly property damage crashes; more injury crashes, 20% to 30%; and even more fatal crashes, 25% to 35%. It's a similar kind of picture to what we see for alcohol, in terms of increasing involvement as the crashes get more serious.

The first factor that has played a major role is long hours. We've known for a long time that long hours are a concern. Hours are what we have regulated, so far. From a study done, like the U.S.-Canada study, some twenty years ago, we know people start wandering more in the lane after eight to nine hours of driving on a regular schedule--that is, daytime--and after four to five hours on a nighttime schedule, an irregular schedule. Hours worked during the day are not the same as hours worked at night. People are impaired more quickly when they drive for long hours at night.

We have an estimate that after eight hours accident risk doubles. This is a particularly good study. You might ask how serious it is. When you get to the 0.08% blood alcohol level, your accident risk is double that of a sober driver. It gives you a sense of where the risk is.

Next is the time of day. We have this internal body clock that means our body gears up for action during the day, and then slows down for recuperation and sleep at night. You see the evidence of that body clock in the study on the frequency with which 500 truck drivers reported that they fell asleep at the wheel while driving.

Â (1200)

You see two low points--what we call the post-lunch dip--and anybody who's sat in a lot of committee meetings knows well about the post-lunch dip, the difficulty in maintaining one's attention after lunch. An even worse period is the early morning hours, when people find it difficult to stay awake.

This is a particular problem for truck drivers on the road. It's enough of a problem that the risk of an accident, generally a single-vehicle accident, increases greatly. This study is from Sweden and shows that between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m., the risk per kilometre driven of a truck driver having an accident is four times higher than it is during the day. So time of day has a big impact on attentiveness, alertness, and the likelihood of an accident.

It's linked to inadequate sleep because the number of hours of sleep you get depends on what time of day you go to sleep. If you go to sleep at noon and try to get your sleep for the day starting at noon, you're going to manage to get four hours, possibly. If you go to sleep at 10 p.m., then you're going to get the eight to nine hours that are possible.

This means that nightshift workers, or drivers who are driving at night, don't get as much sleep each day as they would if they were sleeping at night. One old study tells us that they lose about an hour and a half of sleep each day, and they build up a sleep debt. When they get two days off, they will sleep 10 to 12 hours, longer on the second day. It is this study that really underpins our concern that a single night off is not enough for recovery. These people are professional shift workers. This is not a bunch of college students.

We know truck drivers are tired. One in five admits to falling asleep at the wheel during the last month, one in five tractor-trailer drivers. I think about this as I drive past them on the highway.

From a U.S. study from the National Transportation Safety Board, we know that when people have accidents at night that are due to fatigue, those people tend to have had less sleep than the people in other types of accidents at night. So when there's an accident and we can see it's due to fatigue, a truck drifts across three lanes into a ditch kind of accident, the average number of hours of sleep in this study was five and a half hours, compared to other drivers having different types of accidents getting eight hours.

Interestingly enough, 80% of the people who were in the fatigue-related accidents rated their previous sleep as good to excellent. So people do not recognize their own condition in terms of how tired they are.

The expert panel proposals are met in the regulations to some degree. We've gone for a 24-hour period, I'm glad to see that. We're treating on-duty and driving time as equivalent, reducing daily working time. We suggested strongly that weekly hours not be increased, and they effectively are being increased if there's a 36-hour reset allowed.

We made several suggestions--and these were part of the core suggestions in the Canadian expert panel and one of the critical suggestions in the U.S. panel--that night driving has to be treated differently from day driving because of this circadian rhythm, this body clock. We suggested a number of things: less time if people are driving at night, a rest period if they're driving at night, and a 48-hour reset, or two nights off after four nights on duty. We know people need night sleep to recover.

Finally, on monitoring of compliance, we don't have a Canadian study like this. This one is from the United States and tells us that three-quarters of tractor-trailer drivers are violating the U.S. hours of service, a quarter of them driving more than 100 hours per week. So we need some monitoring of compliance.

Â (1205)

It is my opinion that the proposed regulations are continuing to treat day and night as equal, as if we are not more tired when working at night and trying to sleep during the day. And they are going to fail to have any effect on traffic safety.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you, Dr. Smiley.

We'll start with questioning. Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan--Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): I find this all very interesting. I guess I go probably against the norm in your study. My sleep pattern is actually three hours a night.

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes, there are some people... you would represent a small percentage of the population.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Let's look at the truckers as independent truckers who may have the same problem I do. I actually have a very big problem sleeping at night, to be quite honest with you.

When you look at the Canadian Trucking Association, a lot of times the truckers themselves, as you talk to them, say they actually prefer to drive at night to get away from the traffic congestion. If you stop and think about it, in my opinion it cuts down on the accident rate with those truckers out there at night rather than coming through Ottawa or Toronto during rush hour.

