Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992

This enactment amends the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, in order to enhance public safety — the safety of human life and health and of property and the environment.
The main amendments fall into two categories: new security requirements and safety amendments. These amendments include the following:
(a) requirements for security plans and security training;
(b) a requirement that prescribed persons must hold transportation security clearances to transport dangerous goods, and the establishment of regulatory authority in relation to appeals and reviews of any decision in respect of those clearances;
(c) the creation of a choice of instruments — regulations, security measures and interim orders — to govern security in relation to dangerous goods;
(d) the use of industry emergency response assistance plans approved by Transport Canada to respond to an actual or apprehended release of dangerous goods during their transportation;
(e) the establishment of regulatory authority to require that dangerous goods be tracked during transport or reported if lost or stolen;
(f) clarification of the Act to ensure that it is applicable uniformly throughout Canada, including to local works and undertakings;
(g) reinforcement and strengthening of the Emergency Response Assistance Plan Program; and
(h) authority for inspectors to inspect any place in which standardized means of containment are being manufactured, repaired or tested.

Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is with absolute pleasure that I rise today to address the House at third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

An amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act will give us the proper mechanism to prevent and appropriately respond to security incidents during the import, handling, offering for transport and transport of dangerous goods, just as is currently done for safety incidents.

The bill before us today is the result of extensive consultations with the public, industry, unions, first responders, and provincial and territorial governments. I am very happy to say that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities also conducted a thorough study of Bill C-9. We heard from a variety of stakeholders, including representatives from industry and unions, such as the Teamsters and the Canadian Trucking Association. I can say with certainty that all of the witnesses who appeared before the House committee strongly supported this bill and indicated that it was very necessary at this particular time.

Some witnesses talked about potential technological research and innovation that may actually provide long-term security solutions to help, for example, track the movements of dangerous goods. Others spoke strongly on the need for Bill C-9 and their belief that it is essential to have an effective security program in Canada. We in this government also believe it is very important to have the security of Canadians as our first priority.

The industry stakeholders supported the bill's security prevention and response program, including a security clearance program, especially one in which one single background check is accepted by our trading partners, such as the United States and others, for all transport workers. This bill, along with the work currently done in Transport Canada with our North American partners, that is, Mexico and the United States, will enable us to do just that.

Other witnesses spoke about the important role a safe, secure and efficient transportation of dangerous goods program plays in the Canadian economy and the good-paying industry jobs it provides. Many people in Canada work in this industry. In fact, in 2007 total dangerous goods sales in Canada were estimated to be about $50 billion. That is right, $50 billion, a great sum. Canadian chemical sales accounted for $36 billion of the aforementioned total. Of the Canadian chemicals sales in 2007, 75% of the sales were to international markets. Exports to the United States rose by 17% while offshore exports rose about 29%. This is a growth industry which is very important to the Canadian economy.

Today there are over 26 million commercially available chemicals being sold around the world and over 46 million organic and inorganic substances registered with the Chemical Abstracts Service of the American Chemical Society. Growth in the registration of new chemicals continues exponentially. Add to that, in Canada there are over 30 million dangerous goods shipments made every year. These shipments are absolutely critical and vital to communities nationwide.

Some of the chemicals enable, for instance, municipalities to provide safe drinking water to their citizens, doctors to provide their patients with access to vital and important nuclear medicines, manufacturers to produce plastics that are used in our clothes, homes, cars, boats and cottages, and everyday Canadians, on those beautiful summer days, to cook their favourite meals on their backyard propane or gas barbecues. That is one of my personal favourites.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is criminal law and has serious consequences as a result. It applies to all matters relating to the importation, handling, offering for transport, and the actual transportation of dangerous goods. Provincial legislation addresses mostly local transportation on highways. The federal regulations, which are multi-modal, are adopted in one manner or another by each province and territory. It is a cooperative effort, and this government works in cooperation with our other partners in the provinces and territories. The current act and regulations are enforced by federal and provincial inspectors.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act provides the federal government with the authority to develop policy, to verify compliance, to conduct research to enhance safety, to guide emergency response, and to develop regulations and standards to manage risk and promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, and we are working at the start instead of just the end. Before a shipment can be made, the person who offers for transport or imports the dangerous goods must, and I repeat must, submit an emergency response assistance plan to the transportation of dangerous goods directorate. These plans are reviewed by experts and if they are satisfied that the plans would be able to appropriately respond to an emergency, they are approved.

