Transport Committee on June 8th, 2006

[Helena Borges]

It's inconsistent with the law.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, and I don't see why the government would be hesitant in having the minister able to be part of a plan of prevention.

I'm not comfortable waiting around for some other legislation to come forward to tighten up a very serious problem that we have in my community.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's already there.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's already there, that's the point.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Well, it's not sufficient, I can tell you that much, because we have municipal services and others who have to ask for permission to get on property to do some of that planning and staging. Some things have to be brought by permission. This at least provides the accountability aspect, so the minister can actually do so. We don't have to request any more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

The more I listen to you, Ms. Borges, the less confident I become. You maintain that a bridge or tunnel is the extension of a roadway, but we're not talking about just any bridge or tunnel in this case, but about international bridges.

It's as if you were saying to me today that bridge owners need not be the least bit concerned about the types of goods being transported over their infrastructures. However, I'm concerned and I want to be reassured. The issue here is the implementation of security plans and of a safety management system. In my view, it's become increasingly important for international bridge owners to be aware of the goods being transported over their bridges and to have a plan in place in the event of a catastrophe.

I don't have a problem with standards for carriers, but if ever a problem arises, I want the bridge owner to be aware of the goods being transported and to have a plan in place to ensure the public's safety.

Unfortunately, all you've managed to do today is fuel my concern. I submit that we must support Mr. Masse's motion. Bridge owners need to know what types of goods are being transported over their structures and they need to have safety plans in place. They need to know what to do and how to proceed if a problem arises. If you're telling me now that bridge owners do not have such a plan, then we have a problem at our borders.

[Helena Borges]

That's precisely what I'm saying. Owners are required to have a plan in place to deal with emergencies. As such, they must be able to demonstrate how they plan to comply with and enforce the provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and to control carriers that use the bridges or tunnels. This is already a requirement.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Are you saying that bridge owners are already required to have such a plan in place? Then why are you opposed to including this in the legislation?

[Helena Borges]

We're not opposed to it. All we're saying is that this requirement is already spelled out in another piece of legislation, namely the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

So that there is no question, in any way, of trying to appear to supercede the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and since this whole Bill C-3 is dealing specifically with bridges and tunnels, and we want to secure those under security and safety, the issue of hazardous goods....

We've seen examples of them. I'm thinking not of bridges and tunnels but of rail in British Columbia, where the derailment of some goods had a severe environmental impact on salmon and fish stocks, and where a hazardous goods spill on a bridge in the province—not an international bridge—very seriously affected traffic or the connection and use of the bridge.

So I'm wondering if the reference to hazardous materials should be back to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. In other words, these plans should address the transport of hazardous materials, as provided for in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. This would refer back to the other act, so it doesn't attempt to supercede that act, but it raises the issue.

I don't know if Mr. Masse understands what I'm saying. I agree with my colleague here, Mr. Scott, who referred to the one being planning and the other being a response to an offence, in terms of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. But that act, to the degree I'm understanding it, provides requirements and penalties. If we reference that act, we don't appear to be weakening it, but we're raising the issue of hazardous goods within this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey]

The wording of the current provision refers to the development and implementation of security plans and also of safety plans. We got this only this morning. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the addition of the words adds much in terms of the scope of the provision and the possibility, in the development of those regulations, of requiring that the question of dangerous goods be addressed. In other words, when you talk about safety and security, somehow the question of dangerous goods is part of it. Basically, in putting this in specifically, what you would be doing is putting the spotlight on one, but in practice I'm not convinced you need the spotlight on it to have the scope to cover it.

I must say that by making reference to the TDGA in the statute itself, I can understand that you basically secure the meaning and the scope of it. At the same time it becomes very neutral, in the sense that all it does is refer back to it; it doesn't provide for more. While I understand the concern, I must say it's not clear to me that under the current wording a chapter of the plan for dangerous goods could not be required when the regulations are being developed. This is really something that is at the core of safety and security. I think that through the regulations there could be a clear coordination vis-à-vis what is covered by the TDGA, so that there is no overlap and so that both regulations supplement each other instead of just being redundant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I think the redundancy is what we're talking about here, from the point of view of the benefit of highlighting it. You don't feel it necessarily needs to be flagged or highlighted, and I think you're hearing—from some of the members, anyway—that we feel hazardous materials are of such importance that they do need to be highlighted or flagged.