Did you say that driving for eight hours is like having 0.08% alcohol in your blood?

Â (1210)

Ms. Alison Smiley: That's the accident risk associated with it, yes. It's equivalent.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Even to associate it to that, to compare it to alcohol, I think is a great disservice to the industry. I think it takes a lot away from drinking and driving.

The one thing that bothers me is you say you've done a survey in Sweden and then you're going to compare it to here in Canada. So I'd like to ask you this. How many people took part in that survey, and was the consideration of different highway conditions and upkeep taken into account in this report?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Were you referring to the study where the accident risk is four times higher?

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Yes.

Ms. Alison Smiley: Actually that sort of study has been done in five countries.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Taking into consideration the aspect of the highway conditions...?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes. Five countries with different highway conditions--Israel, Britain, Australia, Sweden, and I can't remember the fifth one--all find the same pattern of very much increased risk of accident in that time period.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Yes, that could be. What I mean is this. Do these countries have more congestion on the highways than Canada does during the period of service?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Some of them do and some of them don't.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Are the highways the same width? Are we talking about the same standard of truck? I know and you know that the Canadian highway system differs quite drastically from that in Great Britain.

Ms. Alison Smiley: It's rather similar to the U.S., however. Really what we're talking about is the commonality of physiology. People in Israel, Sweden, Britain, Australia, and the U.S. have the same physiology as people in Canada, in that they are more tired, and their whole physiological rhythm dictates they are less alert at night than they are during the day. So that is not different.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: And that's basically what the study is based on.

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes. It's based on accident statistics from five countries. This particular one, which concerns truck driving, is based on accident statistics and on a per-kilometer-driven basis.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not saying there shouldn't be any night driving. I'm not that impractical. I'm saying that when there is night driving one has to consider that more recuperative time is needed to get back into a state where you are performing effectively.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Evans, I'm aware that you do some work with regard to the railway industry. What is the current daily limit on work for railway employees now?

Mr. Bob Evans: I'm sorry I don't know. I'm not involved in doing anything relative to hours of work issues with railways at all.

The one comment I might make, though, is that virtually 99% of railway locomotive engineers and conductors are unionized. They work under contractual agreements that set limits on the number of miles they can operate per month. Those limits tend to average out to about 40 hours of work per week over time. They can be irregular or they can be more in a shorter...but they're very carefully constrained by the collective agreements that have been negotiated.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay, fair enough.

With regard to cheating, it's an interesting aspect that anybody can cheat. I guess the key is, how do we realistically establish a regulatory framework, and perhaps requirements for reporting or recording, that can detect? And if we do find that there is significant or repetitive cheating, where's it not inadvertent or maybe not just one individual, what kinds of consequences should be associated with that?

Maybe you both want to take a crack at that.

Â (1215)

Mr. Bob Evans: Perhaps I can start.

I'll tell you what's proposed in the United States. The American proposal is to mandate electronic on-board recorders for all large trucks within four years, or within two years for large companies and within four years for small companies, the independents and owner-operators. That's being done to create a critical mass so that the costs for the owner-operator will be brought down.

The intention is that this black box will simply monitor when the truck is running and when the truck is stopped. It probably will be tied in with a type of smart card for the truck driver. There has to be a card so that you know not only when the truck is operating but also when driver A or driver B or driver C is driving that truck.

That's the intended approach. The Americans have also mandated a specific timeframe for this to come about, which is one thing I didn't really put into my proposal and should have. In my view, the American timeframe sounds like the kind of thing we should be thinking of here.

Ms. Alison Smiley: I have a couple of comments here.

First, many trucks already have tachographs, recorders of distance and so on, so I don't think it's such a big issue to add electronic recorders for time.

Second, we don't really know in Canada what kind of hours people work here. We haven't done any of the studies that have been done in the U.S. One of the best studies, looking at how many people were violating the hours of work, was done very simply. They recorded the licence plates at one truck stop and the licence plates at another along a very commonly used route, and then calculated hours of work. It showed that at least half of the people monitored were in violation.

Mr. Paul Szabo: With regard to the reset, Mr. Evans, you're suggesting 48 hours versus 36. Can you describe the graph of the reset hours required as it moves from eight hours a day up to thirteen hours a day?

Mr. Bob Evans: I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your question.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, an incremental reset of 12 hours is a 33% increase in reset time.

Mr. Bob Evans: Oh, you're adding... I'm proposing going from 36 to 48.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes. You're increasing by 12 hours, which is one-third of 36.

Mr. Bob Evans: A 33% increase in off-duty time, yes. That way you get the second night.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But if you were to reduce 13 down to 12, what hours of reset would you have?