There are currently about 1,000 approved emergency response assistance plans that industry uses to respond to accidental release of dangerous goods. These important emergency response assistance plans assist local emergency responders by providing them access to 24-hour technical experts and specialized equipment in the event of an incident involving dangerous goods.

The plans are required to explain how specialists and other personnel with knowledge, equipment and skills will be available to respond following an incident involving their dangerous goods.

Prior to the changes put forward in Bill C-9, these plans would not be available to governments or first responders should there be a security incident involving dangerous goods. That is right; prior to these changes these plans would not be available.

These new changes will enhance public safety, and most Canadians would agree, by enabling a response to a terrorist incident involving dangerous goods just like that of an incident following an accident. In addition, the bill will enable the government to authorize a person with an approved emergency response assistance plan to implement the plan in order to respond to an orphaned release of dangerous goods when the identity of the responsible person is not known. This is important.

In committee we heard from industry that it supports the use of its emergency response assistance plan to respond following a government request to security incidents involving dangerous goods.

Industry testified that it sought recovery of its costs associated with response and that the government provide indemnity protection during the requested response time. This is important for the industry because those costs can be prohibitive in some cases. This is what Bill C-9 does and this is why industry supports it so strongly.

There was a lot of discussion in committee about the important and new security prevention program proposed in Bill C-9. The prevention program includes: requiring security plans and security training; providing the authority for transportation and security clearances for the dangerous goods, as well as an appeals process; providing for interim orders and security measures; authorizing regulations to be made to require that dangerous goods are tracked during transport; and authorizing regulations to be made to require that dangerous goods be reported if they are lost or stolen during their importation, their handling, their offering for transport, or their transport. These are five very important provisions to keep Canadians safe.

Bill C-9 would provide the authority to establish performance regulations for security plans and training based on international and United Nations recommendations and aligned with existing U.S. regulations. It would also enable regulations to be made to establish security requirements for tracking dangerous goods as well as regulations to be made to require companies to report lost or stolen dangerous goods.

In August 2005 the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or better known as SAFETEA-LU, came into force in the United States. This act requires commercial motor vehicle drivers licensed in Canada or licensed in Mexico transporting dangerous goods into and within the United States in truckload quantities to undergo a background check, much like the security clearance we proposed. These are similar to those required for United States truck drivers transporting truckload quantities of dangerous goods in the United States. Quite frankly, it makes sense.

Canadian drivers are currently satisfying these provisions if they have been accepted into the free and secure trade, FAST, programs of the Canada Border Services Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. However, the United States still expects Canada to implement a long-term solution. This government has a long-term vision and long-term solutions for the best interests of Canadians. The bill before us today will provide the authority to establish the long-term solution by establishing a transportation security clearance program.

There was much discussion in committee on this component of the prevention program. Industry and union representatives all indicated a preference for a Canadian program, one where an appeal application and appeal are done in Canada as the preferred clearance program. This is what Bill C-9 provides. This is what industry wants and it is what we are delivering for Canada, a Canadian program.

We also heard from witnesses that with the upcoming Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics there is a strong need for Bill C-9. An amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act will provide the right tools to support a safe and secure Olympic games. This is important for Canada on the world stage.

Witnesses spoke to the committee specifically on the importance of passing this legislation as quickly as possible so that Canadians can be protected should Canada be a target before, during, or after the Olympics of a security incident using dangerous goods. With the passage of Bill C-9, government, acting on intelligence provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, would be able to use immediately the emergency regulatory instruments in Bill C-9, the use of interim orders and security measures, to prevent an incident during the transportation of dangerous goods.

They would also be able to provide help to first responders during the response to a terrorist incident involving dangerous goods using industry's Transport Canada approved emergency response assistance program, again a Canadian-made program for Canadian interests. Canada has a strict and vigorous dangerous goods program, one that was built primarily on preventing safety incidents during the transportation of dangerous goods, but also covering responses to actual or anticipated releases of dangerous goods.

With the passage of an amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, public safety will be enhanced through the inclusion of a world-class security prevention and response program to the existing safety program. This is important. These enhancements are important to keep Canadians safe.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 is extremely important for the promotion and enhancement of public safety. In fact, our international and domestic partners have been waiting for these changes for some time.

