House of Commons Hansard #158 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was measures.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, Ken Dryden, who was a Liberal member of Parliament and cabinet minister, actually had a child care plan in place.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Implemented.
The member needs to reflect on his former leader, Jack Layton, and the NDP who worked with the Conservative Party to kill the program. Therefore, it was the New Democratic Party working with its friends in the Conservative Party that ultimately killed the child care program.
The member might not like to hear the facts, but that is the reality. The NDP has to take responsibility for the way it voted.
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but remark on the question by the member of the Conservative Party on the murdered and missing first nations' women and girls. Frankly, I have never heard such callous disregard for our first nations, and that has been shown by the present Prime Minister, who choreographed an apology and then did nothing to help them. However, that is not my question.
My question is about infrastructure funding. In order for our infrastructure to be properly built, we have to partner with municipalities and provinces. One partner is absent, and that is the Prime Minister. He declared that there would be all this money and then cut it down to $285 million in the first year, spread among all of the communities in Canada, which is not likely of much help.
Could the member for Winnipeg comment on the lack of leadership by the Prime Minister when it comes to infrastructure spending?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would highlight the fact that it is the Government of Canada that has the deepest pockets. The Government of Canada is telling all of those municipalities and provinces that it is not prepared to invest in infrastructure. It is talking about $200 million. More capital infrastructure dollars were spent on the Canada Line in Vancouver under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin than the entire infrastructure budget of the present Conservative government. People familiar with the Canada Line from the Vancouver airport to downtown Vancouver realize the economic impact it has had, in terms of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have resulted directly from that infrastructure investment.
The Conservative government does not make the connection. It does not understand that by investing in infrastructure, we are building a nation. That is something we would put in the form of a challenge to the Prime Minister. Do not give up. It is getting pretty late at this stage in the game.
A Liberal government would invest in infrastructure because we believe in our nation.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, 40 studies have been done on the murdered and missing women issue. Is it not time to take action instead of having another inquiry?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, we would have to agree to disagree.
Yes, there have been studies, but there has not been a national inquiry. I have to side with the victims. I have to side with the mayors and municipalities, the premiers, and the provinces, and the many chiefs. Everyone other than the Conservative government recognizes that we need a national inquiry on the issue of the missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls. Everyone is calling for it. The Prime Minister's Office needs to get a better understanding of the need for an inquiry and call for one. It would be wonderful to see that take place before the end of the year.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders
Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan
Conservative
David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the last half hour has been interesting. As I sat here, I could only think back to the Liberal leader's comment that “we just didn't get the job done”. I was reminded of this in the last half hour, and of so many areas where the Liberals completely failed the Canadian public.
The member talked about a child care program that had no children in it. He talked about how the Liberals saw themselves as supporting a trading nation, but they made no trade deals. The Liberals sent our military over to the Middle East in green uniforms, and then they talked about supporting veterans. He talked this afternoon about massive spending. They certainly oppose any tax reductions for which we would think Canadians would be looking. The Liberals have obviously a very distant connection to the middle class. I often think the closest their leader will ever get to the middle class is when he talks to the mechanic who fixes his Mercedes.
This afternoon, I want to discuss our government's budget implementation act, and I am glad to see the enthusiasm from across the way. It is good to see those members engaged in this, but they were probably expressing their failures and apologizing for them.
I want to take this opportunity to discuss our budget implementation bill and the importance that we place on it.
I spent several years as a parliamentary secretary for Natural Resources, and enjoyed it thoroughly. As a western Canadian MP, having oil and gas in my riding, and focused on energy, it was a real privilege to serve in that position.
Natural Resources deals with many different things. It includes forestry to energy, including mining to nuclear. Today I would like to talk about two of the significant initiatives in the bill that fall under the mandate of Natural Resources in Canada, and those are the two subjects of mining and nuclear.
I should acknowledge the tremendous work that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources have been doing. I know the minster had a great minister who preceded him, and certainly the current minister has done an excellent job of leading on this file.
Today I want to talk about the benefits of our government's plan in two areas. One is for the mandatory reporting of the Canadian extractive sector. The second is the restructuring of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
As all members know, all of the natural resources sectors play a key role in the Canadian economy. Natural resource based companies employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and we as Canadians are very proud of this critical sector. Canada's extractive sector alone, through primarily mining, oil and natural gas, generated exports valued at $124 billion in 2012, which is 28% of Canada's total exports.
Again, we can see the danger that would be placed on our country if the New Democrats, for example, were ever to get into power because they so totally oppose resource development. We can get an idea of the impact they would have on our country were they ever able to influence that.
In the past, we have seen that impact in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, we had those NDP governments in place for a number of years, and they left us 30 or 40 years behind our counterparts in Alberta, which were willing to develop their resources while we sat on ours. Thankfully, over the last 10 years, we had a change in Saskatchewan and we have been developing our resources. The complete psychology of our province has changed and we now are able to lead. A lot of that has to do with the strength of the natural resource sector in Saskatchewan.