Mr. Bob Evans: I'd still make the same recommendation--

Mr. Paul Szabo: So where is the critical point?

Mr. Bob Evans: --because you're dealing with per day and you're dealing with per week.

Mr. Paul Szabo: My question is, where is the critical point? Does ten hours require a reset time?

Mr. Bob Evans: The critical point is really two nights of sleep, a minimum of two nights of sleep. I've been influenced by a number of sources, not the least of which is sitting beside me here. A truck driver needs....

It's kind of interesting; the Canadian expert panel recommended two nights--

Mr. Paul Szabo: I don't have much time here. I'm just trying to determine, where does a reset requirement kick in?

Mr. Bob Evans: After 70 hours there's a so-called voluntary reset, but that's kind of nonsense. The truck driver can voluntarily decide to rest now. He may lose his job, but....

Mr. Paul Szabo: So you're saying it doesn't relate to 13 hours maximum a day.

Mr. Bob Evans: Currently you can work 14 hours a day. I know there's a suggestion to go from 14 hours to 13, but under the current proposal you can drive 14 hours a day. And it's work--14 hours, day one; 14 hours, day two; 14 hours, day three; 14 hours, day four; 14 hours, day five. When you get to 70 hours you must take a 36-hour reset.

So that is the rest of day five, all of day six, and then in day seven you can drive another 14 hours and you're back in another five-day cycle.

Mr. Paul Szabo: If I could rephrase the question then, if you work 60 hours, how much reset do you need? Sixty hours in five days.

Â (1220)

Mr. Bob Evans: If you work sixty hours in five days....

Mr. Paul Szabo: How sensitive is that reset?

Mr. Bob Evans: It's a good point. Because in the American proposal, there is a requirement for two nights after 60 hours. But it's after you've worked more than so many hours--period--regardless of the number of days, then you have to take a reset. You're right.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, because you're suggesting a very significant increase in the reset, and I'm trying to understand where you hit the wall that triggers the need for a reset. If you adjusted hours of service.... Obviously going from 14 to 13 is going to make it less risky, but it's not sensitive to the reset. In fact you're going quite the opposite.

Mr. Bob Evans: Right. But according to what David Bradley in the CTA said, a truck driver is still going to be working 14 hours in the 13 hours. That was his testimony. Even if you go to 13 hours driving, your truck driver still has to work 14 hours, he said. So you still have 14 hours a week.

The 14 hours is something you have to think of very consciously, because most of these owner-operators are not very well paid. They are paid by the mile and they're under pressure to get in as many hours as they can, at least legally. We are going to be talking about a lot of drivers who are going to be putting in 70 hours in the five days and then go on to a reset.

You've raised an interesting point, though. Even to go to an even further extreme than you suggest, if somebody only works ten hours a day, there may need to be a second element in that with respect to when a reset clicks in. But the reset should always ensure two nights of sleep.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Even if you worked three days, took a day off, worked another three days?

Mr. Bob Evans: Maybe I'll let you reply to that.

Ms. Alison Smiley: The real issue is how many nights you worked. If you're working the midnight till six a.m. period, four of those, then you need time off.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Four of those consecutively, or in a week?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes, four of those consecutively. If you're working during the day, yes, you can grind on with those hours. You're getting night sleep. I don't think it's pleasant. But my real concern is people who are working at night, because the current regulations would allow you to work six nights in a row, and then just have one night off.

Mr. Paul Szabo: This is the last question. Theoretically an operator can circumvent these rules simply. Instead of having to take mandatory two days off consecutively, what they could do is simply take one day off in the middle of the trip and save the downtime. You could theoretically be working six days a week and not have any mandatory reset.

Ms. Alison Smiley: I'm not sure how that...

Mr. Bob Evans: I'm not absolutely sure.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, that's what I'm gathering. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Mr. Laframboise.

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

My first question is directed to Mr. Evans. On a personal level, I'm deeply convinced that the trucking industry is in the throes of a crisis. Few young people are choosing trucking as their profession because working conditions have become inhumane. Would you call this a fair assessment of the situation?

Mr. Bob Evans: I would say that yours is a fairly accurate assessment of the situation. Many truckers are poorly paid, as evidenced by Statistics Canada figures. Trucking has been likened to a sweatshop on wheels. That's often the case of truckers who spend too many hours behind the wheel for too little money. A number of other studies have shown that many truckers are in poor health and suffer from low moral. The industry is rife with problems.

Certainly we hear about the shortage of truck drivers. However, who wants to drive a truck 60, 70 or 80 hours a week in all kinds of conditions and often be away from home, when the alternative is a 40-hour a week day job? Trucking is not an attractive profession.

