Evidence of meeting #3 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor to Director, Operations, Department of Transport
The rules are similar all across the country. We are responsible for federal jurisdiction, that is aviation, railways and shipping. The provinces are responsible for roads.
We can work together and we do. Federal inspectors go and support our provincial colleagues. During blitz days, for example, we patrol the roads with them to make sure that the act and the regulations are observed.
We have been working together for a long time. The process seems to work well. For dangerous goods, each province is very satisfied with its relationship with us. It works very well. We will continue to support our provincial colleagues if they ask us to, and we think that is a good thing to do.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
I agree with you. But we have to remember what happened at the airports and ports where RCMP officers used to work. You replaced them all with members of a private team, whether it was Garda or some other security firm.
Really, we have lost the whole idea of enforcement that the RCMP represented when they were there. We have not heard anything about what is going on in ports and airports for a while.
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor to Director, Operations, Department of Transport
You have to understand how it works with dangerous goods. The bill provides the ability to designate inspectors. That means we not only have access to federal experts, but also to provincial ones. At federal level, for example, we have designated some inspectors from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to help and support us on nuclear matters. There are explosives inspectors at Natural Resources Canada and we have the ability to designate them. That increases the federal capability to respond to the bill's requirements, and so it goes on. We can do the same with Environment Canada. At federal level, we can designate provincial inspectors so that they are able to do more in their provinces.
We are very flexible, just like the program and the act. We always have to ensure a level of security and safety, because that is so important. If a mistake is made or an emergency occurs, the safety consequences are wide-ranging and it is very difficult for the public.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
We respect provincial jurisdiction. I have said that already, it is important for us. We also respect the fact that we share these files and we have to work together. I hope that we will work well with the provinces and that it will all go well. If Quebec has needs or concerns, we are always ready to listen.
February 24th, 2009 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your remarks.
I did not live in Mississauga at the time of the 1979 incident, but for many who lived in the GTA, incomes were definitely impacted by the security risk that posed and the lack of entrance into the Mississauga area. So for those of us who had clients down there, it was impossible to do business in the area for quite some time.
I'd like to just follow up on something that Mr. Watson was talking about. He represents the area of Windsor and the largest flow of traffic between Canada and the United States. I was reading some preambles on information to the bill and I was really impressed with the number of jobs that are involved with this whole aspect of security.
My question is not specifically to the bill, but more to the outcomes of it. Will there be any impact of this on infrastructure requirements for Canada, particularly at our borders, our airports, and our ports, and if so, can you tell us what those impacts might look like?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I don't see specific infrastructure demands directly as a result of this bill. Obviously as security needs change--whether it's modal, air, rail, intermodal, water travel--it could change the future, but not as a direct result of this bill.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Will there be an increase in the number of jobs? There's going to be training, obviously, for our people who are looking at providing the security. They are going to have to be updated. There will be service jobs, I would expect.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I don't imagine anything quantifiable, because I think what we're wanting is to have the capacity to indemnify a particular company with the relevant experience in this, in case of a specific security incident, so that we have the powers to act--like closing down the Sea to Sky Highway during the Olympics. The same could be the case in the greater Muskoka region of central Ontario during a G-8.
I don't see anything particular. There are no new resources that we think will be required for this. Obviously, for a particular security event, this is just a small sliver of the piece.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you very much.
I think it's very important that we discuss the implications of this bill on the 2010 Olympics, so I would like you to take whatever time we have left and provide a little more detail on the implications of the bill if it goes ahead, and the implications if it doesn't go ahead. What effect would that have on the Olympics?
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor to Director, Operations, Department of Transport
There would be some significant impact on the Olympics should the bill not go forward. Obviously, dangerous goods remain a concern in relationship to use by individuals who may wish to cause Canadians harm. The bill is there to look at closing that gap, not just for the Olympics but for today, tomorrow, the Olympics, and after the Olympics. What it provides you with is a prevention and response program, so that should there be an incident, there will be capacity here in Canada to respond, to mitigate the threat, and to basically clean things up.
Firstly, there's the notion of a prevention program to enable us to do things so we don't end up at that particular situation. So it's a critical component, not only as the example that was explained, but to look at all aspects.
Another example of its potential use is if there was a piece of intelligence that came in that perhaps rail was targeted. We would be able to use a security measure to tell a railway company to do certain things using certain equipment, looking for certain, I don't know, explosives or whatever, so that the public safety could be respected and the vital goods and services that are required in this country could continue to move.
Without the bill, there would be complications from that and it would slow down that transportation. Vancouver remains an important gateway, and this bill would help allow it to continue to be a major gateway during the Olympics.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
It is the hour and I know the minister has other commitments. We want to thank you for attending today.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Some representatives of public transit in Montreal are coming to see me. It is very important.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you very much.
We'll just take a one-minute recess while the minister makes his exit, and then we'll come back to questions from the witnesses.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Welcome back.
We have a point of order being raised by Mr. Volpe.
Mr. Volpe.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I hope the committee will receive this positively.
First of all, I want to compliment the officials for coming here and giving us a briefing. I know they're going to be here for a little while longer and they've been very precise in some of the responses they have been giving, but it has been, so far, a departmental briefing.
The point of order I want to make is that we have an opportunity to have the minister come forward and address questions by the critics on this side and by interested government members on the other. This is the second time that we've had him here in the course of the last week and a half, and it's wonderful to get a minister at the table. When we do get him here, I wonder whether we can encourage the chair to have him address the questions, which are essentially political in nature, in the sense that we want to get to the heart of the motivation behind the legislation. The officials have done a marvellous job in giving us the detail of the legislation. So I'm wondering whether it is your intention, Mr. Chairman, to invite the minister back to address those issues that are going to be of concern to parliamentarians on the floor of the House.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It is on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.
I was going to recommend that if it is the desire of the opposition to want to get to the heart of the matter, then maybe they shouldn't ask for the DNA strand, because that's what's happening: they're asking for more particulars.
If you're looking for the heart of the general part of the policy and the reasons why, then ask those questions. Those aren't the questions that have been asked by either side. I did think that the minister, quite frankly, answered many of the questions and tried to answer as much as he possibly could.