Evidence of meeting #4 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
We worked for three years on the marine model. We're not new to it. We worked on the air model. The appeal is very, very important to our members.
On the reciprocity, if I may address that for a second, people fly planes into the United States with the transport security clearance. They're going to let truckers come.
Just so you know, we started four years ago working with our brothers in the United States, with the lobbyists in the United States, working on turning this into reciprocity. We will use all the means that we can to work with the government to try to ensure that happens, quickly if need be, and as smoothly as possible, rest assured.
Bloc
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. Wouldn't it be nice one day to see a woman sitting there representing one of your organizations?
As you all know, this bill was the result of the 2003-04 consultations. You were obviously there. You obviously had a lot of input into it. My first question is an open question. I'll put my questions out, and then you can answer them.
First, do you believe your input and the suggestions and concerns that you had are addressed in this bill, all of them? Some of you have spoken to that.
I might say in passing that it's kind of interesting to see that the 2010 Olympic Games in my city seem to be the raison d'être for moving this thing quickly through. I fail to understand what that has to do with the Olympics, other than that it is obviously some sort of goad to make things happen quickly.
But you brought up issues of, obviously, the FAST card and the transportation security clearance. I know everyone says you have to have something in place before you can move forward; and while you're doing that, you're now partly pregnant, if you don't mind my saying so, on this issue.
So the question of our harmonization is an important one, because as you very rightly say, Mr. Benson, the whole idea of having a foreign country make decisions about you, with no appeal and possibly charter challenges that you cannot bring forward, is a really important one. Have you had any suggestion that there will be true harmonization? Do you believe there have been any negotiations going on? If not, why not? Isn't this a CBSA issue? That's the second thing about the transportation security clearance.
The third thing is the cost of security training. I've heard some people suggest that it can be very costly. Who is going to pay for this? Do you know who is? If there are further requirements needed, is someone going to foot that bill? I really would like to know that.
Finally, the Canadian Chemical Producers brought up the issue of insurance coverage for dismemberment, injury, or death when directed to respond to a TDG. We saw it happen with 9/11, when a whole lot of people responded, died or were maimed, and there was nothing there for them. Have you been reassured that this would be there for you?
Those are my four questions.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Thank you, Ms. Fry. It's always a pleasure.
First, on this whole issue, we actually started on this with Mr. Coderre, I'm not sure when, but it seems like forever. We started with our stated principles that we were looking for and were, quite bluntly, getting nowhere. It took an awful long time.
We're pleased that we're moving forward. Hopefully, we can. Mr. Grégoire, the ADM and an excellent gentleman, was saying, we're never moving fast enough for the Teamsters on this issue.
So we'd like this to move faster. The air world needs an appeal. On the entire issue of the air freight forwarders, we have to.... One at a time, we can do this.
On the harmonization issue, again, the Teamsters started working on this four years ago. I was down in the United States, and our chief lobbyist, Mr. McLuckie, was up in Canada and met Minister Lapierre and talked about this extensively with him. To be blunt, I guess we maybe led a bit, pushing this forward since 2001 or 2002.
We've been pushing the harmonization issue as well. I think it's critical to the success of our industries. We talk about costs, ensuring there is one type of system, with the proper appeals, with the sensitivity. I'll come to talk to you about some of these sensitive questions, and I'm sure you'd be interested in them.
But on cost of training, there's a great deal of training already undertaken, if you look at our rail industries, in which we're heavily involved, and certainly in the trucking and courier industries and all sorts of areas. You're right, it'll be one more cost. But again, it's part of our cost of doing business. And with our international partners in the air world—air freight forwarders—this is being driven by our requirements under international agreements. With the dangerous goods, again, it's partly with the international...and partly with America. To put it bluntly, we have no choice. We wish we didn't--
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
What about the impact on small trucking associations, small truckers groups, who may not be able to bear it?
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
That's a difficult question, and they may be able to answer that better.
Again, my understanding is that there's always an issue. How do we deal with the cost to a person who is denied a card or whose privacy has been invaded? How do we balance this? If we have a requirement to do it though international trading, there are going to be costs. And yes, business or government will have to bear these.
Our question is always, why have our members and workers, up to this point, had to bear the invasion of their privacy without their rights of appeal and due process being assured? I think the costs we've borne have been tremendous, far more than the dollar monetary costs.
So yes, there will be costs. There are costs every time we do something. If we want a secure world or a secure country, and it's a requirement that's needed, then somehow we'll have to work through it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to let you complete your answers, and then we'll go to Monsieur Laframboise.
Please go ahead, either of you.
Director, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
I'll address the issue of your first question, along with the CCPA question in a moment. I'll start with the 2010 Olympic Games.
Whatever triggers this to move along, I don't really care, whether it's the 2010 Games or anything. The plea from the CCPA is that this is good enough for us to get going with it; we've waited long enough. I could also say that we have concerns, as we've seen in the States, where they shut down all shipments. And perhaps this will occur, etc., but a reasonable approach under security would help improve concerns about the 2010 Games.
In terms of harmonization, through Transport Canada we have received ongoing updates on the negotiations with the U.S. DOT and DHS regarding the acceptability of Transport Canada's thoughts on security plans and clearances. In fact, I don't see much difference with what is currently required by the UN anyways in this regard. So I'm not terribly concerned about harmonization of security plans and clearances between us and the States.