Â (1225)

Mr. Mario Laframboise: On listening to the Independent Trucking Association which negotiated and agreement with the Teamsters, one might be inclined to believe that such an agreement was the lesser of two evils. The industry is facing a crisis and wants to maximize the use of available truck drivers. Obviously, the drivers cooperate because they don't want their companies to go bankrupt. In essence, the agreement is a compromise. However, it does nothing to resolve the serious problem of long hours on the road .

To my mind, this is the most serious problem that must be addressed. If reducing the number of driving hours becomes an accepted practice, the industry will adjust. Wages will also be adjusted. Some semblance of order will be restored to the industry. At least, that's what I infer from your presentation.

You talked about rest periods and about of introducing electronic recorders and other such things. It goes without saying that changes in these areas are needed, because the infamous log books have become the subject of much ridicule from industry insiders as well as from the general public. Current log books allow for tampering or adjustment of driver records to offset the shortage of drivers. However, there's no denying the harsh facts that long hours and driver fatigue are problematic for the industry.

My next question is for Ms. Smiley. At our least meeting, we heard from Transport Canada officials that no conclusive study had been done of driver fatigue, either in the Unites States or in Canada. You stated that spending more than eight hours behind the wheel is almost equivalent to exceeding the acceptable blood alcohol level of .08 per cent. Has a major study been done which confirms your serious allegation?

[English]

Ms. Alison Smiley: There are many studies that confirm the greater risk. That one you mention about the doubling of the risk after eight hours is a particularly good study involving 330 tractor-trailer accidents, in which they found out how many hours the people who were in accidents worked. They went to the site of the accident at the same time of day, same day of the week, got three other tractor-trailers, and found out their hours. They weren't in accidents. So in that way, they were able to establish that the risk was double. It's a very good study.

There's not only that study; there are studies of performance. When people are fatigued because they're driving in the middle of the night, their performance is similar to that of people who have been drinking: they're inattentive, they have poorly divided attention, they wander more in the lane. The effects are very similar.

Â (1230)

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: When the .08 per cent blood alcohol level became the accepted norm, surely it was because studies had been done showing how the risk of accidents was greater when this level was exceeded. Was that in fact the case at the time?

[English]

Ms. Alison Smiley: I would say that in the era when we passed the .08 law, we probably had a few more conclusive studies than we do in the area of fatigue, but we have plenty in the area of fatigue to make regulations that better correspond to what people's limitations are and when accident risk increases.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You don't agree with Transport Canada's contention that research into driver fatigue is wanting.

[English]

Ms. Alison Smiley: No, absolutely not. If one looks at the expert panel report from the U.S. and from Canada, there are dozens and dozens of references to studies on fatigue. There is lots known about it.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have one last question for the witness. Is the agreement between the Teamsters and the independent trucking industry similar to or in keeping with the recommendation you spoke of, that is a proposed review of hours of service as mentioned in your report? Or, is this agreement totally different?

[English]

Ms. Alison Smiley: No, they're different. The problem is that the interests of both of those groups are in having more hours in order for the trucking associations to not have a shortage of truck drivers and for the truck drivers to make a living. That's the essential problem. I'm quite sure that if they could make a living on fewer hours, they would prefer to work fewer hours.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you, Mario.

Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you.

Ms. Smiley, I'm interested in some of your comments. First of all, I'm assuming that there's a lunch break for most. People don't actually...

A voice: Oh, oh!

Mr. Alex Shepherd: There's no such thing? They just keep on trucking, is that it?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Right.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But if there were such a thing where they had to physically stop for an hour, that would presumably reverse some of this deprivation.

Ms. Alison Smiley: That's a very interesting point. What we do find--and this has been found in a number of studies--is that when you get really tired, the rest breaks have a very limited impact. In fact, there was a Transport Canada study about driving in the middle of the night that found that after the third break or so, I think it was, you were getting 12 minutes where your performance improved, and after that it was back to the way it was. When you start to need sleep, it's like needing food: you can't get through it by doing something else; you need to sleep.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: The reason I ask is that there are a number of truckers having problems now with Revenue Canada and the claim for meal allowances. They've reduced their claim for meal allowance. But obviously you're saying it's irrelevant because the break itself doesn't help, and even if it did, it doesn't really have any impact on sleep deprivation.

Ms. Alison Smiley: The first couple of breaks will help, but after that when you get to a state where you need sleep, the breaks have very limited impact. You're going to fall asleep just as fast.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I want to get back to your theory on night driving, which presumably is well thought out.

This country has areas where during the winter months it's dark the majority of the time. By extrapolation, then, they should have a higher accident rate than do people who live in the south of our country. Is that true?

Ms. Alison Smiley: I would expect it is, but there are two things going on here. One is the circadian rhythm issue, which is going to be this down period in the early morning hours when you're not as alert and you're more at risk of an accident, and that's going to happen whether there is daylight or night outside.