If we ultimately want to flag other things as well, so that when we're talking about security plans we are giving recognition to issues that by virtue of experience in different parts of Canada are important, and if we're coming up with an act now in Bill C-3 and want to be able to make those references, and if it can be done in a way that addresses the procedural concerns you're talking about—one act not superseding another, but nevertheless showing that within that act this is an issue that is intended to be addressed by the legislators—then I think it should be there.

So if there isn't a better suggestion, I would support what is being proposed. If it can be modified in such a way that it refers to provisions provided for in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and such that it takes the regulatory part away from this act but is enough to highlight it or reference it, I'd be satisfied with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Masse is concerned about hazardous materials. I'm not a lawyer. From what I understand, this requirement is spelled out in another act. So then, in my opinion, it's a matter of addressing this concern without being redundant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Would it be fair to ask our witnesses to bring forward part of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, so that we could see that referral, or do we want to just deal with this?

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

Mr. Chair, the first thing is I have no question at all that what we're doing is limiting the minister's power under this, if you look at it: “and implement security plans concerning the transport of hazardous materials”. That's not what this act is about. It's about the security of our nation and the security of our main corridors.

But I would say this, Mr. Masse. I have been involved in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, at least provincially, and there are much more serious consequences under that.

What I would suggest, if you want a motion at this stage, is that when we're dealing with safety as the main concern of this transportation committee, let's bring forward the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act at the time we're doing it. If you want this to be specifically in there for the safety of tunnels and transportation, I think it's more appropriate that when somebody thinks of dangerous goods and transporting them wherever they may be transporting them, they look at it under that act and then make application there.

I really believe what we would be doing is limiting the minister's power here, and I don't see it as at all necessary. I think we all want the same thing, don't we? At least that's my perception: we want to keep the people safe and the main corridor safe. Let's do it under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, and let's have a motion to bring it forward when we discuss that, and let's deal with it. If you want to make changes in relation to that act, I don't think you're going to find anybody in disagreement, but I don't think this is the place. This is an act that deals with the security of our nation as a result of what took place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You may speak very briefly, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm not letting the minister off the hook for not having accountability for dangerous materials and because he is now, with this bill, going to make historic changes to have unprecedented powers with respect to the bridges and tunnels that will move hazardous materials.

Quite frankly, there is no other comparable type of issue. Hazardous materials, even by the Department of Homeland Security, are classified as weapons of mass destruction. In fact, you've seen in Miami-Dade County, in Florida, that they've moved the rail spur, and they've also done it in other areas, like Washington. Cleveland has a law. They are prohibited, and they've moved hazardous materials to other lines, away from populations.

Yes, it might be in the regulations, but I'm not going to, as a legislator, sit here and pretend I'm comfortable waiting for things that might pop up through regulations that, later on, I'll have no real opportunity to control. That's why I think it's important in here. When you look at the whole context of this act, it gives the minister lots of powers, it adds a degree of accountability and responsibility, and it puts the onus on him to actually make sure that those other acts work for him.

I don't want to wait for a motion in this committee to address what I think is a very serious problem. If it's redundant, so be it. What's the problem, then? If it's going to be in the regulations, why can't we explicitly have it here? I think it provides more flexibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast, please.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, my issue here is that we're flagging one issue to the exclusion of a number of other just as--if not more--important issues, such as, as I mentioned earlier, terrorism. We have the legal and illegal carriage of goods and the legal and illegal carriage of individuals into Canada. There are many other issues we have to address if we're going to go down the path of flagging hazardous materials. This is poor legal drafting practice we're engaging in.

I concur with staff. Leave it as it is. We can address this issue within the regulations. We already have other legislation that addresses hazardous materials.

We have placed staff in a very difficult position. At the very last minute, they received a motion, and they're now expected to provide advice on a totally different piece of legislation--hazardous materials. Quite frankly, they should have had notice that this would be coming forward, because that particular legislation is so significant in its scope. And for us to start making these kinds of flagging decisions in a vacuum is unhealthy. I don't think it's going to serve the purpose for which this particular act was brought forward.

So I would encourage Mr. Masse to be patient. Let's deal with it in another way. We can always ask staff to bring back a response to his concerns at a future meeting. They can come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.