These resource sectors have an international reach as well. Canadian extractive sector companies account for almost half of the world's mining and mineral exploration activities. Our mining companies have interests in more than 8,000 properties around the globe in more than 100 countries. These companies support jobs, they develop communities and their influence is significant, particularly in resource-rich developing nations. We believe it is very important that their operations and their activities must be above board at all times.
Our government believes that transparency in the extractive sector is important for both industry and for citizens, and that it is important both in Canada and globally. Raising global standards for transparency will help deter corruption. From the sector's perspective, it enhances the reputation and strength of our companies and of all companies that are involved.
That is why last month our Conservative government introduced the extractive sector transparency measures act. This new legislation would implement our 2013 commitment at the G8 leaders summit to establish reporting standards for Canada's extractive sector by 2015.
This new law will require extractive sector entities to publicly report payments of $100,000 or more made to all governments at home and abroad and that relate to the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals. Canada is taking strong action, along with its G8 partners, to contribute to global efforts to put in place those transparency measures for payments made to governments for commercial development. In doing so, we are moving toward common global reporting standards.
As the globe gets smaller, it is important that those expectations are standardized around the world. These measures are being taken to support Canada's brand as a responsible developer of natural resources, and they will enhance Canada's already sound reputation and its ability to compete internationally.
This mandatory reporting initiative will help to ensure that our resource industries continue to lead. They will prosper around the world. They will continue to provide those economic benefits that are so fundamental to Canada's ability to create jobs to bring economic success and long-term prosperity to our own country.
Surely, this is something that all members in the House and all Canadians can support.
I want to turn the second major Natural Resources Canada initiative that is contained in the budget implementation act. We have always maintained a very strong commitment to Canada's nuclear industry, led by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, or AECL. The nuclear industry has played a significant role in Canada's economy for more than 50 years.
In 2007, our government launched a thorough review of AECL to determine how this crown corporation could best participate in the future in the global nuclear marketplace. In 2009, this review concluded that the interests of Canadian taxpayers and Canada's nuclear industry would best be served by restructuring AECL. Today, I am proud to say that our government is meeting that objective.
In 2011, the assets of the Candu reactor division were sold to Candu Energy Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Montreal based SNC-Lavalin. The privately owned Candu Energy Inc. is now seeking opportunities to sell and to service Candu technology around the world.
The first phase of the AECL restructuring was a big step forward, but additional work remains. In 2013, our government announced its decision to implement a government owned and contractor operated model at AECL's nuclear laboratories. This model will be similar to the one that already exists in the United States and in the United Kingdom. A competitive procurement process was launched to procure the services of a private sector contractor to manage and operate the laboratories.
This restructuring and procurement process, which includes the AECL laboratories in Chalk River, Ontario, and Whiteshell, Manitoba, is progressing well. A competitive process is currently under way to select a private sector company that will be responsible for ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of laboratories' missions.
Our objective in both of these AECL challenges has been to reduce the cost and the risk for Canadian taxpayers, while leveraging AECL's facilities and assets to create value. In the meantime, the laboratories' operations and employees have been recognized into a wholly owned subsidiary of AECL, called Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL. Eventually, ownership of CNL will be transferred to the successful private sector bidder. Its employees will no longer be part of the public service or participants in the public service pension plan.
It is the pension aspect of this restructuring that we are addressing in this bill today. Our government is acting to provide early clarity to CNL employees and to all stakeholders during this time of change at AECL. The budget implementation act would offer transitional pension coverage for employees. We would extend the public pension coverage for three years, beginning the date that CNL would be transferred to the private sector. This would provide greater certainty for both employees and qualified respondents in the procurement process. It would also provide an adequate time period for a new pension plan to be established.
Such a transitional arrangement was offered to former AECL employees who were transferred to Candu Energy in 2011. We believe it is only fair to offer the same to CNL employees. Once restructuring of CNL is complete, all employee benefits, including pensions, will be the responsibility of the new private sector employer.
In addition, a second measure in the bill officially declares that CNL, while it is a wholly owned subsidiary of AECL, is a crown agent. CNL would no longer be a crown agent once it becomes a private sector company.
As members in the House can appreciate, the AECL restructuring has been a significant and complex undertaking. We have worked hard to ensure the process has been methodical, transparent and fair. I should point out that fairness is the one strong element that links both of our topics today, the AECL restructuring and the mandatory reporting.
The measures contained in the budget implementation act are transitional, one-time steps to support AECL workers during restructuring. These measures are fair to AECL, fair to the employees and fair to the taxpayers.
With both of these initiatives, Canada and Canadians will continue to be well served by competitive, leading edge industries. Both will be supported by standards that are second to none. Our industries are positioned to compete successfully with anyone, anywhere in the world. Therefore, I would point out that both of these initiatives represent important initiatives that will lead directly to significant benefits for Canadian taxpayers and for Canadian brands around the world.