The other one is at night the visibility is poorer and you do have a much higher accident rate per kilometer driven. But of course there is less traffic volume at night, so you don't see it by just simply looking at the crashes, you have to look at the crashes per kilometer driven to see that effect.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Having said that, there is no study that would suggest that northern drivers are more at risk than southern drivers?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Actually there is, and it was done by Frank Saccomanno, of the Institute for Risk Research at the University of Waterloo. I can't give you the details of it, but he did look at drivers in northern Ontario and found higher risks up there.

Â (1235)

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So your legislation should be based on actual hours of daylight, shouldn't it?

Ms. Alison Smiley: No, because the main issue is the circadian rhythm. The hours of lightness do change, but the main problem in terms of making people sleepy is the circadian rhythm.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: It isn't just something that's related to the trucking industry, though. In my riding a lot of people work for General Motors and work night shifts. It would assume that people who work the night shift are more accident prone than those who work the day shift. Is that correct?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes, it does assume it, and there are many studies that show this kind of effect, that you have more accidents in the early morning hours, and poorer performance.It has been known for a long time. In fact, in the airline industry they do legislate differently for night flying versus day flying. There are more restrictions on it.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: If it were true, though, for a company like General Motors, it's not significant enough to affect their efficiency or productivity.

Ms. Alison Smiley: It's because they haven't looked. As an ergonomist, I can tell you there are many things that affect people's productivity and efficiency that companies do not know about and do not change. It would be helpful to them.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.

Mrs. Desjarlais.

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

Having been on the committee for at least a few years, I've had the opportunity to review some of the studies that have been done. I'm curious, Dr. Smiley, whether you're aware of similar studies that may have been done within the health care industry, for example, on nursing shifts when they switched over to twelve-hour shifts, and how they relate to the trucking industry.

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes. I first got into this with the nuclear industry going to twelve-hour shifts. It's a complicated issue. Often what is done at night is different from what's done in the day, or there are different circumstances. You have to factor it all in when looking at accident rates. Also, there is more limitation on the hours worked in most industries than there is for truckers. Finally, the risk in many industries is not the same as when you're driving a multi-tonne vehicle on the public roads.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are you aware of whether or not any studies have been done in the nursing industry or health care?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes. The study I can think of, off the top of my head, is a study on minor accidents in hospitals. One uses minor accidents because you can count enough of them to see an effect. They show a higher number in the early morning hours.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Minor accidents, medication errors, and that kind of thing would increase toward the latter part of the shifts and in the same hours of time?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes. It's the same thing in the railway industry. There's a study in Germany. When a warning alarm comes on, if you don't respond to a reset alerting device, it shows a much higher rate in the early morning hours and in the post-lunch dip, as well.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Does the study reflect if there is a switchover of shifting? If someone did so many nights, then so many days, back to so many nights, does it have an effect on the driving pattern as well?

Ms. Alison Smiley: I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You have a driver who's doing a number of night shifts in a row. For instance, he did a couple of fourteen-hour nights, had a little break, did a couple of days, and then did another night within the period of time. Does it change the balance as well?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes. One can go to two extremes to create the best conditions for people. One is do as few nights in a row as possible. The European twelve-hour shift schedule would be something like two days on, two nights on, and two off. The other way of treating it is to allow people to get adjusted to the night-time work, work three weeks on one schedule, and then three weeks on another.

In Canada, we tend to use the worst possible schedule in industry. It is one week on each shift. Every week it's as if you're flying to a different time zone and trying to adjust to it.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In your view, what's your best choice?

Ms. Alison Smiley: I don't think there are sufficient studies to show which of the shift-work systems would be best in a factory setting and on the road. The real issue is having time off after you've worked 48 hours or so. It's the real issue here.

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

Â (1240)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon--Humboldt, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I think something that should be stated here is that when you design a study you can pretty much design it to get any result you want. That's the problem with a lot of studies. In fact, those articles in most professional journals have been studied themselves, and the studies themselves may have been biased. This suggests that probably only about 3% of all peer-reviewed published studies in any given professional journal are actually soundly done and not subject to any kind of bias that would taint the result.

Having said that, I don't doubt that there's some basis to what you're saying. Common sense would tell us that the longer you drive, the more you will tend to fall asleep, eventually.

I guess my concern here would be that you're dealing with the livelihood of truckers and there's a lot of individual variation. Again, you could pull out all kinds of studies, many of which would be subject to bias because they were trying to show one thing or another anyway. In any event, in some of these things, how do you even show the difference between sexes or how do you compare the age of one trucker to another? All these different parameters and factors would be in place.

