Transport Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll get started. Mr. McGuinty is on his way.

We have with us in the room Mr. Benson from Teamsters Canada, Mr. Terry Shaw from the Manitoba Trucking Association, and Mr. Bradley and Mr. Wood from the Canadian Trucking Alliance. By video conference from the Canadian Trucking Alliance we have Mr. Rodney Bantle.

Can you hear me, Mr. Bantle?

[Rodney Bantle, Senior Vice President, Truck Transportation, Gibson Energy Inc., Canadian Trucking Alliance]

I can, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Bradley, are you doing the presentation? Are Mr. Wood and Mr. Bantle with us to answer questions as well?

[David Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. I just wanted to be clear.

We'll start with Mr. Benson from Teamsters Canada, for 10 minutes or less, please.

[Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting Teamsters Canada to appear before the committee as it continues its study on the transportation of dangerous goods and safety management systems.

Before I start, on behalf of Teamsters Canada I extend our condolences to the families and friends of Patrice Vincent and Nathan Cirillo. We are so sorry for your loss. Our prayers and wishes for a speedy recovery go to all harmed in any way from the unfortunate incidents. On a personal note, my thanks go to the security and staff on the Hill for keeping us all safe.

Teamsters Canada is a regulated stakeholder of the Canadian Council of Motor Transportation Administrators, CCMTA, as is the Canadian Trucking Alliance. The CCMTA deals with all things road, and the industry is proactive in seeking positive changes that benefit the safety of Canadians, the economy, and the industry. It does not mean that we have not had strongly held differences with the CTA; however, over the years they have been rare. I can only wish other sectors would be as welcoming to working together for the betterment of the transportation sector.

Road transportation is often incorrectly viewed as 18-wheelers, the big rigs. That subsector is part of an expansive sector. Teamsters Canada represents workers who fall within road transportation, though not within the committee's study—brewing, soft drink, buses, and school buses, for example. When applicable within our structures, we provide for trade divisions that include armoured car, dairy and sales drivers, grocery and retail stores, movie-making, and trade shows. Marine transport can also fall within our miscellaneous moniker. More germane to this meeting would be other Teamsters Canada trade divisions: parcel and small packages—that's Canada's couriers—construction and pipeline, including concrete, and the freight and tank haul.

The parcel and small packages division works within the courier industry. These logistics companies are a critical component of the supply chain, and they do carry dangerous goods, properly labelled and with rigorous safety procedures. One of the most interesting issues we've dealt with was the delivery of nuclear medicines to a hospital in Vancouver that was within the exclusion zone created for the 2010 Olympic Games. Small quantities do not necessarily mean we should have no concerns.

The construction and pipeline divisions haul a variety of substances that would fall within the TDG mandate, certainly fuel. Explosives can also be part of the job. The transportation of explosives is strongly regulated. Drivers are required to have Transport Canada security clearances and rate cards. Though we do not believe it is needed at this time, if the need arises, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act provides for Transport Canada security clearances for drivers of dangerous goods.

The freight and tank haul division would see the bulk of transportation of dangerous goods. To be clear, the most dangerous products, such as chlorine, are transported by rail and not by road.

Full-load trailers carry placards and warnings and are driven by trained professionals. The small quantities of products would lead to more limited harm if accidents were to occur, and that is extremely rare within the memory of the Teamsters Canada freight division leadership. They have no memory of any accident involving a teamster haul. Less-than-load could see smaller quantities of dangerous goods mixed with other products being carried without placards, with more risk to first responders in public.

Tank haul carries a wide array of products. The concern here would be the fuel, gas, diesel, heating oil, jet fuel, propane, butane, and the like. These are mostly carried in baffled tanks with anti-roll ABS technology. The quantities are relatively small. We could come up with scenarios of great damage, and there is also risk, but as I said, we have no memory within the memory of the leadership in Teamster Hall of that happening. To be sure, it's a good story to tell.

