Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 155, Number 50: Regulations Amending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Part 6 — Training)
December 11, 2021
Statutory authority
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992
Sponsoring department
Department of Transport
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Executive summary
Issues: The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) require any person who handles, offers for transport or transports dangerous goods, to be “adequately trained” in their dangerous goods tasks and receive a certificate of training. While a majority of stakeholders meet or exceed the current training requirements, Transport Canada (TC) inspectors have identified that some employees lack the knowledge and skills required to conduct their dangerous goods tasks despite possessing a valid training certificate. Inconsistent or poor training of persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods can result in improper handling and transporting of dangerous goods that could endanger public safety. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) monitoring program revealed that, of the 409 dangerous goods incidents resulting in injury or death reported between 2014 and 2019, approximately 55 were attributed to improper or insufficient training. Extensive consultations with industry indicated that there is confusion among some stakeholders regarding what “adequately trained” means and what type of training their employees need. Internationally, codes that govern the transport of dangerous goods currently require that persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods receive both general awareness training and function-specific training. Since the training requirements in the TDGR do not clearly state that general and function-specific trainings are required, the wording needs to be better aligned with international requirements and clarify TC’s expectations of the regulated community.
Description: The proposed amendments to the TDGR would remove the term “adequately trained”; incorporate by reference a new training standard developed under the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB); and specify that to be considered competent to handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods, a person must receive both general awareness and function-specific training and assessment.
Rationale: The proposed amendments would provide greater clarity and certainty to employers; ensure more consistent training and certification; and allow inspectors to objectively assess if persons have been trained and are competent for their dangerous goods tasks.
The development of the new CAN/CGSB-192.3-2020, Transportation of dangerous goods training, assessment and competency (training standard), was led by industry to ensure that there would be no policy change for employers who are already complying with the training requirements. Also, by specifying the requirements for both general awareness and function-specific training and assessment in the training standard, the Canadian training requirements would be better aligned with international TDG training requirements.
The total cost of the proposed amendments is estimated to be $15.79 million between 2022 and 2031 (present value, in 2020 Canadian dollars, discounted to the year of 2021 at a 7% discount rate), with an estimated total benefit of $17.43 million for the same period, and therefore the net benefit is $1.63 million. Most of the costs would be incurred by industries that handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods, and the benefits would be a result of avoided incidents that could include fatalities and injuries.
Issues
Although most industry training aligns with or exceeds what is currently required in the TDGR, training remains inconsistent and training violations continue to be among the most reported violations of the TDG regime. In a review of 300 training violations identified between 2014 and 2019 from the TDGR violations report, 69 violations (23%) were attributed to stakeholders performing tasks for which they were not adequately trained.footnote 1 Consultations with industry, governments and training institutions have revealed there is confusion among some stakeholders regarding what “adequately trained” means and what type of training their employees need.
Furthermore, TC inspectors have indicated there is a lack of assurance that some employees have the knowledge and skills required to conduct their dangerous goods tasks despite possessing a valid training certificate. This has been confirmed through enforcement activities (i.e. inspections of dangerous goods facilities). Inconsistent or poor training of persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods can result in the mishandling of dangerous goods that could endanger public safety. In addition to tracking violations related to each part of the TDGR, TC also monitors incidents involving dangerous goods across Canada through the Dangerous Goods Accidents Information System (DGAIS). Of the 409 incidents reported in the DGAIS between 2014 and 2019, 55 were attributed to improper or insufficient training. These incidents resulted in 174 injuries ranging from minor to major in severity and 3 fatalities.
Internationally, codes that govern the transport of dangerous goods currently require that persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods receive both general awareness training and function-specific training to be sufficiently trained. Although both types of training are widely delivered in Canada, some employers do not offer both types of training to their employees, which results in inconsistent training.
Background
In Canada, the transportation of dangerous goods is regulated under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (the TDG Act), the TDGR, and standards incorporated by reference into the TDGR. The TDGR require that persons be “adequately trained” in their TDG tasks and hold a valid training certificate, or that they perform these tasks under the supervision of a trained person. The responsibility to provide training and certificates lies with the employer. Certificates of training expire after three years for employees working in the road, rail and marine modes, while certificates for employees in the air mode expire after two years. Employees are then retrained and must receive a new certificate from their employers.
TC monitors its regulated community (e.g. truck drivers transporting dangerous goods, shippers of dangerous goods, and persons who import dangerous goods) for any behaviour that is non-compliant with the TDGR and could pose a risk to the public. As mentioned above, over the course of five years, approximately 55 incidents (DGAIS) involving dangerous goods were caused by improper or insufficient training. Since the safe transportation of dangerous goods relies in part on well-trained people, TC has identified training as a key area of focus where action can be taken to improve safety for all.
International codes that govern the transport of dangerous goods and are incorporated by reference in the TDGR include the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods – Model Regulations (UN Recommendations), the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions (ICAO TIs) and Title 49 of the United States (U.S.) Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR). Currently, these international codes require that persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods, during international transport activities, receive both general and function-specific training. Specifically, since there is a large volume of dangerous goods crossing the Canada-U.S. border, there is further incentive to ensure both regulations are aligned where possible. TC’s TDG Directorate collaborates closely with its U.S. counterpart, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), to increase and maintain alignment between the two countries.
Competency-based training is a performance-based approach that focuses on the outcome (competency), rather than prescriptive methods (e.g. prescribing the number of hours of training required). Competency-based training is deemed successful when employees demonstrate they have acquired the necessary “knowledge, skills and attitudes to carry out activities or tasks under specified conditions.”footnote 2 According to the ICAO model, competency is defined as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes required to perform a task to the prescribed standard. The main components of a competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) approach, in the handling and transport of dangerous goods, is to ensure that employees receive both general and function-specific training for their tasks; that there are set performance criteria in place to evaluate competence; that records of training and assessment are maintained; and that there is recurring training and assessment as needed to maintain skills.
Canada would be the first country to adopt CBTA as a mandatory approach in its transport of dangerous goods regime. However, the requirements for CBTA would better align with those of the four international codes named above. There has been a shift in the international community towards a CBTA approach to training and assessment in the transport of dangerous goods. The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel has adopted a CBTA approach and has provided guidance on a competency-based approach to dangerous goods training in their proposed new training provisions.footnote 3 The Panel would explicitly require in their Technical Instructions (ICAO TIs) that employees be competent to perform their tasks starting January 1, 2023. ICAO has encouraged the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) TDG Sub-Committee to consider adopting this approach across all modes, which would be in line with TC’s current proposal.
The CBTA method would be adopted through the training standard. The new training standard was developed under the direction of the CGSB by members from industry, training organizations, and government that have the responsibility to ensure that persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods are competent. The training standard was published online in November 2020 and sets out the requirements for general awareness and function-specific training and assessment for persons handling and transporting dangerous goods by road, rail, marine and air in Canada.
