TRGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 18, 2002

Á

1105

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

Ms. Elly Meister (Vice-President, Public Affairs and Communications, Canadian Automobile Association)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. Moore

The Chair

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

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer (Manager, Government Affairs and Traffic Safety, Canadian Automobile Association)

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Á

1125

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Á

1155

The Chair

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Â

1200

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Â

1205

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Â

1210

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Elly Meister

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Elly Meister

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Â

1215

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Elly Meister

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Rosalinda Fischer

Ms. Elly Meister

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

---

NUMBER 060

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 18, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I think I see a quorum.

    Apparently, there's going to be a vote in 20 minutes or so. Our guests tell us their presentation will take eight minutes. So that we don't hold them up, perhaps Elly, will introduce herself and her colleague and give us their presentation. Thank you.

    Ms. Elly Meister (Vice-President, Public Affairs and Communications, Canadian Automobile Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    We're delighted to be here today. Thank you, on behalf of the Canadian Automobile Association, for the opportunity to take part in your review of the safety and border issues affecting Canada's trucking industry. The emphasis of our presentation will be on sharing the road safely, fatigue, and hours of service regulations. We will conclude with a few comments on border and transborder issues.

    Vehicles of many different sizes and shapes share our road network, but they don't always share it safely. Every year people die and are injured as a result of crashes between light trucks, SUVs, cars, motorcycles, buses, and bicyclists. Part of the problem is that operators of these vehicles often do not understand the limitations of each other's vehicles, such as braking distance required and steering and manoeuvrability considerations. Errors also occur when passenger vehicle drivers follow too closely, drive in the truck's no-zone, misjudge the distance needed to pass, fail to yield the right-of-way, fail to obey traffic devices, drive too fast, change lanes too quickly, and drive while inattentive or in an erratic, reckless manner.

     Passenger vehicle drivers and commercial vehicle drivers need to learn to share the road safely. The more they learn about each other and how their vehicles operate, the more they will understand how they should drive when they encounter each other on the road. The trucking industry has shown a willingness to help educate motorists and commercial vehicle drivers, and should be commended for their efforts. CAA also continues to raise awareness and provide motorists with safe driving tips to help reduce the number of road crashes involving trucks and passenger vehicles

    Many of the vehicles on our roads are being driven for work purposes. The range of vehicles is extensive, from buses to large trucks, vans, cars, emergency service vehicles, construction and agricultural vehicles, and even bicycles. Drivers of all these vehicles are exposed to risks from traffic. Their activities, in turn, expose others to risk.

    Safety on our roads is a major concern to CAA. It is also of great concern and importance to the professional drivers who move people and goods across our nation and across our border with the United States. For these drivers our roads are the workplace, and they, as much as anyone else, want our roads to be safe for all road users. Professional drivers have more driving experience than the average motorist, but because of the large amount of time they spend driving, they have an increased risk of exposure to being in a crash. The size of their vehicles often overwhelms and even intimidates drivers of small vehicles. The David and Goliath proportions of cars and trucks draw particular concern when they collide. In a crash the larger vehicles are looked upon poorly, regardless of who is at fault.

    Driver fatigue is a concern for anyone who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle. While all road users are likely to be affected by fatigue at one time or another, some groups of drivers are likely to be at high risk of fatigue. Shift workers, individuals who have consumed alcohol, who are not well rested before driving, for whom driving is part of their job, and who have medical conditions, such as narcolepsy, and those who are taking medication are all at risk of drowsy driving. For commercial drivers, the high number of kilometers driven, driving at night when the body is tired, driving long distances without stopping for breaks, and driving alone on long stretches of road put them at particular risk. In addition, the work environment may signal body rhythms towards sleep. The dimly lit interior of a truck or bus, that steady hum of an engine, and sitting nearby motionless in the driver's seat may tell the driver's body to sleep.

    CAA believes that fatigue cannot be managed through operating hours alone. Fatigue problems must look beyond merely regulating driver hours to self-assessment programs, education and awareness programs, and increased industry care of its workers in setting reasonable trip schedules and providing adequate arrangements for rest and recovery. We must consider possible improvements to the road in providing adequate rest stops and use of technology that would assist a driver in determining when fatigue is affecting driver performance. There must be a balance between the productivity and safety of the industry, but the emphasis must be on safety.