SMS, safety management systems, in trucking don't exist. SMS is really a canard, trussed-up deregulation. You do not need regulation for businesses to have an SMS; it's a business best practice. What exists in trucking is industry-created and industry-led training. Shippers in industry ensure that drivers have the requisite knowledge before the fuel leaves the facility. Other programs dealing with safety, rigging, brakes, and on and on are components of what we might think of as an SMS, but not comparable. SMS simply would not work in the trucking sector, and bluntly, it is not needed, because what the sector has developed is working, which is more than we can say of the SMS in other sectors.

Is it perfect? Not at all, but next week the CT and the Teamsters will be attending the CCMTA meetings, working to move the sector forward. It's how the trucking sector works.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much, Mr. Benson.

We'll now move to Mr. David Bradley of the Canadian Trucking Alliance for 10 minutes.

[David Bradley]

Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. On behalf of our industry, I'd also like to extend our thoughts to all of you for the tragic events of last week, but as always, Canadians do rally together.

We did send a detailed submission earlier this year. I'm sure you've all read it in great detail, but notwithstanding that, I'll provide some remarks, with first a bit about CTA.

We're a federation of the provincial trucking associations in Canada, including the Manitoba Trucking Association—you'll hear from Terry in a moment—and in so doing, we represent over 4,500 trucking companies from across Canada.

Geoff Wood, who is here with me, is our VP, operations and safety. He's also a member of the minister's general policy advisory council on dangerous goods.

Rod Bantle is senior VP, truck transportation, at Gibson Energy. Gibson has been in business for over 60 years. Each year they transport over 150 million barrels of oil equivalent via truck throughout Canada and the United States. They are one of the largest crude oil haulers in western Canada and the largest independent for-hire carrier crude oil hauler in the United States.

According to StatsCan, 70% by tonnage of all dangerous goods are transported by road. The remainder is 24% in rail, 6% in marine, and less than 1% in air.

There are literally thousands of goods classified as dangerous goods. The regulations themselves identify over 2,200. Many of them are common household products, but regardless, all of them have different properties and they pose different levels of risk. They're transported in various volumes. They can be transported in truckloads or less than truckload and in a variety of conveyances, in everything from van-type semi-trailers to tank trucks.

Crude petroleum, oil, gasoline, and fuel oils represent 77% of all dangerous goods that are transported by road in Canada. In terms of the long-distance transportation of crude oil to refineries, which has been a focus of the committee, that is the domain of the pipelines and the rails. Trucks simply are not an economic option for those types of deliveries.

Trucks are used in the transportation of crude oil at the midstream stage of product development, where deliveries are generally short haul and where the rates between truck and rail are comparable but trucks usually provide a more timely service. Trucks will never displace pipelines or rail in that business. Even if we wanted to, there simply aren't the trucks, drivers, or roads in all of North America to be able to accommodate it.

It's also unlikely that an incident of the magnitude of Lac-Mégantic could occur in the business that trucks are involved in. The amount of product that we ship in a single shipment is very, very small compared to a train of tank cars.

The actual number of shipments of dangerous goods that are transported by truck is unknown, which is a bit of a problem, I guess, if we don't have that kind of data. We estimate that there are at least two million, and probably many more, dangerous goods shipments in Canada each year.

Using that figure of two million, we looked at the DG incidents involving trucks in 2012. The stats show that the frequency and the severity of most incidents involving trucks is relatively low.

There are about 1.64 incidents per 10,000 shipments. Most of those are very minor, with a leakage of less than 500 litres, therefore not doing any particular damage to the environment or to safety. Most incidents, about 71%, occur during the loading or unloading stage. Most incidents involve the loading and unloading of tank trucks.

Finally, I think the public is most concerned where we share our workplace with them on the highway. The frequency of incidents caused by accidents on the highway is extremely low at 0.27 per 10,000 shipments.

All of this suggests what Phil said, which is that the industry itself is managing the transportation of dangerous goods proactively and effectively. If you care about your business, safety is good business.

