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.
4:05 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
If I can add to that, many of those drivers of course don't haul hazardous materials. They include people delivering bread, plums, and all kinds of things. So they're not all handling dangerous goods.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
That would also include Wal-Mart delivery vans carrying lead acid batteries. They're considered hazardous goods.
4:05 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
That was my point. We should restrict this kind of regulatory oversight to those goods that pose a real threat to the health of society and the environment. I suspect many people in this room have no concept of what products are deemed to be dangerous; you would not deem them to be dangerous goods. We are saying those kinds of goods should be exempt from these kinds of regulations.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
The department told us there would be no additional cost to the government to initiate this business, and we're not going to see a larger inspection agency. Is this a likely scenario, or are we going to see that the inspectors, Transport Canada personnel who are engaged in all measures of protection around dangerous goods, whether they be for security or enforcing the rules that are already in place to ensure that there are no spillages...? Is it likely that we'll be able to put this additional layer of security on many people and not see a larger inspection department, if we want to continue to do the kinds of things we need to do for dangerous goods?
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Trade and Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance
First of all, as I think one of us has mentioned already, any Canadian truck driver who is hauling dangerous goods into the United States right now is already security cleared--that would be tens of thousands of drivers who are already security cleared. But there are going to be drivers operating domestically who will have to be security cleared if this bill passes and we subsequently get regulations to put it into effect. I must admit I find it a little bit hard to believe that additional security clearances could be done at no cost.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Well, there are not only additional security clearances, but there are also additional security plans, and a number of other--
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Trade and Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance
Right, and those costs would be borne by the carriers and ultimately passed on through the supply chain.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
There are a few things here to collectively say from a chemical manufacturer's point of view. We would want a single security plan. Whether it's domestic or cross-border doesn't matter to us, because we often make a shipment that today will go to the States and tomorrow will go to Quebec--who knows? It also should apply to the ERAPs--not the low level of dangerous goods--and those are the ones that are currently already regulated.
So in terms of answering your question directly, from my point of view I don't see any increased costs that would be significant. For Transport Canada, in terms of inspections, from what I've seen of the inspections, some of these being tightened up would help them get on with their job as opposed to belabouring some of the niggly-piggly points that show up.
4:10 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
The dangerous goods act is a fairly big beast, but it has all sorts of prescribed limits and prescribed sizes of materials. I would not envision a lot of the smaller, limited loads coming under the act simply because of the size--a lead acid battery, no; an entire tank of chlorine, perhaps, I'm pretty sure. I would say certainly.
Just as background, we also sit on the trucking sector council. One of the issues that contractors raise in sourcing truck drivers, one of the biggest impediments, is finding truck drivers who can clear FAST card clearances. And one of the things we want to do with the transport security clearance is in fact have our more sensitive Canadian government deal with it. And I say it in a nice way; it's still very rigorous. The companies complain that they can't get enough drivers who can get FAST cards, and we're offering a solution to that, which is to use the transport security clearance.
Again, in terms of duplication, why should a driver have to have 16 types of security clearance--one for air freight forward, one for dangerous goods, one to go across the border, one to go to a port, and one to go to an airport? Once you have a transportation security clearance, it's done--no overlap.
In terms of cost, it's actually not that expensive, for the time claimed.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Going away from your point a little bit, when we talk about transport security clearance, and we're talking about inter-border travel, there are a certain number of truckers now who are engaged in that. The scope of the act as it's laid out would permit the minister to apply a transport security clearance to virtually all aspects of the dangerous goods transportation industry.
Would you see that there's a requirement within Canada to match up to the kinds of transportation security clearances that are now under the FAST card? Are there examples within the country where you would promote this or where you would see this being something that would enhance the security of Canada?
How do you feel about that?
4:10 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
I would say that there are extremely hazardous dangerous goods being transported within this country, and at the moment there is no legitimate control other than that exercised by due diligence by the carriers to ensure that the drivers who are handling those things do not have other aspirations for the use of those goods. And I don't know how much that is, but we need to have some control over some of those products, because right now there is no control over them.
I'll use the example of chlorine, although that was wrong because you can't actually haul chlorine in tank trucks in Canada; it's forbidden. But you can haul chlorine, and with the way it's being handled now you wouldn't want it to be handled by anybody who has a criminal record or has had associations with undesirable elements. You just don't want that to happen.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Welcome to our guests, of course, for appearing today. We appreciate your contributions, your testimony here, before the committee on Bill C-9, our bill to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.