    In looking at the proposed hours of service regulations drafted by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, CAA sees this work as the result of significant effort on the part of all stakeholders to draft a regulation that is guided by scientific evidence where possible. It provides a workable framework that takes into account sound science and the best judgments of experts in the areas of sleep research and traffic safety. We consider the proposal to be a significant step in the right direction, but a work in progress.

    CAA believes that changes to existing regulations must be supported by subsequent evaluation to confirm that the new rules will indeed produce a system that provides a more rested and alert driver during working hours. We encourage CCMTA and Transport Canada to commit themselves to funding a study to collect data on a representative sample of drivers to document the effects of the new system.

    We recognize that amendments to the hours of service regulations are only one method of dealing with the problem of driver fatigue. Commercial vehicle operators, shippers, driver associations, labour unions have a responsibility to ensure their drivers' working hours do not contribute to fatigue-related crashes, and should have fatigue management programs in place.

Á  (1110)  

    We agree that there should be no distinction between driving and other non-driving on-duty tasks. Research suggests that crash risk increases with on-duty time, rather than time spent on a specific task. We support the CCMTA proposal as it would limit commercial hours on duty to a maximum of 14, with no more than 13 hours of driving. Transport Canada and enforcement authorities are urged to research and evaluate the effectiveness of the hours of service regime and make further reductions to driving times based on scientific evidence and crash data, as needed.

    We also support the use of electronic on-board recording devices for long-haul and regional drivers as a means to ensure compliance with hours of service regulations. This should be seen as a benefit to the trucking industry, as its drivers are often criticized for the inaccuracy of log books. Trucking firms are encouraged to accept such recorders.

    We are pleased to see a reduction of work cycles in the CCMTA proposal. In addition, experts have indicated that the proposed 36-hour rest and recovery period affords enough time for two principal sleep periods, as recommended by the researchers. We also recognize that increases to daily off-duty time will reduce the likelihood of acute cumulative fatigue. However, we remain concerned whether drivers will obtain the rest they require in the proposed day-and-a-half, considering the other events and obligations that may occupy their time during this rest and recovery period. We suggest that continued research and evaluation needs to be performed in this area to assess the potential adequacy of a 36-hour rest and recovery period. We are supporting the 36-hour period only because it is substantiated and preferred by the majority of experts in this area, who view it as a means to avoid phase shifting and see it as adequate for recovery. As always, safety is our primary concern. We will be looking to future research and evaluation of the new regime to ensure that the 36-hour period is indeed sufficient.

    Harmonized North American standards based on science would help to improve public understanding of fatigue issues related to commercial vehicle drivers. Canadians may not understand why regulations in Canada are different from those of our NAFTA partners and others around the world, particularly if they are seen as being less stringent. Differences should be clearly explained to the public.

    We also suggest that the land transportation standards subcommittee established by the NAFTA Committee on Standard-Related Measures should review the proposal. It is our understanding that this committee continues to examine the land transportation regulatory regimes of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The committee's mandate is to make more compatible the NAFTA partners' relevant standards-related measures on bus, truck, and rail operations and transportation of dangerous goods. It would seem this committee is in a position to determine where standardization is possible and desirable. The group should consider the differences in Canadian and U.S. geography and marketplace demands. However, again, safety should be the primary consideration. A tired driver is a tired driver, regardless of where they originate. Safety should not be compromised by efforts to foster trade by facilitating transportation through NAFTA.

    To ensure drivers have adequate opportunity for rest, CAA recommends that governments and industry work together to identify and assess the availability of Canadian locations for all appropriate parking areas for trucks, public and private, across Canada. If inadequacies are determined, steps should be taken to correct the problem.