It also further suggests that the regulations are for the most part effective in preventing incidents where trucks are involved. Still, more than any other mode, we do share our workplace with the public, and with that comes an added responsibility for continuous improvement, regardless of whether or not the trucks are hauling dangerous goods.

Our members believe that competition should be based on service and price, where price includes the true cost of compliance for all carriers. We have no tolerance for carriers who seek competitive advantage by breaking or bending the rules and then attempting to fly under the radar. Thankfully, they're in a minority. We believe in effective regulation and effective enforcement.

Motor carriers and truck drivers operate under a comprehensive set of highway safety and environmental regulations. Most carriers, certainly all dangerous goods haulers, have internal safety management systems, although that's not, as Phil indicated, a regulatory requirement. Instead, the regulatory system governing trucking, which is administered by the provinces, focuses on performance and outcomes, perhaps more than in any other mode.

All motor carriers are subject to on-road enforcement, as are drivers. They're subject to fines for violations, and drivers and vehicles can be taken out of service at any time at roadside if they don't meet the standards. They're also subject to facility audits. The provincial governments keep profiles on all trucking companies and all drivers. They accumulate infractions; various thresholds are reached, and they generate harsher and more progressive sanctions, which can include a downgrading in your safety rating up to and including a loss of operating privileges.

Are there issues with harmonization? Yes, although the level of harmonization is perhaps highest with regard to the TDG regulations. Is there uneven enforcement? Yes. Can things be improved? Yes, but the results compared to the rest of North America suggest that the regulatory system in Canada works extremely well.

Again, while the frequency of dangerous goods incidents caused by accidents on the highway is extremely low, they are the cause of most, about 57%, of the major incidents, which are defined as releases greater than 5,000 litres and usually involve flammable liquids.

While those major incidents represent only about 6.5% of all incidents, it is again here where we share our workplace with the public that the CTA would strongly support and work with the federal government in the introduction of two key safety measures for heavy trucks, regardless of whether or not they're hauling dangerous goods.

The first measure would be a universal mandate requiring all trucks where under the current federal hours of service regulations the driver is required to carry a paper logbook, to replace that logbook. Those trucks would be required to be equipped with electronic logging devices.

Second, we would like to see as a manufacturing standard moving in lockstep with the United States, a requirement that all new heavy trucks be equipped with roll stability systems. It's simply cheap insurance.

In addition, the CTA calls on the provinces to require mandatory activation of speed limiters on all trucks as Ontario and Quebec have done. The U.S. is expecting to introduce a rule next year. A growing number of carriers, responsible carriers, transporting dangerous goods already voluntarily invest in this technology. We need to get the rest of the industry on board.

We also support the introduction of mandatory entry-level training for truck drivers consistent with the national industry standard. Again, that's a provincial responsibility.

Still, the industry has an enviable safety record. Trucks are the safest vehicles on the highways, and truck drivers as a class are the safest drivers, but by working together, we can make things even better.

With regard to the TDG regulations themselves, and not withstanding their overall effectiveness as it pertains to trucking, there are a couple of areas of improvement that we would like to highlight.

First, the enforcement of shipper responsibilities could be improved. Carriers often complain about shippers not providing proper documentation and not having the requisite knowledge of the regulations or sometimes even the characteristics of their own product. Our drivers are really product specialists as much as they are drivers. It's the carrier and the driver who bear the brunt of enforcement at roadside, not the shipper. This is something which we think Transport Canada and the provinces need to address.

Second, the TDG regulations compel carriers to ensure drivers receive training and are certified to transport dangerous goods. We wholly support that, but we do believe that consideration could be given to requiring those who are actually providing the training, whether that's in-house or through a third party, to be certified to do so. The CTA and the provincial associations already provide a lot of train-the-trainer type of assistance. We'd be happy to help you.

With that, I will stop. I look forward to any questions. We thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today..

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much, Mr. Bradley.