Since we're having a healthy discussion on security clearances, Mr. Montague, I just want to make sure I understand your position clearly. I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on it, so I'm going to ask a couple of questions to see if I can clarify this a little bit more.
Are you suggesting that the drivers who have already been awarded a FAST card should automatically receive a new transportation security card? Is that what you're suggesting to the committee, because these drivers have already been approved by FAST?
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Trade and Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance
Yes, I would suggest that. Again, for drivers who operate domestically, I don't think they should have to apply. But if they have been screened by the federal government for security reasons already, I don't think putting them through a second process is a good use of the government's money, or carriers' money.
If I could give you an example, Mr. Montague mentioned in his remarks the transportation worker identity credential in the U.S. It's required of, among others, truck drivers, including Canadian truck drivers, who operate into U.S. ports. They have accepted the FAST card security clearance as equivalent, so they don't do a second check, but they still charge the individual $105 for the card. So those are the situations we want to avoid.
4:15 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Thank you, Mr. Watson.
That actually highlights the issue. It is required in the United States, and it is therefore no longer voluntary. Therefore, a truck driver is complying with a requirement. It is required.
An ongoing violation of rights doesn't make it any nicer. In other words, if I have to do this, we can have reciprocal agreements with a TWIC card, hopefully, in the future with some kind of security clearance. If a worker is forced to give his information because of a requirement, and we have a way in Canada of ensuring that we can do this within our laws, within our sensitivities and our courts, it would seem to me that Parliament, and certainly the public, would expect it would be done.
As for grandfathering FAST cards, we haven't had an opinion on it, but FAST cards expire. When they expire, we prefer that people have a transport security clearance. They've already paid the price to keep the border open: they've given their information to a foreign national, and we do not know what they do with it. I would hope that in the long run we can find a way to make sure it's internalized back to our country.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Trucking Alliance
Can I add something?
We would support that particular position. However, it's outside of this committee's and our purview, in the sense that we need to obtain the agreement of the American government to accept that. So in the meantime, we can't put up barriers to trade. We must have the process in place, I agree; but we're still going to have to have the FAST card until the American government will accept that our security clearance process meets their objectives, whatever those may be, because they have the right, obviously, to determine who's going to handle and transport dangerous goods within the boundaries of the United States. We can't interfere with that particular right.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I wasn't anxious, Mr. Chair, to take the discussion down that route.
I wanted to clarify your original position with respect to those truckers who are already FAST approved. Should the government simply award them a new transport security clearance, without having to put them through a process? I understand that your answer to the question is essentially yes.
Okay, that's what I was interested in, Mr. Chair.
I'd like some more comment, though. The security clearances, or at least the mechanism that is proposed within the bill, I see as having some clear advantages—and I think some have perhaps touched on these a little bit—particularly with respect to an appeal process. My riding is right down next to Windsor, Ontario. I'm involved a lot with the members represented here and a number of trucking companies that either are having some real difficulties getting their FAST cards renewed or are having them taken away for any of variety of reasons, and then have no recourse. Of course, once that happens, then they have no job and no livelihood, and it's a particularly tough time for them.
Do you have any comments on how the existence of an appeal process affects your memberships specifically, and if there are any other advantages you see with respect to the security clearance provisions that we're talking about in this bill?
That's an open question for the panel, Mr. Chair. Anyone can answer that.
4:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Trade and Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance
We have expressed concerns over the last number of years to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Canada Border Services Agency about the transparency of the review process on FAST cards. It's a very legitimate concern, and you're absolutely right to raise it. Unfortunately, it's a process that we're stuck with if we want to get our drivers into the U.S. today, tomorrow, and next week. So we've had to live with that one, and unfortunately there have been some situations where people do not feel that they've been treated appropriately.
The model that has been rolled out at Canadian ports, the transportation security clearance, which is administered by Transport Canada, in my mind, at least, is a far more transparent process in terms of actually laying out what the criteria are to qualify for the card. In addition to that, there's an actual appeal process, different steps, and it's all laid out. You can read the details on the Internet. From that point of view, that is certainly preferable to FAST, where it's a bit of a black hole.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I'd like to get some of the other panellists in, if they could answer. Perhaps in answering someone else's question they could take that up.
Thank you.