    Concerning border and transborder issues, our comments result largely from our involvement with the Coalition for Secure and Trade Efficient Borders and are provided only for the information of the committee at this time. We don't have comments as to trucking issues at the border, we leave that to the experts within Canadian trucking. We're pleased, though, with the progress made by the federal government on key border initiatives, in particular the expansion of the NEXUS program on low-risk travellers. Canadian motorists will be well served by the expansion of the NEXUS program to every major crossing in Canada.

    Our concern, as always, is with the costing of the roads and the possibility that should funds not be adequate to cover dedicated lanes at our borders, we may see tolls being erected to pay for the cost of security. We recommend that if necessary, the federal government increase its budget for infrastructure at border crossings to ensure that this cost is not passed on to Canadians.

Á  (1115)  

    In closing, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us to participate in its consultation. We look forward to the results of your deliberation and thank you for your attention. We'd be happy to respond to any questions, specifically on the safety, if we have some opportunity. With me is Rosalinda Fischer, who is our manager of traffic safety within CAA and has served since 1997-1998 on the CCMTA panel looking at the hours of service. We would be happy to respond to any questions you have on any aspect of our presentation.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Meister.

    Colleagues, we probably have 12 minutes, so we could start with our questioning, and our guests probably would remain. There's only one vote, hopefully, so we'll continue and see how it goes.

    James, you have some questions?

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. James Moore (Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I don't have any questions. I just wanted to thank you. It was an outstanding presentation, and I appreciate the time you took to come here.

    The Chair: Mario.

[Translation]

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

    I'm trying to follow the Canadian Automobile Association. In particular, I wonder about the way your organization has analyzed the fatigue problem. There's no doubt a similar association to yours in the United States with which you do business. Am I mistaken? Is there an American association with which you regularly do business?

[English]

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer (Manager, Government Affairs and Traffic Safety, Canadian Automobile Association): Yes, the American Automobile Association. We're affiliated with them, and they have been involved in the hours of service debate in the U.S. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is a separate organization that receives funding from AAA, from CAA, and from other organizations. They too have done studies into the fatigue issue, but in broader terms, not specific to the trucking association.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mario Laframboise: Yes, but in the United States, truck drivers' hours of service are very different from those in Canada. In your recommendation, you support the CCMTA. I suppose you were a member, and you answered that, yes, you had taken part in it. You were probably a member of the committee. You were affiliate or associate member of the CCMTA. The CCMTA's recommendation is not the one the industry wants to solve the fatigue problem. We clearly saw that when the Canadian Truckers Alliance came to present us virtually with a collective agreement with the Teamsters. We felt it was more a negotiation than an actual attempt to solve the fatigue problem in Canada.

    I'm flabbergasted that you have gotten into that. Lastly, you tell us only that what they're doing is a step in the right direction. You have approved of the labour relations between the employer and employees of an organization which is... You have said on a number of occasions that you want driver safety, and I hope that's indeed the case, because I'm a CAA member. You have had surveys conducted. The surveys tell us that 73 % of people consider driver inattention and fatigue high threats among drivers, and you come here today to say there will be a slight improvement in the present situation. Since your association is affiliated with American associations, the organization would be in the best position to compare our hours of service with those in the United States and to see why the Americans have stricter standards concerning truck drivers' hours of service.

    I see you approve of those seeking a short-term solution for the industry. We're trying to understand. I still haven't understood why the Teamsters were ready to sign an agreement because the other unions in Canada are completely opposed to the situation. I have trouble understanding your association. In the discussions you have had with the CCMTA, perhaps you have altered your positions or decided simply to support the industry or the CCMTA.

    Why did you decide to support the trucking industry rather than the workers? That's what I wonder.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, I'm not sure we have a lot of time. So it's sort of like an exam. I'll leave you with Mario's question, and we'll return in about 15 minutes. We'll just suspend until after the vote. Thank you.

Á  (1126)  

---

Á  (1151)  

    The Chair: Colleagues and guests, I think we'll resume. We'll start with the answer to Mario's question.

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: Thank you very much.

