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.
5:10 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
I'll be really brief.
You see somebody as local. They're a Teamster UPS driver, picking up air cargo. They're snared by the international agreement on air cargo security. Somebody who is going across the border is snared there. If they're going to a port, we have agreements internationally in Canada in terms of ports. If they're going to an airport, there's ICAO and others. In other words, yes, some of the rules that we have will be extraterritorially enforced upon us. At the end of the day, in terms of the security issues, the questions, how we answer them, what we do, and the court of appeal that we go through, through your protection, sir, through an amendment that we're suggesting, I have much more confidence in that.
If we are forced to do it, I have to have confidence in you, sir. I have to have confidence in the court. I have to confidence in Mr. Jean and all the Conservatives, and the Bloc members, and the Liberals here, and the New Democrats besides you. I have to have confidence in you. If not, what's the point?
At least this system allows us to have some confidence. The other ones don't.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Oh, thank you, that's great. It's a present.
Actually, my question was for Mr. Benson.
I know you've just delved into this, but I still have concerns. I agree with you that the world has changed since 9/11. I agree with you very much that we have to have and accept certain extraterritorial rules. However, my concern is this. Shouldn't those be negotiated at the beginning of this, in case we find we don't end up agreeing to certain extraterritorial rules and regulations on which we don't have a means of appeal and that infringe our charter and constitutional rights as Canadians? Obviously that is something that should have been negotiated by Canadian border security, and I'm not hearing anything about it. I want to be assured it is important.
Once you've smeared or accused someone so that they cannot get security clearance, you can never erase that in today's world. So I have a real concern about this, while accepting that we have to do, or agree to, certain things. But I still have concerns.
5:10 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
I agree with you, Ms. Fry. We have concerns, too. We have concerns that the necessity of trade means that with the FAST card, it is illegal in Canada--it is unconstitutional--for people to voluntarily pee in a jar for a drug test, unless you're a driver that goes to the States, under voluntary rules. Nobody's worried about that. Nobody's worried about all the different processes that don't have appeals. For years this has been going on. Workers' rights have been violated. Our constitutional rights have been violated. At the end of the day, this is the only thing we have seen that we can at least say is going to give some kind of redress.
I also think members of Parliament should be looking at the questions they ask. You should ask for a security briefing, look at the questions they ask, and ask yourself whether or not those questions.... Again, I can't discuss it, because it's a security issue. We've gone over it inside doors, and we're not supposed to talk about it in public, and I won't because I respect the security process. Ask the security experts to give you a briefing to explain why they ask all of those questions, and decide whether you think they're okay too.
I agree with you. Politicians and people should be standing up and looking at these issues and finding out whether or not they are absolutely required or not, and what we can do about them.
As for people agreeing with us, pilots have transport security clearances. They fly to Ronald Reagan Airport. They fly to Berlin. They fly to Heathrow. They fly all over the world. It's a similar process, a similar piece of paper. If it's good enough to fly a plane, I don't think they're going to give you a hard time driving a tank-haul of chlorine across the border.
But I do think this is quite serious. It was a very good question; I'm glad you posed it. It's something that parliamentarians should be looking at, and I do thank you for it.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I also want to know what the ILO is doing about harmonizing some of this stuff.
5:15 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
I also sit on committees there.
Security has been a horrible concern around the world. Some governments have actually resolved the problem by having unions do security clearance, as in European models. It is a constant problem. It's a problem to our Teamster brothers and sisters in the United States. It is raised at meetings I've attended. The only thing we know for sure is that it's getting worse, and the only thing we're confident about is that it will continue to be applied.
And if I may, if we could talk about the caprices under the FAST card—and I say this for my friends in the Bloc—I remember one file that I worked on, where the person was denied a FAST card because he hadn't paid a speeding ticket, but he had paid for it and had documentation for it. To be very clear, the issue was the French language.
We went in and got his card for him. But this type of event would not happen in Canada. And we should never have any Canadian having to go through that. It's just wrong.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
One of the things we learned in the discussions with ministry officials was their confirmation that there's a cross-departmental working group trying to get rid of duplicative security clearance standards, and I wonder if you guys are fully involved in that. It sounded like it's internal across the government, but I've run across it in other entities. We haven't talked about it, and I don't want to draw you into it, but what the heck are we really getting at here in terms of security clearances? There shouldn't be 1,100 different kinds, so there's the idea that they are supposed to be meeting, at least, the same thing, basic security levels in each government department, with the involvement of CSIS and RCMP on a consistent level.
I'm just making sure you're aware of it and that you're involved in some of that, whether it has reached you guys or not.
5:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Trade and Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance
We're certainly aware, Mr. Kennedy, that those discussions are taking place. They have been taking place for a number of years now.
5:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Trade and Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance
No, but despite that fact we still have multiple different types of clearances out there. I support them in doing that. We'd love to come up with a simplier system, but I'm not aware of any major leap forward that would get us to where we want to be.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It was presented as a new initiative with some kind of timetable.
5:15 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
We participated. As Canada's leading transportation union, we're the only body sitting on every single panel dealing with every single security system that was reviewed a few years ago.
We're not privy to those discussions and we wouldn't be. They keep those things to themselves that they want to move forward. But from personal, private conservations with various bureaucrats and government officials, I know there's clearly a move to try to have them all harmonized. Unfortunately, thanks to the way you enable legislation, a lot of them are limited to five years, because it's five years down the pipe. Our argument has been strong, and it's basically that in their world there's no appeal. There has to be appeal. You don't have to wait five years. I think they are looking at it. We've heard some positive things in some regards, and again we're not always fully happy.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We thank our guests for appearing today. Obviously we have a lot of things to think about in the near future.
For committee members, on Tuesday, March 3, we have Nav Canada coming before us on their airport traffic services, which was agreed upon by the subcommittee. On Thursday we have more witnesses to come forward. If there are amendments that you're preparing or thinking about, we would like to get them in so we can run them through the legal services and make sure they're all in order.
Have a good weekend. Thank you, everyone.
The meeting is adjourned.
