Transport Committee on March 5th, 2009

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

Let me ask Mr. Spencer, then, do individual states have to answer the same question that I've just asked? For example, if a truck has to cross from Tennessee into the adjacent state--and I don't think that's Ontario, it's probably another one--do they face the same problem? Do they have to get validation in both states?

[Dick Spencer]

No.

To go back to your original question on the HAZMAT endorsement, if the drivers don't have the HAZMAT endorsement on their commercial driver's licence, the companies prevent them from hauling hazardous materials; therefore, they cannot even be on a vehicle that has been used for hazardous materials or dangerous goods.

As long as a driver is just transporting into other states, that HAZMAT endorsement from the state that issues their driver's licence is good. However, if they change residences from one state to the other, then they have to go through a process of transferring that hazardous materials endorsement, and the state they've moved to could have an entirely different set of regulations. They might have to go through the security threat assessment once again, even though they've previously done it in their home state.

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

So if a driver from Alberta, Canada, goes across the border to British Columbia and then tries to get across the border into Washington State, what would happen? Would they be asked to leave the vehicle behind?

[Dick Spencer]

Well, in the first case, from one province to the other, it would depend upon how you structured the legislation and how the provinces here would mitigate that.

In terms of coming into the U.S., I can't speak for the future, but at the current time as long as they meet the FAST program regulations, they're allowed to transport.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Thank you.

I'll give you the time to prepare for the interpretation. There are some minor differences between the United States and Canada, including the fact that we have two official languages here in Canada.

My first question will be for you, Mr. Spencer. I know that a program is in effect in the United States as a whole, that all carriers must have their licences and meet standards for the transportation of dangerous goods, but I need some clarification with regard to the definition of dangerous goods.

You said that 800,000 truck drivers had to obtain this authorization. But how many truckers are there in total in the United States?

[Dick Spencer]

There are three million commercial truck drivers in the United States. Once the hazardous material program was instituted by TSA, many of them decided not to go through the process to haul hazardous materials. About 30% of all commercial drivers have applied for the HAZMAT endorsement. Those who did not can only carry regular goods, non-hazardous goods. They have to conduct the security threat assessment and apply for this program to haul hazardous materials. So most of the nation's truck drivers, commercial drivers, are not hazardous material qualified.

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

Mr. Brousseau, you're familiar with the Canadian act. With respect to the definition of dangerous goods, are the dangerous goods contemplated or not contemplated the same here as in the United States?

[Alan Brousseau]

I apologize, my French is not very good.

The definitions are very similar. What's considered a hazardous material in the United States, things such as chemicals, fuel transportation, many of those things are similar to the definition of dangerous goods in Canada. So I would consider the terms “hazardous materials” and “dangerous goods” as being very similar, very close to being the same.

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

My next question is for Mr. Conohan. You're the person responsible for your company in Canada. Fingerprints are the solution you're proposing for identification purposes. Here we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is another difference between us and the United States.

Is there another way of doing this, or are fingerprints the only option? Have you had the opportunity to analyze this question?

[John Conohan, Vice-President, Canadian Enrollment Services, L-1 Identity Solutions]

My machine isn't working, but I think I understand the question.

Is there another choice besides fingerprinting for those drivers? Yes, there is. There are two methods by which a person can obtain a criminal background check in Canada. One is through a name check, name and date of birth, and the other is through fingerprinting. In Canada, I think the name-check process is used more than fingerprinting now. In the last two years the RCMP has initiated an electronic fingerprint process, where they receive fingerprints electronically, and we believe that's going to be the way of the future.

Fingerprinting will definitely give you a more accurate reading of the person's criminal history, as opposed to a name check only. A criminal can be travelling on two or three different IDs, and a fingerprint is the most accurate method.

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

Mr. Brousseau.

[Alan Brousseau]

As Mr. Conohan had mentioned, in Canada there's a reliance and a misconception when the security clearance is done. Of all security clearances done in Canada outside of PWGSC, with their top-secret types of clearances, your reliability status clearances, for the most part, at the government level, 95% are done by name checks. Of all criminal history searches done in Canada, outside of law enforcement doing a criminal investigation, 95% are done through the CPIC system, which is operated by the RCMP and is a repository of criminal offences attached by names and dates of birth.

The name-check system is, in our humble opinion, inferior to the fingerprint system simply because people have different aliases and people change their names. As a very easy example, a woman who gets married and decides to change her name, when she's asked to go for a name check and date of birth check, which name should she be giving? Because there's only room for one name. So the name-check system is fraught with the opportunities for fraud and mistakes because data is entered many times, from when it's collected to when it's passed off to the RCMP. They enter it into a system, so there are keying errors that can happen with the names and dates of birth, which will obviously present false results.

The fingerprint system, as you're all aware, when you get arrested you get fingerprinted and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No, we don't know that.

[Alan Brousseau]

I didn't mean it that way, Mr. Chairman.

The fingerprint system has proven to be extremely reliable in terms of comparison and is really the best way to determine whether the person in front of you has a criminal record or not. If they present false ID you will never get a criminal history return from that individual.

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

Ms. Mitchell, you're proposing a monitoring system. You're not at that stage in the United States. A monitoring system is not mandatory under the act. We're working on it. Have I correctly understood?

[Stephanie Mitchell]

Not yet. However, the studies that have been conducted have been for the U.S. government, because they intend to implement one as soon as 2010.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. It's a subject of interest.

I want to stick with the legislation, because of course we're really only dealing with very simple legislation here, transport security clearance. There hasn't been any delineation of the direction the regulations would take. But more appropriately, what we're concerned about is the scope of what's entailed here. A legal case is going on right now about transport security clearances in Canada. There's some concern about matters: invasive questions about personal matters, past criminal convictions, credit history, past travel, employment, education, and those types of things.

Mr. Spencer, of the five to ten percent of the people who were rejected, how would you characterize their rejection? Was it criminal offences?

[Dick Spencer]

A very large percentage have criminal histories that caused them to be rejected. I should point out, however, that when a transport worker is initially rejected by TSA they have the full ability to appeal and to challenge that decision. They involve their state jurisdiction in that process to see if they can mitigate the situation, to see if there was incorrect information and so forth. A very large percentage--and I'm not going to say 80% or 90%, but I believe it is very high, at least 80%--was due to the criminal history this man or woman had and therefore is disallowed to transport.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is there any analysis of a security risk vis-à-vis criminal records? Has there been any sense that criminal records are the appropriate place to look for terrorists and for other people such as that?

[Dick Spencer]

It has been said you can only gauge what a person might do in the future based upon their past. That's really the only thing the criminal history search can do: whether it's name-based or fingerprint-based, the criminal history in itself is what they use.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What percentage of those rejections would you think would be for minor offences under the Criminal Code, such as perhaps a drug offence or something of that nature?

[Dick Spencer]

I don't know the definition of minor offence, but 50 million sets of criminal fingerprints are in the criminal history of the FBI; 50 million Americans have a criminal history, and it's not jaywalking. These are criteria felonies. Therefore when a felony offence is pulled up on the FBI's criminal history and transmitted to TSA, then they mitigate that risk. And they do not share with us or anyone else that we know of exactly everything they do. In some cases they go to the extent of interviewing friends and relatives of the transport worker to see what kind of person they are. So they go very deep besides just the criminal history background.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Would there be rejections on the basis of personal history examination as well?