As the government continues with its programs, it has had a direct impact on the Canadian economy. When we look at the numbers that have been given, we posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 over the recovery period. As everyone here is well aware, nearly 1.2 million jobs have been created since July, 2009. Our real gross domestic product is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7.
We heard our colleagues opposite criticize our trade agenda a little earlier. The reality is that as both the Minister of Trade, and the Minister of Agriculture in particular have moved ahead, we have seen significant improvement and an increase in trade around the world, and we will continue to see that. Those three dozen trade agreements we have signed, which the Liberals made no movement toward at all, are playing an important role in the recovery we are experiencing.
Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development expect that Canada will be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and the next. That is not an accident. That is happening because of good management. It is happening because we have made commitments that are different than the commitments made on the other side of the House. We have made commitments to reduce taxation for Canadians and Canadian businesses. We have made commitments to increase and expand trade around the world. Those things work together to ensure Canadians benefit consistently.
One of the places that has really impacted Canadians over the last few years is that personal income taxes have gone down, along with the other taxes we have lowered. They are now 10% lower with the tax relief we have provided since 2006. All of these things fit together to create an economy that is strong and moving ahead.
We heard our minister earlier today in question period talk about the fact that the average Canadian family is now saving close to $3,400 that they would have been spending in taxes had the Liberals continued in power. Canadians can be very thankful that our government is in place and that we have done the kinds of things that make it work for them.
The Liberal Party has talked about the middle class and has suggested that what we have done does not work for the middle class. The reality is that it is working very well. I would assume that The New York Times would be unbiased in its analysis. It has found that after-tax middle-class incomes in Canada, which were substantially behind in 2000, now appear to be higher than in the United States. That is a direct impact of our government making decisions to let people keep their own money and make decisions about how they want to spend it.
With balanced budgets in sight, our first priority will be to continue to provide tax relief for hard-working Canadian families so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money and decide how to spend it. Just a couple of initiatives that are part of this budget implementation act that relate to that would be the small business job credit we would initiate through the bill and the children's fitness tax credit.
We have heard a lot about the universal child care benefit that has been brought in, but we should also be aware that the children's fitness tax credit is an important part of the bill as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the bill.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, December 4, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
The chief government whip is rising on a point of order.
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we see the clock at 5:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-603, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (vehicle side guards), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity today to speak in support of Bill C-603, a bill to make side guards on heavy trucks mandatory, a bill that has the potential to save the lives of Canadians and to make our roadways safer.
I want to thank the member for Brossard—La Prairie for bringing this important issue before this House. There have been far too many avoidable fatalities in recent memory associated with pedestrians and cyclists being overtaken by transport truck trailers. We need to take action now to prevent further loss of life.
We have all heard the tragic accounts of young men and women, pedestrians and cyclists, whose lives have been cut short by an accident that would clearly be avoidable and easily addressed through government action legislating side guards on heavy trucks.
The dangers represented by large trucks to pedestrians and cyclists are not a recent phenomenon. Ten years ago, a young daughter of a close friend of our family was killed while biking after she was caught under the wheels of a transport truck. Side guards would have prevented this tragedy. At 21 years old, she should have been able to use the roadway in safety. It is in her memory and the memory of so many others that I support this bill today.
From the evidence available to us, we know that mandatory side guards on heavy trucks would greatly reduce the risk and the number of fatalities and serious injuries on our roads each year. A recent study from the United Kingdom found that these side guards reduced the fatality rate by 61% in instances when a cyclist hit the side of a truck. This type of collision is by no means a rare occurrence. Evidence from the United States between 2005 and 2009 shows that more than half of all cyclist and 29% of pedestrian accidents involved the victim succumbing to the hazards of falling under the side of the truck.
To say this is exclusively a provincial matter is clearly an attempt by the government to shift responsibility from the current federal government to the provinces. The federal government knows it has a responsibility, through the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to take action. The legislation's mandate is as follows:
...to regulate the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to reduce the risk of death, injury and damage to property and the environment.
Enacting Bill C-603 is well within the federal government's mandate in this respect. Across Canada, municipalities are moving to install side guards on their trucks and heavy equipment. They recognize the clear and obvious need for these measures in the promotion of personal and vehicular safety.
The federal government has an obligation to participate in this discussion and the solution. This includes working with the provinces through Bill C-603 to enact positive change.
These side guards are mandatory in Japan. They are mandatory in the United Kingdom, and they are mandatory across the whole of Europe. Why does Canada always resist sound evidence and the positive experience of other countries?
I think Ontario's former chief coroner spoke for all of us when he said:
I don't know what more evidence is needed before one just moves forward to do something which is known to save lives.
Surveys show that two-thirds of Canadians have indicated a desire to cycle more, but they cite safety concerns as a significant obstacle to doing so. We want Canadians to get out and about and get healthier, and the federal government's refusal to act is not only preventing people from getting more active but is endangering those who do.
