Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[Phil Benson]

We have concerns, but part of that is because the Transportation of Dangerous Goods General Policy Advisory Council is, quite truthfully, superb in how it operates in a collegial manner. I do have a lot of faith in that body. I would expect intelligent regulations to come forward, and I would expect our opinion and everybody else's opinion to be heard before they come forward. I have confidence that it will be well done.

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

Also, there will be new inspection powers in Bill C-9. Are you comfortable with those?

[Phil Benson]

We very much support inspection powers. We also support prescribed regulations dealing with security and safety.

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

Do the other members echo that?

[Louis Laferriere]

Yes, we're fine with the inspection powers.

[Barrie Montague]

So are we.

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

Mr. Benson, would it be beneficial for workers to receive security training, and should it be provided?

[Phil Benson]

Absolutely. One of the most important features of security is that the first line of defence is a well-trained employee, so that employees are fully aware of it. The answer, quite simply, is yes, adequate training, good training, training supported through regulatory means—that is, requirements, rather than something off the back of an envelope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Gaudet, you have seven minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lacroix or Mr. Benson, I would like to know what you think about security clearance. Does it apply only to the United States or is it interprovincial? Do your employees think that if it is good for the United States, it is also good inside Canada?

[Phil Benson]

I'm sorry, Monsieur Gaudet, I missed the translation. Could you repeat the question?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

All right.

Will security clearance apply only to transportation toward the United States or will it also apply to every kind of transportation between the provinces and the territories all over Canada? What do your employees think about security clearance?

[Phil Benson]

If, for example, in Montreal you were a truck driver driving to an airport, you would require a transport security clearance. Our hope is that, over time, one transport security clearance would suffice, whether you hauled dangerous goods, whether you had to go to an airport, or a railway yard, or into a port, and hopefully, eventually, if we can get reciprocity with the United States, to cross the border.

I hope that answers your question.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Montague.

[Barrie Montague]

I think our position is that if we've already received a clearance that allows us to cross the border, there has to be some process whereby Transport Canada is going to accept that as legitimate clearance. We don't need Transport Canada to repeat that process, because to obtain a FAST card, the security clearance was a joint event--both the U.S. and Canadian authorities cleared that individual. Now it is CBSA that would do that, but it's still a recognized government agency, and I don't see the necessity of Transport Canada repeating that process for those drivers. It has already cost the carriers or the individual truck drivers a fee to get that, and they're going to have to continue that fee if they want to go to the U.S., unless Transport Canada or the federal government is able to secure a proper reciprocal agreement so that whatever Canadian security clearance is carried would be recognized by the U.S. authorities.

[Ron Lennox]

If I could just add on to that, again, you asked the question about domestic clearances for truck drivers. For a driver who's going to be hauling goods domestically in Canada, I wouldn't suggest they subject themselves to the free and secure trade program security check, for the reasons that Mr. Benson raised. I don't see why a guy who doesn't cross the border should subject himself to a security clearance in another country. So there has to be another process available domestically for those guys who are not crossing the border under this program.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Why would we need two kinds of training, one for inside Canada and the other one for outside? When Americans import hazardous goods into Canada, I hope that they have the same requirements as the others. I do not know why we would need two kinds of training. I think that just one kind would be enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Montague.

[Barrie Montague]

I don't think we should confuse training and the carrying of a security clearance card. They're not exactly the same issue here.

We have a different process, unfortunately, in Canada. In the U.S. the security clearance is stamped right on. When you're hauling hazardous materials it's included in the driver's licence. We do not have that process here because our system is different, so we don't have the ability to attach a security clearance to the driver's licence. That's one thing that's different between our two countries. An American coming to Canada already has evidence that he's been trained and has security clearance.

That's one answer; we don't really need to duplicate that process.

With regard to the security training, as I said, under the C-TPAT agreement our carriers that employ drivers who carry dangerous goods into the U.S. must have a security program for their employees, and they must be trained. Now, the issue is simply one of what's going to happen in the interim, unless we get complete reciprocity. Are we going to have acceptance of each other's system, or are we going to have to duplicate the situation? Will a driver who's hauling dangerous goods within Canada who also goes to the U.S. be required to have a clearance for hauling those goods within Canada and another clearance for hauling those goods into the U.S.? I think not. And no extra training should be required.

The programs that are already in existence should be allowed to continue to exist and act as surrogates for whatever is going to be the ultimate process in Canada.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Benson, I would like to know your opinion.

[Phil Benson]

There's a difference between training and security. But to be clear, in the interest of security, we were stuck after 9/11, and we put things in place to facilitate trade. For over seven years now we have been dealing with the issue that workers' constitutional protection rights--to appeal, to due process, to privacy--under Canadian law have been violated under the guise of it being voluntary. But if you don't have the FAST card you can't work. We think that process is wrong.

Talk about duplication. We support one transport security clearance for everybody who needs it under the same rules: protection of the Constitution, protection of the Privacy Act, and protection of collective bargaining. I have dealt with the files of several Quebec members who were trying to get clearances through America, and I have gone to the American embassy--and we achieved clearances--over the simpliest, silliest reasons for denial. I have much more confidence that I can deal with you, sir, people in this room, and the Canadian government on that. I know there are costs involved. If there's a scaled insecurity in costs versus peoples' rights, when you ask people to take away rights, the overall burden should not be what's good for business and what the costs are. I realize we can't have crazy, over-the-top costs, but we should balance it to ensure that peoples' rights are protected, and at least hit those key points with the model they're putting forward.

The other ones that are highlighted in the aviation world don't have appeal. The air-freight forwarding is not robust or appropriate. Under the FAST card, I have to give my information to an American government that can do anything with it.

So we want one system where the rights of workers are protected. It may cost money. In our country, with constitutional rights and this body's responsibility under the Constitution to pass laws that comply with the Constitution, when we're asking people to give up their privacy to help us in the fight against terrorism and for security, the least we can do is to ensure that their rights are protected as much as possible.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Mario Laframboise]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

The trucking association mentioned a figure of 70,000 employees. What's the total employee base within the trucking association?

[Ron Lennox]

As an association we've estimated that the carriers within our group employ about 150,000 people. There are about 260,000 to 270,000 commercial truck drivers in Canada, and the industry as a whole employs about 400,000 people.