Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 6 - Evidence - December 5, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 5, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act, met this day at 9:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Today we are discussing Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels. Our witness is Mr. Phil Benson, a lobbyist for Teamsters Canada. We are pleased to have you with us today.
Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada: I will not be taking much of your time on this particular bill.
Teamsters Canada represents about 125,000 to 130,000 workers in Canada. We are the choice of workers in the transportation industry, including air, rail, road, ports, mass transit and cargo. We are also involved in many different sectors in the economy: fisheries, agriculture, film, fashion, beverage. We can go through a fairly large list. We are affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; together we represent more than 1.5 million members in North America. Clearly, on any given day, a lot of the traffic going across the border is carried by teamsters.
We have other interests in bridges, roads and tunnels going to the border, because we are very proud to represent many of the workers who do the maintenance and toll collecting at several bridges, including the Ambassador Bridge.
We are pleased that the government split the previous bill, which dealt with so many issues, into what we believe is more manageable chunks. We think that is good legislative process and we do support it.
Otherwise, we are in a conundrum, faced with an ominous bill, as we are, and representing so many sectors of the economy. In most cases, in the House, we are lucky to have five or ten minutes. It is difficult to be meaningful in ten minutes on five sectors.
We have concerns about the bill. We also have good things to say about it. We think that in the modern world it is very important for the federal government to have legislative authority to deal with the cross-border issues, especially in a post-9/11 world. It is critical, not just for our membership but for the entire economy, that the transportation of goods and services to our largest trading partner continues in a positive manner.
Our concern is not what is in the bill but rather what is not in the bill. We have issues regarding facilities' requiring government permissions for maintenance and alterations and what that means for the members who do the work and for the employers. They are, after all, the people who provide employment to our membership. We have concerns for our members who are crossing those bridges using the tunnels. We also have concerns about the general public good. What does this mean to the rest of the economy, for the people who rely on just-in-time delivery and the aspects in our production facilities? We believe there are probably things that will be dealt with later in the regulatory process, and we welcome the opportunity to be consulted in that process and have our viewpoints and expertise taken into account.
One of the major problems is not the facilities themselves, it is the lack of facilities. We will deal with two issues. Clearly, over the last decade or so, there has been a massive growth in trade. That is quite remarkable given the post 9/ 11 world. Also, one could perhaps pause at some of the American protectionism, but we will not get into that; this is a transportation issue, not a trade issue.
Last year, perhaps a little over a year now, I had the opportunity to tour most of the bridges and the tunnels going to the United States. I wanted to examine their business, our business, and to see how they operated. What I saw was delays, and the cost of the delays is borne by truckers, their employers and the public.
We have to remember that to improve services, to improve the transportation system, consumers may have to pay a bit more. Truckers stuck at the border, and their employers, are bearing a major cost.
Will this bill make it easier to provide infrastructure? Right now we are locked into a bilateral process. From what I understand, the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit River tunnel project were both pulled from that process. That is interesting, because from our analysis they are the only two projects that are even remotely close to proceeding. What are we looking at then? Ten, 12 years? Five years, seven years? We are not sure. We know there are a few reasons why it should be sooner or later.
Last year there was a major review on security in the transportation sector. As far as I am aware, Teamsters Canada was the only organization that sat on every single study for each mode. We are familiar with the security issue. We are very supportive of it. We are looking forward to the continuation of that process.
I will not talk about particulars of security in a specific sense, simply because I do not do so publicly. However, one issue has to do with redundancy. At this particular point, we have all our eggs in half a dozen baskets. If an incident occurs, what precisely will we do to ensure that just-in-time delivery continues to deliver those goods and services across the border? We have the Ambassador Bridge. We strongly supported the Detroit River tunnel project, as well. We are ready to go. How much redundancy is needed? I am not sure. I think that question should be examined.
The second security issue quite clearly lies with the process of truckers and their goods clearing the border. The issue of the cargo has been dealt with quite well. On the truckers' side, we have an interim fast pass. I will underline the word "interim" because I think the government does now.
We support the Transport Canada security clearance process. There are many reasons for that. One is that the Transport Canada security system protects the privacy of our members, gives due process of law in the collective bargaining and in other areas, and respects the rule of law, which the fast pass does not, in our opinion. We believe we have made that case and the government is moving forward on that initiative. We would hope it would move forward more quickly than slowly. However, in their dealings with our members, it appears that other things are more important than the rule of law or than what we believe is a much better system.