Let's say you have a trucker like Mr. Stinson, who is fine as long as he gets three or four hours of sleep a day and is in fact a very good driver.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: On a point of order, just for clarification, Mr. Stinson didn't say he was fine. He said he had a serious problem.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: No, I didn't say I had a serious problem. Actually, I am quite fine on three hours.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I think his point was that if gets three or fours hours of sleep a night, he functions fine.

My point is, if Mr. Stinson were a truck driver instead of a politician, he could be subject to serious restrictions on his ability to earn a decent living because of some government rule that doesn't fit him. What's he to do? He puts in his limited number of hours working and then he has to sit there and can't earn a living because of a government law.

Whatever validity there is to the studies you're purporting to have here, I would suggest that a far better approach would be one that is voluntary and educational, one that says to truckers, “Look, here's what we've found.” As much as truckers want to earn a living, I'm sure they're also as conscious as the next person about safety.

Really, where would these restrictions end? If it's true for truckers, then it's true for private individuals driving cars. Maybe we should start having restrictions on that. And maybe we should start having government rules about when you can leave your home or walk down the street. Where would it all end?

I think a much more reasonable approach would be one of education, information, and voluntary compliance. I'll just close by saying that if we don't do that, truckers are going to find a way to get around it anyway. You already said that 75% of them in the States, or something like that, break the thing anyway. You can put in whatever computerized digital thing you want, but people are resourceful and industrious and they're going to find a way around it. All you're doing is making people put resources, time, and effort into getting around rules. It's counterproductive.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Mr. Evans.

Mr. Bob Evans: I'd like to respond. Really what you're saying is that it's far more important for the truck driver to be able to make a living than it is to protect the lives of the other road users, the other people in Canada. We're dealing with--

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, I--

Mr. Bob Evans: No, I'm sorry, we are dealing with--

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Let me clarify.

Mr. Bob Evans: --a balance here.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I did not say that. I said--

Mr. Bob Evans: No, you didn't say that, but--

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Order, please.

Mr. Pankiw, could you let him finish?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: He's on the wrong track. He's using a premise, but I didn't say that. That's not what I implied and it's not what I meant. If you want to let him talk, okay, but he's eating up my time.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): No, I don't want to let him talk, I just want to clarify the point. Maybe you'll rephrase your question for clarification.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I'm saying that there are individual variations between people, between sexes and between ages, and in all kinds of factors that may come into play. Enforcement of a strict rule that may not, to a particular individual, have any basis in reasonableness whatsoever, and will therefore affect his livelihood, is not a fair thing to do to that individual.

Â (1245)

My whole point was that an educational, voluntary type of approach to educate truckers about the risks associated with sleep deprivation and so on would probably get you far more results than implementing rules that won't be followed anyway.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): If I understood correctly, Mr. Evans, the question that has been asked is whether all these factors have been taken into consideration while these studies have been undertaken.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, if you were going to be fair, you ought to set up a test that tests every single trucker to find out what his or her individual limits are and where they each start to have the problems themselves. It's not fair to have a blanket set of regulations apply to everybody when everybody is different.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): I think that's your question, Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Evans.

Mr. Bob Evans: I'd like to note that we have, in road safety regulations, a very absolute, totally rigid standard at the moment, and I would suggest to you it's very effective. That's a 0.08 blood alcohol level.

Maybe people have suggested this, but we don't say “Oh well, he's a great big guy. He should be able to drink more, so we'll allow him to have 1.0”; and “That person doesn't want to drink, so we won't even bother to give them a requirement for blood”. We say the protection of life and limb on our roads requires that we do something very clear and very definite, and we have--bang--a blood alcohol level.

It's inconvenient for a number of people. It may even be unfair to some guy who weighs 350 pounds and is muscular and so on and could have three or four more beers and be okay. But we say that protection of life and limb is too important and we have to set a definite rule.

We have a problem with fatigue, in the sense that there is no “fatiguealyzer” similar to the alcohol meter, but that doesn't say the problem is any less serious. In fact, sleep impairment has the same--

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): If I understood, then we'll just get back to the question. Mr. Pankiw asked if in the studies that have been done, have these various factors been taken into consideration? The gender and--

Mr. Bob Evans: Well, maybe I should pass to--

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Dr. Smiley.

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes, I have a couple of comments. I'm not as cynical about studies as you are. I would rather rely on a study of 500 people and when they fell asleep than the anecdotal evidence of one person and when they fell asleep, because we want to make regulations that are appropriate to the majority.

In the U.S.-Canada study, two-thirds of the drivers who were monitored had an episode of drowsiness where they were closing their eyes. So I would say it affects the majority.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Then the answer to my question is no, those different factors weren't taken into account?

Ms. Alison Smiley: No, they are looked at in different studies. Some studies look at, for example, “morningness” and “eveningness” and what times of day certain people are most prone to a low dip, and so on. But the majority of people require a certain number of hours of sleep and get tired in the early morning hours.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: But the majority of people in what age group--and what sex, and what other parameters?