There would be significant economic, environmental, and health impacts from this policy. The economic benefit of these side guards is clear. Numerous studies have shown that they can decrease fuel consumption by as much as 20%, a result of the streamlining effect of these safety guards. Our own National Research Council estimates that the 230,000 truck trailers across our country would save over 400 million litres of gas annually. Those are very significant savings for Canadian businesses.
Enabling more cyclists to be on the road and ensuring their safety would also be part of a larger strategy to reduce the burden on Canadian commuters. Every year, cities experience increased traffic congestion. Any of us trying to get out of Ottawa to the airport or the many of us who travel in or across Toronto know how frustrating and wasteful sitting in traffic can be.
Municipalities and provincial governments struggle to provide adequate transportation infrastructure in the face of ever-rising costs. Keeping up with the demand for roadways is an impossible task. We must look to providing alternative means of transportation and encourage an increase in pedestrian and cyclist activity as part of a progressive strategy that would curtail our transportation and infrastructure costs from spiralling further out of control.
Canadian motorists make an average of 2,000 trips each year of less than three kilometres. Guaranteeing safety for pedestrians and cyclists would encourage many more to get out and bike instead of hopping in the car. However, it is tougher to ensure our safety and the safety of our loved ones when we hear tragic stories like those of Jenna Morrison and Mathilde Blais and the too many countless others who have needlessly lost their lives.
Encouraging cycling also contributes to reducing carbon emissions where it can reduce traffic congestion. If transportation accounts for nearly 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and truck side guards are proven to reduce carbon emissions by 1.1 million metric tonnes annually, then ensuring the safety of cyclists has the added benefit of reducing Canada's environmental footprint.
It is no secret that the current government has no desire to address the environmental issues facing Canadians, but even members on the government benches do not want to see carbon emissions increase further year after year.
Finally, let us consider the personal health benefits derived from biking and walking. Obesity continues to be a growing problem across our country. Encouraging physical activity impacts the quality of life Canadians experience, now and in the future. Better health outcomes would obviously reduce the strain on our health care system and would increase our quality of life.
The economic, environmental, and personal health benefits are all substantial and clear to many, if not most, Canadians, but when it comes down to it, I still think twice when my children and I go out on our bikes together or we bike alone. We cannot expect to get more Canadians to adopt alternative means of transportation if they do not feel safe. The House has before it a great opportunity to help create a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.
The government fails to advance any reasonable or convincing argument for why we should not be acting on this right now. Simply, it is allowing ideology to restrict the advancement of vehicular and pedestrian safety that would also contribute to our health and to environmental sustainability and that would save taxpayer dollars.
Creating a safe environment on the roads needs to be part of the federal government's commitment to its citizens. Yet by not supporting this bill, it is abandoning its key responsibility to ensure their safety. Canadians want action on this issue, and the bill before us presents some very good steps in that direction.
The government has a responsibility to act now, not in a few years, when it thinks a new technology may be available, especially when solutions are available now. The House has seen what can happen when parliamentarians work together to make meaningful change for Canadians, build on something, and create legislation and regulation that work in the best interests of our constituents.
Why does the government have an aversion to this bill going to committee, where all the evidence can be reviewed? What does it fear? I support sending this bill to committee, and I would suggest that members opposite do the same.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation put forward by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie. I want to thank him for his excellent work on cycling safety. This is an issue near and dear to my heart.
Bill C-603 would make side guards mandatory for heavy trucks manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada. As my colleague from Guelph has said, it is about encouraging people to cycle and about encouraging better cycling safety.
Canada should be looking at greater cycling infrastructure, so that we are encouraging people to cycle. I put forward a motion calling on the government to have a national strategy to encourage cycling infrastructure in communities across Canada.
People have to know that they can cycle safely, and installing side guards on heavy trucks would make cycling safer. It would save lives. Too many tragic accidents have taken place in communities across the country. In 2011, there was a tragic case in my own community. A mom was on her way to pick up her five-year old son from school. She was expecting a second child. She was making a right hand turn at a corner in our neighbourhood and a truck clipped her as it was turning that same corner. She fell under the back wheels of the truck as it turned right and suffered massive head injuries as a result. Whenever there is a collision between a truck and a cyclist, the cyclist will never win. Jenna Morrison was killed that day. Obviously, it was a terrible tragedy for Jenna's family and for our entire community.
We have been calling for mandatory side guards on heavy trucks for many years now. Our former colleague Olivia Chow from Trinity—Spadina worked tirelessly on this issue. There was a similar case in her riding involving a young cyclist who was making a right hand turn at Dundas and Spadina. She was clipped by a truck and suffered massive injuries as she fell under the rear wheels.
Side guards would push the cyclist away from the truck rather than allowing the individual to fall into the truck and be crushed by the rear wheels. A cyclist might be injured falling on the street, falling on a sidewalk, or falling into a parked car but would not be crushed to death by falling under the rear wheels of a truck.