At this time, part of the slowdown at the border is not necessarily due to capacity. Rather, the slowdown has to do literally with throughput — not throughput on a bridge or tunnel, but through-put before you get there and after you get there. The Transport Canada security clearance pass would improve that greatly.
Our other issue is that in the bilateral process, our voice is not really heard. We are not consulted. We are working with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, our brothers and sisters in the United States. We are not looking at a border. We do not particularly view it as a border. We would rather see a secure pipeline.
We are looking for any way to guarantee that no matter what happens, key goods and services can go across the border. We believe that with the correct security, including joint border customs, appropriate marshalling and so on, if an incident occurs at the border, facilities that meet or exceed those standards will be able to remain open. That is critical to the economy in Ontario and all of Canada.
We are looking forward to working with government and with any parties that share our concern and how we get there. Confidentiality and security are absolutely critical requirements. That point has been raised in regards to this bill. Part of the reason I will not discuss security issues is that I know, having dealt with them and having been briefed — we do sign documents — that they are certainly not matters for public consumption.
Teamsters Canada thinks the bill is needed. We share the concerns of our employers and companies. We will let them talk about their particular concerns. Our concern is the health, safety and security of our members, along with the security of the economy and the ability of our contractors and suppliers to continue to grow the economy by making jobs that pay good, fair wages.
When security issues occur, we also understand that our members will be on the bridges. They will be the first to respond. Therefore, we want to be part of the consultations. It is difficult to come to the table afterwards to correct things, yet quite often that is precisely what happens.
At the end of the day, the point is jobs. We could be self-serving and say it is the jobs of our members on a bridge or in a tunnel, but really it is jobs for the whole economy.
We believe that the bill is in the right direction. If it is your will to change sections, that is your job. I will not tell you how to do it. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address you. If you have questions I would be happy to entertain them.
[Translation]
The Chairman: In my opinion, you seem more concerned about what is not in the bill. In your statement to the House of Commons, you mentioned that you wished to be consulted during the process of adopting regulations arising from a bill. I would like to know if the consultative process prescribed in clauses 14, 15 and 16 provides you with sufficient opportunity to make known your position. Do you feel that Transport Canada would be inclined to take your concerns into consideration during this process?
[English]
Mr. Benson: Of course, we have to wait for the regulations after this procedure. The new government split up the old omnibus bills; we certainly dealt with them previously, so this bill was not completely new. Transport Canada has been and I hope will continue to be quite open with Teamsters Canada. I think they recognize that in the transportation sector we are a union that has to be consulted, and we have been consulted. I would certainly expect to be consulted on the regulations.
The process of making regulations usually take a lot of time, which may in itself be a concern, as is the bilateral or binational process that seems to be taking forever. We are probably looking at 18 months to two years. I may retire by the time we get something built. We will be consulted. Our concern is the time frame needed before we see action. It is in our national interests to get something done sooner than later, but this entire process seems to be slow.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The government will now be able to adopt regulations concerning such matters as the maintenance, repair and safety of international bridges and tunnels. What areas are of greatest concern to you?
[English]
Mr. Benson: There are two. One is the burden. Let us be straight: most of these bridges are quite old and require a great deal of maintenance. Does the employer or contractor who owns the bridge — or the authority for the Ambassador Bridge, which is private — make the decisions based on sound business practices and the need to keep the customer happy or on government intervention because people are complaining about something or another? We do not know what it looks like.
Our members are the ones standing on those bridges. We would like to know what it will look like before it happens. On the security side, I am confident I know what the security profiles and needs will be. We have supported those strongly.
However, one problem with security on the transportation side is that although we have specifically supported and agreed with the security model being rolled out, unfortunately major sectors of the economy are grandfathered and therefore have what we regard as less than satisfactory security. We would like security for bridges rolled out containing the best model and not attached to some previous model. We would like to know that before it proceeds, or at least be at the table so that we can deal with it.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would be interested in getting your opinion of the current state of international bridges and tunnels in Canada. First of all, are they all in good condition and secondly, will this bill improve the situation at all?
[English]
Mr. Benson: That is a difficult question because I am not an engineer. I might be many other things but I am not an engineer.
The Chairman: You hear from the members.