I commend the committee on bringing this bill forward as quickly as possible. I encourage all members to vote to pass this bill so that our colleagues in the other place can start the process of reviewing this bill without delay and we can get one step closer to this very important bill becoming law. Together we can take one step further to protect Canadians and Canadian interests.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned something in his speech that I would like to clarify. He said that no party gave evidence to the committee to indicate it had a problem with the bill. I want to refer him to the submission by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union of Canada to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which said, “On review of Bill C-9, the ILWU is immediately and seriously concerned about s. 5.2(1) which requires workers who handle and deal with dangerous goods to hold transportation security clearances”. It went on to say that it opposes the imposition of background checks on port workers who handle dangerous goods.

Would the hon. member not agree that there were representations to the committee that spoke against the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend by saying that I think his concern is a legitimate one, but what outweighs that legitimate concern is the need to keep Canadians safe and the need to keep trade with the United States and other partners.

The people who deal with large quantities of chlorine or other substances that can cause serious damage and sickness to Canadians should undergo some form of security check. I would suggest that the legislation is outdated and these amendments have been needed for some period of time. To not take this seriously as the member just did is not constructive and will not help Canadians feel safe or keep them safe. This is what we are doing and that is why this is so important for Canadians.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, there was evidence given from the actions that were taken in the United States with the transportation security clearances. The evidence given at committee by the security companies suggested that some 10% of the workers who were asked to submit to these criminal records checks, which is the main aspect of these clearances, were rejected from working in their chosen field. It is a serious business when 10% of the workers in a particular area are put out of work because of transportation security clearances based on criminal records, which I might remind my hon. colleague are hardly a place to capture terrorists.

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

Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the member that I am not sure where to catch terrorists. I have never dealt with them. However, I do understand that they are in every walk of life. I understand they are in many countries throughout the world, including Canada, the United States and others.

I also understand that just because they have a criminal record does not mean they are not able to work in this field. It is a criminal record dealing with some form of violence or something that may suggest they have terrorist aspirations or activities behind them. As such, I think most Canadians would be shocked to find out that someone with that kind of criminal record or background, dealing with terrorist individuals or violence of any kind against society, would be able to handle any kind of dangerous good.

That can actually happen today. I do not think that Canadians want that. Canadians want to feel safe. They want to feel safe in their ports, on their roads and in their homes. That is what we are doing as a government. I would ask that member and his colleagues to stand up today and support this Conservative government in keeping Canadians safe.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question regarding the upcoming Olympics. I think that Canadians are very concerned with the safety of the Olympics. I am wondering if my colleague could expand on how this bill would contribute and enhance the safety of the Olympics coming up in 2010.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank this particular member for her hard work on that committee. It is hard work to go through these very task-filled bills, decide what is in the best interests of Canadians and make balanced decisions like we did in that committee. In fact, we voted on it and passed it through to this place.

I would also like to say that we heard from experts. In fact, before this particular bill, as parliamentary secretary, I heard from some experts who were fearful of the situation of the Olympics because of their ability to respond to chemical spills, cordon off areas, and deal with particular issues that arise. They have clearly indicated to me and to the committee that this is necessary. In order to keep Canadians safe, they must be able to respond to an incident by secluding that particular area and making sure that they can find those dangerous chemicals and the terrorists who are handling them. It is very important for the Olympics.

I would add that not only is it important for Canadians and international visitors to feel safe here but it is also important for the world to recognize that Canada is one of the safest places in the world and the best place in the world to live. For us, it is all about keeping Canadians safe and making sure our international reputation stays as strong and secure as it is.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, when members work with a bill intimately, they certainly know all the different clauses. As someone who is responsible for a riding with many transnational highways running through it, I am wondering if the hon. member could clarify how this will impact the safety of the constituents in my riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member, another hard-working member of the House, for that question. Not only does it deal with protecting Canadians but it also means that Canadians can continue to enjoy the great quality of life we have.

I did use some of these examples, but I would like to bring them out again. One particular example refers to municipalities continuing to provide safe drinking water to their citizens. That means they can transport up and down the highways. They can bring those chemicals necessary for doctors and patients, and safe drinking water for all Canadians. They can do so safely because they will have these security checks. We will know who is carrying them and they will be authorized to do so.

We need to make sure that we have a plan in place if there is an accident. We need to make sure that those people who would cause harm do not cause harm because they are not able to transport. Finally, we need to make sure we continue to have the great quality of life and those things we need. That is very important for Canada.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether or not the bill would apply to the military and its transportation of chemicals across the country?