For years, other countries have heeded the call for mandatory side guards because they have seen the totally unnecessary deaths of cyclists and pedestrians by heavy trucks. A study in the United Kingdom found that side guards reduced the number of deaths in accidents where cyclists were hit by the side of a truck by 61%. Two-thirds of the cycling deaths were reduced.
The Chief Coroner for Ontario has reaffirmed a 1998 recommendation to install side guards on trucks, believing it would have a positive effect on cycling safety. The coroner for Quebec published a report in 2014, which showed that cyclists would be prevented from being killed by rear truck tires. A 2010 report by the National Research Council of Canada called for side guards to be mandatory on trucks. They are already mandatory in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Japan, and they have been adopted by several regions and municipalities throughout Canada.
The question is why this is not done nationally. Why not ensure that Canadians, cyclists and pedestrians right across Canada, are protected?
Why would the government not want to do the best for pedestrians and cyclists everywhere in our country? I have not heard a good argument from the other side.
A ministry of transport report said that it was inconclusive. Yet, surely, when so many jurisdictions have brought in this measure and are saying, demonstrably, that this has reduced cycling and pedestrian deaths, why we would not do that here is frankly unbelievable.
It is the government's responsibility to set safety standards for vehicles manufactured in Canada, but it should also bring in this measure for vehicles that are imported as well.
We know there are many validators of this position for mandatory truck side guards.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said that FCM would like to reiterate its concern and stress the importance of countermeasures, such as side guards, to improve the safety of vulnerable road users; that would include pedestrians and cyclists.
As I said, the Chief Coroner for Ontario said that side guards should be made mandatory for heavy trucks in Canada. That is pretty clear-cut.
The Quebec coroner said that a lateral safety barrier would have prevented the head of Mathilde Blais, a young cyclist, from coming under the truck's internal tire. The conclusion was that it was a preventable accidental death.
The United States National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that both newly manufactured truck trailers and old trailers be equipped with side under ride protection systems to better protect people from fatalities and serious injuries.
Seriously, I do not understand why the government would not bring this in. It is no cost to the federal government. It is actually a low cost measure that trucking companies could bring in. It is a low cost measure that would practically save lives. It is a basic responsibility of government to ensure that it brings in protective measures to ensure the lives of Canadians are protected.
We have been calling for this for over eight years. In that time, we have seen the lives of far too many cyclists and pedestrians taken. We think that should stop.
We have seen that the number of cyclists is rising across the country. I know in my city the expectation is that the number of people who will bike to work on a daily basis is likely to increase from 1.7% to 5% by 2016. It means a lot more cyclists will be on the roads. We need to have the safest measures possible to ensure they are protected.
When other jurisdictions have already taken this on, as it is a proven measure that saves lives, it frankly is unbelievable that we would not take action here. It is a no-cost measure for the government. We have seen a total of 19% of cycling fatalities across the country involving heavy trucks. We have also seen that a number of cycling deaths, probably 50% or 60%, would be prevented by heavy truck side guards.
I mentioned cost earlier. The cost would be between $1,500 and $3,000 per truck. If we look at the total cost of a truck, it is a pretty small amount of money that would save so many lives. We know that truck guards save lives. I call upon my colleagues to join with us and let us get the bill to committee.
I leave them with a question. How many cyclists and how many pedestrians have to lose their lives before the House is willing to take action?
Joe Daniel Conservative Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in today's debate on Bill C-603.
At the outset, I would like to remind all Canadians that Transport Canada has a long history of working to improve road safety in Canada. Transport Canada is committed to the safety of the Canadian public.
A significant portion of the improvements to date can be attributed to Transport Canada's regulatory action in requiring vehicles manufactured in and imported into Canada to adhere to the highest possible safety standards. While this is impressive progress, we fully realize that there is more to do. Together with our safety partners, including the provinces, territories, and interested vehicle safety organizations, we have set a vision for Canada to achieve the safest roads in the world.
Statistics from Transport Canada's national collision database, a database of information on Canadian vehicle collisions, shows that out of the approximately 2,000 fatalities on Canadian roads each year, there are an average of 13 cyclist casualties from collisions involving heavy trucks. However, few involve collisions with the sides of trucks. Transport Canada has reviewed the need for a mandatory requirement for side guards and has concluded that they would not be an effective means of further reducing cyclist fatalities.
In 2005, a U.K. study, which is commonly cited for the effectiveness of side guards, clearly stated that side guards are only partially effective in one type of collision, which occurs rarely in Canada. In Canada, most cyclist and pedestrian fatalities around heavy trucks occur at the front of the vehicle. One of the best means of protecting pedestrians and cyclists is to focus on avoiding this conflict from occurring in the first place. Effective solutions for preventing collisions are the first and best line of defence.
It has been shown that a significant factor in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities involving heavy trucks has been the result of reduced driver visibility. There are large blind spots around these heavy vehicles. Due to this, some truck drivers simply do not always see the cyclists and pedestrians. Thankfully, this is a fairly rare occurrence.