Mr. Benson: Yes, I do. I think they are doing a good job of inspecting the most important bridges and also just looking at them from a tour perspective. One has to understand that the Ambassador Bridge runs some 13,000 to 14,000 trucks per day that are critical to our economy. That bridge takes one heck of a pounding, to be blunt. I think the facilities are doing a pretty good job. I do not know whether this bill would make it any better or change anything. The more global aspect of the bill is that it would give the federal government a responsibility or approval over the bridges. That is likely the bigger focus in Bill C-3. I would think that micromanagement would not be appreciated. There are already standards in place for repairs, building and maintenance. It does not matter whether the bridge goes from Canada to the United States at Windsor or from Ontario to Quebec at Gatineau; certain standards for bridges have to be met, and I am confident that the operators would meet them.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not clear on the bill. Do you have any problems with the bill? Do you have any proposals for amendments or are you relatively satisfied with the bill as it is written?
Mr. Benson: We are relatively satisfied with Bill C-3 as it stands. I do not believe that it is my role to come forward with proposed legislative changes. We have raised issues and talked about our general support of the bill and some concerns. Perhaps other people have brought forward amendments and you might want to look at those. I think that is the responsibility of a committee and so I rarely come forward with specific changes.
Overall, the thrust of this bill is similar to that of the previous government's bill. The bill is timely. Our concern, as I said before the House and before the Senate, is that to our knowledge, the only two projects that are relatively ready to go forward have both been pulled off the table. Is there anything in Bill C-3 that can move those projects forward? We are not sure.
We raised the question of repairs here and in the other place but we are not sure. On the issue of confidentiality and security, we are waiting for regulations. As we know, when bills are passed these days the practice sadly appears to be to leave everything for the regulations.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you.
Senator Phalen: I have one or two questions on your submission. You say that you have concerns mostly about what is not in the bill, rather than what is in the bill, such as the facilities requiring government permission for maintenance. Do you believe that the maintenance standards would be higher? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Benson: No. I am referring to delays, which are deadly. It is an issue of overregulation, though I hate using the word from a union side. It comes down to an operator of a bridge or tunnel, public or private, choosing to proceed with improvements to their facility and being tied up in a huge amount of red tape. They are tied up in red tape now; how much more do they need to do their jobs? I do not believe the situation would be any better with this bill. Our concern is that there would be more delays and what those would mean. It would be a matter of what bureaucrats think should happen versus the people running the road. It is that simple. It seems to be rather open-ended, senator, and we are not sure what it means. We will find out with the regulations.
Senator Phalen: Who sets the standards now?
Mr. Benson: They are set like building codes are set by the various levels of government dealing with transport. There are layers and layers of regulations dealing with structures, as you found out with the very sad and unfortunate situation in Quebec when the overpass collapsed in Montreal. Transport Canada had engineers and safety people running around trying to find out what happened. They are the people who regulate bridges. I would hope that the structures, which have lasted many years, will continue to last, but perhaps they will not.
Senator Phalen: In your submission you said that a problem with the bridges is not necessarily the infrastructure but rather how we deal with the reality of the American demand for security. We have the interim fast pass — I am pleased that the word "interim" is underlined — versus Transport Canada's security clearance. Could you explain the difference?
Mr. Benson: I will not get into details. The fast pass is a joint custom arrangement between the United States and Canada that has served its purpose. Unfortunately, the events of 9/11 and the Department of Homeland Security have changed the tenor of the fast pass to the point that for several reasons we have a great deal of concern about it. Our members are giving their private information to a foreign national, which determines whether or not they get a card that they require in order to work, and they have absolutely no right of appeal. There is no due process and no right of union participation. There is absolutely nothing.
The Transport Canada security clearance process is used in airports and will be used eventually in road and rail as well. It is a Canadian process controlled by Canadian politicians and to which the due process of law applies.
Frankly, I do not like a situation in which Canadians are required to give their information to a foreign national. That is not anti-American because it is irrelevant to me whether the foreign national is England, France or any other country. We have a recognized system in place that can do the job and protect the rights of our citizens, so I think the government should choose the right system.
That is why we underline "interim" in our submission. Unlike the interim fast pass, the Transport Canada secured clearance is biometric. It is a higher clearance and is faster. Putting it bluntly, if it is good enough to fly a plane into a foreign country, then it is good enough for a truck driver or a rail operator to cross the border without a big fuss. It is a better process all around. For example, the Ambassador Bridge could have pre-clearance built in. They like the Detroit River tunnel project at Windsor-Detroit because pre-clearance is built in. That kind of custom and duty cargo clearance allows things to move along like in a pipeline. The border aspect is eliminated.