We'll now move to Mr. Terry Shaw from the Manitoba Trucking Association, for 10 minutes.

[Terry Shaw, Executive Director, Manitoba Trucking Association]

We appreciate the invitation to appear today.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with us, the Manitoba Trucking Association was founded in 1932. The Manitoba Trucking Association represents about 300 member companies. Our member companies represent over 25% of the for-hire trucking companies in Manitoba, whose fleets represent over three-quarters of the trucks licensed in Manitoba.

As Mr. Bradley mentioned, the MTA is a member of the Canadian Trucking Alliance.

I would suggest that it is generally accepted by those who have reviewed reporting on this subject that the trucking industry is safe and has seen consistent improvements in safety results.

Before I get into some TDG-specific considerations, I'll very briefly provide an overview of some of the Manitoba industry initiatives being driven by the MTA. I'm doing so to provide some context and insight regarding the safety culture of trucking in Manitoba. While I'm here today speaking from a Manitoba perspective, I can confirm that all other CTA member associations are engaging very similarly within their provinces.

The mandate of the MTA is to develop and maintain a safe and healthy business environment for its industry members. The inclusion of the word “safe” and its mention as a primary consideration by our member companies is not accidental. This statement highlights a core value of our membership and guides the work of MTA staff.

In June 2012 the MTA board of directors took a position in support of the creation of a trucking industry certificate of recognition program. The intention of this program was to create industry-specific tools and education that will assist trucking companies with their safety and prevention activities. Last month, SAFE Work Manitoba approved this initiative, and we are currently working with them on the implementation of this item.

I would like to note that the elements being sought under an industry-specific certificate of recognition program align very closely with the major components of an SMS, as indicated by Transport Canada, such as commitment by the organization's senior management to safety as evidenced by the endorsement of safety policies, measurable safety objectives, and clear organizational responsibilities and accountabilities for safety, as well as a variety of other items.

For years, the MTA has been an active participant in the creation and delivery of industry-specific education and training tools, such as partnering with Apprenticeship Manitoba on the creation of the designated trade of commercial truck driver. We partner with Manitoba Public Insurance on the entry level professional truck driver training program. We are currently partnering with the Province of Manitoba on an English-at-work program specific to the trucking industry, and we consistently deliver industry-specific regulatory training, including TDG training.

While not all of these have a specific safety focus, let alone a TDG focus, we mention them to highlight the culture of education and training supported by the trucking industry. While I can't provide any specific evidence that a culture of ongoing education and training has a direct positive impact on industry safety, it is our belief that there is an innate connection between increased education and training and improved safety results.

In direct response to some of the questions under consideration today, such as what additional measures could be taken to strengthen TDG safety across all modes of transportation, I'll provide some specific suggestions in conclusion, but prior to that, I would like to bring to the committee's attention Transport Canada's “Commercial Vehicle Safety in Canada” annual report for 2009, that being the most recent year available.

One of the items the report speaks to is Roadcheck, which is an annual safety inspection program undertaken across North America, including Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The report confirms that the 2009 Roadcheck out-of-service rate is slightly better than the previous year's figures and continues an overall national downward trend in the out-of-service rates over the last 12 years. In addition, the Canadian results were better than those reported in the U.S.

The report also indicates that commercial vehicle results in all categories, including inspections and incidents such as fatal personal injury and property damage, are all reporting lower; i.e., they are moving in a positive direction. This was also notwithstanding the fact that vehicle kilometres travelled are also increasing regularly. The report specifically states, “As can be seen...[from] the trend in collisions and casualties from 1990 to 2009, Canada's road safety record continues to improve.”

Specific to TDG incidents, a brief scan of CANUTEC's annual statistics shows an extremely low number of trucking incidents, especially relative to vehicle kilometres travelled. As Mr. Bradley mentioned, the specific number of TDG vehicle kilometres travelled isn't known, but it is believed to be substantial, as the majority of TDG shipments travel by road. The CANUTEC scan also shows that TDG incidents are decreasing over time. While the report doesn't speak to the scale of the incidents, the opportunities for large-scale events during road transport are extremely limited.