We believe that there is a potential to save more lives if we focus our efforts on improving the ability of truck drivers to detect cyclists and pedestrians around their trucks. Some emerging technologies now offer considerably more promise in reducing fatalities and injuries than side guards. Cameras can supplement mirrors to improve the field of view, and when placed in strategic places on trucks, can help enhance the driver's field of view by eliminating these blind spots. It is expected that in future, cameras will be able to provide drivers with a full 360° field of view around a vehicle.
Transport Canada has begun working with the National Research Council of Canada, NRC, to test the performance of camera systems on trucks. Its research shows that cameras have considerable promise but that the technology has yet to be sufficiently perfected for use exclusively in lieu of mirrors.
Transport Canada's collision investigations have shown that the majority of cyclist and pedestrian fatalities occur at the front of trucks or when trucks are turning, which are cases that would benefit from an improved field of view for truck drivers.
A 2013 study in the United Kingdom reviewed cases of cyclist fatalities when a heavy vehicle was turning. The study included simulations of cases and found that 79% of the fatalities could have been prevented with a collision avoidance system on the side of the truck. Transport Canada has been in contact with U.K. officials to learn more.
Camera and radar systems are being developed today to automatically identify pedestrians and cyclists and warn the driver when there is a risk of a collision. If the driver does not take action to avoid the crash, the vehicle will apply its brakes automatically. Several car manufacturers are currently installing these systems, and they are already available in Canada. It is expected that a similar technology will migrate to trucks once it has been further perfected and adapted for trucks. These cameras and sensors can also help detect pedestrians and cyclists in the blind spots beside a turning vehicle.
Ultrasonic sensors have been used effectively as parking aids for many years. Parking aids detect stationary obstacles using sensors, and they alert drivers with escalating audible warning and can also display the proximity of a hazard. While ultrasonic sensors do not have the range to reliably detect moving pedestrians and cyclists, there are radar sensors and laser scanners that can detect people. These sensors are already being successfully used on trucks to warn drivers about vehicles in their blind spots or obstacles ahead.
With full consideration, it is evident that the side guards are an unproven approach relative to the new safety technologies that are being developed and perfected for heavy vehicles. In addition, these same emerging technologies might prevent or reduce the severity of collisions between trucks and vehicles.
Forward collision warning systems sense when the vehicle ahead is slowing or stopped and alert the trailing driver of a potential collision. Dynamic brake support systems automatically supplement the application of brakes when information from forward-looking sensors determines that a crash is imminent and that the braking force applied by the driver is not sufficient to avoid the collision. Autonomous emergency braking systems automatically apply the brakes when the system determines that a crash is imminent but the driver makes no attempt to avoid the collision by braking or steering around the vehicle ahead.
Transport Canada is committed to studying these emerging technologies in the interest of improving road safety in Canada.
Any federal side guard regulations would have no effect on the hundreds of thousands of existing trucks on our roadways, as these do not fall under federal jurisdiction. However, individual provincial and territorial governments are able to require side guards on their existing locally registered fleets. We note that no provinces or territories have done so at the present time. In addition, upward of 25% of the trucks on Canadian roads are registered in the United States and are not subject to the regulations under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Indeed, American federal regulations do not require trucks to be equipped with side guards.
Municipalities have a responsibility to ensure their infrastructure accommodates for the safe transportation of all road users. For example, it is up to municipalities where to design for bike lanes and wider streets where there is a demonstrated need.
While the side guards do not show the benefits that many people would expect, the emerging technologies that I have described have the potential to improve safety, not only for cyclists and pedestrians but also for other motorized vehicles. Transport Canada has demonstrated that it has not hesitated to regulate when there is a convincing argument and a clear safety benefit to mandate a new safety requirement. While we are not able to support a regulation for side guards today, we assure members that Transport Canada will continue to review the world's research and conduct Canadian research aimed at assessment of innovative technologies that will move us to our vision of achieving the safest roads in the world.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately listened to the speech by my colleague with a great deal of fear and concern. I will nonetheless make my speech on Bill C-603, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (vehicle side guards).
I will support the bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie, who does excellent work on the transport file. What is more, he did a tour of Drummondville to talk to us about rail safety, something that is very important to Drummondville, since a train crosses through town. The train is part of our culture.
This bill on vehicle side guards is also very important to Drummondville, given the amount of car and truck traffic. Nonetheless, more and more people are interested in cycling, which is also quite popular in the greater Drummond area. There are many cycling enthusiasts who use their bikes to get to work or for recreation.
I want to take this opportunity to reiterate that this is a fine legislative initiative by my colleague. Cyclist and pedestrian safety is something the NDP has been interested in for quite some time. This is the third time in nine years that the NDP has introduced a similar bill calling for the installation of side guards.
