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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 21, 2002

1100

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

Sergeant André Lemaire (National Traffic Coordinator, Traffic Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

1105

The Chair

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

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

1110

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

The Chair

Mrs. Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

1115

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

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

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1120

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. St-Julien

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

1125

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Laframboise

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

1130

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Sgt André Lemaire

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Sgt André Lemaire

Mrs. Desjarlais

The Chair

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

1135

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ)

Mr. St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

1140

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

1145

Mr. St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. St-Julien

Mr. Lebel

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

1150

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1155

1200

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Murphy

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

1205

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Clerk

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Clerk

1210

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. André Harvey

1215

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

NUMBER 057

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1100)

[English]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are looking at truckers' hours of service and the border.

Today we have Sergeant André Lemaire from the traffic service of the RCMP. Welcome, Sergeant, the floor is yours. We'll ask you some questions after.

Sergeant André Lemaire (National Traffic Coordinator, Traffic Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Good morning.

My position with the RCMP is as national traffic coordinator. I've been stationed here in Ottawa for the last five years with these same functions.

The RCMP traffic service program has adopted “Road SafetyVision 2010” as its platform for our service delivery. Some of you might not be as familiar with it as others. This expresses the goals we've set to reach by year 2010, when we want to have the safest roads in the world. That includes a reduction of 30 percent in fatalities and injuries. Our goal is to reduce the carnage on our roadways in Canada.

The Transport Canada discussion paper on hours of operation for commercial vehicles is part of this vision. Improvements to make it easier for the enforcement community to address this issue will definitely be welcomed. One of the concerns we have with the hours of operation is how to enforce them. Different jurisdictions have different ways of dealing with this issue, and it's very difficult for the police officer on the street to find his way through the maze of legislation.

The 1,200 members of the RCMP Traffic Services across Canada are dedicated to making our roadways safer. The road safety directorate of Transport Canada, one of our main partners, has highly qualified researchers examining this issue of driver fatigue in commercial carriers, and they will be assisted by the RCMP in every way we can. We deal with Transport Canada on a daily basis at our office and across Canada. Any help we can give them, we will. Hopefully, we'll come to some solution on this issue that will assist in the road safety of Canada. At this time the RCMP has not conducted any research on the issue of driver fatigue, whether in commercial vehicles or regular vehicles, so we will rely heavily on the Transport Canada research.

That's all I have to present for now. I'll answer any of your questions, if I can.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Mario, do you want to lead off?

[Translation]

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

You are responsible for safety. Which areas are you responsible for in Canada?

Sgt André Lemaire: We are responsible for safety in eight provinces and three territories. The only areas that we are not responsible for are Ontario and Quebec. We are responsible for the rest of Canada, with the exception of some major urban centres such as Vancouver, Edmonton, and Halifax, where municipal contracts are granted to the municipal police. We are responsible for approximately 85 percent of the provinces we patrol.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Have you noticed that fatigue is a problem in accidents where heavy trucks are involved? You read the coroners' reports, etc. Have you noted this in the case of fatal accidents or accidents where there are injuries, for example?

Sgt André Lemaire: We do not have any information or statistics for that. It is very difficult for the police to know whether or not the cause of a collision was fatigue. That is one of the most difficult things to determine. Was it fatigue or carelessness? We don't really have any numbers that we can use to determine that.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: In the case of accidents, is it not your responsibility to analyze the coroner's report or other reports?

Sgt André Lemaire: Not necessarily. Furthermore, the coroner's report does not necessarily cover the cause of the collision. It covers the cause of death rather than the cause of the collision. The coroner's report can tell us whether the individual consumed alcohol, for example. You can learn things like that, but not whether fatigue was the cause of the accident.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You are the one who is in charge of the famous log books. Are you responsible for these in the territories or provinces, or is an independent organization responsible, as is the case in Quebec?

Sgt André Lemaire: An independent organization is responsible, which does not mean that the RCMP cannot check them. Once again, however, there are specialists in each province and territory whose sole responsibility that is; they are the truck inspectors.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Therefore, hours of work or related issues are not your responsibility.

Sgt André Lemaire: That is not our main responsibility, no.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Furthermore, if you are not in charge of the log books, the only thing you can note, if, as you say, the coroners reports do not analyze... You may be concerned, but I don't believe this is your department. It would be the responsibility of organizations dealing with truckers, etc.

Sgt André Lemaire: Exactly. It is the provincial and territorial organizations that are indirectly responsible for this, especially the inspectors for hours of service.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's all. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--James Bay--Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is this. When we're talking about truckers' hours of service, what would you and your department feel reasonable hours would be? Do you consult with Canadian stakeholders, with the provinces, Quebec and Ontario, do you have a relationship with the unions? We all know that there are many drivers' unions...

For how long do you, the RCMP, think a trucker should drive?

Sgt André Lemaire: The RCMP will be exclusively using Transport Canada's report and we will follow Transport Canada's recommendations regarding hours of work because we have not done any research to determine what is safe and what isn't.

Therefore, we will be using Transport Canada's report and we will follow their recommendations.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Fine. What do you mean by Transport Canada's report, an immediate report, a report...?

Sgt André Lemaire: They currently have a working document and we will be using those recommendations. It is not yet in effect, it is at a research stage. When it is finished, it will be our bible, but for now it is not yet an official document; it is a research document.

Á (1110)

Mr. Guy St-Julien: If it is a research document, can the members of the committee obtain a copy in French and English from Transport Canada in order to read what it contains?

