Ottawa, Ontario
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Summary
Introductory Remarks By Chairperson
Mr. Steve Biggar opened the meeting with an introduction of Mr. Raymond Auclair and a brief explanation of the purpose of the meeting.
Presentation of the TDG Act and the Review Process
Mr. Raymond Auclair, Director of Research Evaluation and Systems, Transport Dangerous Goods, presented an overview of the TDG Act and of the review. Mr. Auclair distributed copies of the slide presentation as used at the Scarborough meeting; his presentation focused on the first 12 slides.
Here is a copy of the slide presentation on the Review and the Act used by Mr. Auclair.
Items Discussed
Following the presentation, there was time available for questions and answers. Many of the issues discussed involved the impact of security on operations and trade, as well as the overall review process of the Act. We have summarized the topics below:
1) A-1. Security plans for dangerous goods that require an ERAP. Would an additional plan be required, or could it be incorporated into the ERAP? A requirement for a security plan would be legally distinct from the requirement to have an ERAP. If security is incorporated into the TDG Act, we agree that it may be logical and efficient to consolidate this information into a single plan. However, given the differences between safety and security, there are also logical reasons to keep them separate, for example, if security plans become the responsibility of another department or act . Our act currently deals with “accidental releases” of dangerous goods, and therefore does not include security issues, such as terrorism. Whether the TDG Act can be reworded to incorporate this new type of potential release will not be solely our decision. In any event, the incorporation of all security issues(category A) would require big changes within the TDG organization.
Although we do not look after stationary goods, we are aware of parallel plans that must be prepared for Environment Canada.
1a) Who is responsible for Security now? Various departments and agencies are currently responsible for security (RCMP, CSIS, local police, etc.).
2) F-3. Harmonizing with HAZMAT (for security issues). Harmonization means using the same things. This may be difficult given that the United States currently do the security screening of US drivers based on US data bases on criminal records and other data bases. Most would want Canada to make the determination for Canadians transporting dangerous goods in Canada. If each country can accept the other country's determination as valid, then we would have Reciprocity (accepting that the other method, although different, gives equivalent results).
3) E-5. Impact of changes to the Act on other legislation. How do we propose to minimize negative impacts on other legislation. In preparing a Memorandum to Cabinet, we must by government policy consult all federal departments and agencies. If we want to propose modifications to the TDG Act, TDG is responsible for submitting these changes to each department and agency. Departments and agencies are then responsible for reviewing the changes and notifying TDG of any overlaps or inconsistencies with their legislation. This notification process takes place prior to the submission to Cabinet (step 9), and TDG attempts to keep all interested parties up to date throughout the review process. This process is normally completed in a responsible timeframe (2-3 weeks), however there is no stipulated time restriction (unless otherwise directed by the Cabinet).
4) E-2. Concerns about the impact of security issues on trade and competitiveness (Impact of Security on Trade). Send us your comments by email. If we can't deal with them, we will forward them to the appropriate office, including our contact at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. And we will give you the name of the person we sent your message to.
5) E-4. Amendments to the TDG Regulations (International trade). The TDG regulations are regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure consistency with IMDG, ICAO, and 49 CFR. In general, compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and the International Civil Aviation Organization's technical instructions is deemed as compliance with our regulations. As for the 49CFR, there is a Reciprocity agreement whereby in general dangerous goods shipped from Canada in compliance with the TDG Regulations are deemed in compliance with the 49CFR while hazardous materials shipped from the USA, in compliance with the 49CFR are deemed in compliance with the TDG Regulations. There are exceptions. In general, this allows for the normal trans-border flow of goods even though the amendments are not coordinated between the two countries.