My former colleague, Olivia Chow, introduced this very important bill in the past, because these protections not only help protect people's health and safety, but they also save lives. They have proven successful around the world. This bill is therefore very important.
Studies have already proven how effective side guards are in guaranteeing the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and even motorcyclists. In the United Kingdom, for example, with the introduction of side guards, the number of deaths in these categories dropped by 61%. That is significant. We can save more than 50% of people. We cannot ignore this kind of result.
Not only in Drummond, but across Quebec and Canada, people have been thinking about this problem for quite some time. People in Drummondville are aware of this problem and the municipality has begun taking action. I wanted to point that out to my colleague who said that the municipalities need to do something. Since the federal government is not doing its job, the municipalities are starting to do it.
In my riding of Drummond, people actually asked themselves what they could do while waiting for the federal government to become a responsible government and take action. The City of Drummondville decided to test side guards on a heavy vehicle it owns in order to protect the public.
I would like to thank and congratulate municipal councillor John Husk for initiating this project. He is an avid cyclist and rides his bike a lot both for recreation and to get around. I would like to congratulate him for the pilot project he started in Drummondville.
This project proves that side guards address the concerns of people who live in cities. In Drummondville, they have started using side guards. Only one truck is equipped for the time being, but the city plans to modify five other trucks by 2015. That is significant.
In fact, the City of Drummondville thinks that it is an inexpensive measure that can save lives. If we can save lives, we should not think of the cost. As members will hear later in my speech, side guards are quite inexpensive for a city like Drummondville.
The city wants its entire fleet of 22 heavy vehicles to have side guards in order to save lives in the greater Drummond area.
We are wondering what Canada is waiting for. We are asking ourselves this question because side guards have been mandatory in the United Kingdom and the European Union since 1989. That dates me somewhat because in 1989, I was still a young man. I realize that it is now 2014, almost 2015, and unfortunately, I am getting older. Time flies, but this government and the previous Liberal government did not do anything in all that time, even though, as I mentioned, side guards have been proven to be effective. As I was saying earlier, side guards have reduced fatalities by 61% in the United Kingdom.
A number of Canadian municipalities have begun thinking about adding side guards to their fleets of heavy trucks. Drummondville is currently in the process of doing so. I want emphasize that. It is good that our municipalities are taking the initiative and leading the way, but it is important to note how far behind the Conservatives are lagging on this issue. As I mentioned, the NDP has been calling for side guards on heavy vehicles for nine years now.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is also very concerned that the Conservatives have not taken action on this. In 2009, the federation told the government that it supported making side guards mandatory on heavy vehicles. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is not a group of extremists. These are people who work with the provincial and federal governments. Every year I meet with representatives from the federation, and they do an excellent job. They make very reasonable recommendations to improve the well-being of our municipalities and keep Canadians safe. In 2012, they came back to see the transport minister—who was from Quebec—and let him know how urgent this situation was. Unfortunately, I was completely flabbergasted by what the Conservative member said earlier. He does not think this is a good measure. The Conservatives are passing the buck to the municipalities and saying that the municipalities need to sort this out on their own. However, as we know, transportation is a federal jurisdiction in Canada.
Many people have told us it is time to act. The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario released a report in 2012 that said it would be a really good idea to put side guards on heavy trucks in Canada. The same goes for Quebec, where they are talking about installing side guards that would have prevented several people involved in accidents from being killed or seriously injured. Again on August 25, 2014, we heard about horrible accidents.
Look at it this way: if it can prevent the death of one person, we should do it. In this case, we are talking about keeping dozens of people alive and safe every year. This is really something not very costly that we should do right now.
Speaking of which, people have asked me how much this would cost. Some might expect the cost to run to millions and millions of dollars, which might prevent the government from taking action. However, the average cost of installing side guards on a vehicle is about $1,500. That is really not very much. Even cities are starting to install side guards because they understand that this measure can really keep people safer.
I do not have a lot of time to get into this point, but I just want to mention that side guards pay for themselves. They make economic sense because they reduce the cost of fuel by making vehicles more efficient and, by extension, enable them to comply with environmental standards.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Conservative government to admit it was wrong, take action and vote in favour of a good bill introduced by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie.
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this private member's bill, Bill C-603, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act with regard to vehicle side guards.
The government considers the safety of Canadian road users to be of paramount importance. However, based on Transport Canada's extensive research on this file, the government cannot support this bill.
Transport Canada has committed to the safety of the Canadian public. Regulatory improvements made under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act are a key reason that progressively fewer people are killed or injured on the roads each year, despite the ever-increasing number of motor vehicles being used. We are encouraged by the information we derive from our national crash data, which shows steady and impressive progress toward a vision of Canada having the safest roads in the world.
To reduce the risk of death and injury, our government, under the authority of the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act, has the authority to regulate safety requirements, including side guards, for new trucks and trailers manufactured in Canada and for new and used trucks and trailers imported into Canada. I assure everyone that in the case of side guards, Transport Canada has not been sitting idle. Rather, it has been actively looking for solutions in a broader attempt to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians on our roads.
