Transport Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Ms. Marcoux.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

It's very difficult to oppose noble objectives. However, we have just now received the text of the amendment. When the bill was drafted,

precious care was taken by the legal team to make sure there was no contradiction or overlap with other legislation. Provincial laws regulate the transportation of hazardous material, and there's the federal act on that issue as well. To tell you whether we can recommend it or not is rather difficult for us. Since there is another piece of legislation that deals with that very issue, we would recommend to leave it and the other piece of legislation and amend it as required if the committee wishes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, why are we singling out hazardous materials? This is a clause of general application, and Mr. Masse makes a very good point that hazardous material should be considered in our security planning. However, many other aspects of security are not specifically mentioned: terrorism, smuggling, drug trafficking, and traffic safety. Many aspects of security could be enumerated specifically, and yet we're focusing on one item.

My guess is some of those issues are addressed in other pieces of legislation as well. In keeping it general, I think it gives the minister the power to make the required regulations, and I don't think it in any way detracts from Mr. Masse's concerns that the issue of hazardous materials be addressed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Under whose authority is the federal legislation? The Department of Transport?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

It is the Minister of Transport

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The other piece of legislation we're speaking of also falls within the department. Are you telling us you've assessed the legislation that falls within your department, and that assessment would make this amendment redundant?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

No. What we're saying is the issue of transportation of hazardous material was raised before. We have worked with the sector in the Department of Transport that deals with it to make sure this issue is well covered in the legislation, and we are sure it is. The combination of that plus the provincial legislation has satisfied us that it is covered.

I'm not that knowledgeable about that act, and I don't want to misrepresent the department or the people who are working on that issue. That's what the level of discomfort is in terms of trying to agree with this. I wouldn't want that to contravene any other arguments in that legislation.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

If I may, it would be very difficult to ask us to make that determination today when you can't offer that you could feel that comfortable.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

I understand, but we were given this piece of paper just now. We'll have to go back.

[Helena Borges, Director General, Special Projects, Policy Group, Department of Transport]

Could I offer a few comments on this subject?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Sure.

[Helena Borges]

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act applies to all highways, bridges, tunnels, and all modes--it's not just a road mode. The act has the same application as the Criminal Code, as a criminal act. If a company does not respect the act, it is chargeable under the Criminal Code. There are rules under federal law, under provincial law, and they complement each other, as to what Mr. Harvey said, how a good must be carried with the containerization, the labelling, and all those things.

If we now start to modify the provisions of those acts through another act such as this one, we risk losing the enforcement powers under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, and that's very serious. It does apply to all modes, so it does get to Mr. Masse's point about marine and rail. It should stay in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott, do you have a follow-up?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The enforcement of the provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is a reactive piece, in that if you were in violation—do I understand? I think that's what you.... This is calling for a plan that would be a different way to approach the problem than having a law that would have sanctions if you break the law. It's a very different idea to have a plan, say, for transport. That seems to me to be a different concept.

[Helena Borges]

In fact, let me clarify, because I recently had a very detailed meeting with my colleagues who are responsible for this act. In fact, there are various distinctions of dangerous goods. Any infrastructure operator, any company that carries goods, has to have an emergency response action plan under the act. Under that action plan, they have to deal with how the dangerous goods will be treated, where they are allowed to travel, and the labelling in terms of the toxicity of the good.

They also have to see if they're carried by water. If there is a spill over a body of water, they have to plan for how they will deal with the marine pollutants. That would be the case on a bridge—if something happens on the bridge and it goes into the water.

They have to consider all these facts in this emergency response assessment plan. That plan is approved by our inspectors at Transport Canada. We do have dangerous goods inspectors. Anytime there is a spill or a derailment, our people get out there, along with other emergency responders, to deal with the emergency response.

So those procedures are already in place. If you would like more information, we could get our dangerous goods people to provide it to you. But that planning process is already on the go, and it's already approved by the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The distinction is for a plan. I won't just pick on the Ambassador Bridge; I don't want that to be the sole thing. Regarding the CP Rail tunnel that transports hazardous materials, when was the last time there was a full plan for a Department of Transport inspection...and tabled a plan with your department for the transportation of goods?

[Helena Borges]

I can't address the timing of it, but I can assure you that those plans are in place—the same way that their safety management systems plans are in place at all times.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What I am informed—and this is the reason I'm having it.... I wouldn't look for the minister to find something that would intervene or.... Maybe I'm mistaken in terms of procedural legislation here, but I wouldn't be expecting that the minister would be putting in something that would violate another act.

But in the CP Rail tunnel, for example, where we have chlorine gas transported through the city of Windsor, the fire department doesn't have access to the site to provide training or inspect the hazardous materials. They have to make a request to CP Rail in order to enter the property to do that. Wouldn't it make sense for the minister of these infrastructures to have the capacity or require some type of preventative measure?

The question back to the department would be, if the minister did so within the context of the other legislation, how would that violate or break any law?

[Helena Borges]

I think you just answered your own question, Mr. Masse. Perhaps the best act to be addressing those points isn't the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act—not in this one, because this one pertains just to a bridge, which is an extension of the highway; that's all it is. A rail tunnel is an extension of the rail line. So whatever you do at the tunnel or the bridge, you would have to do the same on the rest of the infrastructure that goes with it. When they do a plan, they're doing a plan for the whole entity.

You're right about the railways, but they do have their own police forces to implement their security and safety plans. Our inspectors go there and make inspections, as you know, from recent incidents on the rail safety plan.

So we're not disagreeing with your point that maybe the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act needs to be looked at and made more rigorous. But it should be that act; it shouldn't be this act.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I don't believe it should be excluded from this act. I guess the question would be to the legal people: can the minister not make...? I would like a ruling in terms of that. It seems to me there's a presentation here that this would violate other legislation. I don't see how that's possible since....

[Helena Borges]

If it doesn't violate, what it could do is give somebody.... You're now picking two acts. There's a clause right at the beginning of this act that says this act shall not override any other federal acts, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They still apply.

So all other pieces of legislation that are in existence still apply. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act would apply here. The Railway Safety Act would apply here.

As Mr. Fast said, if we start modifying this one to include just dangerous goods, what about all the other acts that are there for safety and security? How do they then get reflected in this provision?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I can answer that really quickly, Mr. Chair.

I think the examples Mr. Fast gave—terrorism, drug activity, and smuggling—are illegal activities. This is a legal activity of transporting dangerous goods—