Transport Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Coyles.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and officials for appearing here with respect to Bill C-9, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act amendments.

I come from a region where we have the busiest international border crossing, between Windsor and Detroit. Of course we see the transportation of dangerous goods across the border. We have an international ferry for this purpose that we use. As well, our government is involved in investing heavily in a new international border crossing between the two locations, in part to increase the economic security, not only for Canada, but for the United States. So we have a very important bilateral relationship there.

The need to maintain access to key markets for those engaged in the transportation of dangerous goods across the border brings us to the discussion around this security clearance program. I know we've had a lot of questions delving into the specifics, but can you elaborate for the record--because there will be others and the public will be interested in this discussion--on the need for security clearance and how this program would work? Could you walk us through that?

[Marc Grégoire]

Yes, I can talk about that, given the number of years we've discussed this for the ports and for the airports. The vision we have for this is to eventually replace the FAST card for the purposes of security clearance. Today a trucker must go through a background check both in the U.S. and in Canada to obtain this FAST card. Some people have told us that they perceive this as an intrusion by the American authorities into their private life.

That said, if we go with a Canadian security clearance and see the equivalency with our American counterparts, we have to convince them to accept these security clearances at face value in the U.S. if they are made in Canada. We are discussing that at this very moment for the port workers and for the mariners on board Canadian ships. When they go to the U.S. and go on shore they would like to have their Canadian security clearance recognized at face value. We're in the midst of a change of administration now in the U.S., and we're going to have to wait for the new administrator of the transportation security administration to continue those talks.

But both the ex-president and Prime Minister Harper recognized in recent talks, through the security and prosperity partnership, the need to have comparable systems and the need for reciprocity in mutually accepting the security clearances done in both countries and also in Mexico. Hopefully, if we get a security clearance system in place, a program in place for truckers, eventually that would negate the need for them to have a FAST card and they could drive down to the U.S. without the FAST card.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Perhaps I could go a little bit further. It's very important.

I deal with a lot of trucking companies that may have drivers who have lost their FAST card for one reason or another. That puts the appeal process squarely on the United States side rather than here. Of course, it's difficult to get reconsideration of a FAST card for our domestic shippers who are doing cross-border transit. The effect of some of the changes proposed in this act is that now, with the acceptance of a security clearance, does that bring the process of who gets the cards and possible appeals for cards back to our side of the border?

It's a critical question, of course, because we're dealing with particularly tough economic times, and you can't have people off for a long period of time appealing to the U.S. government as to whether they can get a FAST card back. Does that repatriate this particular concern back to our side of the border?

[Marc Grégoire]

The short answer is yes, but as I said before, the prerequisite is to have the American authorities accept our system. It's very important for us in Canada to have a good reconsideration process. We have established one for the port workers, so presumably we would go with a similar system for the truckers if and when regulations are made.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much. I was also going to be asking whether this would come through the SPPI, the security and prosperity partnership initiative, and you've answered that question for me.

What vulnerabilities to security exist within the current version of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act?

[Marc Grégoire]

Today the act is silent, basically, on security. So we are, for the first time, bringing a number of very good security features in this very important piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, you have one minute and 20 seconds.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you very much.

I have had an opportunity to work with the Teamsters in the past, and I know in this particular case I had an opportunity to speak with them again, and they seem very pleased with this bill. They want one minor amendment that is not really substantive; it's just an amendment in theory.

Have you had an opportunity, Mr. Grégoire, in particular to meet with the Teamsters and get their feedback on this bill? Is it necessary or not for the security of the Olympics, for instance, and other issues they continue to have?

[Marc Grégoire]

Well, yes, this is a very important piece of legislation for the Olympics. The RCMP actually asked us when we could come out with those important changes that they heard of last year when the bill was first tabled.

Today we do not have the ability to issue a security measure or a ministerial order for an emergency security issue, which we would have if these amendments were promulgated. For instance, if the RCMP, with the lead for all security issues for the Olympics, felt that we should prohibit during certain hours transportation of dangerous goods traffic on the Sea to Sky Highway, we could with these amendments issue such an order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for the information of the committee, the Teamsters will be appearing before the committee on Thursday.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and your associates, for coming out to this committee, and for your excitement and eagerness to have a dialogue here with the committee members.