Director, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
Well, they don't have an appeal in the States, but we do here. As I said, we support that. We have no problem with that at all.
On the cost of training and security, I guess I could say the day the Canada Revenue Agency helps me pay my taxes will be the day I expect Transport Canada to help me put in security plans. You know, we would bear that as our own cost.
As with anything, we expect proper guidance and to know what the expectations are, but for industry—that is, for us—part of our job is to conduct training. If new training comes along, we just want to make sure we're following it properly. But again, I don't have any concerns, based on the history of our working with Transport Canada. We'd be fairly effective. And I don't anticipate that being a significant cost for us anyways, seeing how it's already part of our business now. It would just give us a better target and a clearer direction and less variation, which is supportive.
The last item is the issue that you brought up. There were three major issues that the CCPA saw for our ERAP holders responding to an incident where we are directed to respond. One was personal liability coverage, or pollution protection you might say. We think that's well covered. The other one is compensation for charges and expenses, and things like that. We do think that's well covered in the proposed act.
Where I'm not comfortable is that I don't see something that talks about compensation or coverage for dismemberment, injury, or death as clearly as for the other two. It just doesn't jump out at me like the other two do. Now, I'm told that'll be dealt with in the regulations, but I would prefer it be clear in the bill so that it is dealt with in the regulations.
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
I have one comment to make to you. For the very first time in the history of the Ontario Trucking Association, we have a lady chairman.
On our experience in dealing with the U.S. government, it is a very difficult and awkward process to get them to agree on reciprocity--just as an observation. I'm not engaged in any of those kinds of discussions, but I've had some experience with issues. We've been trying to get reciprocity, and it seems to take forever.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Montague, in your presentation, you spoke of training. You said that you wished it were clearer. Could you explain what it is that you want to be clarified?
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
That's a difficult question for me to answer. It was based on my experiences trying to comply with the contents of the security plan you are required to have in place in order to qualify for the C-TPAT program. It just wasn't clear. We could have made it clearer, but that would have been a result of the negotiations between the industry and Transport Canada. We don't want regulations that say, “You will make sure the premises are secure”. That's a pretty open-ended statement.
So when the carrier has an order, he has everything in place, but he's still not quite sure whether he's going to pass. There's always this lingering fear that he spent a lot of money incorrectly. So that's something we need to work out. I'm not prepared to give you a list here of the things we want to see in the regulations, but they need to be clearer, that's all.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It would be good if you could provide us with that list. If we have to table amendments, it would be important for us to know them. We can help you to clarify the situation. We are coming near to the end, and if you have any recommendations for us in order to clarify the issue, we will take that opportunity to help you to clarify the issue. It would help us as much as it would help you.
I presume that the same applies to the definition of the import of hazardous goods. You wanted a clearer definition of that term, did you not?
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
That is not an issue for us.
Bloc
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
We are only deemed to be the importer in one very special situation: on shipments coming from offshore that are being transported through Canada into the U.S. We have additional responsibilities because none of the people engaged in that movement reside in Canada. There's a man in Taiwan and a man in Chicago. Transport Canada can only address the carrier.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My second question is for Mr. Benson and it is about security clearances.
I put the question to Transport Canada. According to section 5.2, security clearance would be needed for every kind of transportation of dangerous goods, whether it be to the United States or anywhere inside Canada. Transport Canada told us that this measure would not be applied immediately, but only later on for interprovincial transportation or inside Canada. In other words, at a certain point in time, the members whom you represent will have to be accredited or obtain their clearance.
Could there be a problem with getting clearance for all of your members who transport hazardous goods?
February 26th, 2009 / 4:35 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Thank you for the question. Again, I would probably defer; I was not privy to the Transport briefing.
A great number of people are getting swept up in a whole bunch of security provisions. In fact, a courier who works in Laval will be swept up in an air cargo security world, a freight forwarder. Another member who drives jet fuel into an airport, or a cleaner, would require one because he's going into an airport. Then he'd probably require one because it's a dangerous good, and if he were carrying a Purolator package that was going on a plane he'd need a third one, because that's air forwarding and you'd need something else.
A whole bunch of people are going to get entrapped. Driving into the port of Montreal, you're going to require a security clearance. At the end of the day, there are only so many truckers doing so many things. Eventually, at the end of the day, it will be a great number of them. If it's required and there are valid security reasons--for example, as Mr. Montague was talking about, for explosives, or for various types of dangerous products--then they may want to have people covered by regulation. If there is a valid security reason that is justifiable, and if we have a good process in place that will protect their privacy, their various rights....
Will all our members be happy with it? I assure you, no member of any organization is always happy. This was the best situation we could come up with, given being caught between the rock and the hard place. We wish, in a different world, that this were not needed, but this is the very best that we can get up to this point with a very difficult situation.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to address my question to Mr. Montague.
We're trying to provide good public policy and we need to address the purpose of this bill. I think we've covered that; it does address the purpose. In terms of the practicality, we've talked a little more about it here today. I also agree with Mr. Laframboise that we should have a list of suggestions to make it as practical as possible.
I'd like to talk about enforcement of the act, because it doesn't matter what those regulations are, you need the ability to enforce them. It was shocking for me to hear about the incorrect manifest for the rail, that type of thing. Do you see the need for more adequate enforcement of these types of regulations? Knowing that truckers are of a pretty independent spirit—I was one myself—I wondered how it was going to be received by associations.