We have known over the years that the military has used agent orange and other chemicals in experiments. We found out only much later that these chemicals were being used. I would think that any application of the bill that would apply to farmers, for example, in Manitoba and across the country, should also apply to the military as well.

Could the member enlighten me as to whether it does or not?

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the member for sure whether or not it would deal with all of these aspects, but as he knows, I would be more than happy to get back to him on that particular question because it is such a large gambit.

I will tell him that what does deal with the military is the response mechanism itself, which is so important, and that is the ability for first responders to get on the scene and to have the information necessary to deal with the incident. If indeed there is a dangerous chemical spill or something else happens, they will be able to deal with it so there will be minimum damage. I know that is there because they will be working with their partners in the provinces and territories to make sure that they respond in such a way that the minimal impact is had on Canadians.

We have had some horrendous spills and some difficulties over the past decade or two. The bill will deal with those specifically in the way that we clean up those messes and try to get to a point where an ounce of prevention actually deals with the pound of cure before we have to worry about the cure.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

The Liberal Party is committed to assuring and improving the safety and security of all Canadians. It was the Liberal government that initiated a series of studies in 2002 and consultations in 2004 in order to lead to the proposed legislation we have before us today. We are glad that the Conservative government is finally bringing forward the proposed amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

Canadians are at risk every day from accidental exposure to dangerous goods. In fact, two train derailments involving dangerous goods, one in Winnipeg and one east of Toronto, occurred just this weekend.

Each year roughly 30 million shipments of dangerous goods occur in Canada. This means that approximately once every second a dangerous good is being transported. Our current system is good, and there is no suggestion here that we should be overly alarmed. However, we live in a very different world today than we did when this bill was originally written.

In committee, Liberal members examined the proposed legislation to see if it accomplished the following five objectives. First, does it reinforce the existing emergency response assistance plan systems? Second, will it require security training and screening for all personnel who are handling and transporting these dangerous goods? Third, since this is enabling legislation, how will the regulations that would follow improve the safety and security of workers and the public? Fourth, will the amendments in the legislation give us a clearer handle on the companies, products, and associated security protocols that move dangerous goods around the country? Finally, the fifth objective, will the enforcement of this legislation be consistent throughout the entire country, east-west, north-south? As a result, will it be uniform in its application and its demands for all shippers and transportation companies?

From our perspective, the most important issue is to make sure that we have qualified people handling these shipments of dangerous goods. It is not the transportation of dangerous goods itself that poses a public risk. Rather, it is the people who are involved in the transportation of these goods where our attention must be focused.

We must know that all individuals involved in transporting these goods are qualified, that they are appropriately trained, screened, and capable of dealing with emergencies should there be an accident.

We also must know that companies involved in transporting dangerous goods have foolproof systems in place to track the goods, remembering that approximately once every second a dangerous good transportation is being sent out.

The proposed legislation will require security training and screening of personnel working with dangerous goods. However, the exact regulations and requirements will not be known until the government moves to bring them forward.

In committee, we heard from witnesses who had concerns and views about the regulations that would stem from the proposed bill.

The Teamsters made it very clear that workers who would require security clearances be treated fairly and with sensitivity and that the regulatory framework respected their rights.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance expressed concerns about the costs and overlaps involved in the proposed requirements for transportation security clearances and for security plans and security training.

AC Global Systems, from my home province of British Columbia, is working with the Transportation Security Administration in the United States on future regulations. It suggested that Canada develop a parallel tracking system for hazardous materials shipments, including the mandating of vehicle shutdown technology and driver authentication technology.

Finally, L-1 Identity Solutions suggested that Canada use fingerprinting technology to screen the prospective haulers of dangerous goods.

All the witnesses brought great depth and value to the committee considerations. It is striking that most of the discussion related not to the legislation being considered, but rather to the future regulations that this legislation would enable.

The potential controversy with the proposed legislation lies in the regulations that will be revealed in the future.

We were pleased therefore that the Liberal amendment to the bill, that the transport committee be mandated to review future regulations made under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, was passed in the committee stage of the bill.

We will lead the charge in scrutinizing and studying each and every regulation that stems from the bill to ensure that our national safety and security and our individual rights are defended with equal vigour.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems like my friend from the other side has widely and thoroughly studied the bill. As the member knows, the industry has responded and provincial and territorial governments are in support of the bill.

Could the hon. member tell me whether we can count on his support to make the bill effective?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I came to Canada, I landed with the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. I very pleased he asked me the question about my support.

