That's not a problem, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much for having us here. I did promise the clerk that I would not be taking a lot of your time.
Teamsters Canada represents about 130,000 workers in Canada: in agriculture, fisheries, film, fashion, and of course in air, road, rail, and ports. We're Canada's transportation union with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the United States, representing over 1.8 million members in North America. I would imagine that on any given day, an awful lot of the traffic going across the border will be teamsters.
We also have interests in bridges, roads, and tunnels going across the border, because teamsters are proud to represent workers who look after a lot of the bridges and tunnels, including the Ambassador Bridge.
We're pleased that the government split the previous bill and put it into more manageable components. Simply put, to try to come here for ten minutes, when we represent all modes of transportation, to deal with all modes of transportation would make it extremely difficult and perhaps somewhat schizophrenic.
This was probably the one chunk of the bill we had the least problems with, per se. It codifies existing practices in a certain regard; or perhaps in the post-9/11 world, it adds needed legislative authority to deal with what is a very pressing and important issue: the transportation of goods and services—or goods in this case—across the border.
We do have concerns, mostly for what is not in the bill, rather than for what is. As to issues, such as facilities requiring government permission for maintenance, etc., we have concerns about what that means to our members who have to do the work. We have concerns for our employers—the people who own the facilities and provide employment to our membership—and for our members who are crossing the bridges, which costs their employers. Also, regarding the general public good, what does it means to the rest of our economy and the people who rely on the just-in-time delivery and its various aspects?
Again, I think that's something that probably will be dealt with later in the regulatory part. Of course, we would welcome the opportunity to be consulted and have our viewpoints and expertise taken into concern.
Another problem is the facilities themselves, or the lack of facilities. We're going to deal with the two issues. Clearly there's been a massive growth in trade, even in the post-9/11 world. Last year I had the opportunity to tour most of the bridges and tunnels going to the United States, literally just to see the business. I toured several of them. There's certainly a need from the transportation sector. We talked about the delays, the costs, the overall burden to truckers, and so on. We have to remember that at the end of the day, we know the consumers might pay more, but the trucker stuck at a border is losing money, and not all truckers get paid for that time.
So one aspect is infrastructure. Is anything in this bill going to make it easier to provide infrastructure? Now we're locked into a bilateral process, and the best I can tell from it.... The Ambassador Bridge twinning and the Detroit River tunnel project were both pulled—quite interestingly, because we happened to support the tunnel project and somewhat the Ambassador Bridge. Of course, the question is that they are the two that are almost ready to go, if you like.
So we're really looking at what, 10 to 12 years? We're not sure if anything in the bill is going to deal with that issue.
Last year there was a major review on security, and Teamsters Canada was the only organization that sat on every single mode of transport. We are familiar with it, supportive of it, and supportive of different aspects of it.
One of the problems with the bridges—or with the access point—isn't necessarily the infrastructure. It has to do with how we deal with the reality of the American demands and our need for security. We have the interim FAST pass—and I'm very pleased that the “interim” part is underlined—versus Transport Canada's security clearance. The latter protects the privacy of our members, due process of union rights, and also the rule of law. The indication we have is that we'll be moving towards a made-in-Canada solution, and we support that greatly.
On the bilateral process and others, our voice isn't really heard. We're not consulted. Working with our IBT brothers and sisters in the United States, we're not looking for a border; we're looking for a secure pipeline. We're looking for ways to guarantee that no matter what happens, key goods and services can go across the border. We're looking forward to working with government and any parties that share that concern and how we get there.
In total, thanks for splitting the bill. We think it's probably needed. We will let the companies and others talk about their concerns. We won't talk about them. But just remember, when we talk about health and safety and security, it will be our members who will face those burdens. It will be our members who will be on the bridge, and in some cases, our members who respond. We desperately want to be part of consultations and discussions, making it clear that we find it difficult to come in after the fact.
That's all our presentation. Thank you for giving me the few minutes of your time. If you have any questions, I'll either do my best to answer them or I will try to get you answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