Objective
The objectives of the proposed amendments are to
- (i) ensure greater clarity and certainty about training requirements for persons involved in the transportation of dangerous goods; and
- (ii) align training requirements, to the extent possible, with international standards.
Having clearer and more specific training requirements focused on competency would address existing ambiguity and confusion among employers; improve overall safety in the transportation of dangerous goods by reducing the number of incidents caused by inadequate or inconsistent training; and, through the establishment of objectively verifiable criteria, ensure more transparent enforcement.
Description
The proposed amendments would remove the term “adequately trained” and instead specify that to be competent for TDG tasks, a person must receive both general awareness and function-specific training and assessment. The assessment would be documented in a “certificate of competency,” which would replace the current “certificate of training.”
The training standard would be incorporated by reference (as amended from time to time) in the TDGR. The training standard would outline requirements for training, assessment and competency of persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods by road, rail, marine and air in Canada.
The proposed amendments would clearly describe the responsibilities of the employer, the employee and the foreign carrier. A provision would be included in the proposed amendments to indicate that a self-employed person, for the purposes of Part 6, would have the same responsibilities as the employer.
The certificates of competency would contain similar information to that of the previous certificates of training. However, certificates of competency would need to indicate that the person has received general awareness and function-specific training in accordance with the standard. Function-specific training should be indicated by codes identified in the standard. Based on consultations, the requirement for an employee’s signature on the certificate of competency has been removed to minimize the information on the certificate. The requirement for certificates of competency to be signed by the employer, an employee acting on behalf of the employer or a self-employed person could be done electronically.
General awareness training and assessment
The proposed amendments and the training standard would require that employers ensure that all employees who handle, offer for transport, or transport dangerous goods are provided with general awareness training and assessed according to the topics outlined in the standard.
Function-specific training and assessment
The proposed amendments and the training standard would require that employers ensure that all employees who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods are provided with function-specific training and assessed according to the competencies outlined in the standard.
Supplementary training and assessment requirements
The proposed amendments and the training standard would require that employers provide supplementary training to employees when there are applicable regulatory changes or changes in the employee’s tasks.
Recurrent training and assessment
The validity period of certificates of competency would remain the same as that of the certificates of training under the current TDGR (i.e. three years for employees in the road, rail, and marine modes and two years for employees in the air mode). Employers would be required to reassess employees upon the expirationfootnote 4 of their certificate of competency to determine if retraining is necessary.
Records
Employees would remain responsible for presenting their certificate of competency upon request to an inspector; however, employers would no longer be required to keep copies of certificates in the training records of their employees. Employers would need to retain records that demonstrate that employees have been trained and assessed in accordance with the CGSB standard, for two years after the expiration of the certificate of competency. The following would be required in the records:
- (a) the person’s name;
- (b) the task descriptions and performance criteria for the person;
- (c) a description, copy or the location of the training material used for training;
- (d) the date(s) of the assessment and training;
- (e) a description of, copy or reference to the assessment;
- (f) the name of the person(s) or organization providing the training and assessment; and
- (g) the outcome of the assessment.
All references to “training certificate” in the TDGR will be removed and replaced with “certificate of competency.”
Task description and performance criteria
Employers would be required to develop and maintain task descriptions to meet the training standard and develop performance criteria, as referenced in the standard, for the assessment of competencies:
- (1) Task lists would describe the function-specific tasks for each employee; and
- (2) Performance criteria would outline the different competencies that an employee needs to be assessed against to be deemed competent for the performance of their dangerous goods tasks.
The following lists provide a general overview of tasks for each mode of transport (as stated in the training standard):
Task list for road, rail and marine
- (a) Classify dangerous goods;
- (b) Determine shipping requirements;
- (c) Prepare a dangerous goods consignment;
- (d) Transport dangerous goods; and
- (e) Respond to an incident.
Task list for air
- (a) Classify dangerous goods;
- (b) Determine shipping requirements;
- (c) Prepare a dangerous goods consignment;
- (d) Transport dangerous goods;
- (e) Respond to an incident;
- (f) Process and accept dangerous goods; and
- (g) Manage dangerous goods — load planning.
Transitional measure
Following the coming into force of the amendment, there will be a transitional period of 12 months before employers are required to follow the new training requirements in the amendment. All certificates of training issued under the current regulatory requirements, including those issued during the transition period, would continue to be valid until their expiry date.
Regulatory development
Consultation
Extensive consultations were carried out on the proposed amendments. These include the following:
- A targeted stakeholder consultation in 2016 with 107 representatives from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as well as public stakeholders, including industry members, industry associations, and training schools. A bilateral meeting was held after the targeted consultation with 35 of these stakeholders.
- An online public consultation in 2017, including 18 Aboriginal-owned businesses. Both the targeted and online consultations solicited comments on four white papers used to refine TC’s final approach: the meaning of the term “adequately trained”; Competency-based training and assessment; Standardized curriculum and standardized tests; and Certification and accreditation of trainers and institutions.
- Consultations with government and industry to inform the development of the standard under the direction of the Canadian General Standards Board and the committee. The committee was composed of mostly industry representatives, with TC having one voting member.
- Consultations on the proposed legal text in 2020, with the TDG General Policy Advisory Council (GPAC), which is composed of over 40 different industry associations.
Stakeholder issues raised
The ambiguity of the term “adequately trained”
Most stakeholders who provided comments agreed that the term “adequately trained” was subjective and should be clarified. Stakeholders suggested that instead of stating “adequately trained,” the TDGR should identify the specific responsibilities regarding the training and the maintenance of knowledge and skills for persons who handle and transport dangerous goods. As a result, the term will be removed and the proposed amendments would clearly outline the basic requirements for general and function-specific competency.
Costs and administrative burden
During the bilateral follow-up meeting, two stakeholders stated that any regulatory amendment resulting in increased costs would be unfavourable. Eight stakeholders indicated that a CBTA approach could be costly to industry.
Although some stakeholders highlighted the benefits of standardized tests (such as consistency in TDG knowledge) and the certification of trainers (such as providing more certainty to employers), the vast majority of stakeholders indicated that time and costs would be significant concerns. Stakeholders were worried that a standardized test would cause more administrative burden and increase the time required for training and training costs, especially for those with robust in-house training programs. Employers who provided their employees with in-house training wanted the flexibility to continue to do so. Industry was also concerned that if TC were to certify trainers, this could cause a reduction in available trainers (i.e. only those certified with TC would be qualified). Costs to certify trainers would then be carried over to employers who rely on third-party trainers.