In fact, the bill was brought in by the Liberal government. The Liberal members on the committee extensively went through the deliberations of the witnesses and the concerns that all Canadians had for their security and safety. I, along with other members on this side of the House, will not sacrifice the security and well-being of Canadians when it comes to the transportation of dangerous goods.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. We will be looking at this bill together. However, we should look at its history and remember how, in this Parliament, it takes time to adopt a bill that has unanimous support across Canada and, above all, which has had the full support of Quebec since 2002.

My Liberal colleague was quite right: the Liberals introduced the bill in 2002, there were consultations in 2004 and, since then, a series of elections have prevented passage of the bill. The Liberal government elected in 2004 lasted about 18 months. Although they introduced the bill, it was not a national emergency. The Liberal government did not do everything it could to move this bill forward.

An election was called and the Conservative government came to power. It was not a national priority for it either. In the Conservatives' first term, from 2006 to 2008, it was not urgent. Thus, the bill did not go through all the stages.

The Conservative government was re-elected and it seemed that it wanted to move the bill forward because, as some colleagues pointed out, it had the support of all provinces and territories. The transportation of dangerous goods is an urgent matter that we must deal with.

I will take this opportunity to read Bill C-9's summary, which states:

The main amendments fall into two categories: new security requirements and safety amendments. These amendments include the following:

(a) requirements for security plans and security training;

(b) a requirement that prescribed persons must hold transportation security clearances to transport dangerous goods, and the establishment of regulatory authority in relation to appeals and reviews of any decision in respect of those clearances;

(c) the creation of a choice of instruments — regulations, security measures and interim orders — to govern security in relation to dangerous goods;

(d) the use of industry emergency response assistance plans approved by Transport Canada to respond to an actual or apprehended release of dangerous goods during their transportation;

(e) the establishment of regulatory authority to require that dangerous goods be tracked during transport or reported if lost or stolen;

(f) clarification of the Act to ensure that it is applicable uniformly throughout Canada, including to local works and undertakings;

(g) reinforcement and strengthening of the Emergency Response Assistance Plan Program; and

(h) authority for inspectors to inspect any place in which standardized means of containment are being manufactured, repaired or tested.

When we read that summary, we realize that this bill should have been passed long ago. I find it amusing that, throughout the committee stage, the Conservatives have insisted that it was urgent that the bill be passed because of the Vancouver Olympics. This bill has been on the shelf since 2002, and consultations were conducted in 2004. At that time, it was urgent that the bill be passed.

Some of the bill's clauses will not apply to the 2010 Olympic Games. That is a cold hard fact. I do not know whether there is a problem within the Conservative Party with the implementation or passage of this bill respecting the transportation of dangerous goods. I do not know if the party is trying to sell to its rank and file the idea of passing a bill because of the 2010 Olympic Games, but this particular bill ought to have been passed long before now. It should have been a priority of this government but was not, when it was elected in 2006.

I indicated that it would not be possible to pass a number of provisions contained in the bill. One reason for this is the serious implications with respect to transportation security clearances.

I will read the new subsection 5.2(1) because it is worth reading:

No prescribed person shall import, offer for transport, handle or transport dangerous goods in a quantity or concentration that is specified by regulation—or that is within a range of quantities or concentrations ... --unless the person has a transportation security clearance granted under subsection (2).

Truckers wishing to transport dangerous goods must have a security clearance. This measure is in force in the United States, with all of its attendant advantages and disadvantages. I am sure that some of my colleagues will talk about the impact of that measure.

The text states very clearly: “No prescribed person shall...”. The problem is that there is not enough time between now and the start of the Olympic Games to implement the transportation security clearance domestically. It can be implemented for international transportation, but the Conservatives and their band of supporters are trying to sell us on this idea and to convince us that we need transportation security clearances for cross-border transportation of goods because, they claim, if some disaster were to occur, it would originate in the United States.

Forget that. The Americans already have their own security clearances, and there is no way a catastrophe originating in the United States could strike the games in Vancouver. If something were to happen, it would originate in Canada. Many other countries have already called our borders porous because of our huge navigable waterways and our extensive borders. Even individuals can move freely between the United States and Canada.

In terms of security, RCMP officers have been replaced at the Conservatives' instigation. They are the ones who removed RCMP officers from airports, ports, and so on. Those officers were replaced by security guards. That is a fact.

