CTA argues against multiple driver checks

March 3, 2009
Reducing duplication in new Canadian security-related legislation, particularly that involving truck driver background checks, is being urged by the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA)

Reducing duplication in new Canadian security-related legislation, particularly that involving truck driver background checks, is being urged by the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA).

Just as the American Trucking Associations (ATA) is supporting measures in the United States to reduce dual checks for hazardous materials drivers, the CTA has appealed to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities to avoid further duplication and overlap as it rolls out new transportation security measures.

"Of particular interest to CTA are provisions in the draft bill dealing with background security checks for drivers, and requirements for security plans, driver training, and route tracking of dangerous goods," CTA said of the Canadian legislation.

CTA noted that Canadian carriers and drivers are already subject to security requirements under programs such as Partners in Protection, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, and the Free and Secure Trade Program. Port security requirements impacting motor carriers are also in place in both Canada and the United States, and both governments are rolling out measures to deal with the land transportation movement of cargo destined for a passenger aircraft.

CTA is not opposed in principle to enhanced security measures for the transportation of dangerous goods” noted CTA Senior Policy Advisor Barrie Montague. "However, we do challenge the notion that the country will somehow be more secure if a carrier has two or three or maybe even four security plans instead of just one, or that a driver needs to be trained and background checked multiple times depending on what commodity he is hauling, or where he is going. It is important that the Government look at how the measures contained in this bill fit within the broader context of transportation security, and not create a new set of requirements that add costs to the supply chain with little incremental security benefit."