Most stakeholders recognized that cost is an important factor in any modification to training. Stakeholders suggested that any design should not be overly prescriptive and leave flexibility for industry to rely on cost-effective methods such as in-house and online training (where these methods meet TC’s requirement), as opposed to relying solely on more expensive options such as off-site in-person training. Recognizing the potential financial impact on industry, TC assured industry that the main goal of the training standard would be to codify practices that industry is already doing, rather than incorporate completely new requirements. To facilitate the rollout of the standard, TC would also provide additional guidance documents on the upcoming changes to help employers and trainers revise their training programs as needed. The proposed amendments would also include a 12-month transitional period to allow businesses the time to review and adopt the standard.
Competency-based approach to training and assessment
Stakeholders were generally supportive of a CBTA approach to TDG training. This included consignors, employers and trainers. Stakeholders supporting CBTA stated that this approach would improve the current regime; encourage a more consistent approach to training nationwide; and allow for better oversight on training by TC. However, they suggested that to improve the current system, TC should define the term “competent” in a manner that captures the broad range of skills that employees may need to perform their TDG tasks. Stakeholders also wanted to ensure that employees would not require additional training that is not related to their specific tasks. To address this concern, the standard was developed by industry to identify a general list of competencies and performance criteria related to the most common dangerous goods tasks. Employers can use these lists to ensure their employees have been trained and assessed in accordance with the amended requirements.
Length of training
Initially, TC proposed a two-hour instruction time for general awareness training. However, stakeholders felt this was too prescriptive. In response, the two-hour instruction time for general awareness training was removed but the minimum number of test questions (25) for general awareness training remained unchanged. TC agreed with leaving the instruction time open, as competency, and not the length of training, is the focus of the amendment. Also, not being overly prescriptive would give further flexibility to employers to accommodate for different learning abilities of employees.
Information on the certificates of competency
Several stakeholders requested that the information on the certificates of competency be clarified and that it be clearly stated in the TDGR that electronic certificates would be accepted. TC clarified that competency codes outlined in the training standard would be required on the certificates, making them uniform across the country. The specific format of individual certificates would be left to employers; however, the proposed amendments would state that electronic versions of the certificate of competency are accepted.
Another recurring comment regarding certificates was to remove the need for a certificate as is practised in the United States. This option was not pursued. In the United States, training is indicated on the driver’s licence of the employee. However, this is not the case in Canada; therefore a separate certificate is required to demonstrate that training for dangerous goods tasks has taken place and is valid.
Roles and responsibilities
Stakeholders requested further clarity on the requirements for self-employed persons. The proposed amendments would indicate that the self-employed person, for the purposes of Part 6, would have the same responsibilities as the employer.
A question was raised regarding who is responsible for providing training when subcontracting persons for TDG tasks. It was reaffirmed that employers and self-employed persons are responsible for providing training. It will be clearly stated in the standard that employers should have a procedure or agreement in place to ensure that the contractor was provided training and assessment in accordance with the standard.
A few stakeholders sought clarification on who was responsible for deeming a trainer qualified. There was consensus among stakeholders that the employer is responsible for ensuring that the trainer is qualified. The training standard provides a description of topics to cover in general awareness and function-specific training and assessment. Employers may refer to this list to ensure that trainers are providing the necessary training to their employees, and that employees have been assessed against all of the task-specific performance criteria and have been assessed as competent.
Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
Two association representatives felt that the transition period of 12 months should be increased given the uncertainties of the pandemic. The proposed amendments are anticipated to be published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in fall 2022 and would come into force 12 months later in fall 2023. TC has concluded that the 12-month transition period, following the coming into force — expected in fall 2022 — would give industry time to recover and align with the requirements in the standard.
Furthermore, to facilitate the rollout of the standard in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, consideration has been given to the financial issues industry may be facing. TC is developing guidance material and tools for stakeholders according to the new standard. These tools include examples of training material and assessment questions that stakeholders can use to revise their training programs if needed. As some stakeholders, namely small businesses, may not have access to the expertise to build their own training programs or the resources to hire trainers, these tools are expected to help minimize the burden on those businesses. To assist with the development of these materials, an invitation to participate in focus groups was shared with GPAC members in early 2021. At least 20 representatives from 12 different government and non-government organizations responded to the invitation and have provided invaluable expertise and insight to help make these resources beneficial for industry. This material will be freely available online for stakeholders when the proposed amendments are published in final in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation
In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposed Regulations are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect and, after examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties were identified.
Instrument choice
Since training for persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods is governed by the TDGR, regulatory amendments are needed to update the TDG training regime. TC currently has guidance documents and tools offered through the enforcement program and on the TDG website to assist employers in understanding what is required regarding training. However, the issues related to the current training regime remain. As previously noted, the current requirements are not clear. If the status quo were maintained, there would continue to be confusion among stakeholders regarding what it means for their employees to be adequately trained. Furthermore, the current Regulations are not aligned with international standards.
Incorporating the standard, as amended from time to time, was chosen as the best method to achieve the objectives of this proposal. First, by moving forward with this approach, the TDGR would better align with international requirements for the transport of dangerous goods training. More specifically, the proposed amendment would clarify that to be TDG trained means to have both general awareness and function-specific training and assessment, and that persons are competent to perform their TDG-related duties. Second, requiring that persons be competent for their dangerous goods tasks will provide further clarity to industry about what is expected from TDG training; help reduce the likelihood of incidents arising from insufficient training; and provide inspectors with an objective means to enforce compliance.
Regulatory analysis
The proposed amendments would add further clarity to the current requirements for training and assessment in the TDGR. By amending the Regulations, TC would ensure that training and assessment offered to persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods meet TDGR requirements. The proposed amendments would result in a total cost of $15.79 million in present value (2020 Canadian dollar, discounted to the year 2021 at 7% discount rate) between 2022 and 2031, $15.77 million of which would be attributed to industries that handle or transport dangerous goods, and 0.02 million to the Government of Canada for training TDG inspectors. In addition, the proposed amendments would also result in a total benefit of $17.43 million for the same period, from avoided incidents that could be associated with injuries or fatalities due to improved training. As a result, the net benefit of the proposed amendment is $1.63 million.
Analytical framework
The costs and benefits for the proposed amendment have been assessed in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide, which can be found through the Cabinet Directive on Regulation: Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis. Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the cost-benefit analysis.
Benefits and costs associated with the proposed amendment are assessed based on comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the proposed amendment. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes because of the proposed amendment. Details are further discussed below.
The analysis estimated the impact of the proposed amendment over a 10-year period from 2022 to 2031, with the year 2022 being when the final amendment is registered. Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in present value based on 2020 Canadian dollars, and discounted to the base year of 2021 at a 7% discount rate.
A detailed cost-benefit analysis report is available upon request.