It is better for our members because it protects the sovereignty of our country and our members' constitutional charter rights. As well, it will move goods more quickly. It is a win-win situation.
Senator Mercer: Windsor is an interesting place with its many crossings of the river. It is very important to the economy of this country. Let us back up from Windsor for a moment and consider the main feeder road into Windsor, Highway 401. We know how dangerous the last few miles of Highway 401 can be; there have been many major accidents in the past. Highway 401 does not end at the bridge or at the tunnel. Where do you think that Highway 401 should end? Even though that is a provincial responsibility, I think it does fit well in discussions about how the border crossings are managed.
Mr. Benson: Once at 2 a.m. I stood on a stretch of the road and watched the trucks go by. I can understand why people who live there are concerned. The truck drivers have to manage their huge beasts through a city. I am not a truck driver, but I have certainly ridden in semis. I am not an expert that way, but least I have been there.
The history, as I understand it, is that at one time that road was at the end of town. It was like a ring road. Of course the city has grown since then. It has been suggested that if the bilateral process has its way and we move the road out another couple of miles, sooner or later we will run into the same problem.
One reason the Detroit River tunnel project made sense, especially in the new transformation where they were planning to trench everything, was that it would clear up two problems. Clearly, the bridge must have something that gets at least trucks down there. I do not know about cars.
I asked our leadership there whether anyone had ever thought of trenching that road. The answer was yes, but the suggestion was turned down years ago. It would be wonderful if there were a way of getting at least truck traffic directly to the bridge. The tunnel would not be an issue because it would be straight in from the highway. I think that should be investigated.
Senator Mercer: You talked about the need for clearance. Were you suggesting that perhaps pre-clearance centres some distance from the bridges or tunnels could be put in place? That would be new. Now we have pre-clearance at airports and for rail travel, so why not have pre-clearance in truck travel? It might speed up the process of crossing bridges. I suggest it would also allow us to provide better security X-raying for many more trucks and would allow us to inspect more trucks without causing delays at the point of crossing.
Mr. Benson: I do not want to get into too much detail, but clearly the joint border with the pre-clearance with a secure access would be the absolute dream. If you could get a truck off the road in a secure manner into a marshalling yard or a yard that has joint custom clearance with the type of Transport Canada security clearance — biometric cards or pre-cleared cargo — you would still have the border but also a pipeline. I think that would be terrific.
People think that many of the bridges are maxed out. There seems to be a misconception that the bridges cannot handle traffic. That is not true. Even the Ambassador Bridge is not at capacity. It is not near capacity. Therefore, the problem is not with the actual physical facility. The big problem is in the throughput and what happens before or after. Those types of facilities would certainly help resolve much of this concern, making life for our members and truckers in general much easier.
Senator Mercer: We all know that the Teamsters Canada union represents many truck drivers. Do you represent other employees involved at any of the border crossings?
Mr. Benson: We have Teamsters Canada Freight and Tank Haul Division and Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. We represent many toll takers. On the other side of the border, Teamsters members will greet you. I am not sure whether you are referring to the customs and duty people at the border. We do not have them as members yet.
Senator Mercer: We have border crossings and bridges and tunnels. There are workers on them. You have talked about security on the bridges. There are security people on the bridges. Are some of those people members of Teamsters Canada?
Mr. Benson: Yes.
Senator Mercer: You mentioned that they would be the first responders in the event of an incident.
Mr. Benson: Yes. When there is an accident, they are the people who go out on the bridge.
Senator Mercer: Are they members?
Mr. Benson: Not all of them but most of them are members.
Senator Mercer: I want to put this in the proper context. Your concern reaches beyond trucks. Is that right?
Mr. Benson: Yes.
Senator Mercer: You said a number of times that redundancy is important to security. I am coming to the conclusion, not a final conclusion, that one problem with this bill is that it will delay a project that addresses that very problem. The owners of the Ambassador Bridge have told this committee they are prepared to start construction of a second Ambassador Bridge very close to the existing one as soon as the environmental assessment is complete and they have received approval on the American side. They are waiting for approval from the Canadian side. This bill would delay that.
