Dangerous Goods

Tuesday, May 25, 2004


Introductory Remarks  and Presentation of the TDG Act and the Review Process

Mr. Raymond Auclair, Director of Research Evaluation and Systems, Transport Dangerous Goods, opened the meeting with a presentation on the TDG Act and the purpose and procedures of the review.

Here is a copy of the slide presentation on the Review and the Act used by Mr. Auclair.

Presentations by Participant

During the meeting, there was one official presentation, presented by Mr. Doug Moore from the North West Company.

Here is a copy of the presentation by Northwest Air Company.

Items Discussed

Following the presentation period, there was time reserved for questions and answers.  We received questions and comments about the TDG Act, the TDG Regulations, the program and the review process itself.  We have tried to summarize the topics in this list.  Some portions of the answers were added after the fact for the purposes of encouraging future discussion.

A-2 Security measures for all consignments of dangerous goods.  Participants were concerned that the new security requirements would apply to all dangerous goods.  Application to all dangerous goods would be seen as an overkill; only ERAP dangerous goods would be a better, more manageable target (creation of a 2 tier system).

Reminder:  for the sake of the discussion, the purpose of A2 is to propose some security requirements for all dangerous goods (A-1 deals with the ERAP dangerous goods).

A-5 TDG Security Clearance Certificate.  Will the consignees be affected by this measure?

That had not yet been proposed.  As it stands, the TDG Act does not apply to consignees unless they are within the scope of the act (if, for example, they also happen to be a person who handles, offers, imports or transports dangerous goods). 

E-3 Federal-Provincial-Territorial considerations.  The delivery of goods to remote communities should be recognized as essential to the livelihood of remote communities and carriers should apply the law with judgment, not zealously.  It was submitted that some shippers have gone beyond the spirit of the Act by being over-diligent.  Also, specific examples of TDG commodities (hairspray, oven cleaner, turpentine…) are charged a premium because they are dangerous goods.  The legislator must make sure that remote and northern communities are not adversely affected by any changes to the TDG Act.

The present TDG Act does not address fees and surcharges for the carriage of dangerous goods.  The comment raised will be passed on to the decision-makers.

D-1 Permits.  Participants told us that the permit system is not user-friendly and that permit holders need to always carry the permit with them.  The lack of computerized redundancy is a liability and often leads to unnecessary fines.

D-3 Fixing the wording. An issue was raised concerning “misleading” placards for shipments of dangerous goods that are a few kilos below the prescribed 500kg.  It was noted that the court system is uneven in its interpretation of the spirit of the Act.  Clarity on this concept should be part of the new legislation.

We have the issue of misleading placard as F-5. However, the discussion was more along the lines of finding clear words as opposed to modifying the concept (hence D-3).


There were other issues raised, strictly concerning regulations; they are submitted to the TDG Regulations team.


Date modified: