Transport Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities meeting number three.

The subcommittee met recently and proposed a report to the committee. That is in front of you. I would ask that we move that so that we can proceed with the minister today, if that's possible. I believe we have a mover.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe so moves. So the first report is here, and at the end of the meeting I will review the schedule of the people who will appear before this committee.

Joining us today is the minister again. In a matter of a couple of weeks we've had the pleasure of the minister's attendance, and we welcome you. Also appearing with the Honourable John Baird is Marc Grégoire, who is assistant deputy minister for safety and security; Peter Coyles, special adviser to director of operations; and Marie-France Dagenais, director general, transportation of dangerous goods.

Thank you very much. I'm sure the minister has some opening comments to make, and I would ask him to proceed.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be here to talk about Bill C-9, an act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which was last amended in 1992.

As my parliamentary secretary highlighted in the House a few days ago, this bill seeks to improve the safety and security provisions required when transporting dangerous goods. After consulting widely with stakeholders and our counterparts at the provincial and territorial levels, our government has presented amendments designed to strengthen Canada's dangerous goods program. The ultimate goal and our primary concern is to keep Canadians safe while also keeping our economy moving.

I know that some of my colleagues still remember a chilling event near Mississauga in 1979. A train carrying a shipment of chlorine derailed and forced more than a quarter of a million people to be evacuated from their homes and businesses and surrounding areas. Thank goodness no one was injured, but the risk was extreme.

The following year, in 1980, Canada introduced its first Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. This act gives the federal government the ability and the authority to draft policy, guide emergency response, and develop regulations in order to manage risk and promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods.

The act was last updated in 1992, but as members of this committee know, much has changed since that time. In 1992, when the current act came into force, no one could have envisaged the terrorist threat--the new security reality the world faces today. And Canada is not immune. The proposed changes we have all been discussing in the House, and now here in committee, enable a strong security program that is focused both on prevention and response in the event of a security incident or safety accident.

The bill provides the authority to establish performance regulations for security plans and training. These are based on international recommendations, and they are aligned with existing U.S. regulations. It also enables regulations to be made to establish security requirements for tracking dangerous goods, as well as regulations requiring companies to report lost or stolen dangerous goods.

The bill would allow the Minister of Transport or the deputy to have the authority to make security measures and interim orders. Interim orders and security measures are emergency or immediate regulations that can be used to respond to a pressing identified threat in situations where the timelines of the normal regulatory process could jeopardize public safety. Such orders can only be made if the government has the authority in existing legislation to make such a regulation. Let me be clear that an interim order cannot be used to make regulations the government does not have the authority to make under this legislation.

The issue that I know was raised during the second reading of the bill is the requirement for security clearances for truck drivers crossing the border between the United States and Canada who are carrying dangerous goods. Back in August of 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act came into force in the United States. It requires commercial motor vehicle drivers licensed in Canada or Mexico who are transporting dangerous goods into and within the United States to undergo a background check. Essentially, these checks are security clearances similar to those required for American truck drivers transporting truckload quantities of dangerous goods within the United States.

Canadian drivers are currently satisfying this provision if they have been accepted into the “free and secure trade”--FAST--programs of the Canada Border Services Agency and the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. But the United States still looks to Canada to implement a long-term solution. This bill we're considering could lead to that long-term solution by providing the authority to establish a transportation security clearance program.

Canadians enjoy access to the American market through the FAST program, and this will continue. But it is essential that we have long-term solutions to guarantee access to important markets for Canadian manufacturers, producers, and shippers.

With respect to the emergency response side of the bill, this legislation will provide the government with the necessary authority to use existing and approved emergency response assistance plans in order to respond to an incident. These plans are provided by companies before they're permitted to transport any dangerous good. This is an effective and efficient way to use existing capacity, knowledge, and expertise to protect public safety in the event of a terrorist incident involving dangerous goods.

The initiatives being brought forward would harmonize security requirements for activities such as security plans and security training and enable the government to have the appropriate prevention and response security program in place for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics and the upcoming G-8 meeting here in Ontario.

As parliamentarians, we share an obligation to Canadians to make sure that we protect their public safety. These amendments will do just that by bringing forward the necessary security requirements and proper safety enhancements to protect public safety.

I believe these proposed safety amendments, along with the new security prevention and response program, are the right things to do for public safety. Now is the time to make these changes to enhance public safety and support our Canadian economy, and it's an opportunity for us to work together to consider this bill.

I should say at the outset that I and the department value the role that all members of this committee play. If there are suggested ways to improve this legislation to make it better, we're certainly excited and eager to learn them as you undertake your deliberations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Baird.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Minister, and thank you Monsieur Grégoire.

Mr. Coyles and Ms. Dagenais, my thanks to you as well for being here.

I would like to ask you some questions about security and technology. At this level of questioning, the minister may not be in a position to answer, with all due respect. But Mr. Grégoire will certainly know something about it.

Mr. Minister, you focused on the plans, if we could talk about those for a moment, and about the background checks of drivers. I'm wondering whether you spent any time consulting on the technology that's currently available and/or under development for insertion into some of these vehicles that will be transporting dangerous goods. If so, with whom did you consult?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Coyles.

[Peter Coyles, Special Advisor to Director, Operations, Department of Transport]

There's been a lot of work done by the department in looking at technologies, a lot of research and development. Research has been done to look at what technologies are out there, what their capacities are, how best to use them. There have been reports in the past that have been produced. I believe some of them have come to this committee, perhaps in previous forums. But there has been a lot of work done by the department.

If you look at what we're trying to do, the notion of the act is to provide the authority to have the requirement for tracking. The requirements on how you will do that will come in the regulations and in consultation with industry on those regulations.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's exactly where I'm headed. I was looking at vehicle immobilization technologies under HAZMAT in the United States on the carriage of hazardous material. They're already testing technologies that will disable the vehicle, slow it down, or otherwise immobilize it. That requires a certain amount of tracking and coordination at the centre.

Is that what you're referring to? Is that what you have done?

[Peter Coyles]

Well, I'll give an example of one of the projects that we've undertaken and that was signed. Canada joined with the United States in jointly looking at the tank car of the future, where you would look at all kinds of aspects, not only for security, but also for tracking, looking at how the valves may work, and how we can report back and capture all that information at an early stage so that we can respond and increase public safety even further.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

But since the minister has said that he wants to do this in time for the 2010 Olympics, we don't have that much of a field to punt the issue onto. We really have to deal with it now. That's why I'm asking whether we have talked to any of these companies, and if so, which ones and what technologies are in place?

[Peter Coyles]

One must also recognize that industry has done a lot of work already in relation to tracking their own goods, be they dangerous goods or not, for just-in-time inventory. A lot of them use already existing technologies to move their goods, be it GPS or RFID. The intent is to look at having the capacity to build a requirement to have industry be able to report back to the department and tell us where those dangerous goods are in a certain timeframe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I guess I'm getting a little concerned about some of the goods that have to be moved along. The minister called on two basic issues that he's looking at—there's a word that we took out of debates yesterday, Mr. Minister—in regard to the plans by companies that are moving hazardous goods for how to deal with them in the event, God forbid, of an accident, and secondly, background checks of the drivers themselves.

But now we're into a field where we're talking about harmonizing with what the Americans are going to do. I would imagine that the minister and the department would agree with me that the last thing we want is not to be current or consistent with some of the measures that the Americans are already putting into place, together with the technologies that are already beginning to demand of the trucking industry. So our truckers would show up at the border and their material would be removed and put on American trucks, and goodbye transport system for us.

As I said a moment ago, we don't really have a long field to punt the ball to. What stage of that consultation process are we at today?

[Peter Coyles]

Again, a lot of work has been done. I don't know if we can satisfactorily answer your question in the sense that when you get to that level of detail, you're doing that in the development of regulation.

Having said that, we've done a lot of background work in relation to research and development and in understanding what the capacities are out there in terms of the different technologies that exist. We therefore would be looking forward to working with industry to move as quickly as we possibly can to have something implemented through regulation.