Transport Canada has reviewed a number of world studies, but these studies have not provided proof of the safety benefits of side guards and any mechanism of injury prevention. The safety justification behind the European regulation that came into force in the late 1980s is not available for assessment to see whether it would apply equally to Canada.
The National Research Council of Canada, or NRC, completed a study that analyzed the issue of side guards on heavy vehicles. The study investigated current heavy vehicle side guard use worldwide, reviewed their effectiveness, and assessed the feasibility of their mandatory installation in Canada. The NRC study concluded that while the European study showed a reduction in fatalities after side guards were made mandatory, the studies could not connect the reduction in fatalities directly to the use of side guards.
Multi-year trends in road user casualties are usually influenced by several variables. These include improved vehicle, road, and infrastructure design; a reduction in impaired driving; improved law enforcement; and increased use of dedicated pedestrian and cyclist paths. Therefore, it is not possible to definitively conclude that any reduction in European fatalities was due to a single factor, such as side guards.
As I have noted previously, road fatalities have declined steadily over the past decades in Canada as well. This is also the case in Europe. It is not a valid conclusion to attribute such trends to a single factor.
The NRC report also raised important issues regarding the extent to which the European experience would be applicable to Canada. One point that merits consideration is that the number of cyclist fatalities per year as a percentage of overall road fatalities is 4.7% in Europe, which is more than double the 2% rate seen here in Canada. Other significant differences between Canada and Europe, including road infrastructure, user behaviour, and road user type composition, make it impossible to make a valid statistical comparison between the two regions.
Transport Canada has also assessed national collision statistics and investigated a number of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians and heavy trucks and trailers dating back to 2003. Transport Canada's National Collision Database indicates that relatively few cyclist and pedestrian collisions in Canada involve heavy trucks. Cyclist and pedestrian injuries occur 98% of the time in collisions involving small vehicles—that is, cars, SUVs, et cetera—rather than heavy trucks. Moreover, more than 80% of fatalities involving cyclists and heavy trucks occur in collisions with the front of the vehicle, where side guards would have absolutely no effect.
Based on an analysis of fatal collisions in Canada, there were an average of two cyclist and approximately four pedestrian fatalities per year that occurred in collisions involving the sides of large trucks and trailers. While any such loss of life is tragic, this represents fewer than 4% of the total number of cyclist fatalities and less than 1% of the total number of pedestrian fatalities involving motor vehicle collisions over that time period.
Some serious collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists with buses demonstrate that side guards may not be a reliable solution. Due to their design, bus bodies sit much lower to the ground than would side guards attached to heavy trucks and trailers. Despite this design characteristic of buses, there are still cyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries in collisions involving the sides of buses in Canada, including city buses.
Due to vehicle design and the variety of commercial applications, side guards could not be installed on all vehicles. Vehicle statistics in the United Kingdom estimate that 20% of heavy vehicles are exempt from side guards due to their design or operation, such as dump trucks, garbage trucks, and vehicles that require access along the side for their operation.
Any federal side guard regulation would have no effect on the hundreds of thousands of existing trucks on our roadways, as these do not fall under federal jurisdiction. However, individual provincial and territorial governments are able to require side guards on their existing locally registered fleets. We note that no provinces or territories have done so at the present time.
In addition, upwards of 25% of the trucks on Canadian roads are registered in the United States and are not subject to regulations under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Indeed, American federal regulations do not require that trucks be equipped with side guards.
Municipalities also have the responsibility to ensure their infrastructure accommodates for the safe transportation of all road users. For example, it is up to municipalities where to design for bike lanes and wider streets where there is a demonstrated need.
We ensure that any regulatory action we take is effective and achieves its intended objectives. We simply do not have the evidence that any side guard regulation in Canada would be effective. However, there are alternative ways of improving safety by preventing collisions.
Collision investigations have shown that a significant factor in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities involving heavy trucks has been poor driver visibility. There are blind spots around these heavy vehicles, and due to this, truck drivers sometimes simply do not see these cyclists and pedestrians.
There are alternative technologies with the potential to improve driver visibility, which are currently being researched in North America and abroad. Mirrorless commercial vehicle systems are under development, which are designed to provide the driver with improved indirect visibility by using side view cameras and proximity sensors.
It is anticipated that these systems could provide benefits in a broader range of collision types, including collisions where the large truck is turning and where side guards have shown no measurable benefit. Transport Canada is committed to studying these promising new technologies in the interest of improving road safety in Canada.
While side guards do not show the benefits that some would expect, the alternative technologies that Transport Canada is looking into have the potential to improve safety around heavy trucks not only for cyclists and pedestrians but also for motorists.
New technology could provide greater benefits than side guard regulation could achieve. Transport Canada continues to study these promising technologies for potential future regulation. We will continue our strong record of taking action to save lives and prevent injuries.