We have talked about regulations having to come forward. If Government of Canada, Government of Ontario or City of Windsor funds were not used, then someone would need to be willing to build a new structure, which helps increase the redundancy.
According to the owners of the Ambassador Bridge, they would maintain the old bridge, not necessarily as a utilized bridge but as a backup. They would ensure that it is in good structural condition so that if there were an incident, it would be an option to go back to the old bridge to allow commerce to continue. Do you not see that in this bill?
Mr. Benson: I am sorry, do I see what?
Senator Mercer: Do you see this bill not holding up that project?
Mr. Benson: I think this bill will certainly hold up the project. As I said repeatedly, the entire binational process and regulatory procedure going through will hold up the project. That is pretty clear.
Senator Mercer: I want to get more specific. You made reference a number of times to concerns about maintenance and safety. Are you or your members aware of any specific safety issues around infrastructure and maintenance? Obviously, there are day-to-day safety issues that are always faced at a border crossing.
Mr. Benson: It is not the infrastructure. If you are on the road, you are dodging cars and trucks. Obviously, if there are many large trucks with people trying to get around them and a person is out there with little pylons trying to accomplish something, the narrower the passage, the more likely safety is compromised. The issue is not about the maintenance. It is just a general safety concern where if people have been delayed for four hours and they see a road, they generally put their foot down and go. Our member may be standing on the bridge somewhere. It is not a pleasant thought.
Senator Eyton: I have a supplementary question. The bill itself will not cause any delay, although we have heard a variety of concerns. In fact, we have heard from the operators of the Ambassador Bridge that they were concerned that under the bill, and perhaps under regulations yet to be tabled, those items could cause delay.
You were stronger in your assertion. You referred to pulling, in effect, two projects. I take it one of them was the tunnel and the other was the Ambassador Bridge and the improvements we talked about. Pulling the projects speaks to the owners or operators taking them off the table, but that is not the case. What did you mean by your reference to pulling?
Mr. Benson: Perhaps as working class guys, we use that language.
As I understand the binational process, they are basically looking for somewhere to put something. Those two particular projects were one with the binational process as a side set. We were looking at something else.
Again, what does that mean for a private enterprise if they choose to go ahead? I am not sure. I think this bill rightly gives the minister a lot of authority. I am not disputing that. I think it is important that that authority is there.
Certainly those two projects were kind of parked. Perhaps "parked" is the right word. They have decided to look elsewhere.
To give you a bit of background, the whole binational process is a Ping-Pong ball: we have Windsor upset about a particular location, and we have downstream mayors saying not in our back yard. We have someone else passing legislation not here, not there, not somewhere else. For Canada it is pretty important that we have throughput from all auto plants and other industry moving down that highway. I am not convinced that under this process I will see something built in my lifetime. If you can tell me that this bill will get something, through then yahoo!
Senator Eyton: Assuming that the regulations are prompt and that there are discussions along the way, do they need to delay any of these projects?
Mr. Benson: No. Just from my experience dealing with government regulations and the regulatory process, it can be often time consuming and more battles are fought over there than are fought before these committees. Again, if it is a fast process and moves forward, from day one we have always said this bill was really just a continuation of peace, order and good governance. It is something that probably should have been there a long time ago. We were not complaining about it under the previous government, we are not complaining about it under the new government. We are just raising some of the issues and concerns. Of course it is up to bodies like this to decide what to do with it.
Senator Mercer: Prompt regulation may be an oxymoron. I want to go back to one of my first questions about Highway 401. In reviewing my notes, I do not think we came to a conclusion as to where you think Highway 401 should go. Are you saying it should go to the Detroit River tunnel project? Should it go to the Ambassador Bridge or should it go to one of the other crossings?
Mr. Benson: That is up to the private sector or the government to determine. If the government does decides to build a bridge going around Windsor, whether or not truckers will use it is another question. I am not an expert in urban planning. I will say that if I lived in Windsor I would like a way for trucks to get to the tunnel or somewhere so that they were not going down Huron Church Road every day. A better means of accessing that route would be helpful.
Senator Mercer: Your answer is that you do not really care which crossing it goes to, but if you were a resident of Windsor you would want it to go to a crossing as opposed to going around the city as it does now. Is that right?
Mr. Benson: Did you say around the city? It goes through the middle of the city.
Senator Mercer: I am talking about Highway 401.