Sgt André Lemaire: Certainly. It is a public document. It was prepared by the CCMTA, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, which has provincial representatives in each province. It is a report that was prepared for them.

[English]

The Chair: I'm told that we have that document, so if you want a copy, we could get it for you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Perfect. I was just about to ask that question. Is it the most recent version? Are there several versions of this document?

Sgt André Lemaire: The version that I have dates back toNovember 1999. I believe that is currently the only version that exists.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Could we find out if there is a more recent 2002 version? It is important. Many years have passed since 1999. We should have an up-to-date version, a 2002 version because, Mr. Chairman, 1999 was quite a while ago; there have been a lot of changes.

Sgt André Lemaire: Mr. Brian Orrbine from Transport Canada is responsible for the report. He would be the person to contact to obtain more information about the report itself. I cannot really tell you more than that.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: You told us earlier that you are responsible for eight provinces and three territories, that you are not responsible for Ontario and Quebec. Therefore, if you have a Transport Canada document and that you are at customs in Quebec or Ontario, what do you do? Do you advise the Quebec provincial police? Will you intervene, because you are responsible for the other provinces and territories, but not for Ontario or Quebec? If you have a complaint and Transport Canada asks you to act in Quebec, what do you do?

Sgt André Lemaire: What do you mean by “act”? Are you talking about the Highway Code?

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I'm talking about offences, about a report stating--

Sgt André Lemaire: Transport Canada would not ask us to act in Quebec or Ontario. Those provinces do not come under our jurisdiction as far as the Highway Code goes. The Quebec Provincial Police or the Ontario Provincial police would take care of that.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Madam Desjarlais.

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

You've probably you've answered this, but maybe you can let me know what your take is on whether or not it would be the OPP, the RCMP, or someone else. With travel by truckers on toll roads throughout the country, who would have jurisdiction? Does it still fall under those police forces?

Sgt André Lemaire: It falls under the police force in that area. So if it's a toll road in the city of Toronto, it would be the city of Toronto police. If it's a toll road in Nova Scotia that's part of the RCMP jurisdiction, it would be our responsibility.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If there is a traffic accident involving a truck and a death in that accident, do you ask to review that log book automatically?

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes. With fatalities involving any vehicles, whether it's a truck or a bus or a car--of course, there are no log books in cars--our traffic analyst would go to the scene and do the investigation, and the log book would be part of the investigation.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is part of the investigation questioning the driver or person in the vehicle about what they were doing before the accident, the length of time they'd been driving, whether or not they were fatigued, those kinds of questions?

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes. Normally, they'd try to find as much data as possible on that collision, and if it means tracking it back over the last three, four, five days, they will, depending on the severity of what actually occurred.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are you aware whether or not there are reports of people being fatigued who are involved in these accidents?

Sgt André Lemaire: I don't have any reports on that. I don't have any data on fatigue and crashes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Not necessarily data and numbers, but are you aware whether in some accidents that may have been the case?

Sgt André Lemaire: There's no question that is the case in some collisions. We know it's happening out there. Our members tell us that, without having the data. I've had occasion to stop a vehicle, even cars, where the people are falling asleep and going all over the road. So it's happening. How much? We don't know, we don't have the proper data for it. Hopefully, Transport Canada, with all their research, will come up with some figures and we'll be able to address it in a proper manner.

Á (1115)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

Are you aware of the black box recorders for the trucking industry? They have them within the airlines, but they have them also in some areas of the trucking industry. Are you aware of the black box recorders that are sometimes used instead of log books?

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes, I'm aware of them.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In you view, is that a much better process of tracking what's happening with the truck, as compared to, say, a log book?

Sgt André Lemaire: I'm not really familiar enough with them to say that. I haven't researched that issue. I don't know how accurate they are and how good they are. Our organization has not dealt with them yet. We don't really know at this time.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

How long do your officers usually travel on the roads? What length of shift would they work when they're travelling on the roads?

Sgt André Lemaire: Across Canada the RCMP has shifts that vary between eight and twelve hours, depending on the area. Traffic members are on an eight-hour shift for the most part. A lot of municipal contracts use a 12-hour shift, because they work around the clock.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Based on your personal driving experience or generally, what do you think is a reasonably safe length of time for someone to be travelling the road doing a job on a regular basis?

Sgt André Lemaire: I can't really answer that, because every person is different. Some people have had enough after eight hours, and some people can go for 15 hours. So I really can't say what a safe time is. I don't have that research material done.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

Do you have statistics on the number of accidents or deaths with trucks? Do you have that kind of break-down?

Sgt André Lemaire: The number of trucks across Canada that had collisions?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes.

Sgt André Lemaire: I could get that information, I don't have it right now. It would be a lengthy research, because it would have to be done by division, pulling all the collision files out. The national data will say if it's a fatality or an injury crash, but it's not going to say if it's a truck or a car. So it would have to be a manual search across division, which would be a very lengthy search, but we could get it.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

Have there been concerns raised by traffic services about the size of the trucks, the speed of the trucks, if there's increased truck traffic that has an effect on the traffic flow in areas?

Sgt André Lemaire: Not that I'm aware of.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No concerns raised by RCMP Traffic Services?

Sgt André Lemaire: In my office we didn't get any concern raised, but again, we're running with 11 divisions, and some of those things may have been addressed locally with their government agencies. From a national perspective, we haven't had any.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is it possible to find out about local areas, for instance, traffic through the border, trucking traffic in Ontario, and the border traffic area in New Brunswick?