Affected stakeholders
The proposed amendment would impact industries that handle or transport dangerous goods. Products classified by the federal government as dangerous range from products like gas and oil that are consumed or exported to products used by industry, such as natural gas in the plastics industry, explosives in the mining and construction industries, and sulphuric acid and lithium in the manufacture of batteries. It is estimated that about 39 000 businesses, with approximately 659 000 employeesfootnote 5 would be impacted. Out of the 39 000 businesses, it is estimated that approximately 80% of affected businesses are small businesses (fewer than 100 employees) and 20% are medium or large businesses (100 employees or more).footnote 6
The proposed amendments would also impact industries across all four transportation sectors — air, rail, road and marine. The road sector would be the most impacted, accounting for approximately 70% of impacted businesses, with the other transportation sectors accounting for the remaining 30%.footnote 7
Baseline and regulatory scenarios
Under the baseline scenario, industries that handle and/or transport dangerous goods would continue to interpret what type of training is required and deemed adequate under Part 6 of the TDGR, and competency-based approach training and assessment would not be implemented. Further, the training standard would not be incorporated by reference; however, some industry stakeholders would voluntarily adopt the standard. TC subject matter experts expect that almost all businesses already meet the training requirements under the standard, and 40% of medium/large-sized businesses and 5% of small businesses would voluntarily adopt requirements related to task descriptions, performance criteria and changes to the certificate template prescribed in the CGSB standard, with the exception of the record-keeping requirement. Moreover, according to subject matter experts at TC, all businesses in the air sector are expected to have already complied with the CGSB standard (requirements related to training, task descriptions, performance criteria and changes to the certificate template), with the exception of the new record-keeping requirements.
Under the regulatory scenario, the proposed amendment would clarify the requirements for training under Part 6 of the TDGR by incorporating by reference the training standard, which sets out the requirements for training, assessment and competency of persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods by road, rail, marine and air in Canada, and focuses on competency-based approach to training and assessment. This would result in new requirements on developing more detailed task descriptions, the development of performance criteria, amending the certificates issued by employers and additional elements to be included in the training records of employees. It is assumed that most impacted businesses already meet the proposed training requirements; therefore, they would likely only require minor changes to their programs. However, a small percentage of businesses would need to revise their training to comply with the proposed amendments. Based on consultations with affected stakeholders, it is estimated that 2% of the marine sector (13 businesses), 1% of the rail sector (20 businesses), 5% of the road sector (1 407 businesses) and 2% of the multimodal sector (145 businesses) would be required to revise their training programs to be in compliance with the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments would primarily affect stakeholders who did not voluntarily adopt the CGSB standard in the baseline scenario. Businesses who would voluntarily adopt the CGSB standard under the baseline scenario would only be affected by complying with the new record-keeping requirements.
Benefits and costs
By incorporating the standard by reference into the amended Regulations, TC would ensure that requirements related to training and assessment for persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods are clear and better align with international codes. This would result in incremental costs of approximately $15.79 million to approximately 39 000 businesses that handle and/or transport dangerous goods and the Government of Canada over the 10-year analytical time frame from 2022 to 2031.footnote 8 The proposed amendments would also result in a benefit of $17.43 million from avoided incidents that result in death or injury.
Benefits
Improved training is expected to reduce the number of incidents related to insufficient/inadequate training. From TC’s Dangerous Goods Accident Information System, it was estimated that 55 safety incidents between 2014 and 2019 were related to inadequate training. This number assumes that all incidents related to improper loading/unloading/handling, fires, chemical reactions, and negligence are linked to employees not being competent for the activities they are tasked with in their jobs. Out of these 55 incidents, there were 3 deaths, 8 major injuries, 43 moderate injuries and 123 minor injuries.
On average, the proposed amendments are expected to result in the following avoided fatalities/injuries from 2022 to 2031: 2 deaths (one in 2024 and 2029), 8 major injuries (one in each year starting in 2024); 32 minor injuries (four in each year starting in 2024); and 48 minimal injuries (six in each year starting in 2024).footnote 9 A number of outliers were removed from the 55 incidents in order to get a more accurate projection of fatalities and/or injuries that would occur over the 10-year analytical time frame. For example, 80 minimal injuries occurred in 2015 and 20 occurred in 2018, while in other years such numbers ranged between 3 and 8. Therefore, the projection of minimal injuries is based on an average occurrence in four years (2014, 2016 to 2017, and 2019) rather than in six years (2014 to 2019). Using the value of a statistical life (VSL) of $8.0 million,footnote 10 the expected benefits from avoided incidents are estimated to be $17.43 million.footnote 11
Further, the proposed amendments would ensure that general awareness and function-specific training and assessment are required to determine if persons are competent to perform their TDG-related duties, such as handling, offering for transport or transporting dangerous goods. The proposed amendments would clarify that general awareness training is necessary to provide a baseline level of knowledge, and that function-specific training ensures these persons perform their specific tasks to a certain standard. Assessments would validate that the training is effective and confirm that the person has the knowledge, skill, and ability to perform their tasks.
The incorporation by reference of the CGSB standard is expected to aid employers in hiring by providing an objective understanding of the current competencies of prospective employees and facilitating the planning of professional development for new and existing employees. In addition, adopting a CBTA approach would help employers focus more on outcomes (i.e. employees who are competent for their TDG tasks) and provide them with a method to improve employees’ skills.
Lastly, by specifying the requirements for both general awareness and function-specific training and assessment in the training standard, inspectors would now have the means to determine objectively if employees are competent to perform their tasks related to the transportation of dangerous goods. This would improve oversight and enforcement in the TDG training regime. The proposed amendment would also better align with international requirements, such as the United States’s 49 CFR and ICAO’s CBTA initiative and set out clear and detailed expectations that would serve as the basis for more effective mechanisms of compliance verification, oversight, and enforcement.
Costs
The proposed amendments would result in a total cost of $15.79 million from 2022 to 2031, $15.77 million of which would be attributed to approximately 39 000 businesses (with approximately 659 000 employees) that handle and/or transport dangerous goods, and $0.02 million to the Government of Canada for training TDG inspectors.
Costs to business
Industry stakeholders were consulted on two cost assumptions: (i) the number/percentage of businesses in each mode that would need to revise their training programs, and (ii) the length of time it would take for these businesses to revise their training programs. However, other cost assumptions presented in this analysis were based on TC subject matter expertise of the TDG industry.
While the proposed amendments include various changes, the majority are related to the incorporation by reference of the CGSB standard that aims to provide clarification on training requirements. As previously mentioned, since the CGSB standard was published in November 2020, almost all businesses already meet the training requirements under the standard. It is expected that by the time the Regulations are published, 40% of medium/large-sized businesses and 5% of small businesses will already have voluntarily adopted requirements related to task descriptions, performance criteria and changes to the certificate template prescribed in the CGSB standard. Similarly, it is expected that all businesses in the air industry will have voluntarily adopted the CGSB standard. However, these businesses would still incur costs associated with the new record-keeping requirements.
For the rest of the businesses, most of them are currently meeting the training requirements in the CGSB standard, and would only incur costs due to new requirements on developing more detailed task descriptions, the development of performance criteria, amending the certificates issued by employers and additional elements to be included in the training records of employees. However, a small percentage of businesses would also incur costs because they would need to revise their training programs (including assessment) in order to be in compliance with the proposed amendments.
Validation and maintenance of task descriptions
Under the baseline scenario, it is common practice for industry to develop and define task descriptions for each specific job type; however, this is not explicitly required by the TDGR. Under the regulatory scenario, the requirement for employers to maintain and/or develop task descriptions to align with the training standard would be specified in regulation, and the proposed task description requirements are expected to be more detailed than what is currently being developed by industry. Task descriptions would now be required to describe the function-specific tasks for each employee.
As a result, it is expected that employers would need to revise and validate each job-specific task description accordingly. According to subject matter experts at TC, it is expected that validating/updating existing task descriptions would take each business approximately 0.5 hours per task description. Based on TC subject matter expertise, it is assumed that a medium- or large-sized business would have five unique task descriptions to review and validate/update, and a small business would have three unique task descriptions to review and validate/update. It is expected that an employee occupying a managerial position would be responsible for completing this work, at a wage rate of $53.81/hour.footnote 12 As a result, it is estimated that the new requirement related to developing and maintaining task descriptions would result in a one-time cost of approximately $2.76 million to industry in 2022.
Development of performance criteria
Under the baseline scenario, industry is not required to develop performance criteria. Under the regulatory scenario, employers would be required to develop performance criteria, as referenced in the standard, for the assessment of competencies. Performance criteria would outline the different competencies that an employee would need to be assessed against to be deemed competent for their dangerous goods tasks.
As a result, it is expected that employers would review the additional requirements under the proposed amendments that are related to the development of performance criteria, and then develop the appropriate performance criteria for each task description. According to subject matter experts at TC, it is expected that developing performance criteria would take each business approximately 0.25 hours per performance criterion. Based on TC subject matter expertise, it is assumed that a medium or large-sized business would have five unique performance criteria to develop, and a small business would have three unique performance criteria to validate/update. It is expected that an employee occupying a managerial position would be responsible for completing this work, at a wage rate of $53.81/hour. As a result, it is estimated that the new requirement related to the development of performance criteria would result in a one-time cost of approximately $1.38 million to industry in 2022.
Updating certificate templates
Under the baseline scenario, industry must issue a “certificate of training” to all employees. Under the proposed regulatory scenario, this requirement would be removed and replaced with the requirement that employees trained under the new regime receive a “certificate of competency” (instead of a “certificate of training”) from their employers once they have been assessed and deemed competent for their dangerous goods tasks. Further, the certificates would be modified to indicate that an employee has received general awareness training. As a result, industry would be required to update their certificates in order to meet the new requirements under the proposed amendment.
According to subject matter experts at TC, it is expected that it would take an administrative level employee 0.5 hours per business to update the certificate template, at an hourly wage of $29.46/hour.footnote 13 As a result, it is estimated that the requirement related to updating the certificate template would result in a one-time cost of approximately $0.46 million to industry in 2022.
New record keeping
Under the baseline scenario, industry is required to keep detailed records of the training and assessment of persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods. Under the regulatory scenario, two additional elements would need to be included in records: the task descriptions and performance criteria for the person.
As a result, employers would be required to keep records of task descriptions and performance criteria each time an employee completes training. The frequency of training is every two years for employees in the air sector, and every three years for employees in the rail, road and marine sectors. Given that not all employees would have their certificates expire the first day the proposed amendment would come into force, it is assumed that one-third of employees would be required to renew their training and assessment ever year starting in 2023.footnote 14 However, given that training for employees in the air sector would only be valid for two years, two-thirds of these employees would need to be trained in 2025 and every other year.footnote 15
According to subject matter experts at TC, it is expected that this would take an administrative level employee two minutes per employee, at an hourly wage of $29.46/hour, to input the additional information as part of the new record-keeping requirements. As a result, it is estimated that the requirement related to new record-keeping requirements would result in an incremental cost of approximately $1.32 million to industry between 2023 and 2031 (no cost would occur in 2022).
Revising training programs
Under the baseline scenario, industry would continue to interpret what type of training is required and deemed adequate under Part 6 of the TDGR. Under the regulatory scenario, the proposed amendment would clarify the requirements for training under Part 6 of TDGR by incorporating by reference the training standard, which sets out the requirements for training, assessment and competency of persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods by road, rail, marine and air in Canada, and focuses on a competency-based approach to training and assessment. This would result in a revision of training programs for a small percentage of businesses. Based on consultations with affected stakeholders, it is estimated that 2% of the marine sector (13 businesses, all are expected to be medium-sized or large), 1% of the rail sector (20 businesses, all are expected to be medium-sized or large), 5% of the road sector (1 407 businesses, all are expected to be small) and 2% of the multimodal sector (145 businesses, all are expected to be small) would be required to revise their training programs to be in compliance with the proposed amendment.
Based on consultations with affected stakeholders, revising current training programs would take a management level employee, at an hourly wage of $53.81, three hours to revise the current training programs and one hour to revise the assessment in order to be in compliance with the training requirements. As a result, it is estimated that revising training programs would result in an incremental one-time cost of approximately $0.32 million to industry in 2022.
Further, revising training programs would result in additional time for employees of these businesses to complete training. According to subject matter experts at TC, it would take a working level employee, at an hourly rate of $31.00,footnote 16 an additional three hours to complete the revised training program and one hour to complete the revised assessment. This is incremental to the time employees currently spend completing training and assessment. Additionally, it would take a management level employee, at an hourly wage of $53.81, one hour to administer the revised assessment. As a result, it is estimated that the cost for completing the revised training and assessment would result in an incremental cost of approximately $9.53 million to industry between 2023 and 2031.
In total, the cost of revising training program would be $9.85 million between 2022 and 2031.
Cost to Government
Transport Canada would need to update TDG training courses and manuals to include new requirements prescribed in the proposed amendments in 2022. It would require 30 hours (four days) for an employee at the TI-06 level (with the wage rate of $59.81 per hour) to update training materials, and 7.5 hours (one day) for a manager at the PM-06 level (with the wage rate of $76.14 per hour) to approve them.footnote 17 The one-time cost of updating training materials was estimated to be about $2,200. In addition, approximately 130 TDG inspectors (at the TI-06 level) at TC would need to take a three-hour training session in 2022 on the proposed amendments. This one-time cost of training was estimated to be about $21,800.
As a result, TC would incur a total cost of $24,000 in 2022.