In answer to the question on whether the implementation of safety management systems should be adjusted to provide a greater focus on the transportation of dangerous goods, we believe the consistent annual improvements in road safety demonstrate the effect of the current regulatory regime.

While we aren’t suggesting enhancements in the current regulatory system or that industry’s current results shouldn’t be targeted, we are of the opinion that focusing on the system in place and discussing how to increase its effect would provide the greatest value to government and industry.

The previous comment being made, outside of anything contained in the Canada Labour Code and/or any provincial workplace safety and health legislation, the 2011 CCMTA report entitled “Addressing Human Factors in the Motor Carrier Industry in Canada” indicates that 71% of trucking companies already have some safety management system in place.

Has the implementation of safety management systems improved the safety of our transportation regime? Again, we can't comment on other modes, but Transport Canada’s information on road safety results shows that the trucking industry is continually improving in terms of road safety. While I wouldn't suggest that one can attribute these directly to safety management systems, it does suggest that current industry practices under current regulatory regimes are having positive impacts.

Safety isn’t just a regulatory function for the trucking industry. There are very well understood consequences of being unsafe, and we believe the results indicate the trucking industry understands this and is managing accordingly.

In regard to some additional measures to strengthen TDG safety for road transport, while I have spoken very briefly on the positive trends in road safety results, we would also suggest that the current system and industry’s results are not something that couldn’t benefit from continued efforts towards improvement. With this in mind, I put forth two items for consideration: greater involvement in road safety by all parties involved in the supply chain, and the strategic use of technology to enhance road safety.

Section 1.5 in part 1 of Canada’s TDG regulations states very clearly that dangerous goods “must be handled, offered for transport, or transported in accordance with these regulations”. This means that all parties involved in the supply chain, from those packaging and loading the product, to those hiring the transportation service provider, to the transportation company, bear responsibility for the safe movement of these goods.

We would suggest that improved means of limiting the ability of some in the supply chain to hand off liability and risk to others in the system would increase the overall quality of the system. Again, while this consideration is not predominant, especially when it comes to TDG activities, it is common enough that we believe it is worthy of mention and recognition as an opportunity for improvement.

As a member of the CTA, we also support the national positions maintained in relation to electronic logging devices and roll stability systems. Specifically, we would also suggest that a national mandate requiring all trucks where the driver is currently required to carry a paper logbook under hours-of-service regulations be equipped with an electronic logging device. Also, we would suggest a manufacturing standard in concert with the U.S. requiring all new heavy trucks to be equipped with roll stability systems. Both of these items would provide increases in regulatory compliance and road safety. While this isn’t specifically a TDG opportunity, the TDG road shipments moved under these initiatives would naturally benefit from the overall improvement in road safety.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw.

We'll move to questioning.

Mr. Mai, you have seven minutes.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today. We apologize for being late from votes, but that's what we have to deal with.

I'll start with you, Mr. Bradley. You've given us some really interesting numbers. In terms of dangerous goods, you spoke about two million shipments, but as you mentioned, it's really hard for you to know.

We've seen rail going from 500 carloads in 2009 to probably 510,000 carloads in 2016. What have you seen in the industry? Is there an increase in terms of shipment of dangerous goods in the past five years, let's say? Do you project that there will be an even bigger increase, or has it been stable for a while?

[David Bradley]

Well, it really depends on which dangerous goods you're talking about. If it's crude oil, again, we're not involved in the long-distance shipment of that, so no, we've not seen that kind of growth.

There are companies like Mr. Bantle's which specialize in that, but if you look generally across, say, all 2,200 dangerous goods, it depends. When the auto sector is going strongly, then airbags, which are a dangerous good, increase. For lithium batteries, when the consumer is strong, you'll see an increase. It really is a reflection of overall economic activity.