    First, I wanted to clarify that CCA's support of the proposal going forward from CCMTA should not in any way be seen as supporting the trucking association or the trucking industry. When we were represented on the working group that looked at hours of service, there were a lot of other concerned partners around the table, and we looked at what they had to say, what Transport Canada had to say, what the expert panel that was convened to discuss hours of service had to say, and we really did look at the research, particularly coming out of the Canada-U.S. landmark fatigue study. So our comments in saying this should go forward recognize that the system we have now is not a good system. It's much worse than what's being proposed.

    The real effort was to put science behind what we were doing. We weren't just grabbing at magic numbers, saying this is what it should be or that is what it should be, we looked at the science and asked if it was supported by what we know about fatigue today. And it really is. If you look at just the one point of reducing the on-duty time from 16 to 14 hours, that's a big step. It gives the drivers more opportunity to rest, and even with the move from 8 hours off to 10 hours off, again, you're giving them that opportunity to get more rest. No legislation is going to be so effective that it will ensure they get the rest, because you can't make a person do something, you can only give them the opportunity to do something.

    So we really did look at all of that science and said this is better than what we have now. And what's the alternative? Do you leave it the way it is now? Everybody knows we have an unsafe regime right now. Even looking at the issue of fatigue itself, I know you quoted a statistic of about 70% involvement in collisions, but that's a higher estimate than what I've heard. In most cases Transport Canada will cite 1% to 2% of crashes as being a result of fatigue. They understand that is probably a low estimate, and the reason is that it's hard to identify fatigue as a factor in a crash. When a police officer arrives on the site, who's going to say, I fell asleep at the wheel, and admit to that? So it's very difficult to get that kind of information. It's not like testing for alcohol or drug use. You can't test for fatigue. That just isn't there.

    Even if you're looking at some of the other numbers that have been quoted for the involvement of fatigue, you're looking at 30% to 40% of crashes. Even at 1% to 2% it's a concern, at 30% to 40% it's a greater concern. But when you get to that, now you have to say, okay, this is our understanding of the extent of the problem, this is what we're currently doing to address the problem. What we did through the CCMTA working group was to find a better way and to recognize at the same time, as we said in our submission, that hours of service and regulation is only one way to address the problem. You must have those other fatigue management programs in place. There's not a single silver bullet that's going to solve this problem.

    The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mario Laframboise: Madam, I find it hard to understand. If you didn't have sufficient analyses and research, if you had no data, why didn't you go directly to the U.S. statutes, which, in my view, and I'm a motorist, are much more responsible? You don't refer to them. There are no standards.

    We called people from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as witnesses. They told us that no one compiled coroners' reports to determine whether fatigue was a factor in accidents involving heavy vehicles. We know that vehicles are increasingly heavy; they're now road trains. They're dangerous, and your surveys show it.

    I would have expected your organization, the CAA, to protect motorists from fatigue-related safety problems instead of trying to understand the industry's problems. That's their problem.

    You tell us there's no research, nothing, but you accept standards... In addition, you told us in your presentation that things are better than they were. It's a small step and we'll have to change that again. Why? If we are to propose something, why don't we simply propose the American model, which has already been accepted by the industry there? As an organization, you have sister federations there which could support you in that respect.

    I can't believe you have supported what is being done, that is to say attempts to accommodate the industry so that it doesn't result in too much...

    The industry is in difficulty, Madam. There is no succession. Very few people want to become truck drivers. Why? Because they work crazy hours. Pardon the expression, but that's the way it is.

    I would have expected your organization to discuss only safety and fatigue. I'm sorry, Madam, but if there were no studies, you should have requested them. I can't understand why you would support a Transport Canada recommendation that doesn't get to the bottom of things. I simply can't believe it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1155)  

[English]

    The Chair: I'm not sure if there are any further comments on that. You can if you want. You have a couple of minutes before I go to the next questioner.

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: I think, when you're looking at what's happening in the U.S., you're going to find that whatever regulations we have, there are always going to be differences between what happens in Canada and what happens in the U.S. A lot of people will say on a number of regulations that Canada's regulations are less stringent than what's happening in the United States, because they allow lower hours of service, different types of standards, whatever. But here Transport Canada substantiates regulations with research, and behind the hours of service debate we did have that scientific evidence. What we don't have is the numbers. Those are the numbers that fluctuate, depending on who you're talking to to tell you the extent of the problem in Canada, and that's because, as I mentioned, trying to identify a crash that has as a factor fatigue is very difficult. But we do have the science to support the proposal that's going forward from CCMTA, from the talks about having to give people more opportunity for rest, keeping them to limited hours on the road, making sure whatever system you put in place matches their 24-hour clock as far as possible.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I move to Bev Desjarlais from the NDP. Colleagues, just to remind you, we've got another vote in 20 minutes.

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

    I had the opportunity to read through your proposal prior to the committee, and having been on the transport committee for some time, I've also had the opportunity to review a number of different studies and listen to a number of different groups on the issue. I have to admit, I read through your brief and thought it was definitely an opportunity to go into politics, as it manoeuvred around a number of different issues. I'll give you an example:

CAA believes the proposed hours of service regulations represent a significant effort on the part of all stakeholders to draft a regulation that is guided by scientific evidence where possible.

    The scientific evidence I've listened to, and I'll specifically talk about Dr. Alison Smiley's research, and there was previous research as well--I think I've read three or four different specific studies now--tends to go on the side of 48 hours off; there's a need to have that additional time off and to have a proper rest period put in. As well, I think scientific evidence indicates that driving more than so many hours and then doing additional work creates problems, and in this day and age, when most people are working an eight-hour day, I can't comprehend why it would somehow be seen as okay for somebody to be driving 14 hours, let alone 16. Either way, it's well beyond what the normal human being in our society has to put in for a day's work. So with that as my guide, I'm curious as to how you could take the perspective of basing it on scientific evidence. That's more of a comment.

    You represent CAA members, and I'm curious whether or not you've done any surveys with your members as to what their thoughts are on the hours of service.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: We haven't specifically talked to them about hours of service. It's a very complex issue. If you just ask a question of someone who hasn't had experience in that field, is not aware of the information you have had the benefit of looking at, as to whether they think hours of service on the road should be reduced, they're going to say yes. They're not going to say it should be increased. So we haven't done that kind of question, but we have asked them how big a threat they think trucks on the road are to their safety. That's the important part to us. Do they think they're having problems out there driving with trucks? Do we have to educate them more and give them that kind of information? Those are the kinds of questions we've asked them.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Your colleague actually commented, though, that fatigue with truck drivers is probably no worse than fatigue with ordinary drivers, and I would imagine that CAA members, or whoever you got comments from, would have based their answers on how they feel when they're driving. I agree with you, I think fatigue would be an issue for anybody on the road, but somehow, when you put someone at the wheel of a truck carrying a huge load, where the impact is a whole lot different, that's different from a little Toyota running down the road with someone who might not have been driving that long. So fatigue for the individual is equal, but the fact that one is in a huge truck makes the difference. Neither should be doing it if they're fatigued or in any way not fit to drive. I'd like your comment.

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: I'll comment on two things, the first one being the 48 hours, and the second one fatigue.

    We have indicated in our brief that we will go along for now with the 36-hour reset time, and that is because during the consultations with the CCMTA group it did come out that this is a recovery period supported by science. There is scientific evidence that it gives you two principal nights of sleep, which is what you need to recover when you're fatigued. If you have your current situation, with 36 hours and only 8 hours off, you've got more opportunity there to build up fatigue before you hit the point where you have to take the time off. By reducing the amount of driving time and increasing the time they have for rest, the opportunity they have for sleep, you're cutting down on that accumulation of fatigue.

    We still want governments to look at this, because we're not entirely convinced that 36 hours is enough, if people don't take that opportunity and go to sleep. If they do other things and don't get their proper rest and recovery time, you have a problem.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You comment that it gives you the two nights of sleep. My understanding is that 36 hours won't give you two nights of sleep. It might give you 36 hours of possible sleep.

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: Yes.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It certainly is not going to give you the two nights sleep, which in almost every scientific study--actually, I'm thinking all of them, but I don't want to say that adamantly--was a crucial finding. As representatives of your members, wouldn't it be more responsible of you to come out pushing for the ultimate of what's best for drivers on the road, rather than a situation you're not really sure of? From my perspective, I don't see why we would be reviewing this and then continuing to play Russian roulette with the lives of people of the road.