In theory, if the government really wanted security clearances to protect the Vancouver games, such clearances should also apply to interprovincial transportation and the transportation of goods within Canada. Transport Canada officials have told us that there is not enough time between now and 2010 to implement the new rules and to have all truckers take the tests.

The company that the Americans asked to give tests to all the truckers carrying dangerous goods to the United States was questioned and it was discovered that between 10% and 15% of the truckers had not obtained their security clearances for the reasons decided on by the countries. We will also have to pay attention, therefore, and the industry will have to ask itself some questions. Everyone seems to agree on that and I do too because what matters to us in the Bloc Québécois is what Quebeckers think.

Transports Québec has been involved in this entire discussion since 2004 and agrees completely that it is taking too long to pass this legislation. As I said, though, the objective cannot be 2010 because it would take three to five years to implement a measure like this on interprovincial transportation within Canada. It was the public servants who came and told us that.

When it says here, “No prescribed person—” the first people involved will be those who transport goods back and forth to the United States and have easier access to it because of their accreditations. Once Canada issues these security clearances, the American will accept them and it will be easier to transport dangerous goods between Canada and the United States.

Once the security clearances and accreditations have been issued, the Americans will recognize Canada’s and vice versa. It will be easier therefore. I have a lot of problems, though, with the fact the government is trying to sell this by saying it is for the 2010 Olympic Games. I had a lot of problems with it as soon as I saw it and I still do today. Regardless, though, this bill should be passed and the Bloc Québécois will be responsible and do all it can to ensure it goes as quickly as possible.

That brings us to the fact that if this passes, we know very well that regulations will be produced along the way. It is true. Some of our colleagues have asked questions, amendments have been proposed, and some questions still need to be asked about the regulations. Insofar as the security clearances are concerned, these questions include the fact that it says they are for prescribed persons.

This means that after the bill is passed, regulations will be adopted by the Department of Transport. They do not have to go through the House of Commons. That is where abuses could arise. Since the Conservatives came to power, many members have felt that their right-wing ideology is very dangerous when legislation is left in their hands. By dangerous, I mean that respect for human rights and freedoms is not always their cup of tea.

So in some respects, it is true that it is not easy, because the department still has to have some leeway. In fact, the types of dangerous goods will also be determined by regulation. There is a whole slew of new products, and it is not easy to create enabling legislation that covers everything that might happen in the industry. It is only natural to leave it up to the government or the minister, regardless of who that may be at the time, to pass regulations to protect people.

In committee, the Liberals introduced an amendment that everyone supported. We supported it, and so did the party in power. I want to read the proposed subsection 30(3). This is on page 26 of the English text:

Section 30 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the House of Commons or, if there is not a Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the appropriate committee of that House may review any regulations made under this Act, either on its own initiative or on receiving a written complaint regarding a specific safety concern. The Committee may hold public hearings and may table its report on its review in the House of Commons.

We wanted this amendment to be added to the bill so that if a complaint were ever filed with Transport Canada, it would be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which could conduct an investigation. We have to be careful, because the transportation of dangerous goods poses a problem not only for people who have to deal with highways or major railways in their areas, but also for people who see the St. Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence Seaway being used to transport dangerous goods.

The purpose of the bill is simple: to force companies to have an emergency response plan, in order to ensure that everyone who handles these materials is authorized to do so and has the proper security clearance. It is not enough that they have the skills. It is important to ensure that they do not have any history of evil plans that they could act on.

Clearly, the interest is there, but there is no real transparency, and that is for two reasons. People do not want the information to be made public: for instance, on a given date, a certain quantity of a given substance is going to be transported by road, by rail or by ship. We must not give any ideas to people who may have evil plans. So this information remains secret. The reverse situation is also true: it prevents people from worrying about the transportation of hazardous materials and prevents protests and public outcries about the fact that hazardous material is being transported within our borders.

It was time, however. As I was saying—it is not because of Vancouver 2010—passing such bill was a matter of a national urgency. Indeed, we live in a chemical and technological era, and companies whose business involves selling, transporting and delivering hazardous materials must be obliged to have an emergency response plan, that is, a method for taking action.

This means that, should extremely dangerous goods ever be transported within our borders, Transport Canada would automatically receive the company's plan. The company is responsible for ensuring safety in the event of a spill or explosion when it is transporting explosives or something of the sort. It is therefore up to the company to arrange for all fire brigades along the way to be contacted. It is required to demonstrate to Transport Canada that it is able to respond to an emergency.