Sgt André Lemaire: What do you mean by the border traffic?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Areas where there's a lot of cross-border trucking traffic and increased truck flow.

Sgt André Lemaire: That would be a Customs Canada issue. They would be the ones dealing with cross-border areas, we wouldn't.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

That's fine, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx, then we'll go to Mario, then back to Guy St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I would like to share my time with my colleague, Mr. St-Julien.

Good morning, Sgt Lemaire. Unfortunately, I arrived a few seconds late. Could you tell me what your expertise is? What is the role you play within the RCMP and that makes you the person responsible for speaking to us this morning?

Sgt André Lemaire: I have 25 years of service. Of those, I worked 17 years on road safety. For the last 5 years, I've been the coordinator of our organization here, at headquarters, for road safety in Canada and I sit on most committees in Canada dealing with road safety.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: On the other hand, you told us before that the RCMP has not made any studies or gathered any statistics concerning fatigue for long distance or long hours drivers. So the RCMP's expertise in this area is relatively limited. You might eventually, like my colleague Mr. Laframboise was saying, collect all the statistics from coroners' reports, accident reports, especially elsewhere than in Ontario or Quebec. You might eventually do that, but you haven't done that yet.

Á (1120)

Sgt André Lemaire: No, we haven't done that yet. It's not really the number of collisions we were looking for but those collisions that are caused by fatigue, and that's not always black and white. When you try to determine whether fatigue caused a collision, it's not always clear.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Except that the examination of certain coroner's reports would tell you clearly that the driver has been working for such a number of hours, for so long, that he'd driven such a distance. So there is information in that.

In the RCMP, do you have any way of monitoring how many hours your employees used your vehicles? Besides time cards for the payroll, do you know how many hours your agents or investigators spend on the road?

Sgt André Lemaire: You mean the number of hours behind the wheel. No, not really. It's hard to determine, it depends on the day. You can find out what the number of hours worked are, but we can't know how many hours behind the wheel as opposed to those spent questioning someone or doing something else.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I understand that at the beginning of your work shift some time is spent preparing and some time is spent writing reports at the end of the shift. In your system, could you find out how many hours patrollers spent either in the office or on the road?

Sgt André Lemaire: No, not really.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, you have another quick question?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

What happens if an American driver shows up at customs, comes into Canadian territory and that you have a report from Transport Canada saying he's driving in a fatigue condition? What do you do? Do you send him back to the States?

Sgt André Lemaire: You're talking about a report from Transport Canada.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I'm talking about an offence committed in Canada by an American driver.

Sgt André Lemaire: At that point, you have a problem. Transport Canada isn't really involved in that. I don't understand. If a truck shows up in Canada--

Mr. Guy St-Julien: If the driver of a truck shows up in Canada and there's an incident or he's intercepted because someone noticed the truck was zigzagging on the highway and that an RCMP officer finds that it's because of fatigue, what do you do?

Sgt André Lemaire: I can't speak for all members of the RCMP, but normally if I stop a vehicle and find that the driver is tired, then I force him to stay there and rest in his cab for a while.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Do you report this to the U.S.?

Sgt André Lemaire: Not really, no.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

The Chair: Mario.

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

Just a follow-up question about... Earlier, Ms. Desjarlais asked you a question about the investigation that happens on the site of an accident where death is involved. There is actually an investigation; you carry out an investigation. You mentioned that, concerning the monitoring of log books or things like that, it was traffic specialists who took care of that. Are these people who answer to the RCMP or were you talking about provincial authorities?

Sgt André Lemaire: That would be the RCMP. We were talking about a fatal collision. Normally, when death is involved, we have what's called an RCMP analyst who has followed all the courses on determining the cause of a collision and who will investigate, and part of the investigation, of course, would consist in determining the number of hours driven by the commercial transporter.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So that means that you do have a traffic analyst department.

Sgt André Lemaire: They're all across Canada. In each province and territory we have people who are trained for that. Their job is to investigate collisions that are fatal or involve serious harm or that have unexplained causes.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So, of course, Mr. Chairman, maybe we could invite these traffic analysts. They'd be in a better position to answer our questions.

Sgt André Lemaire: As I've said, what an analyst will tell you concerning fatigue during a collision... Fatigue is a bit like...

Á (1125)

Mr. Mario Laframboise: But he's the one who'll be analyzing it.

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes, he'll be analyzing the collision.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So he surely has to have some kind of thought about it. An analyst will certainly have some idea about the state of the driver's fatigue. Do you know any of these analysts personally?

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes, I know them all. They're scattered all across Canada. They're all in the computer. One phone call and they're here.

Of course, those people have investigated all kinds of collisions involving carriers and they might have a bit of information, but once again, fatigue is extremely difficult to determine.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Except that if you have the number of hours driven...

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes, but once again the hours driven...

Mr. Mario Laframboise: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Sgt André Lemaire: Some people, after driving for 15 hours, are very tired and others aren't. After 15 hours, things other than fatigue may have caused the collision, it's not necessarily fatigue.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: No, but that's not serious. If ever we find that a lot of accidents involve an excessive number of hours behind the wheel, we can get a certain... In any case, that may not be your specialty but maybe the analyst might have a different opinion than yours on that.

Sgt André Lemaire: Maybe.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have a second complementary question to the one put by Mr. Proulx. For RCMP members, in the collective agreement, is there any sort of protection preventing them from driving too many hours? If RCMP officers patrol the highways, are there conditions in the collective agreement or something else to that effect that would protect them?