Ms. Alison Smiley: It's males and females from probably, in the youngest studies I would know about, age 16 up to about the seventies.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: But my point is--

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Please wrap up.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: If you were going to be fair--if it could even be done, which I don't think it could--you'd say people in the 20 to 25 age group fall into this set of regulations; females between the ages of 30 and 35 fit here. You couldn't even do that, because there would still be individual variations between them.

I'll just close up, Mr. Chair, by saying that with respect to Mr. Evans trying to draw some kind of parallel with the 0.08 thing, first of all, we're talking about people's livelihoods here, so there's no comparison. Second, people still abuse that. That's why there are convictions all the time for it. My point is this would be abused in the same way. So a more reasonable, cooperative educational approach I think would be preferable to some set of rules that--

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Dr. Smiley.

Ms. Alison Smiley: I'd like to address that issue of the educational approach. That's been tried. There was a good study looking at trying to educate railway workers about changing their behaviour and understanding what created the most fatigue. They all thought the education they received was wonderful. Nobody changed their behaviour. Why? Because the circumstances in which they worked hadn't changed. To get people to voluntarily do things, it has to be convenient and obviously in their best interest.

We tried the educational approach with seatbelts. The U.S. tried it for years. They got an 11% wearing rate with the educational approach. And how difficult is it to do up a seatbelt? When they brought in the law, the rates went way up. So I don't agree that an educational approach is going to be effective. It has been shown to be quite ineffective.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you for that response.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

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

If you will allow me one final comment, I think the industry needs to be taken to task over its behaviour because as things now stand, it violates every rule in the book. Take, for instance, driver log books. Everyone knows that cheating is commonplace. We need to find a way to discipline the industry and the wages will adjust accordingly. It's as simple as that. As long as the industry continues to have free rein, we will never succeed in bringing it under control. As my colleague stated earlier, of course everyone can try to work as much as possible. However, when drivers are paid by the mile, they try to drive as many hours as they possibly can and in the process, they pose a risk to others on the road. That's all there is to it. At some point, fatigue, like alcohol, becomes a risk factor and vehicles may become weapons.

As far as studies are concerned, the Department of Transport maintains that no in-depth studies on fatigue have been done. Earlier, you said you disagreed with the department's contention.

In your opinion, why would the department mislead us and say that not enough research had been done?

Â (1250)

[English]

Ms. Alison Smiley: I'm not sure why that would be said. I think with any scientific research, if you don't want to apply the results, you can say there isn't enough research. I'm sure that could have been done and I'm sure it was done when the alcohol rules came out and when the seatbelt rules came out.

In my opinion, looking at the scientific research, there is plenty.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: We've been told that given Canada's overall size, it might be more appropriate to draw a comparison with the situation in Australia, rather than with the United States. Have you analysed the regulatory regime in Australia to see if the comparison would be more suitable?

Mr. Bob Evans: Yes. I've looked at the situation in Australia and found it most interesting. The daily and weekly hours of work are similar to what we have here in Canada. We were unable to find anything comparable either in Europe or in the United States.

I'd like to make a couple of observations. First of all, do Australians have harsh winters, with lots of snow and ice and problems associated with the cold weather? I think not.

More importantly, we need to consider a very recent study, theReport of Inquiry into Safety in the Long Haul Trucking Industry done by Professor Michael Quinlan from the University of New South Wales on behalf of the State of New South Wales, which had some concerns about trucking. Let me read you an excerpt from this study. I'm sorry, but for the sake of accuracy, I'll read it to you in English.

One of the countries in question is the United States and the statistics per capita for the United States are fairly similar to these.

[English]

Mr. Bob Evans: In comparison to the U.S.A., the U.K., and Finland, available evidence indicates that Australians are almost two times more likely to die in a crash involving a heavy vehicle.

[Translation]

Therefore, if we want to see the number of deaths and accidents involving large trucks increase, all we need to do, according to the report, is follow Australia's lead.

Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Bev Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Smiley, I have in front of me Options for changes to hours-of-service for commercial drivers, September of 1998, Vespa, Rhodes, Heslegrave, Smiley and Baranski. This was a study you were a part of. It was done for the road safety programs group in Transportation Development Centre, Safety and Security, Transport Canada. Was this report unanimous recommendations to Transport Canada in regard to operations?

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes, there was no dissenting party listed.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Basically, the recommendations that you said today fell within this--

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes, that's where they're from.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The persons taking part in this report represented, I would imagine, different groups who were stakeholders within--

Â (1255)

Ms. Alison Smiley: No, they were scientists.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: They were all scientists, okay.

