Transport Committee on April 9th, 2019

[Phil Benson]

I think it's more their concerns about the public safety of the children. They care about the children they're carrying. When they were talking about seat belts—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

No, I want to know what the bigger problem is—ejection or entrapment.

[Phil Benson]

I think entrapment was the one they were more concerned about.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay.

[Phil Benson]

The ejection at low speed would not be a concern; it would have to be quite catastrophic. They were concerned that even in a low-speed accident, if the child is incapacitated—fire, or something happens—they want to make sure.... The reason for a monitor is to make sure that smaller children especially.... If they're high-school age, one could assume they can unbuckle their seat belts and help each other. The issue is that they did not want the safety of the children compromised by even a low-speed accident.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Benson.

We go on to Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us this morning.

Mr. Benson, I'll start with you, since you've been studying this issue for a long time.

I'm pleased to see a very broad consensus, even unanimity, with regard to the importance of seatbelt use. A few years ago, we wouldn't have imagined that the Americans would adopt this measure before us.

Can you summarize how the Americans transitioned, after they had accepted the regulations? Can we draw any inspiration for our own transition?

[Phil Benson]

That is something, in our conversations, that we did not talk about, to be honest about it. We were more concerned about the day-to-day impact on workers. It is something I will make inquiries about and I'll be happy to get back to the committee on that topic.

[Doug Switzer]

If I can address it, the transition was, more or less, what Transport Canada is doing now—no retrofit but a manufacturing standard that all new coaches sold must be equipped with, and it's illegal to remove them. What we're doing now is exactly what the Americans did.

[Phil Benson]

I was referring to the drivers, not the equipment. I agree with you on the equipment, yes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I want to hear your opinion, and especially the opinion of bus owners.

If, tomorrow morning, we were to learn that seatbelts are recommended in the industry, I imagine that this would also become an area of customer demand. Customers would then want to travel in buses equipped with seatbelts.

Do you really believe that the transition should be based on the life span of the buses? In other words, when a bus is replaced, the next one must be equipped with seatbelts. Should the government instead implement measures to help with the transition, so that it can be done as quickly as possible?

[Phil Benson]

There's a problem over the lifespan of the bus. For example, in a province where the buses have an eight- or 10-year lifespan, they sell those buses to other provinces where they have a longer lifespan. Theoretically, you could end up with children starting JK now and never seeing a seat belt in their life. As you bring it in, I think Mr. Switzer talked about, perhaps, buses that can be retrofitted and have a long life. That makes sense. But at the same time, you have to start phasing out those buses over regulated periods so that they're off the road—and not just off the road there. School buses end up with churches; they end up at other places; they end up on work sites where they should not be. Clearly, it's a matter of replacing them, not just forwarding them on to somewhere else. Hopefully, we won't sell them overseas to some third world country that doesn't do it either—that's just a personal comment. Yes, grandfathering is important.

[Doug Switzer]

You hit the nail very much on the head. The market forces have played a huge factor in this.

When the industry started lobbying for seat belts back in the early 2000s, it was because we were getting a lot of pressure from our customers to have coaches with belts and they wanted to know what the standard should be. That's why we wanted the government to adopt a standard: we wanted to know what to build.

A seat belt is more complicated that just a couple of strips of nylon. It has to fit a certain engineering standard for how many Gs of force it can withstand and all that, and nobody wanted to put in 10G belts when the government was going to come along later and mandate 12G belts.

That's why we wanted the manufacturing standard and also why coaches started being built and bought with belts on them already, even though there was no government regulation. It was because of those market forces.

That's accelerating now. For many of our members, it's not a regulatory issue, it's a marketplace issue. Particularly because of Humboldt, there's a lot more attention around it. Whether you're a hockey team, a school board or a church group, there's a lot more attention around people saying, no, they want the coach with belts.

As Mr. Parsons mentioned and he has been doing, some operators have been retrofitting where it's possible. In a sense, the committee's job is being done for it when it comes to seat belt use, because people are demanding them now, and those operators who have belts will get customers and those who don't won't.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

When Canadians travel on a charter bus to the United States, for example, would crossing the border in a bus that isn't equipped with seatbelts pose a problem?

[Doug Switzer]

It's a manufacturing standard, not a use. The U.S. rule isn't that you have to have seat belts, it's that you have to manufacture a coach with seat belts. It's a manufacturing standard issue.

A coach without belts would still be legal to operate in the U.S. if it was manufactured prior to the regulation date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Switzer, in the MCC fact sheet dated November 2018, there's a quite interesting paragraph. I'll read it in full:

Despite the current attention on belts, they are not a cure-all for all accidents. They are helpful in certain circumstances and in certain kinds of accidents, but simply having belts does not automatically guarantee passenger safety. Therefore, not having belts does not really endanger passenger safety.

In a previous panel, we heard totally opposite conclusions where they were saying seat belts are a must.

Can you elaborate more on that?

Also, as my colleague was suggesting to me, what happens in terms of passenger-to-passenger collision?

When there's an accident, there are passengers with no seat belts who will end up crashing into each other. Right?

[Doug Switzer]

Right.

To address the fact sheet, what I was trying to say there is that seat belts are not the only safety issue. As I said in my opening remarks, the issue of coach safety goes beyond just having seat belts. Seat belts are important and no one would suggest otherwise, and we certainly don't suggest otherwise, but they are not a panacea for all incidents.

In many accidents where people die on coaches, they could be wearing their seat belts and they will die anyway, because let's face it, when a fully loaded tractor trailer slams into the side of a coach, whether you're wearing a belt or not isn't really going to make a difference. In many other incidents, if a coach doesn't roll over, if it's just a head-on collision, the old compartmentalization theory will also apply.

The point there is that while seat belts are important, and we absolutely support seat belts and everybody should have seat belts and they should all wear their seat belts, we're suggesting that there is more to coach safety than just seat belts. They are not the be-all and end-all of safety.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Then what is?

[Doug Switzer]

Anything as complicated as safety is a whole tapestry of issues. It's enforcement on bad operators. We heard a lot from the previous panel about driver training and the importance of having good drivers. It's about having structural integrity of the coaches. It's about having seat belts.

The issue of safety is a broad one: the manufacturing of the coach and the training of the driver and everything that happens in between, such as not being distracted by using a cellphone, as well as better highway construction, and so on.

Mr. Parsons didn't quite get into it, but one of his major concerns is that there are a lot of highways that he thinks are unsafe, not just the issue of the posting of the speeds on the ramps.

It's everything from ramp speed signs to driver training to seat belts.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Pelletier.

You were saying that in 2008, reflectors were added and other modifications were made. Earlier in this committee, we heard that a lot of the accidents that happen where children are killed are actually not inside the compartment, but outside, so those safety arms and reflectors do help quite a bit. Have you seen a marked difference, or do you have any numbers to substantiate that claim?

[John-Paul Pelletier]

I think perhaps you are referring to my comment on high-mounted stoplights.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I think you said the safety arm as well.

[John-Paul Pelletier]

No, I didn't make a comment on safety arms on motorcoaches. We are currently in the practice of installing safety arms on our vehicles. I'm familiar with that on a school bus, but I haven't seen that on a motorcoach—certainly not, from our side, being delivered out of the factory that way. Perhaps there have been some aftermarket or post-build installations. I don't have any numbers on arm safety in terms of school buses that I can comment on.