Sgt André Lemaire: We don't have collective agreements, what we have are policies.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Is it an employment contract?

Sgt André Lemaire: A certain number of hours have to be scheduled between shifts.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Do you have a written directive that we could be provided with?

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, could we ask to be provided with a copy of the directive?

Does it deal only with hours behind the wheel?

Sgt André Lemaire: Non, it sets out the hours of work.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: It sets out the hours of work. Is there a specific directive on the number of hours spent driving?

Sgt André Lemaire: No.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: But you are saying that when you are assigned to traffic, you spend most of the time in your vehicle.

Sgt André Lemaire: Often, yes, but we stop. It may amount to half the time, since the vehicles are stopped the other half of the time.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Oh yes, it is true that you walk and... I would still like to know the details.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If, in the investigation of an accident, it was perceived that there was a fatigue situation with the driver, that they were driving for so many hours and that might have been part of the reason, is that information passed on to the coroner?

Sgt André Lemaire: We don't pass information to the coroner. We do a collison report that goes to the province. The coroner does his investigation separately from our investigation. We don't actually send it to the coroner and say, this is the reason for the crash. We will put it in the collision report if the jurisdiction has something that talks about driver fatigue, that will go to the province, and the coroner will have to refer to that document.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But the coroner wouldn't necessarily get that information from the province. If it's not sent directly to the coroner, it would be getting one paper here, one paper here, they're filed away, and never the twain shall meet. Is that it?

Sgt André Lemaire: The police say on a collision report what they feel was the cause of the collision. The coroner comes up with a definite condition of the driver that is factual, as with alcohol or drugs. If we say a vehicle went off the road and the driver was speeding, was the speed the cause of the collision, or did he fall asleep? It's very hard for us to determine that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Even without determining that this was the cause of the accident or the cause of death, would it not seem reasonable to notify the coroner that this person might have been driving for 16 hours? Maybe it's indicated that the day before they had a mild heart attack, but were still driving, and that comes out in your investigation. You wouldn't necessarily notify the coroner?

Sgt André Lemaire: There are some jurisdictions that will deal differently with the coroners.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Which jurisdictions would require that you notify the coroner?

Sgt André Lemaire: I was in Yellowknife not long ago, and I know the coroner there actually goes to the scene and does an investigation together with our members. In many jurisdictions that doesn't happen. Depending on the provincial or territorial jurisdiction, they have different ways of conducting their investigation. Basically, that's out of our hands. They have their own set ways in how they do it.

Á (1130)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, fair enough. Unless a process is in place, I recognize that it wouldn't necessarily be followed.

The Chair: With coroners, when there's a suspicious death, there's an investigation. You were saying that perhaps there should be a trail?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Absolutely. I will give you an instance, and I know this for a fact. It's not related to a traffic accident, but someone died at home in Thompson, Manitoba. The day before the person had been exposed in a mine to a particular gas. Had people from within the community, specifically the person's union representative, not notified the coroner that they had been exposed to the gas before, there would have been no follow-up on that aspect of it. So I recognize that coroners aren't always notified of important information related to a death. I think it's just a process that should be there. I wondered if it was.

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Lemaire, I am going out in left field. Am I right in thinking that someone who has been drinking might have a similar appearance to someone in an extreme state of fatigue?

Sgt André Lemaire: There can be some similarities.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There can be some similarities. When a breath test is negative, do your officers usually give an explanation, or do they simply say that it was negative, or do they say that the apparent symptoms are probably attributable to something else, such as extreme fatigue?

Sgt André Lemaire: There is usually no report filed if the breath test is not positive, unless there are extreme signs that may cause the officer to order the driver off the road. In that case, there would be no report and the person would leave...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: In his routine report, the officer will simply say that the breath test was administered, that the result was negative, and that is the end of it.

Sgt André Lemaire: That is it. As I have said, however, driving while under the influence does not mean only that there has been alcohol abuse; it can also be fatigue.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right.

Sgt André Lemaire: This does not happen in all cases, but sometimes people pass the test but, from their appearance, the officer knows that it is out of the question for them to drive. Then we can go further, ask them to get out of the vehicle, do a road test, check their reflexes and see what shape they are in generally, and then act on the basis of the observations made.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Does that happen often?

Sgt André Lemaire: I cannot say; I do not have any numbers on that. I know that it happens, but I do not have any numbers. Over my career, I have taken people to court for driving while impaired, even though they have passed the breathalyzer test. It always depends on the situation, since there are people who, after drinking only a small amount of alcohol, may, if they are tired...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It affects them differently.

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes, very differently.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I tried, but we are desperately looking for a hook.

[English]

The Chair: The researcher reminds me, Marcel, that people have drugs legally from a doctor, and it says you shouldn't drive and things like that. So they could be impaired by taking their medication as well.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I was hoping they would have check marks, one for medication, one for fatigue, and one for illegal drugs, but they don't.

The Chair: Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: To clarify, you indicated you can take a glance and know the person probably shouldn't be driving. Are there specific charges under legislation, say a charge of driving over the point-whatever, the provincial standard, another of driving while impaired, where the impairment relates to something else?

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes. The Criminal Code has two sections, one for over 80 mg of alcohol in your system per 100 millilitres of blood, the other one for driving impaired by alcohol or drugs. To prove an impaired driving charge, you have to prove that there is alcohol involved or a drug.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Specifically only alcohol or a drug, no other reason?