Just on that note, with all due respect to Mr. Pankiw's comments about reports and journals and papers and peer review, his co-critic on the industry committee would be extremely disappointed to hear his lack of regard for those scientists and researchers who are involved in industry in presenting those papers.

We've been going through a huge study on peer review and the respect for the scientists and people involved in these studies, so I want to thank you for the reports you've always done in the past for the Department of Transport. Hopefully, we'll take some heed to the recommendations that all the scientists made. Thank you.

Ms. Alison Smiley: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, as you know, I'm always a little leery when it comes to statements by my Bloc friends. They tend to distort the facts. We see many examples of this every day.

Mr. Laframboise said that according to the Department of Transport, insufficient scientific research had been done into fatigue. I'd like the committee to verify the veracity of this statement. I've haven't been around forever, but my instincts are telling me something. I don't recall the department saying anything about a major shortfall in terms of research or studies. I'd like the committee to check into this, if only to have some objective information.

I instinctively tend to take Bloc statements with a grain of salt. However, I would like us to delve further into my colleague's statement. After all, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Laframboise.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Monsieur Harvey, my understanding, If I may interject, is that the department said that there were no new studies, not that there weren't studies, if I may clarify that.

Are there any more questions? Would you just like to wrap up for minute, Mr. Evans, Dr. Smiley?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a comment for the record. If anybody thinks that studies aren't subject to bias because of self-interest or personal motives of researchers, then that's very naive. I want to state that for the record.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Studies are there for people to study. They obviously take various venues under consideration. Studies can be interpreted in whichever way they should. In my personal view, the purpose of a study is to bring information forward to be evaluated and assessed in a transparent way.

You can make a summary, if you like, Mr. Evans.

Mr. Bob Evans: May I just make a comment on something I said earlier?

On the 36-hour reset and the suggestion to go to 48 hours, I recall now the American proposal says that there will be a 48-hour rest period reset--in fact, they talk about more, they talk about 58 actually--but that there will be an adequate rest period for two nights sleep as a fundamental requirement of the American proposal.

It's every week. So regardless if they have a truck driver who only drives six hours, or works six hours, for five days, he still would be required to have a weekend. We're talking about a weekend that is only a fraction of the weekend that most of us have.

The only other comment I'd make is I'd like to say again that the position of CRASH is that we should harmonize with the safer American regulations. If you don't do that, please, very seriously consider three recommendations that ensure that truck drivers get two nights of sleep a week, that ensure that we do something about the very serious problem of cheating and that we use some modern technology to deal with it.

We've had no discussion on this, but I think it's still very important, this article 12. We have to do something about the complete licence to allow some truck companies and some truckers to escape limits completely.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Dr. Smiley, you can give a quick wrap-up if you like.

Ms. Alison Smiley: Yes, I'd like to encourage the panel to take this opportunity in the change of the hours of service regulations to recognize the very strong evidence there is that night driving is different from day driving. It is more tiring and it is higher risk.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you.

If I may, I'm privileged to at least ask one question, but I really have two questions.

In regard to the studies that were done in Sweden, Israel, Britain, and Australia, and you mentioned there was a fifth country, there's been discussion in terms of who to compare, etc. If you were wanting to compare, and we look at the way our country is mapped out in comparison to some of these other countries.... And I've heard from other people as well. I think Mr. Stinson mentioned earlier, when you compare Israel, for example, or Sweden, when we look at the infrastructure and the distances, etc., is it fair, let's say, to compare Canada with Israel or Sweden? If you were to compare with a parallel environment, which environment would you recommend in terms of country?

· (1300)

Ms. Alison Smiley: I think probably the U.S. and Australia are most comparable, but there is a lot of Sweden that looks like northern Ontario. Canada is diverse in its road system too.

Really, the issue for me is that the physiology is the same. We all have two eyes, we all get sleepy at night. It's very basic.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Mr. Evans, who commissioned the study in terms of the electronic usage, the electronic monitoring boxes?

Mr. Bob Evans: I cited the American proposal. This is the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): There's a study of electronic boxes under way, you said.

Mr. Bob Evans: I'm sorry. I'm told that there is a study in which CCMTA is studying black boxes. Quebec's involved as part of that study, but it's really being handled, as I understand it, through the CCMTA.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you very much.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Chair, just for better clarity for the committee members, I'm not saying there is no value in studies or in having witnesses such as these appear, but you have to temper that and take it somewhat with a grain of salt. A lobbyist can take studies and come to some very firm conclusions that maybe, if you were completely objective, wouldn't really be that evident.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Mr. Pankiw, that's why the constituencies out there like people like yourself to evaluate the study intelligently, with cross-dialogue, so at the end of the day we do what is right, hopefully.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Very good.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Cannis): Thank you.

The meeting's adjourned.