Cost-benefit statement
- Number of years: 10 (2022 to 2031)
- Base year for costing: 2020
- Present value base year: 2021
- Discount rate: 7%
| Impacted stakeholder | Description of cost | Base year: 2022 | Annual average: (2023–2030) | Final year: 2031 | Total (present value) | Annualized value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industries that handle and/or transport dangerous goods | Updating and maintaining task descriptions | $2.76M | $0.00M | $0.00M | $2.76M | $0.39M |
| Developing performance criteria | $1.38M | $0.00M | $0.00M | $1.38M | $0.20M | |
| Revising certificate template | $0.46M | $0.00M | $0.00M | $0.46M | $0.07M | |
| Additional record-keeping requirements | $0.00M | $0.15M | $0.11M | $1.32M | $0.19M | |
| Revising training | $0.32M | $1.09M | $0.80M | $9.85M | $1.40M | |
| Transport Canada | Updating TDG training materials and training TDG inspectors | $0.02M | $0.00M | $0.00M | $0.02M | $0.003M |
| All stakeholders | Total costs | $4.94M | $1.24M | $0.91M | $15.79M | $2.25M |
| Impacted stakeholder | Description of benefits | Base year: 2022 | Annual average: (2023–2030) | Final year: 2031 | Total (present value) | Annualized value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industries that handle and/or transport dangerous goods | Avoided incidents that result in death or injury | $0.00M | $2.10M | $0.61M | $17.43M | $2.48M |
| All stakeholders | Total benefits | $0.00M | $2.10M | $0.61M | $17.43M | $2.48M |
| Impacts | Base year: 2022 | Annual average (2023–2030) | Final year: 2031 | Total (present value) | Annualized value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | $4.94M | $1.24M | $0.91M | $15.79M | $2.25M |
| Total benefits | $0.00M | $2.10M | $0.61M | $17.43M | $2.48M |
| Net impact | −$4.94M | $0.86M | −$0.30M | $1.63M | $0.23M |
Sensitivity analysis
As previously described, a number of assumptions have been made to estimate the costs of the proposed amendment. To address the effect of uncertainty and variability on these assumptions, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, where variables are assigned different values, and outcomes are re-evaluated. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the following variables: analytical timeframe, discount rates, number of employees and number of businesses.
Analytical timeframe
A 10-year analytical timeframe was used for the central analysis, whereas the sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 20-year timeframe have been used.
Discount rate
The central analysis used a 7% discount rate, as recommended by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. The sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 3% discount rate have been used, as well as if there was no discounting.
Number of employees
The central analysis used approximately 659 000 as the number of affected employees. The sensitivity analysis presents the results if this number was increased and decreased by 15%.
Number of businesses
The central analysis used approximately 39 000 as the number of affected businesses. The sensitivity analysis presents the results if this number was increased and decreased by 15%.
| Parameter | Total cost | Total benefit |
|---|---|---|
| 10 years | $15.79M | $17.43M |
| 20 years | $22.15M | $21.70M |
| Parameter | Total cost | Total benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Undiscounted | $21.32M | $25.57M |
| 3% | $18.60M | $21.55M |
| 7% | $15.79M | $17.43M |
| Parameter | Total cost | Total benefit |
|---|---|---|
| – 15% | $13.47M | N/A table b6 note a |
| 659 061 (number of employees)/ 39 173 (number of businesses) | $15.97M | N/A |
| + 15% | $18.11M | N/A |
Table b6 note(s)
|
||
Distributional analysis
The proposed amendments would impact all four transportation sectors (air, rail, marine and road); however, businesses in the road sector would be impacted more greatly than the other transportation sectors, as the majority of businesses (about 70%) that handle and/or transport dangerous goods are in the road sector. It is estimated that approximately 82% of the costs to business would be carried by businesses in the road sector, for a total of $12.99 million. The other three transportation sectors (air, marine and rail) would carry the remaining 18%, for a total of $2.78 million.footnote 7
| Transportation sector | Total costs to business | Share of costs (in percentage) |
|---|---|---|
| Road sector | $12.99M | 82% |
| Other transportation sectors (air, rail and marine) | $2.78M | 18% |
| Total | $15.77M | 100% |
Small business lens
The small business lens applies, as there are impacts on small businesses associated with the proposed amendments.footnote 18 It is estimated that industries that handle and/or transport dangerous goods are made up of approximately 80% small businesses. In order to mitigate this impact, TC guidance documents would be created to minimize the resources required by businesses to understand the requirements under the proposed amendment. The guidance materials, which would be made available on TC’s website, would also allow industry to better understand the new regulatory requirements and facilitate its adoption. The proposed amendment would result in an incremental cost of $13.56 million (or an average of $559 per business) over the 10-year analytical period to small businesses, or an annualized cost of $1.93 million (or an average of $80 per business).footnote 19
In order to alleviate the burden on industry stakeholders, TC would publish extensive guidance and several training documentation models to support the transition to CBTA for persons subject to the TDGR. By providing tangible examples, these guidance documents are intended to help stakeholders better understand the Regulations and therefore maintain and enhance the competencies of their employees to ensure the safe handling and transportation of dangerous goods.
Although the proposed amendments would introduce incremental administrative burdens on small business, the proposed amendments do not introduce net new training requirements; therefore, no flexibilities were developed specifically for small businesses. However, it should be noted that the guidance documents are being developed mainly to serve and assist small businesses, which are less likely to have pre-existing, robust, in-house training programs.
Small business lens summary
- Number of small businesses impacted: 31 096
- Number of years: 10 (2022–2031)
- Base year for costing: 2020
- Present value base year: 2021
- Discount rate: 7%
| Activity | Percentage of affected small businesses | Number of affected small businesses | Present value | Annualized value | Annualized value per business |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Updating and maintaining task descriptions | 95% | 29 541 | $2.17M | $0.31M | $10.45 |
| Developing performance criteria | 95% | 29 541 | $1.08M | $0.15M | $5.22 |
| Revising certificate template | 95% | 29 541 | $0.40M | $0.06M | $1.91 |
| Revising training program | 5% | 1 552 | $9.64M | $1.37M | $884.50 |
| Total compliance cost | N/A | N/A | $13.29M | $1.89M | N/A |
| Activity | Percentage of affected small businesses | Number of affected small businesses | Present value | Annualized value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Record keeping table b9 note a | 100% | 31 096 | $0.27M | $0.04M |
| Total administrative cost | N/A | N/A | $0.27M | $0.04M |
Table b9 note(s)
|
||||
| Totals | Present value | Annualized value |
|---|---|---|
| Total cost (all impacted small businesses) | $13.56M | $1.93M |
| Cost per impacted small business table b10 note a | $559 | $80 |
Table b10 note(s)
|
||
One-for-one rule
The one-for-one rule applies since there is an incremental increase in administrative burden on business, and the proposal is considered a burden “IN” under the rule. The proposed amendment would impose administrative requirements on employers to keep additional information in their training records. Using the methodology developed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, it is estimated that the annualized additional administrative costs imposed would be $84,573, or an annualized cost of $7.18 per business,footnote 20 to the affected stakeholders (present value in 2012 Canadian dollar, discounted to the year 2012 with a 7% discount rate for a 10-year period between 2022 and 2031).