Sgt André Lemaire: Yes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Any questions for our witness?

André.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It would be important to see a Canadian trucking association about changes to the hours of operation for [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

Á (1135)

[English]

The Chair: That's it?

Thank you very much, Sergeant, we appreciate your input. As a result of your advice, we may call other witnesses you have talked about. Thanks for coming out, we appreciate your contribution here this morning.

Colleagues, we have a notice of motion by Ghislain Lebel, a number of motions we have to deal with. At the end of that, we will have a little chat about our work plans.

Ghislain, the motion please.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you will recall, it was almost at this time on the same day last week, we were here in this room and I requested... The government had lost and was still looking at that time for a report that Groupaction was commissioned to do in 1998 on cultural and sports events taking place in Quebec, it seems, during the summer of 1998. I asked to have the president of Groupaction called before the committee, so that he could tell us about the content of the report, its conclusions and its recommendations, if there are any. While I was explaining to my friends on this side and the other side what my concerns were about this report, my friend Paul Szabo suddenly shouted: “Eureka! We have found it!”

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Is Eurêka the group from Toronto?

[English]

The Chair: It's an explanation.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Oh, it is Oxygène 9.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: And Mr. Szabo, I think, acting completely in good faith, told us that we would not need to bring in Mr. Brault because the report had been found but that, unfortunately, it was written in only one of the two official languages and that it had to be translated, but that the committee would have it very soon, within minutes or hours. Sure enough, I had the report in my office here in Ottawa on Friday morning.

Of course, I assume that my friends on the other side spent their whole weekend, like I did, carefully looking at this huge report. If they did not do so, it is unfortunate, but if they did, they noticed like I did that this report that was found at the last minute was in fact a photocopy of the 1999 report that we already had and that was tabled in the House last Wednesday by the minister.

I saw how sad my friends across the table looked during Monday's questions, when the Minister admitted that the report that had been found at the last minute was nearly an exact copy of what people already had and he was going to ask the Auditor General of Canada to investigate.

Without taking anything away from the important role of the Auditor General of Canada who, by looking through the files of Public Works and Government Services, will probably, within a year, a year and a half or perhaps two years, if all goes well, come to certain conclusions, which we cannot predict. She may say that everything is fine and that these contracts were extremely clear and transparent, or she might go to the other extreme and lay a complaint with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is within her mandate. The Auditor General of Canada also has the power to oversee departmental files and she works for the federal government—excuse me—she works for the House of Commons and she has the power to look wherever she wants and to report, of course, to the House of Commons. But she is not empowered to force Groupaction, for example, to testify before her and explain the context in which these contracts were awarded, what was agreed to, what type of contract was involved. Those are outside people who can come and clarify things for us. Who is in a better position to do that than those closely involved in these transactions with the government?

So I requested, and I will justify this for everyone, that we first call as a witness Mr. Roger Desjeans; you put them in that order and it does not bother me.

You will recall that on Monday, Minister Boudria told us that he had been promised affidavits or one affidavit that he was going to give to the opposition parties as soon as he had it. That affidavit was supposed to say that what he had tabled as a report was the missing report that had been found on the hard drive, that it would not be fully complete, but that someone from Groupaction would file an affidavit. And indeed, a Ms. Donnelly, who has some position with Groupaction, filed an affidavit that was described to us. She filed that as an affidavit.

Á (1140)

But in the House, as you know, it is pretty difficult to question an affidavit. The House is peremptory. As soon as the affidavit is filed, it cannot be questioned: our rules of procedure do not allow for it. But it is possible to do so in a committee.

Why should we have Mr. Desjeans come before the committee? The reason is that someone who files an affidavit swears under oath or solemnly declares that he or she is making a certain number of true statements, it seems, and then the oath is generally administered and someone signs that the oath was sworn before him or her at a certain place on a certain date. The person who administered the oath to Ms. Donnelly turns out to be Mr. Roger Desjeans, who is also her boss at Groupaction. So there is a hierarchical relationship between Mr. Desjeans, who administered the oath, and Ms. Donnelly who took the oath, and that hierarchical relationship may mean that the person who swore the affidavit was not acting freely.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I'd just like to inquire, Mr. Lebel, if you're intending to deal with all of these.

The Chair: We deal with one at a time, as I understand it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Is he speaking to the second motion now?

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: No, I'm speaking about the first one.

Mr. Paul Szabo: We'll deal one at a time?

The Chair: Yes, we will.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's fine.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I would have preferred Mrs. Donnelly to come first.

[Translation]

Mr.Desjeans who is the boss, administered an oath to his employee, Ms. Donnelly. In case my colleagues do not know, the Canada Evidence Act clearly states that the person administering the oath cannot be implicated or a party to the dispute or in a position of appearance of conflict of interest. And that is what we have here: Mr. Desjeans is Ms. Donnelly's boss and he is the one administering the oath. From all the information we have received since, there are not just two reports; we have paid for three. One report was produced for the price of three and it is not over. Are we going to pay for a fourth one tonight? I do not know, but it might be a good idea to have Mr. Desjeans appear before the committee to explain the context in which his employee, his immediate subordinate, was called to testify in an affidavit.

So since we cannot do this in the House—you know the rules as well as I do and it is pretty difficult to question a piece of paper—we need to question both the person who swore the affidavit and the person who administered the oath.

So, Roger Desjeans administered the oath and he exercises authority over Ms. Donnelly. It is awkward, but it does not mean... We always assume good faith, even today. It is awkward.

