Transport Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

We are seeing the same kind of debate in the rail sector, aren't we?

[David Bradley]

Yes. It's people trying to avoid their responsibilities. The trucking industry makes it clear, and always has: when we are at fault, we are responsible, and we face the penalties. That's the way it should be. That should be the case across the entire supply chain.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is your industry in favour of adopting a mandatory SMS structure?

[David Bradley]

We don't think it's necessary. Again, the difference between truck and rail.... Most companies have them, but simply depositing a piece of paper somewhere doesn't mean a whole lot unless it has teeth. I think that's part of the problem you are seeing on the rail side. Historically, what they've chosen to do on the trucking side is to introduce a comprehensive regulatory regime with real penalties, fines, and sanctions, which don't exist on the rail side. That's where the control comes in on the trucking side. I don't think having to deposit more paper necessarily means anything.

At the same time, if a trucking company is not performing up to snuff with respect to safety, what happens is that the company is identified by the provincial enforcement officers. They do a facility audit, and at that time they look for the safety management system of that trucking company. They'll say, “Look, you have to improve this”, or “You're not even following your own safety management system”, and the like. Again, the level of enforcement, on-road real-time enforcement, that exists in trucking is different from that in any other mode.

Again, I think it's an open question whether safety management systems should be regulated, but I don't know that they have worked particularly well on the rail side in the absence of the other types of enforcement activities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll move to Mr. Komarnicki, for seven minutes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I notice that Gibson Energy Inc. is represented. We have Gibson trucking in southeast Saskatchewan. It involves the oil-hauling business. I am not sure if there is any relationship between them. Do you have an office or an operation in Saskatchewan?

[Rodney Bantle]

Yes, we do.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I also notice that the legislation we have for the transportation of dangerous goods, and the regulations that flow from it, has to do primarily with international and interprovincial travel. Consequently, that legislation would deal mostly with long hauls, and yet I hear Mr. Bradley saying that you are not involved in that aspect of the business, because of economic reasons, I suppose. What I am hearing this morning is that the regulations don't have much application to the trucking industry when it comes to long hauls. At the same time, in southeast Saskatchewan, where I'm from, there is a lot of hauling that takes place within that area by truckers. I am wondering if there might be a gap in that.

You mentioned that about 71% of the accidents, if you want to call them that, or events happen when you are loading or unloading. With the great increase of oil production in the Bakken field, for instance, as the amount of rail shipment of oil has increased, the amount of trucking from site to transloading facilities has increased. Am I led to believe that these regulations don't apply to those transactions?

Go ahead, Mr. Bradley.

[David Bradley]

No, not at all. There is a dual regulatory system. Federal regulation covers extraprovincial trucking, that is, trucking that crosses borders. Any dangerous good that moves across the border is covered by the federal regulation. My only point was that we're not really in the business of a long-distance shipment of crude. That's not a regulatory factor.

The other point which I mentioned in my comment is that the provinces—and we have more harmonization on this one item of dangerous goods than any other safety feature—have all adopted the federal dangerous good regulations, either by reference or in their own regulations. Whether you're intraprovincial, interprovincial, or international, it doesn't matter; you are covered by dangerous goods regulations.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

For instance, in southeast Saskatchewan where we have truckers loading to transload facilities, and they do within that certain area, Saskatchewan would have incorporated the federal regulations.

Do you know that as a fact?

[David Bradley]

Absolutely.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Okay.

Mr. Benson has a thought.

[Phil Benson]

I was talking about our work at the CCMTA. That brings together all the motor administrators for Canada. A lot of our laws are federal, so the federal government has to enact them. As Mr. Bradley was saying, at the end of the day it's by incorporation, by reference, or by legislation. The same rules will apply almost universally throughout the country.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

If you incorporate by reference, does that catch forward occurrences of legislation on the federal side? In other words, if we amend a portion of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act here, does it automatically incorporate by reference, or does it take additional steps for the province?

[David Bradley]

If it's by reference, yes. If they have written their own regulations, then it takes some time for them to change their regulation.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Are you satisfied that in the southeast part of the province all truckers hauling Bakken crude would essentially have to meet the federal transportation of dangerous goods regulations?

[David Bradley]

Absolutely.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

With respect to safety management systems, I know that one of the reasons Mr. Benson may have said it's not worthwhile to have safety management systems is that you might have small independents or ma and pa operations. People like Gibsons, for instance, have a fleet of trucks that transport, as would others. In those instances you would think there would be some sort of corporate culture of safety which would say that notwithstanding there are regulations and notwithstanding that we're told what should be done, there must be some systemic things. Safety management systems would certainly augment or enhance regulations in situations that are peculiar to your industry.

Are there safety management systems in place? Should there be safety management systems in place for the bigger fleet companies? As a second question, why not provide some template safety management processes that ma and pa operations can tag into?

I see a number of hands. We'll start with Mr. Bradley and then we'll go to Mr. Shaw and then Mr. Benson.

[David Bradley]

I think you should hear from Mr. Bantle about his safety management system. As I said, the vast majority of carriers of all products have safety management systems. I would expect that virtually all dangerous goods haulers have safety management systems. Yes, we spend an awful lot of time dealing with best practices in our sector. That's why I don't think you need regulation.

I'll let the others comment.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We'll go to Mr. Shaw and Mr. Benson, and maybe if we have time, we'll go to Mr. Bantle.

[Terry Shaw]

I just wanted to add that in Manitoba we've lobbied effectively as of about a month ago for the creation of an industry-specific safety association. While that is a provincial body, what it would do is exactly what you're suggesting. It would create those template documents. That is through the workers' compensation or the SAFE Work system, but the methodology and the ideology are the same. In the province of B.C. they have a very similar program. I do know that the Saskatchewan Trucking Association has previously worked toward the creation of a provincial safety association. Again, Transport Canada confirms that 71% of trucking companies already have some safety management system in place. That's without any regulatory requirement for it. It's just good business.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Benson, I thought initially that you seemed to be of a contrary view. Are you changing?

[Phil Benson]

No, not all.

What we view is safety management systems and the regulatory regime if something doesn't exist in trucking. What I was saying in my presentation was that the safety management system was for deregulation or self-regulation. As Mr. Bradley said, it's not too good in rail and elsewhere.

What we see in the road world is what good businesses do. They don't have safety management systems with the scope and size of rail. They have specific processes in place to ensure that what they're doing is safe in a workable manner with, as Mr. Bradley said, strong enforcement, strong regulations, fines, people backing it up, which is something that hasn't existed in rail and elsewhere. In a technical sense it is not a safety management system, but within a sphere it is what good businesses do.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We're running out of time, but I have two questions for Mr. Bantle. Do you do short hauls in southeast Saskatchewan and your comment on safety management systems...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

A quick comment on the question, please.