Regulatory cooperation and alignment
This regulatory proposal is not being introduced to comply with an international agreement or obligation, nor does it have any impacts related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum. The proposed amendments would increase alignment with current training requirements in the United States. Furthermore, proof of training granted in the United States under the conditions of the 49 CFR would be recognized as valid in Canada. For example, an inspector would accept a proof of training obtained in the United States from an American truck driver travelling from the United States to Canada to deliver dangerous goods.
Currently, the ICAO Technical Instructions on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air explicitly state that personnel must be competent to perform any function for which they are responsible and that this must be achieved through training and assessment. ICAO has developed guidance materials for state employees and stakeholders to develop a competency-based approach for training and assessment. One approach is provided in ICAO’s Guidance on a Competency-based Approach to Dangerous Goods Training and Assessment, which was developed to support authoritative bodies and industry in the training and assessment of personnel involved in the transport of dangerous goods by air. ICAO has stated that other approaches are also acceptable if they result in personnel who are competent to perform their designated functions.
TC has adopted the principles of this approach, but has expanded the scope to include all modes of transportation in the CGSB standard. Requiring that employees who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods receive general awareness and function-specific training and assessment, and are deemed competent, would result in greater harmonization with international jurisdictions.
Strategic environmental assessment
In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, and the Transport Canada Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process was followed for this proposal and a Sustainable Transportation Assessment was completed. No important environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this proposal. The assessment considered potential effects to the environmental, goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS).
Gender-based analysis plus
This initiative would apply to all stakeholders who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods in Canada. Therefore, the initiative does not specifically apply to any group based on identity factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. In general, however, there is a greater representation of men in the transportation industry than women.
Given that the proposed amendments to dangerous goods training are outcome based (i.e. they are focused on the competency of the employees), rather than prescriptive, the onus is on the employers to ensure all employees are afforded the same opportunities to be trained and assessed fairly — regardless of identity factors. To facilitate this, employers can rely on a variety of training and assessment methods such as written documents, in-person training, on-the-job demonstrations, simulate activities, among other methods. Since this is an outcome-based approach, the methods to achieve competency may vary to better suit the needs of the employees. When developing training and assessment tools, particular attention should be given to ensure training is accessible to all genders, ages, identities, and education levels to ensure equitable access, comprehension, and ability to succeed.
Overall, it is anticipated that this initiative would result in workers receiving better training, which would result in enhanced workplace safety for all employees.
Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards
Implementation
The Regulations would come into force upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. However, the Regulations will provide a 12-month transition period during which all training or competency certificates issued under the previous requirements would continue to be valid until they expire in two or three years. At the end of the twelve-month transition period, all training would have to comply with the new regulations, whereby employers would issue certificates of competency only. Employers may need to manage both the old and new requirements until the expiry of the certificates under the old requirements. This means it may take up to four years before all employees comply with the new requirements.
Some of the tools that TC would use to facilitate implementation of the current proposal are
- The Transport Canada website: The Department’s web pages are updated on a regular basis with various communication products, as well as specific sections for awareness material (e.g. Frequently Asked Questions, Alerts, Advisory Notices and Bulletins). Notices with respect to this amendment would be placed on the relevant pages of the TC website.
- TDG website: Inspectors would conduct safety awareness activities by, among other things, discussing materials made available to the regulated parties through the TDG website. In relation to the new training requirements, TDG website would be updated to include this amendment and safety awareness materials would be developed for stakeholders as required.
- The TDG General Policy Advisory Council: During these meetings, TC consults and provides information and updates on research and regulatory amendments that are proposed and their coming into force dates. Industry is aware of the proposed amendment to training requirements in Part 6 of the TDG Regulations.
- The TDG Newsletter: The Newsletter, published semi-annually since 1980, is distributed to over 15 000 readers in Canada and abroad. It is free of charge and available in hard copy and electronically on the TDG website. Proposed regulatory amendments and updates are published in the TDG Newsletter regularly. An article highlighting the amendment to the training requirements in Part 6 would be prepared for the TDG Newsletter and published in the issue following the coming into force of the amendment.
- Contracted CBTA work: The work being developed by the contractor would provide stakeholders with examples of the required training and assessment in line with what is required in the standard and the amended Regulations. This material would be freely available online for stakeholders.
Compliance and enforcement
Training on the new requirements would be provided to TC TDG inspectors and provincial and territorial inspectors. This may include a combination of classroom instruction, web-based learning, advisory notes, bulletins, frequently asked questions and enforcement instructions. Costs for such training would be managed within TC existing resources.
TDG inspectors would continue to follow existing policies and procedures while undertaking compliance inspections.
Following the transition period, inspectors would ensure that all persons handling, offering for transport or transporting dangerous goods are competent, based on their function-specific tasks and the company’s operations. To verify compliance of employers, inspectors could
- Review a person’s certificate of competency to ensure that all the information required in the amended Regulations is present;
- Review training records, to ensure that all necessary documents are present in accordance with the standard; and,
- Identify tasks actually performed by the employee and ensure that they are contained in the employee’s task description and that the employee has received training for these tasks.
Should an inspector identify non-compliance, the inspector would determine the appropriate action to mitigate any risk to public safety. TDG inspectors may apply a graduated approach to enforcement including, but is not limited to, education, warnings and existing fines.
A credible compliance program must have a promotion component that not only demonstrates the government’s desire to achieve compliance through cooperation, but also contributes to securing conformity with the law. In addition to compliance monitoring and oversight activities, awareness material would be developed to assist the regulated community in understanding the new requirements of the TDG Regulations.
Contact
Geneviève Sansoucy
Chief
Regulatory Development Division
Regulatory Frameworks and International Engagement Branch
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate
Department of Transport
L’Esplanade Laurier (ASDD)
300 Laurier Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: TC.TDGRegulatoryProposal-TMDPropositionReglementaire.TC@tc.gc.ca
PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT
Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 27footnote a of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992footnote b, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Part 6 — Training).
Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Geneviève Sansoucy, Chief Scientific Regulatory Development, Regulatory Frameworks and International Engagement Branch, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate, Department of Transport, 300 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1J2 (email: TDGRegulatoryProposal-TMDPropositionReglementaire@tc.gc.ca).