Á (1145)

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Has the Bloc member finished his first motion or is this going to lead to a second one?

[English]

The Chair: Unless you're on a point of order, he has the floor. He's trying to explain the total thing, and I suspect that when we get to the others, it won't be as complex, because he's tying one into the other.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: On the same point of order, I want to propose an amendment to his motion. That is why I wanted to speak. When he finishes his first motion, I would like to add an amendment.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: You'll be able to move your amendment in good time.

I think the committee has a duty. The people on this side are the only ones, at the moment, who feel it is urgent. It would seem there is something fishy in all of this. We might want to get some idea of what happened, and at the same time as the Auditor General is launching her auditing procedures, perhaps the committee should be making recommendations to the minister and asking him to refer this directly to the RCMP, if necessary.

It is a complex issue, I agree. There are people who may have abused the minister's good faith, or the former minister; we do not know. We'll never know unless we bring those people here to testify.

Since the minister said in a press release that he was handing the file over to the Auditor General for study, and that if necessary he would not hesitate to refer it to the RCMP to look at from a criminal perspective, I feel his instincts were good, and he was quite right to add this recommendation to the Auditor General's mandate. I think we could lighten his burden somewhat, or move things along more quickly in getting Roger Desjeans first of all to testify here in order to get a better idea of things. We should do an assessment of what the situation seems to be, and decide whether or not we should make a recommendation to the minister to hand the entire file over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I have finished presenting my first motion. If my friend wants to--

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, in fact, I would add Claude Blanchet's name to the motion.

[English]

The Chair: You can't. You could maybe make a motion to amend it, and then we'll go on the amendment first and back to the motion.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Exactly, if one wants to make an amendment to the motion, to add something, it must be done immediately.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: If there is unanimous consent.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: No, the motion has been tabled. It can be amended. We are asking for a vote.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: File a notice.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Exactly, I have it. If it is not successful, it is not successful. I want to read it, Mr. Chairman. It is just one page.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, we have a procedure here whereby if someone wants to debate a motion, they have to file it 48 hours in advance, unless there is unanimous consent.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, I think we should just deal with the motion, rather than getting too involved in it.

Mario.

Á (1150)

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that they are afraid that we move an amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mario, you have the floor, and then I'm going to move on.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, following on Mr. St-Julien's remark, we can always proceed with unanimous consent. I have no problem with that. Get your colleagues' consent, and if the amendment looks all right, we will be pleased to follow suit.

But that is not my point, Mr. Chairman. It is important to understand... I have a lot of trouble with the way our committee works regarding government operations. You are well aware that you had every opportunity under the sun to create an independent government operations committee. The decision was to leave things as they are; we have to do our work. I am very disappointed because we missed a great opportunity to do our work. If we had called Mr. Gagliano to appear at the appropriate time, if we had summoned the president of Groupaction at the right time, we would not learn of the existence of a third report through the press.

As a member, I feel that if there are some members who are more responsible than others for the situation that we are presently experiencing in Parliament, it would be those from the Transport and Government Operations Committee because they did not summon the minister at the appropriate time, for all sorts of reasons that are near to your hearts. But we did have the opportunity to summon these people and to ask questions that indeed, would have allowed us to learn of the existence of a third report, and not through the media. This is madness, Mr. Chairman. It makes no sense at all that the department was unable to tell us one week in advance that there was not only one, not only two, but three reports.

There is a problem with this government, and we at the committee have a major problem. It was up to us to summon these people, and Mr. Lebel did his job. But, once again, we decided not to do so, and when I say we, I refer to the Liberal members of the committee, who decided not to listen.

That is what you will probably do today; you won't want to listen to anyone, except that you will continue to learn about all the madness surrounding this issue through the press. It makes no sense. It is time to accede to my colleague, Mr. Lebel's requests that we summon all these people who, once again, will be able to answer our questions on this issue. If not, what do we do? We wait until the RCMP submits their report, whereas we, as a committee, have the power to oblige those people to come here and answer our questions.

That, Mr. Szabo, you are a spokesman for Government Operations, I have to tell you that I cannot believe it. You are a man of integrity. At some point, enough is enough. It is not only up to the minister to say that enough is enough; the questions have to be asked of the right people, and if it is not the committee that asks them--

And now, we are giving the Auditor General the mandate to ask these questions or to investigate? We are in a position to ask the questions under the powers granted us by Parliament. We can do so. The time has come to summon those involved in this issue so that we can dig up all the crap—pardon the expression—in this story.

Once again, if you say no, you are missing an opportunity. If you had done so when Mr. Lebel asked that we summon Mr. Gagliano, if you had done so when he asked last week that we summon the president, there would be a lot less trouble surrounding this issue than there is today.

Once again, we're going to let him get bogged down, but that is our job. I have a problem with that as a member. I have to sit on the Government Operations Committee and it's part of my responsibilities to find out when there are problems in government operations. If I do not do so, I am letting down my constituents and the people of Quebec. And you also are making a mistake when you don't manage to summon the right witnesses.

I am sorry, but the witnesses that Mr. Lebel wanted to summon were the right ones, and everything we have seen in the media proved the point.

Once again, I am asking you to show a little integrity. Go ahead, give my colleague the opportunity to ask some questions. I'm sure that you would also have questions to put, and in the end, we would be doing our job, that is to ask the right questions as the Government Operations Committee, because that is our duty. At the moment, if we haven't done our job, you could say that the members of the Bloc Quebecois did not do their job, because they did not ask the appropriate questions. Give us a chance to do our job and we will help you as best we can.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Mario.

