Transport Committee on March 5th, 2009

[Alan Brousseau]

We most definitely do. We think that proposed section 27.1, which mandates the need for security clearance, is an important part of the bill. We fully support that. All we are asking is for some consideration on a definition of what a security clearance is. It's not defined in the act itself, it's not defined in the amendment, and quite honestly it's not really defined clearly in any piece of legislation in Canada.

Typically, legislation is written that requires some form of security clearance, but there is rarely any discussion in the regulations as to what's involved with a security clearance.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In your opinion, what impact will the proposed amendments in Bill C-9 have, for example, on national security? How will it impact the particular industry you're involved in? Could you comment on that?

[Alan Brousseau]

Our business is related to identity management, security of information, and personal information. So we see this being a positive step and really one that is in lockstep with the thinking of today's government to provide a more stringent method of vetting people for criminal histories.

We work with the RCMP on name checks. We work with the RCMP on fingerprints as well, so obviously there's an impact directly to our business, or it could be an impact directly to our business. At the same time, Transport Canada right now is a leader in the government in providing security clearances, and their preference has been to use fingerprints. So I don't think we're straying far from where Transport Canada has been going for the past five years.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Would you care to comment as well?

[Stephanie Mitchell]

Obviously if slowdown is mandated, that's good for our company. However, it's something that the U.S. government is mandating as well, so in that sense it's important that Canada consider what the U.S. is doing, because if it's not in harmony with the U.S. standards and regulations, that prohibits our trucking companies from going into the United States and transporting those goods.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You'll forgive me, but you're talking about things that are not in the bill. Fair enough--I understand where you'd like the bill to be going--but I was asking for your commentary on how the amendments that are actually being proposed affect your industry.

[Stephanie Mitchell]

Again, I did read the bill. However, it's not passed yet.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I think I'm finished. I don't know if anybody on our side wants to share time with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have one minute.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I wonder, Mr. Brousseau, if you have any recommended wording for the definition. Obviously that would be part of regulations, but you're making suggestions on making clearer definitions for the wording. Do you have some recommendations that you could provide to us?

[Alan Brousseau]

I don't have any right here with any specific language that I could provide to you. Really, it's this concept of what is a security clearance--it's a very broad phrase. We would propose that for the criminal history portion of a security clearance, which I assume would be an integral part of a security clearance, the committee consider fingerprints as being the method for vetting individuals to see if they have a criminal history.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

So that would work.

One of the things that we have great concerns about, as Mr. Volpe was speaking of earlier, is what's happening in Canada in a year. We've got the Olympics to consider. Obviously, security is going to be a major concern for what goes on in those games. We have to be prepared for that. I think that looking at this bill is one of the responses that our government is having to ensure that we're providing the proper security for people who are attending.

We are going to be having goods and materials provided to us from the United States. I'm sure that some of the things that are going to be provided, if it's in provisions for the individuals who are going to be at the games, won't be hazardous, obviously, but there will be fuel and all kinds of things that are required, some of which may be coming from the United States. So there's a need for us to have something in agreement.

If we were to put your definition into our regulations, as you're proposing—and maybe this is a question for Mr. Conohan—would that work in tandem with what the United States is doing right now? They're ahead of the game. They've been on top of this more quickly than we have because of the circumstances. Are we going to be working in tandem with the United States to see this happen? And would a definition of “fingerprinting” resolve the issues for border issues in particular?

[Alan Brousseau]

There are two issues you touched upon there. The first is a cross-border issue and making sure that what we do here, especially for those individuals who have to go across the border, is similar to what the United States is doing. Mr. Spencer explained to the committee that fingerprints are the only method that is accepted by the TSA for criminal history search vetting. We propose that if the same were done in Canada that would go a long way to aligning the interests of both countries.

The other issue you touched upon was security for the Olympics. Again, security clearances are mandated in lots of legislation. They are never defined, or very rarely defined. They are defined for immigration purposes, where we require people to go get fingerprinted, as opposed to just doing a criminal history search. So the whole notion of a criminal history search needs to be explored not by this committee but by the government at large and really defined along the lines of what they're trying to accomplish in protecting people. In some instances maybe a name and date-of-birth check is perfectly acceptable. For higher-risk categories, perhaps there should be a fingerprint check to make sure that the person's not giving you fake ID or using an alias. You want to make sure that person is there. That would be, obviously, the most secure method of ensuring that somebody who you're entrusting to carry fuel or what not does not have a criminal record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to welcome the panel members to the committee.

I'm very pleased to note that Ms. Mitchell is from my home province. One of your community activists and a friend of your community, Dan Ashman, always calls me and updates me on the issues that you face.

You say you're based in Trail, right?

[Stephanie Mitchell]

Yes.

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

How big of a share will a company like yours have of the industry in North America?

[Stephanie Mitchell]

Currently, our tracking systems are on 500 vehicles within Canada. Worldwide, our tracking system is used on over 300 vehicles in 55 different countries. Our VST, our vehicle slowdown technologies, are going to be in production within the next 45 days.

As I stated at the beginning, we're a research and development company, so as far as our market share is concerned, we hope it will be quite large in a few months.

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

Okay.

And my question to all of the panel members is this: Could you describe an incident that has occurred in the past that was a security breach in the trucking industry and that your technology could have saved?

[Dick Spencer]

The good news is, I cannot think of one incident that has occurred in the transportation of dangerous goods since the inception of the hazardous materials program in November of 2004. So while we do not, as we've talked about here today, see the actual results of the history or the searches and the vetting, it is our opinion that the program has helped keep America and Americans safer because of the vetting process before a person is allowed to haul materials. I think the proof of that is we have not had one major incident involving a transport worker using hazardous goods to bring harm to the United States.

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

On the other issue, when Ms. Mitchell is saying government should be a force of good in companies like yours, we already are cutting down on the research and development and people are already moving to the U.S., to work at U.S. companies. What are your experiences in dealing with government departments such as Western Economic Diversification Canada to see if government is willing to help companies like yours?

[Stephanie Mitchell]

We've been involved with the NRC, the National Research Council, and the SR and ED tax credit. However, the NRC regularly runs out of money to provide for research and development companies. And because research and development is where a lot of the money goes before your product goes to market, it's hard to continue that research and development.

I was able to find statistics on research and development as it pertained to the oil and gas communications. However, I was not able to find statistics as it related specifically to safety and security technologies.

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

Have you made efforts to contact the WED, Western Economic Diversification Canada, particularly when it comes to your project? And if you haven't made those efforts, why wouldn't you make them?

[Stephanie Mitchell]

Again, I'm not 100% sure on why we haven't made those efforts. We obviously should.

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

That's fine.

Why would you like the government to get involved? It's a private enterprise. All you're doing is providing this technology to the private companies that are doing business in Canada in a free-enterprise world. Why would you like the government to be part of the decision-making in this particular technology?