Transport Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'm curious as to whether the protection that Mr. Masse was seeking--I don't want to put words in the mouth of the officials from the department, but there was some recognition of the need to look at the transport of dangerous materials--was legislation or regulation. I understand it was legislation. So the protection that Mr. Masse was seeking would probably require something by way of legislation.

Even if the minister were here and said “I would like to bring forward legislation”, I could tell the minister he would have to be in a lineup with a whole bunch of other people who have legislation. Consequently, I think we would wish to hear in clear debate, or some place, something from the government talking about the need to do this.

I mean no disrespect to my colleague from Windsor, but there is not much advance here by way of dealing with hazardous materials if what it really relates to is a review by this committee. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the committee review, but the reality is there is a requirement for a commitment from the government, particularly as it requires legislation, a legislative amendment, that's a long way out there on the legislative agenda. Even if the minister himself were trying to push it, I can tell you that it takes time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Perhaps I may say this, Mr. Chair. The reality is that clause 16 already allows encompassing hazardous goods. It already allows it. It doesn't restrict it at all. It is wide in its berth, and we all understand here, and even the department in my discussions with them understands, that this is a critical issue and that we need to deal with it. It's under review in the department. How can we be more forthcoming and truthful than to say everybody understands this is an issue?

Clause 16 already includes that. It doesn't restrict it. We've worked cooperatively together to reach it. I think everybody on the committee understands my position and my colleagues' position on all the issues, and I think they would suggest that we all have the same interests at heart. So why would we say something today and not follow through? It's a commitment we want to follow through with because we believe in the safety and security of Canadians.

By way of example, if I can be so blunt, the only highway in my particular riding of Fort McMurray goes right through my community, and not 50 feet from the Tim Hortons we have, I think every 25 seconds, a hazardous load goes through that highway. So I have asked the department myself about some issues respecting that, from a provincial government.... I am very interested in that issue because I have 70,000 people living within that dangerous goods route. I think many more dangerous goods go through there than go through other areas, so I am very interested in looking at the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Final word, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

A clarification. I was under the impression that regulations would be looking at this issue as well. Then I thought I heard something different from Mr. Scott. Will the regulations explicitly look at hazardous materials?

[Evelyn Marcoux]

You mean through this act?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey]

If you read paragraph 16(b), you will see that the regulations must specify what must be included in the security plans.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I just want to make sure, and I hope they get the message, that it includes safety and security. This is why I explicitly wanted it in there before, because I've been told, “Oh, don't worry, regulations will take care of it”. I hold this government accountable if regulation does not deal with this issue.

[Éric Harvey]

But also remember that the opening paragraph of clause 16 gives very broad power to regulate safety and security in general. Paragraphs 16(a), (b), (c), and (d) articulate it but don't limit the generality of the opening paragraph.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Are you saying yes?

[Éric Harvey]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse, will you withdraw your amendment?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 16 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I suspect that as soon as we pass this, we'll adjourn and it will be over. I'd like to comment on a couple of things before that happens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We do have a few more things. Do you want to do it now?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I may as well, since I've opened it up.

There have been a number of references to the fact of late notice that we have amendments. I think it is critically important to make this point. Mr. Fast in particular thought it was somewhat disrespectful or unfair to officials. I will give Mr. Fast a list of a lot of his colleagues' over the last number of years...as a chair of the justice committee, with very complicated legislation.

It is the nature of the place, it is part of the rules, and it happens.

I would say this of your colleagues for the last number of years: on very complicated legislation they would make amendments from the floor, and I wouldn't want that to be characterized as disrespectful of the professional staff.

The second point I would make--

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Can I respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think we all understand that we have the right as parliamentarians--

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We're not challenging that at all, Mr. Scott.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Excuse me, we have to understand that every bill is subject to amendment. There can be new ones come on the floor and we have to deal with them.