Mr. Szabo.

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

First, for clarification, Mr. Lebel made a reference to my statements in a prior meeting that we had found a copy, and I believe, if you check the transcripts of our meeting, you'll find I made no such representation; it was that Groupaction indicated they had found some documents, and they would be given to the committee. I did not indicate that a copy of the report was found. It turns out to be a photocopy of the 1999 report that was, in fact, information transmitted to us that was found on the computer. It was not the government's photocopy, it was information provided by Groupaction. I think the members have seen the information--I think it was in the paper. There were two different versions, but they had even the same spelling mistake, etc., which is one of the reasons we are where we are right now.

Mr. Laframboise has indicated that in hindsight, we should have called Mr. Gagliano and the president of Groupaction, and yet even the motions before us today don't request Mr. Gagliano or the president of Groupaction. So let's get the chronology right, let's get the facts right.

First, the minister indicated that of the two reports requested under access to information having one missing was unacceptable. The minister made representations directly to the House that all efforts would be made to find a resolution to that and find this report. Groupaction did send us things. They sent us also an affidavit attesting that this was the information, and we rely on that.

I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that the motions from the member were tabled here before there was any knowledge that the Auditor General was being requested to do this. It was the same day, but the announcement of the Auditor General's investigation wasn't until noon. The member was not aware of this, so I can understand why these motions would have been tabled, because, in the absence of anybody's doing anything, quite frankly, I would have supported them.

However, the Auditor General, as the members know--and I don't have to read the scope of the reference to the Auditor General to do the work--has the authority and has been formally requested by the minister to look at this issue, including now a third report that was, I believe, 1996, and to make observations, recommendations, conclusions. If necessary, a referral would be made to the police if there were evidence of wrongdoing. I don't believe anybody here is questioning the independence, the integrity, or the credibility of the Auditor General. I think we have to accept that she is an officer of the Parliament of Canada, that this is a resource available to us, and that they have many more resources than we do, as well as specific expertise in forensic investigation.

The Auditor General said on the public record that it is possible that her work will be finished within two weeks. The House is not going to be sitting for two weeks. However, I am a chartered accountant and a former auditor, and I do know that when you get an engagement, you can give an indication that it might be two weeks, but if the Auditor General finds problems, obviously, she will not report back until she has thoroughly done the job, based on what the findings would be. I can't speak for the Auditor General, but it would appear that they are going to be commencing their work immediately. Given the information that's presently already available and on the table, and also the public declaration of Groupaction that they will cooperate fully with the Auditor General in the investigation, so that we won't be getting into a adversarial situation, I believe, in view of the fact that the motions did not anticipate this investigation, this committee would be well advised to wait to receive the Auditor General's report and at that time assess what additional work we would like to do. It may be calling people, witnesses, anybody the members would like.

Á (1155)

I would indicate now--and I've discussed this with the minister, with my recommendation--that subsequent to receiving the Auditor General's report, recommendations, etc., if that does not resolve all the questions the members have, I would support any request to get additional information from witnesses, any request for papers, etc. I would support that, just as I would support these motions, but I think the timing of them may not be as helpful to us, given that it may, in fact, delay the Auditor General's work if we are doing this work concurrently. We would be taking up time from people, and it makes it a little awkward.

So I would request, and if necessary, I would make a motion, Mr. Chair, that you simply table these motions until we have received the Auditor General's report. Of course, at that time the members can recall these motions or make new motions, as is necessary. I think that would be a wise course for the committee, simply to allow the Auditor General to do her work, and then we would make our decisions. I undertake to support any additional work to get to any other information needed to answer any other questions any honourable member might have on this or any matters related to the issue before us. I make that undertaking.

So if it's acceptable to the members, I would suggest that we just table these at this point and move on to the next order of business.

Â (1200)

The Chair: As I understand it, a motion that is tabled is not debatable, it has to be dealt with during--

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chair, it might be just a friendly thing.

The Chair: Yes, but it's only debatable as to time. These rules are in there.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand, but if that's acceptable to Mr. Lebel, he may want to simply just offer....

The Chair: How long do you want this thing tabled for?

Mr. Paul Szabo: As I said, until we receive the Auditor General's report.

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I listened with great interest to what my friend across the way had to say. Naturally, he's an expert at playing on words. I was saying that you always want to think the best of people. This is not the case with him, and I say it loud and clear.

Last week, while Mr. Shepherd across the way was in fact explaining himself on the subject, Mr. Szabo came to inform us that the missing report had been found. Now, he has stated that he never said that, and that they had not found the missing report. Then what were we talking about last week, when you stated here that the missing documents had been found or the missing report or the missing supporting documents? You said here that something missing had been found. One assumes the best about people, but not in his case.

Secondly, I will not be lulled by vague promises. On whose behalf is he making promises this morning? Let us put that aside.

[English]

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): On a point of order, a motion to table is not debatable.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chair, to help the process, given Mr. Lebel's concern here, I would move that the motions of Mr. Lebel be tabled until the committee is in receipt of the report of the Auditor General on the investigation in question.

The Chair: Okay. I will call the roll. The motion is that all these motions be tabled until we hear from the Auditor General. A motion to table is only debatable as to time. We have a motion to table. I gave a little bit of latitude, because Mr. Szabo was trying to do so, but if I am running the meeting correctly, a motion to table is not debatable, except as to the time, I have to call the vote. A motion to table and a motion to adjourn have to be dealt with right away.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

The Chair: It's agreed. These motions are tabled until after we hear from the Auditor General, all four motions.