And having said that, I--

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Would the minister also, at this stage of the game, be conducting bilateral discussions with his counterpart in the United States in terms of establishing regulations and a legislative framework that would bring both systems into harmony, from the perspective of both the personal security background check and the application of technology, accepted on both sides of the border?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I will be meeting with my U.S. counterpart sometime in March or April. That's when I'll be down in Washington. I'll also be meeting with officials from the Department of Homeland Security on these issues.

I think harmonization, or an equivalent regime, is obviously helpful, in that it assists trade when there's a recognition of bilateral efforts.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

But with this legislation, which is enabling legislation, you're really asking Parliament to give you the authority to develop the kinds of regulations that you think you need. Presumably you will already have done some of that research. You have fairly competent officials who will probably already have foreseen what needs to be done to harmonize Canadian regulations so that they are consistent with the expectations of our American counterparts to the south. Are those regulations available for us to examine?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll respond to the first part, then I'll ask Mr. Grégoire to respond.

Particularly in Canada, when it comes to border issues, we're looking to see what different or new direction the new administration will take in the United States. Obviously the previous administration was not looking at a risk-based approach—I'll be charitable—but at more of an absolute approach.

I think Secretary Napolitano has been very clear that she's going to do a lot of listening and do a lot of learning, and hasn't basically set out a new framework for national security and what that means for the Canadian border. I think we're encouraged that she has underlined the reality that Mexico is different from the northern Canadian border. Neither the National Security Advisor nor the Secretary of Homeland Security has laid out a vision that the new administration will take. There were consultations, I can only assume, with the previous administration.

As you know, this bill was tabled in the previous Parliament by my predecessor.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Grégoire, if he wants to comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may, I think we'll move to Monsieur Laframboise. We'll get back to Mr. Grégoire. We have the minister for only the first hour. We can always come back to the department officials, if that's okay.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much.

I am all in favour of passing legislation to regulate the transportation of dangerous goods. Clearly, you are selling it to us by saying that standards are in place in the United States and that we have to have the same standards in Canada so that goods can get across the border. That is fine by me, except that the bill goes further. For example, security clearance for workers. It applies to all workers and all goods, not just the ones crossing the border.

[Marc Grégoire, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

We were talking with Mr. Volpe about harmonizing our standards with American ones, but Transport Canada is also looking to harmonize modes of transportation. In Canada, we are always looking to improve security in every mode. One of the weak links at the moment is security clearance for truckers. We are not yet sure of the extent to which we should extend security clearance in truck and rail transportation.

We see a first step being to replace the FAST Card, the EXPRES program in French, by a security clearance for truckers hauling dangerous goods into the United States. The same idea could apply inside Canada for some categories of dangerous goods. The regulations have not been established yet—because it would be done by regulation. However, we did not want to close the door to the possibility of doing it in Canada, as we currently do for Canadian ports and airports.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I follow you. However, the text of section 5.2(1) seems clear to me. It says: “No prescribed person shall import...“ so that looks after the borders, “...offer for transport, handle or transport dangerous goods in a quantity or concentration...“ without the appropriate clearance.

I can see that you will be limiting that by regulation, but, according to the text, it applies to the transportation of all goods, inside as well as outside.

[Marc Grégoire]

Excuse me, I misunderstood your question to start with. Section 5 applies to everything, including companies that transport dangerous goods. I was just talking about the section on security clearances.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Section 5, on page 5 of the French version of the bill, deals with transportation security clearances. The bill adds section 5.2 to the act.

[Marc Grégoire]

The object of this part is to limit the scope of security clearances. In other words, we do not want to give security clearances to everyone; we want to restrict them to those who haul dangerous goods of this kind, whether their destination is in the United States or somewhere else in Canada.

In fact, we are talking about legislative authority. It does not mean that we are going to such an extent with everyone involved, but it sets the maximum we could do. In other words, we could not ask for security clearance for someone who does not haul dangerous goods.