Mr. Benson: Again, whether it is a private sector solution or a public sector solution, or a triple P or a quadruple P or whatever is determined, it is going to get done. I love all those terminologies these days. That is a decision that the minister, the governments at different levels, Detroit and God knows who else will make. When they make that decision, we will determine whether or not there is any will to do something about the route. I am not a mind reader. I really do not know. I have spent more than a few days down there and have come away no brighter or than when I first arrived.
Senator Mercer: We share your frustration.
Mr. Benson: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not sure whether it is myth or reality, but sometimes you have to watch these things. Senator Mercer raised a legitimate concern regarding the bridge itself. You intimate that the project itself would be held up for some reason because of this bill. I am not really quite sure what that means, but you had also said that it was not the bridge itself that was a problem; it was the marshalling area, the customs clearance are and so on.
Mr. Benson: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Perhaps the bridge should be held up. If you say it is not the bridge then it must be something else. Maybe someone else's light bulb went off and they asked why we are building the bridge. Maybe we should speed up the customs process and move traffic through quicker. We do not really know that, do we. Or do you know that?
Mr. Benson: Most the bridges are 60 years, 70 years or 80 years old. Maybe the owner is concerned that the bridge will not hold up much longer.
We spend a lot of time studying and analyzing cross-border issues. It is critical to a transportation union, to our contractors and our employers. There is no one-off quick solution. Many items are on the table; it is a big pot of stew.
With regard to redundancy, I have heard that the owners of Ambassador Bridge want to twin or replace the bridge. I have heard half a dozen different concepts of what they want to do. That becomes part of the stew. At the end of this long process we are tied into, do we have a project ready to be built? No. Do I foresee one? Not in my lifetime. I hope I am wrong. I would love to come back here next year and say I was wrong, but I just do not think so.
When do you replace the capital stock? After 60 years or 80 years? I am not an expert on bridges. I assume that the Ambassador Bridge people and the Blue Water Bridge people are experts in their field and would know better than I. When I talk about redundancy, I talk about a simple fact, and I really do not want to talk about it in public, but if one bridge goes down, right now, we are in deep trouble. I am not talking about maintenance and repairs.
For redundancy, we might need more options than we have on the table now. Ambassador Bridge is an option. A Detroit River tunnel project is an option. This binational bridge is an option. Then of course we get into issues about private sector versus public sector competition; I will let everyone else deal with that.
We are talking about redundancy from perspective of security. So much of our economy is tied up in one basket, and we are doing a bang-up job. It has taken a long time. I am sure the trucking sector and other people feel that we need more. That is more my concern. It is not an attack on the bill. We just have to go further. We need more.
Senator Tkachuk: In other words, the status quo has produced the situation we have now.
Mr. Benson: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: This bill is attempting to change the status quo. Whether it will or not only time will tell. I do not know that.
Mr. Benson: I would agree.
Senator Tkachuk: However, that is what we have been told. The bill attempts to change the status quo. Maybe there is an easier and quicker way to do business rather than the present system, which seems to have caused the situation we have today regarding redundancy, security, and all of those other issues. There is not one place that everyone is dealing with only those issues.
Mr. Benson: I think it does change the status quo. It clearly changes the status quo and we think that is a good thing because at end of the day, tied into a binational process with hold-ups, hiccups, burps and with several sections of different departments all dealing with the pot of stew, we are one of the few voices coming forward and asking what are we serving today.
I think this bill is part of the puzzle. I will give them that; it is certainly part of the puzzle. It is about time that this has the potential, but given the world that we view, I am not sure whether that potential will see reality. If it does I will be the first to take my hat off and say thank you very much.
The bill would change the status quo. I am not sure that the status quo we have is changeable without a lot of political energy and will.
Senator Tkachuk: I am always a pessimist about these matters as well.
Mr. Benson: I have spent 20 years doing this; I am a little pessimistic.
Senator Tkachuk: Nonetheless, it cannot get any worse.
Senator Munson: That is why you have used the word "reluctant." I think you said, "We are reluctantly satisfied with the bill as it stands." You say the bill is timely; you think the bill is needed. Is that the specific part of why you say you are reluctant in your answers to Senator Tkachuk?
Mr. Benson: How many times have I seen legislation that looks good on paper? I have described the status quo and the problems we are facing. From Teamsters Canada's perspective, it is part of our duty to come here to talk about something broader than our membership. We are known for that.