My earlier remarks were to the effect that passing this bill is a matter of national safety. This should have been done years ago. I will not get into the details of why, after dragging their feet for four years, the Conservatives have now decided to use the Olympics as an excuse to get their rank and file to support it. The fact is that, when dangerous goods are transported on our roads, railways or seaways, it is imperative to have an emergency plan. Other countries around the world have emergency plans. The United States and Europe already have theirs. Canada is always lagging behind when it comes to that sort of thing. It is time that we have a plan.

This bill deserves to move forward. That is why I read clause 30, which says that the committee must receive complaints and intervene accordingly at all times. All of the provinces and territories have approved the application of these regulations. The text, particularly paragraph (f) of the summary, reads as follows: “clarification of the Act to ensure that it is applicable uniformly throughout Canada, including to local works and undertakings”. That is not as easy as it sounds.

Quebec has its own inspection and verification procedure. We have our own network of surface transportation inspectors, known as “les Verts”, for those familiar with the term. We have our police force, the Sûreté du Québec, and we have ministry of transportation inspectors who are regulated by Quebec and intervene as required. In Quebec, public safety is the Government of Quebec's responsibility. The bill could simply not be enforced or supported without the Government of Quebec's support, which has been granted.

We must also ensure that the government can provide compensation if the bill gives rise to additional expenses for the territories and provinces. I am also the infrastructure critic and I have had discussions with municipal representatives while touring Quebec. Bills and changes to the Criminal Code have been adopted that have resulted in additional expenses for big cities dealing with crime. The money never arrives at its destination. Bills are adopted and when the laws are implemented it is the communities, towns and provinces that have to foot the bill. Money was provided to help fight street gangs but it was not enough, given how the problem has grown. That is an example of additional expenses.

All too often the federal government passes laws. This type of bill does not provide for any assistance to the provinces and the territories. I hope that the government realizes that it is making more work for inspectors working in Quebec. I hope that it will not create an inspection service that, once again, will duplicate Quebec's inspection services or will create a new federal inspection service when one already exists in Quebec. If it does, it must provide compensation for the work done by the province in order to comply with the legislation.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, which should have been adopted in 2004. The government can count on our full support to move this bill forward.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-9, which seeks to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and to provide certain measures that relate to the security of the transportation system.

This bill was presented in the beginning as a way to protect Canadians. Many of the provisions within it may serve some purpose in that way. As such, we in the NDP have not really taken exception to many of the things within the bill.

Where we have trouble with the bill lies in the provisions under proposed section 5.2, having to do with transportation security clearances. That has been a focus of our attention to the bill.

We recognize that many of the other aspects within the bill are important and will continue to be developed over time through regulation, but where we saw this bill going was contrary to perhaps even the way the minister described it in the beginning. When the minister spoke to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on February 24 of this year, he indicated that the problem in terms of transportation security clearances, one of the main purposes of the bill, lay with international trade with the United States.

In 2005, when the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act was put in place in the United States, it required commercial motor vehicle licensed operators in Canada and Mexico to go through a background check under the U.S. regulations before they were permitted to bring their goods into the United States.

The minister went on to describe that Canadian drivers are currently doing this, but what the government really wants to do is set up a system within Canada that can satisfy the U.S. requirements under this act. He said:

Canadians enjoy access to the American market through the FAST program, and this will continue. But it is essential that we have long-term solutions to guarantee access to important markets for Canadian manufacturers, producers, and shippers.

This is a bit of a smokescreen in terms of what the bill actually offers up under proposed section 5.2.

After detailed questioning in committee, the minister and his departmental officials indicated that they were going to put in place a bill that would expand security clearances to any Canadian who handled or transported dangerous goods. When I asked why this was going on, they said they did not want to limit this to international travel.

Quite clearly, the way the bill was presented by the minister and the way it is actually written are quite different things. In reality, that is what the minister and the department were looking for. They chose to present it in a certain fashion, which certainly made the work in committee more difficult and also perhaps brought us to the situation today where we have a bill that, as it stands, we in the NDP have difficulty supporting.

Why do we care whether transportation security clearances, as outlined in the United States, would be permitted to be used across the board in Canada? Let us look at who could be caught up by a law like this.

Remember that, in the United States, as witnesses testified in committee, many of the people transporting dangerous goods in the U.S. lost their ability through the licensing and security clearance process. They could be farmers who pick up loads of fertilizer, workers in warehouses who move pallets of car batteries, aboriginal people who buy ammunition and take it to their communities, or home heating fuel delivery people.