    I asked you whether or not you had done a survey, and you said not specifically on the hours of service. I've got a press release here from September 28, 2000 quoting David Leonhardt, Public and Government Relations Director for CAA Ontario. The release says:

CAA members in Ontario almost unanimously oppose increased truck driving hours, a recent survey reveals. They oppose both the longer daily hours and the longer work weeks proposed by a federal/provincial task force.

“CAA Ontario members know that nobody driving 14 hours a day, day after day, is alert enough to drive safely,” CAA Ontario spokesman David Leonhardt told a public forum.

    It goes on to say:

The CAA Ontario survey revealed that 89% of motorists oppose the longer work week for drivers, and eight per cent approve.... Leonhardt was not surprised by the results. “CAA members have told us they view fatigue as the biggest road safety threat after drunk driving.”

    That's 89% of your members in Ontario. So I ask you again, why would you come before us and give a less than perfect proposal for what's best for safety on the roads?

  (1205)  

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: I think we're giving a presentation of an improvement from the current situation, and that's better than doing nothing. The data collected by CAA Ontario only relate to Ontario, where a lot of our members deal more with trucks on their roads than they do in other areas of the country. That's not to say that it's not a significant factor. Again, I can only say that the proposal submitted by CCMTA we're going to support is backed by science.

    With respect to the 48 hours, we're not sure that's even a good way to go. What we've been told by the experts is that if you phase-shift people, you're causing as much of a problem as if you left it at 36 hours, because you've got this person who's used to being up and functioning during a certain time period, and now you've forced them to take time off and come back at a different time, you've interrupted their body rhythms, and that's not necessarily safe either. So it depends on the science you look at, and the 36-48 hour research is really controversial. That's why we're saying that if the experts are telling us that 36 hours is enough, let's go with it, but let's make sure it's enough. That's how we see improving safety on the roads through the hours of service regime.

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

    The Chair: Are there any further questions for our guests?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Oh, I just thought I was going to give someone else a chance.

    The Chair: Mario, do you have anything further? No. Then we go back to Bev.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: To follow that train of thought, can you tell me which experts you're talking about, specifically which studies?

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: This comes mostly from the Canada-U.S. fatigue study. I can provide you with a copy of that later on if you would like.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You were saying experts, plural, so I thought you were dealing with more than one study. When I'm talking to you, I'm dealing with a few I've read over in the last number of years, also having listened to different witnesses before us. So since you're talking about experts, I wanted to know specifically what you were dealing with.

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: When I say experts, it's people who have been part of the CCMTA working group, experts in transportation safety, experts in the field of fatigue.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Do you have a list of names?

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: Yes.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I would like to get that information.

    You made the comment that no legislation can ensure that drivers get their rest. I would agree with you that no one can ensure that drivers get their rest, but we could put in place practices to ensure that we can track whether or not someone has been either driving too long or working too long. We had the representatives of the police force, and you're right, when you've got an accident and either the truck driver or someone else is deceased, you can't really get all the answers, or no one wants to own up to that. But as you mentioned, recorders can be put on trucks, from what I understand, at a minimal cost. There's a cost involved, no question, but I think safety on the roads comes first. I don't have a huge number of trucks in my riding, I have some, but the people in Ontario in the cross-border traffic areas have a real concern, and I think it needs to be identified.

    So recorders can be put in the trucks. If you have an accident and someone is killed, or for that matter, with any accident that involves a truck, questions can be asked automatically. Can we have the log book? Can we know what time this person picked up their load? Can we know what time they went across the border? All those things can be tracked, and quite reasonably tracked, and I think if it's a matter of a violation, those things can be done. I agree that you can't ensure it, but we can ensure that efforts are made to address problems. Again, I don't think that is happening.

    You mentioned the Canada-U.S. arrangement on standardizing transportation services. I heard about that a while back, but it hasn't come up again. I'm wondering whether or not you have specific information as to what discussions are happening at those meetings right now.