What happens at that border and with those bridges or tunnels or whatever is built is absolutely critical to the manufacturing sector and the economy in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere. This is not a trivial item; it is extremely important. How we deal with customs, duty, the clearances — these are all vitally important to our national economy.
I am not sure that at the end of the day this bill, in and of itself, will deal with the breadth of the issue. It is one little chunk and that is good, but with regulations and other legislation we would like to see the rest of the chunk before we cheer from the heavens. Is it a bad bill? No. Does it address something that needs to be addressed? Yes. Is it a step forward? Yes. Does it answer all the issues? No. However, to be fair, even under the previous government, was the intention to deal with all the issues? The answer is no. My response is, "What a pity."
Senator Munson: Dealing with the key goods and services, you have an interesting idea, because you talk about what could happen if the border were closed. What goods and services would you see as essential if the bridge went down or one border was closed because of a 9/11-type of incident? What things should continue to flow to keep the two economies humming? Do you have a shopping list of three or four items?
Mr. Benson: It is not that. I do not know about you, but to me the tomatoes do not taste good anymore. They come a long way. It is not our fault; it is just the way it is done. I do not think there is a problem with stuff coming into Canada. That will not be an issue; food will come, goods will come. To put it in perspective, one local in Ontario has two or three thousand members who do nothing but haul cars and car parts around. A part crosses that border four, five, or six times before it gets used. Do we really want Ford, Chrysler and all those companies to shut down? I mean, the just-in-time delivery system is just in time. We were talking to one of your researchers about that issue in a separate matter, but that is what we are stuck with today.
If a bridge goes down, it is a minor inconvenience whether or not you get your brand of water. However, for the country, it is a major crisis if plants are shut down for any meaningful length of time. I like Medicare, I like those plants. There is a domino or ripple effect. It is very critical that there is at least one place where those types of vehicles can cross all day long, so that hundreds of thousands of people are not laid off. Instead of a minister standing up and being proud of his budget surplus he says, "Oops, I have a deficit today." It is very important.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for your presentation this morning. You say you are generally satisfied with the bill and have no major concerns.
Of course, one concern from the union's point of view is always the safety and security of your members. You described a typical situation of a motorist delayed for four hours finally getting an open lane and driving quickly, which does pose a risk to people working on the roads or bridges. Beyond that general concern, do you have any underlying concerns about the safety and security of your members?
If a new bridge were built, are there measures that could be taken to improve the safety and security of your members?
Mr. Benson: We are privileged and honoured to represent workers and we are always concerned about our membership. We grieve when someone dies on the job; we grieve when they die for some other reason. Over all, the answer is no. Generally I have not heard a lot of concerns or problems about that.
Regarding your second question, I understand they will spend about $1 billion rebuilding the Centre Block.
Senator Dawson: At exactly the same time as the bridge.
Mr. Benson: About the same time as the bridge. They have do rebuild it and fix it because of all the modern codes and requirements. If it were not a heritage building they would tear it down and build a new one. Those structures were built some 60 or 80 years ago. I sincerely hope that in this post-9/11 world the technology and engineering that would go into a new bridge or tunnel would take safety and security issues into consideration and thus minimize or reduce the likelihood of an incident.
Of course, because of changes to the size and weight of vehicles, they could build something that would be for today, perhaps for a few years down the road, something that would be better, would require less maintenance and would be all in all a more satisfactory experience. Senator, it would be similar to your buying a 100-year-old heritage home or something brand new. We both have a choice, and one is a little easier to look after than the other. There are advantages to having a new product. Again, I am not an engineer, not running the business. I am just relating my personal opinion.
Senator Zimmer: It is always relative, as far as new versus old, and it is an ongoing situation.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benson, for your presence here today. Feel free to send us more information.
Senator Mercer: Before we adjourn, we have had several references by witnesses to security issues, some of which we have not been able to talk about on the public record. Would it be advisable to ask Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada to have someone come see us, either to brief us or to answer questions? There are some questions we have not asked and have been hesitant to ask.
The Chairman: Tomorrow we are having people from Transport Canada; maybe at the same time someone from that department could attend the meeting and answer questions.
Senator Mercer: Yes.
The Chairman: I will add it to the list tomorrow.
We will adjourn until tomorrow afternoon at 6:15. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.