Ottawa, December 2, 2021
Mirza Lončar
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
Regulations Amending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Part 6 — Training)
Amendments
1 Section 1.3.1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulationsfootnote 21 is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
- CGSB-192.3
- means the National Standard of Canada CAN/CGSB-192.3, Transportation of dangerous goods training, assessment and competency, published by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB), as amended from time to time. (CGSB-192.3)
2 Section 6.1 of the Regulations and the headings before it are replaced by the following:
PART 6
Training, Assessment and Competency
Application and Interpretation
6.0 (1) This Part sets out
- (a) the responsibilities of the employer, employee, self-employed person and foreign carrier;
- (b) the contents and the requirements for the issuance and expiry of certificates of competency; and
- (c) the requirements for record-keeping and proof of competency.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, “employer” in CGSB-192.3 is to be read, with any necessary modifications, as “employer and self-employed person”.
Prohibitions
6.1 (1) A person must not handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods unless the person
- (a) is competent to handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods in accordance with CGSB-192.3; and
- (b) holds a certificate of competency.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who handles, offers for transport or transports dangerous goods in the presence, and under the direct supervision of, a person who is competent and who holds a certificate of competency.
(3) An employer must not allow another person to handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods unless that other person meets the conditions set out in subsection (1) or (2).
3 Section 6.3 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:
Issuance and Contents of Certificate of Competency
6.3 (1) An employer that attests that an employee is competent to perform the functions for which they are responsible must issue a certificate of competency to the employee that includes the following information:
- (a) the name and address of the place of business of the employer;
- (b) the name of the employee;
- (c) the date of expiry of the certificate of competency;
- (d) an indication that general awareness training and assessment, tested in accordance with CGSB-192.3, have been successfully completed; and
- (e) an indication, by affixing the relevant codes set out in column 2 of Tables 1 and 2, that the function-specific training and assessment, tested in accordance with CGSB-192.3, have been successfully completed by the employee.
| Column 1 Learning Topic |
Column 2 Code |
|---|---|
| Evaluate substances or articles against classification criteria | C.a.1 |
| Identify packing options | C.b.1 |
| Identify if ERAP is required | C.b.2 |
| To document | C.c.1 |
| Apply means of containment requirements | C.c.2 |
| Use of dangerous goods safety marks | C.c.3 |
| Use of overpacks | C.c.4 |
| Load large means of containment | C.c.5 |
| Load means of containment | C.d.1 |
| Manage dangerous goods during transport | C.d.2 |
| Unload dangerous goods | C.d.3 |
| Respond to release or anticipated release | C.e.1 |
| Respond to loss or theft | C.e.2 |
| Respond to unlawful interference | C.e.3 |
| Column 1 Learning Topic |
Column 2 Code |
|---|---|
| Evaluate substances or articles against classification criteria | D.a.1 |
| Identify packing options | D.b.1 |
| Identify if ERAP is required | D.b.2 |
| Document | D.c.1 |
| Apply means of containment requirements | D.c.2 |
| Use of dangerous goods safety marks | D.c.3 |
| Use of overpacks | D.c.4 |
| Review documentation | D.d.1 |
| Review packages | D.d.2 |
| Complete acceptance procedures | D.d.3 |
| Load planning | D.e.1 |
| Prepare unit load device | D.e.2 |
| Load aircraft | D.e.3 |
| Issue NOTOC | D.e.4 |
| Manage dangerous goods pre- and during flight | D.f.1 |
| Unloading aircraft | D.f.2 |
| Respond to a dangerous goods accident or dangerous goods incident | D.g.1 |
| Respond to undeclared or misdeclared dangerous goods | D.g.2 |
| Respond to dangerous goods occurrence | D.g.3 |
| Respond to loss or theft | D.g.4 |
| Respond to unlawful interference | D.g.5 |
(2) A self-employed person who attests that they are competent to perform the functions for which they are responsible must issue themselves a certificate of competency that includes the information required by subsection (1).
(3) An employer who is an individual and who handles, offers for transport or transports dangerous goods and attests that they are competent to perform those functions must issue themselves a certificate of competency that includes the information required by subsection (1).
(4) The certificate of competency must be signed
- (a) by the employer or another employee acting on behalf of the employer; and
- (b) in the case of a self-employed person or an employer referred to in subsection (3), by that person.
4 Section 6.4 of the Regulations is amended by replacing “training certificate” with “certificate of competency”.
5 The heading before section 6.5 and sections 6.5 to 6.8 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:
Expiry of Certificate of Competency
6.5 A certificate of competency expires
- (a) for transport by aircraft, 24 months after the date of issuance; and
- (b) for transport by road vehicle, railway vehicle or vessel, 36 months after the date of issuance.
Records of Training
6.6 Every employer or self-employed person must retain records of training in accordance with section 5.6 of CGSB-192.3 entitled “Records” for two years after the date of expiry of the certificate of competency.
Proof of Competency: Employer’s and Self-Employed Person’s Responsibility
6.7 Within 15 days after the date of a written request by an inspector, the employer of a person who holds a certificate of competency, a self-employed person or an employer referred to in subsection 6.3(3) must provide to the inspector a copy of the person’s record of training, in either paper or electronic form.
Proof of Competency: Person’s Responsibility
6.8 A person who handles, offers for transport or transports dangerous goods, or who directly supervises another person who is engaged in those activities, must provide their certificate of competency, or a copy of it, in either paper or electronic form, to an inspector immediately on request.
6 The Regulations are amended by replacing “Part 6 (Training)” with “Part 6 (Training, Assessment and Competency)” in the following provisions:
- (a) subsection 1.15(1);
- (b) subsection 1.17(2);
- (c) subsection 1.17.1(3);
- (d) section 1.19.1;
- (e) subsection 1.21(1);
- (f) subsection 1.23(1);
- (g) sections 1.31 and 1.32;
- (h) sections 1.32.3 and 1.33;
- (i) sections 1.35 to 1.38;
- (j) section 1.41;
- (k) subsection 1.42(1);
- (l) subsection 1.42.2(1);
- (m) sections 1.42.3 and 1.43;
- (n) paragraph 1.48(c);
- (o) paragraph 12.1(1)(f);
- (p) paragraph 12.9(1)(f);
- (q) paragraphs 12.12(3)(a) and (b);
- (r) subparagraph 12.13(a)(iii);
- (s) paragraph 12.14(1)(g);
- (t) section 37.
Transitional Provisions
7 (1) In this section, former regulations means the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations as they read immediately before these Regulations come into force.
(2) A person may, for a period of 12 months that begins on the day on which these Regulations come into force, comply with the former regulations.
(3) A training certificate, as described in Part 6 of the former Regulations, that was issued before or during the period referred to in subsection (2) remains valid until its expiry.
Coming into Force
8 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
Terms of use and Privacy notice
Terms of use
It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:
- contain personal information
- contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
- express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
- contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
- contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
- constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
- encourage or incite any criminal activity
- contain a language other than English or French
- otherwise violate this notice
The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.
Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.
Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.
Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.
Please note that public email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.
Privacy notice
The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.
Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.
Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.
You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.
You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.
The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.