  (1210)  

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: No. Unfortunately, we don't have representation and haven't seen any reports. The reason we included it in our submission is that we do recognize the benefit of having standardized legislation, whether it's in Canada or harmonized for North America. We also recognize that there are circumstances where you're just never going to come all the way together, but the attempt to get as close as we can is always something we would promote.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: My understanding is that there's a push within the U.S. for a tightening up of their hours, that they want to lower the length of time their drivers are driving. I think one of the suggested times was 60 hours. I'm just wondering what figures the American Automobile Association are using and whether they would support that proposal. Have they given any indication on where they want to go with the hours for truck drivers?

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: They don't recognize the proposed legislation in Canada as a way they would want to go, but you've got to realize that they're lower already, and if they were to agree to what we're doing, they would be increasing the hours of service on their roads. Nobody's going to do that, because they already think it's safe where they're at. But if you look at the crash data, there's nothing we've seen on fatigue that shows their system is any better or worse.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: There are no collision data on fatigue. I think, when we're making statements in regard to fatigue, a lot of us are basing it on how we feel when we drive a vehicle. Translating that into having yourself behind the wheel of a big truck going down the road just makes it scarier. I think all of us know how we feel after we drive 8, 10, 12 hours. Now think of 14, 16 hours, five days in a row possibly.

    Ms. Elly Meister: That's something we tried to highlight in our brief too. How can people drive 10 hours a day? As an individual, I couldn't. We wanted to set out that these, in most cases, are professional drivers.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: They still have the same bodies we all have.

    Ms. Elly Meister: But they have a different approach, a different attitude, and different training on driving. I think we have to take that into consideration as well.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: For all the training, we all have the same physiological makeup. Although you might get an individual or a few individuals who might be able to do extra hours or drive better at night than others, we all have two arms, two legs, unless it's a disabled driver, the same body make-up, the same type of heart, the same types of lungs, the same body rhythms, sleeping patterns. It's not going to change because you put a big truck underneath you. It's beyond me how we can suggest it's okay for a truck driver to have to put in that many more hours of work and expect it to be a safe scenario.

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: But you're not expecting to them to put in more hours.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm talking more than eight.

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: What they're getting is fewer hours on the road, more opportunity for rest. Because of the way the proposal is outlined, it allows them even to have rests or naps during the day, which science shows are very important. That helps them to get through their day, that helps to ensure that they're not going to accumulate fatigue. Whether or not they take that opportunity remains to be seen, but at least you're giving them the chance to do it.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It was indicated by truckers who appeared before us that Canada doesn't have the same type of rest system set up along their highways as they do in the U.S. That becomes a problem as well, because they can't just pull over in a safe manner when they start to feel fatigue along the roads. Is that in your presentation?

  (1215)  

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: That's one of our recommendations. We've identified that the trucking industry, in cooperation with government or whomever, should look at the rest stops across the country and find out if they're adequate, and if they're not, fix the problem.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Can I fit one more in?

    The Chair: Sure you can.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In regard to the possible U.S.-Canada standardization, are the weights the trucks are allowed to carry in the U.S. lower than in Canada?

    Ms. Elly Meister: In some jurisdictions they are. Even across Canada we have different ones.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Do you know the maximum weight allowed in the U.S.?

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: Not off the top of my head, but I can get that information for you.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: And in Canada?

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: It varies.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Do you know what the maximum would be?

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: I'll get that for you as well.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is there a difference in the length of trucks?

    Ms. Rosalinda Fischer: Yes. There's a difference across Canada, as well as in the United States.

    Ms. Elly Meister: We don't have one standard. They allow the Rocky Mountain doubles, as they call them, in some areas, and not in B.C. So it depends. There are different restrictions and rules all across Canada. We can get you that information. We don't have it off the top of our heads.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: My understanding is that even the maximums in the U.S. are less than what Canada allows. I'd like to see what sort of diversity you're dealing with when you make your judgments on things.

    That's it, I think, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies, for being here. I want to remind you that any information you promised should go to the clerk, so the whole committee gets it. I really appreciate your time. I'm sorry for the interruptions.

    We're adjourned until next Thursday.