The next question we have has to do with our work schedule. As you know, this process takes a lot of time. You have to get the budget, you have to get the travel time, and then you have to get all the House leaders to agree. I'll just get Richard to bring you up to speed. I still have plans to travel in the times we said we would travel. The only difficulty was that we didn't get all the money we asked for, although we may have to go back and ask for a few more dollars. Since the committee has only got $2.5 million and we are going to spend over $300,000, they're only giving me $200,000. Richard, do want to take over from here? I still had intended to go over the original work plan, and we would travel to San Diego and Washington after I'd gone for some extra money. Go ahead, Richard, and maybe explain.

Â (1205)

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: As you know, we have been refused permission to travel. One of the House leaders refused to grant us authorization to travel.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Pardon me, I did not understand.

The Clerk: One of the House leaders refused to grant us permission to travel. We had planned to travel during the weeks of April 15, April 29, and May 27. Anything can happen, but if we don't get permission to travel, we will have to have meetings in Ottawa. I will convene the meetings and I will summon the witnesses to Ottawa.

For your information, from April 8 to June 10, there are eight weeks when the members will be here. That means that we could potentially have 16 meetings, of which two would be on the main estimates, because we will invite the Minister of Transport as well as the President of the Privy Council. That leaves 14 possible meetings.

As you know, at the moment, the House will send us Bill C-42, therefore, we have to take that into account in our planning. Bill C-42 will certainly require several meetings—perhaps we should add a few—and the rest of the meetings will deal with road transportation. I have already been in touch with many witnesses.

The Chair: Marcel.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Have we been allocated the appropriate budget to summon these witnesses to Ottawa?

The Clerk: We have obtained an operating budget of $50,000. If the committee doesn't travel and if we need more money, obviously, we just have to submit an additional request to [Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But the refusal of one of the House leaders was not on the issue of money; it was a matter of principle.

The Clerk: Yes. Let me explain. When we submitted our request to the budget subcommittee, there were three trips planned and a budget of $300,000 requested. We were given $200,000. The reason for that was, how shall I put it, we weren't there at the right time. There were a lot of requests at the same time and the members of the subcommittee said to themselves that if they gave $300,000 to the Transport Committee, there wouldn't be any money left. Therefore, what I did, because there was a lot of discussion including talk about using special points, was that I reworked the budget taking the $100,000 dollar cut into account. I was able to reduce it by $92,000, assuming that the members would be able to use their special points.

We had that discussion here in the morning and I discovered afterwards, recently, that there are four committees: immigration, agriculture, fisheries and another one, where all of the members used their special points.

Â (1210)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But what you are telling us doesn't change very much. What I am to understand is that this was not refused because of the money involved. It was refused by the Alliance as a matter of principle.

The Clerk: No.

[English]

The Chair: As I understand it, there were a number of requests.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chairman, was the authorization of travel refused because of finance?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay. So whether we use our travel points or not has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

The Chair: But the problem with committees travelling is always if somebody gets up in the House when our regular critic is not there and says no, just one no. Sometimes these things happen. We've tried several times, and unfortunately, whoever was in the House--I don't know who it was--said nay to it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

The Chair: We will try to talk to the critic and to get past that log-jam.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We can certainly do a lot of work by calling the witnesses here in Ottawa, as long as there is the money to bring them in, so let's do that.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I would think it in our best interest to make sure we finish truckers' hours before the House rises for the summer.

The Chair: I intend to do that.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay. We cannot carry this issue over. I understand we do have more witnesses, but I would hope that we're not going to deal with them one per meeting for the rest.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Let's make them a panel, do whatever we can, so that we can make good use of members' time and be cognizant of the other responsibilities we have.

In the event that travel becomes a possibility again, since we're just hearing evidence and no decisions are taken, we could operate in a smaller group or consider sending the vice-chair east with a small group of MPs and the chair west with a small group, and we could actually save some time, because time is apparently going to become an issue.

The Chair: The reason I took the $200,000 was that I was trying to speed it up, and all we needed was the unanimous consent to go. I didn't expect the Alliance was going to be a problem. I thought we had conformity. Now the Bloc may not allow us to travel. Anyway, we'll try.

Richard.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Szabo, I will organize round tables, but it is somewhat difficult at present because when I invited CCRA I wanted to have the RCMP appear at the same time. However, when I discovered that they would not be dealing with the same topics, and that the RCMP have absolutely no connection with border crossings, I thought it might be unwise to invite them at the same time. But I do agree with you: meetings without witnesses... [Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Mr. André Harvey: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I think we must quickly ratify the agreement between the teamsters and theTrucker's Association. If we could do two quick trips with two small subcommittees, one trip per subcommittee, if we could go and see how things are done at the border and perhaps in the East... But we will have to bring together our witnesses quickly so that we can deliver the goods and set up a schedule that we will have to stick to.because this issue has been before us for some weeks now.

Â (1215)

[English]

The Chair: We have the calendar. I was hoping we'd have it done. That's why I tried to speed the process up. But when we have the full committee, they may want to offer to speed things up.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: But the limitations on us force us to do more here, in Ottawa. Given that we are so busy with so many activities here, Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to take a three-week trip.

[English]

The Chair: Anyway, we're adjourned until after the break.