We have talked enough about Americans and Canadians. I am going back to the provinces, because you mentioned that you had enough discussions with the provincial counterparts and also the stakeholders. The transport of dangerous goods on the roads is also regulated by the provincial jurisdictions.

My concern is this. Will the truck drivers have to have two permits to transport dangerous goods, and will they have to go through training twice? Can you also elaborate particularly on whether the permits that are required on the federal scene will satisfy the requirements on all provincial levels? If not, then what would it require to harmonize this into that situation?

[Peter Coyles]

The program has been in existence for a long time and it has very strong consultation mechanisms that have already been established, both with industry and with the provinces. There are memorandums of agreement with each province that deal with how we are going to do all aspects of our business together. The act is criminal law. It applies to everyone who imports, transports, offers for transport, or handles dangerous goods, and the memorandum of agreements with provinces dictate how we're going to do the enforcement of the like.

When you deal with the development of regulation, be that for training or whatever, obviously we respect the requirements and the jurisdiction of the provinces and work together to make sure there is not any overlap or duplication. Most provinces follow and adopt our federal regulations, and they become the basis point of what become the dangerous goods regulations across this country. All of them either adopt them or reference them in their own regulations. Other provinces may have a more elaborate system of their own, and these are only complementary.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

The question to answer is do they require only one permit or do they require two permits in two different jurisdictions? It's a simple yes or no type of situation.

[Peter Coyles]

Well, obviously there are different jurisdictions, and each province can do as it sees fit. What we will be looking at doing is regulating within our own jurisdiction the things that we can regulate. It's more than just transporting dangerous goods, right? You certainly have the air, the sea, the rail, all clearly under federal jurisdiction. When we deal with overlapping, then we work with our provincial colleagues to make sure the appropriate regime is in place.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

On the other issue, when we look into the trucking industry, travel through Manitoba, B.C., and Alberta, you see a lot of truck drivers are coming under the technical trades category, and they come from other countries. I particularly have a lot of experience with immigration, and we have a previous immigration minister here as well. If they have to go through the security clearance in those countries, it takes years, but it could create an extra burden for those drivers who come to our shores.

[Peter Coyles]

Well, if they're trying to transport dangerous goods to the United States, they have to go through that process currently. The difference is that you're looking at repatriating back to Canada the appeals process that should you have an individual who was not granted a clearance under the FAST program and the Americans perhaps did not accept that particular candidate, there would be a process here that's been established by the department. It goes back to, as Mr. Grégoire talks about, the ports, but it also goes back to the Aeronautics Act in 1985, when you had security clearances that had come into effect.

We have a long history of dealing with security clearances for transport workers. The program would be based on the same. Granted, there could obviously be some difficulties for particular individuals. The notion is that there is an appeal process, and we'd be prepared to work with them to try to find the appropriate solution to make sure that nobody is unduly in difficulty because of the requirement.

The notion under the Aeronautics Act and others is that you're looking at a security problem or a security relationship in this bill to the transportation of dangerous goods. So you're looking at making sure an individual doesn't have something that would cause us concern in that field or scope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to talk about the highway inspectors in Quebec. We call them “les verts“; people are familiar with them.

What is going to happen with “les verts“ in Quebec. Will they come under another authority? Are you going to give “les verts“ the power to inspect dangerous goods?

[Peter Coyles]

That is already established by the memoranda we have with the provinces. This will not change their duties and their responsibilities a great deal. There should be no problem.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

There should be no problem?

[Peter Coyles]

No. This does not affect Quebec jurisdiction. It is a question of developing the regulations. They are passed by Quebec by reference. At that point, the highway inspectors can rely on federal legislation when they conduct a pursuit. They are able to do everything allowed by the legislation.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree with you. Some functions are shared between Quebec and Ottawa. Are you going to compensate people in Quebec and the other provinces? I do not know if it is the same in Ontario, but Quebec has shared jurisdiction. I would like to know if you are going to compensate Quebec.

[Peter Coyles]

Quebec already conducts its own activities under its own legislation. This gives it new regulations to use in order to respond appropriately, not only in matters of safety, but in matters of security too.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I do not know what the situation is in other provinces. Do they all have provincial inspectors?