We have seen—and this is a good thing—since the recession of 2007 an overall increase in terms of demand for transportation service and in terms of the vehicle kilometres that trucks are travelling.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

One of your recommendations, which was also made by the Manitoba Trucking Association, was to have electronic logging. I would like to understand how it works right now. If, for instance, a truck is carrying dangerous goods and something happens, what are the steps? Again, it will depend on the type of company that has the goods, but because we don't know if there is an SMS being applied or what system is in place, what is the next step? If, for instance, you don't have a log or there is no electronic log, how do people know how to act?

[David Bradley]

First, I need to explain what the electronic log is intended to do.

Accidents are caused by a chain of events, but human error is a predominant factor. When a human being is fatigued, the risk becomes greater, so the hours-of-service regulations in Canada were developed from a fatigue management point of view. We worked with the Teamsters on those for years. They are supposed to be consistent with fatigue management and the science of fatigue.

We have a regulation, but any regulation is only as good as the level of enforcement. Hours-of-service regulations are currently enforced through a paper logbook. Let's just say paper systems are easier to fudge than electronic oversight is. As the rest of the world is moving to using technology and electronics to conduct their business, we're still stuck with this paper system. We would like to replace that paper logbook with an electronic logging device that would ensure compliance with the hours of service regulations, which should reduce fatigue and therefore reduce the incidence of crashes. The technology exists, and we've been calling for this for 10 years. The Americans are also moving on this stage.

Whether it's dangerous goods or not—

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I get it.

Mr. Benson, I see you nodding your head. Do you want to add anything on that?

[Phil Benson]

With regard to the long list that David put in, and he can confirm this, I think we've been working on that entire list together for probably 10 years or more. We're taking a nuanced approach. The only difference we had was in speed limiters, because we wanted a national and international...not a one-off. The electronic logbook would be a significant improvement in giving road enforcement the ability to see instantly whether somebody has violated the rules versus using the rather complicated method they have to go through with the paper logbooks. It would be a great improvement to see.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Perfect. Thank you.

Mr. Bradley, you spoke about the issue with enforcement for shippers' information and things like that. Who's doing enforcement?

[David Bradley]

The enforcement for shippers rests with Transport Canada. I don't know the level to which they are conducting, for example, facility audits of shipper operations to ensure they are in compliance with the law. Most of the enforcement, which is conducted by provincial enforcement officers, takes place roadside, when the truck pulls into an inspection station or the officers go into a trucking company and go through their records. When there are violations, even for things that may be the shippers' responsibility, particularly, say, documentation, it's the trucking company and the driver who end up getting fined, even though the shipper has provided them with the paperwork.

As has been indicated, we think you need a supply chain solution to these sorts of things. Some of the major shipper associations have training programs and specific programs geared towards the kinds of dangerous goods and products they produce. That's a good thing, but they're not mandatory so not all shippers belong to them. They're voluntary. The decision regarding who actually gets the freight at the end of the day is usually made by the purchasing department, which is totally divorced from that process. I would say there are times when perhaps companies are hauling dangerous goods when they shouldn't be. That's something that needs to be addressed and that can be addressed only through the shipper.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

On the lack of enforcement, is it new or has it been there for a long time? Is this something that the trucking alliance has raised?

[David Bradley]

The issue of shipper responsibility in general has been a topic of conversation ever since the national safety code for trucks was introduced in 1988.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. McGuinty, for seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Bradley, I didn't understand your comments with respect to how much oil is being transported by truck.

How much oil is being transported by truck?

[David Bradley]

Virtually all crude oil is touched by truck, but not long distance over the road to refineries. It's from the well to either the pipeline or the transfer station. These are short distances, rural shipments. That's where the trucks are involved.

That's where Mr. Bantle's company would be involved. Once it goes from there, it either goes into a pipeline or into railcars for shipment to refineries.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is there any regulation or express prohibition for trucks to carry oil?