At Least They Saw Australia

Hey, listen up, everybody! It’s time for another report on the state of transportation safety in Canada. Let’s see, I’ve been plying this motor-noter trade for about 20 years now, so I guess I’ve seen . well, say two or three a year times 20, which makes maybe as many as 60 of these things. But I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of them, so call it an even hundred.

My eyes are tired.

This latest report need not cause you and your orbs much discomfort, though, ’cause it ain’t worth readin’. In fact, it raises redundancy to a very high art indeed. Sadly, it’s my duty to mush through this slop, so thank me for doing an unpleasant job on your behalf.

You’re welcome.

I’m talking about the Interim Report of the Special Senate Committee on Transportation Safety and Security, a copy of which I received in early February. The work (I use the term loosely) has been going on for a couple of years now, and the dozen or so senators involved took just 80 pages (plus a whopping 90 in French) to review air, highway, marine, and rail safety in Canada. The result is nine-count ’em, just nine-recommendations to Transport Canada, which in no way is obligated to act upon them. The very first one will tell you as much as you need to know about the tireless research, the cutting insight, the raw intellect that went into this document:

“We recommend that federal and provincial governments and those involved in the transportation industry in Canada work together through education, research, and advertising programs to promote a culture of transportation safety among all Canadians.”

And let’s all love one another as well. Geez, guys, my lazy old golden retriever contributes more to the serious examination of transportation safety issues when he raises a hind leg and lets go. At least the result has some color to it. I mean, really, a “culture of transportation safety”?

Give them their due, the senators came up with one worth considering in Recommendation 7. Seems they want the feds and the provinces to set aside a portion of excise taxes on fuel (the senators call it gasoline) to create a fund for building and maintaining highways, and also to devise a formal infrastructure program to upgrade existing roads and build new ones. I guess another voice in the wilderness can’t be all bad.

The hard-working senatorial types also want Transport Canada to reverse its position and demand random alcohol and drug testing in the transportation industry. Sorry, got that t-shirt, too.

The only new idea in this report-new to me, anyway-is Recommendation 5, which suggests that the role of the Transportation Safety Board be expanded so that it could investigate highway accidents, “especially those involving transport trucks over 4500 kilograms in gross vehicle weight.” It’s the TSB that examines the horrible aftermath of air crashes. I don’t think the idea is practical, but the notion that some national investigative standard be used in these cases is a good one. After all, there aren’t very many police officers who are equipped to do the job, and no reporting standards to follow. We learn little about accident causes; when we do, we don’t share the knowledge very well, if at all.

Much of the Senate Committee’s work was done through public hearings, as well as trips to the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (I’m holding back here, folks) in the name of information gathering. At their hearings, they listened to Graham Cooper and Gilles Belanger of the long-lost Canadian Trucking Association talk about driver training, and to Jack Walker, general manager of Sunbury Transport, who sensibly said we need a national commercial driver’s licence and a national driver database to support it. That was it for trucking.

I guess it was CRASH, or maybe the Canadian Automobile Association, possibly one of the railroads, that planted the idea that truckers want road trains in Canada like those in Australia: triple 48-footers, grossing 300,000 pounds or so. The senators, saying there has been much discussion about this in Canada, quite rightly suggested that such vehicles are best suited to remote areas like the Australian outback and not to our busy highways.

Like I said, cutting insights, in-depth research.

And we, dear reader, you and me, we paid for this. Trouble is, they printed on both sides of the page, so I can’t even turn the report over and use it as a scratch pad. I’m doubly stricken.