I know these perhaps seem extreme, but the bill would allow that to happen. Why would we want to have these privacies invaded? Where is the protection for the little guy who Conservative members always are saying they are defending?

I have a letter from the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers. It is very concerned with the contents of the bill and what it will do to its costs and ability to compete. As retailers, they are looking for compensation for the type of changes the bill will permit. What about those people in the transportation industry? What about the people who may lose their ability to operate in Canada as a result of this rather wide-ranging legislation?

At committee, we put forward amendments to limit the scope of the transportation security clearances to simply those instances in Canada where Canadians were engaged in international traffic of goods. Those were defeated, which gives us a great deal of difficulty in supporting the bill.

The International Longshore and Warehousemen's Union of Canada is battling against the privacy invasion the government wants under the Marine Transportation Security Act right now. The case is scheduled for hearing in the Federal Court of Appeal in June of this year. In its brief to the committee, the ILWU said:

The ILWU takes its members' privacy interests and job security very seriously and is consequently concerned about the ramifications of imposing unnecessary invasive background checks on Canadian workers employees.

The longshore workers are particularly concerned about section 5.2(1) of the bill, which states that no worker can handle the transfer of dangerous goods unless the person has a transportation security clearance. This means, if we follow the American model, that the workers will be asked invasive questions about a series of irrelevant personal matters such as credit history, past travel, employment, education and who they associate with, along with their criminal record checks and a number of other things that may or may not be appropriate. They will also be asked to provide information about other family members. This is what we are opening the door to for Canadian workers right across the country in the handling of dangerous goods.

Workers who refuse to answer these invasions of privacy could lose their employment. Then what happens to those who fail their security clearance due to something as simple as a minor criminal conviction from their teenage years? They lose their job.

There is also concern about this invasion of privacy and with whom the information will be shared. This is a great concern to all of us in the House, following many of the things we have had in place since the terrorist incidents of 2001. The longshore workers found that their private information could be shared by CSIS, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, with foreign governments.

We also put forward an amendment that would limit the ability of the government to share any information collected under the transportation security clearances with another government. The amendment was put forward but it was voted down in committee as well.

Once again, our attempts to protect the rights of Canadians in a reasonable and logical sense, not going too far ahead and keeping within the bounds of what is required for security, were turned down.

We know the government has a problem with Canadians defending their human rights. Just look at what it did, under the guise of a budget implementation bill, with pay equity. It stripped women of their equality rights, their ability to deal with important questions like that as the result of a current economic crisis. Imagine what the results of a major security breach in the country could be to Canadian workers? If any kind of security breach occurred, what kind of draconian measures could the minister put forward with the kinds of powers he would be given under the bill?

Therefore, we tried very carefully, after those two amendments failed, to put forward an amendment which would deal precisely with the question of human rights and that any of the regulations that would be struck by the bill and by the minister on the issue of transportation security clearance, which are not complex issues, would come back to a parliamentary committee for examination. This would give us at least an opportunity in Parliament to understand what the laws were doing to the essential rights of Canadians.

The bill does not set out any restrictions on the minister or set out any criteria to determine who will or will not be granted a security clearance.

Transport Canada says that the assessment of whether to grant or refuse a security clearance is based on the global evaluation obtained by the background checks. This means Canadians will lose their jobs based on a subjective process, a process which may never get reviewed by Parliament without the proper amendments.

The Liberal amendment, which we supported, would simply allow, with the support of a committee, us to bring forward regulations for review. It did not ensure that the regulations that would impact the human rights of Canadians would be in front of the committee. It allowed it to happen with the majority support of a committee. Majority support does not always exist in a minority government, where the opportunity at the committee level for the opposition to look at what the government is doing with a critical eye, particularly when the majority on the committee can simply refuse to do so.

In the likelihood of a situation occurring, which would impact on the rights of Canadians under a majority government, the committee likely would not get a chance to review those things. That is kind of the fatal flaw in the Liberal amendment. Our amendment would have ensured that situation did not occur.

Therefore, the Liberals, with their toothless amendment, have satisfied their angst about some of the issues we raised in committee. I felt there was some angst there, but once again the half measure proposed by the Liberals is all we really have in the bill.

The issue of dangerous goods and their safety and handling is very important. We do not deny that. We do not deny that many of the provisions within the bill are correct and they are things that can be worked out between government and businesses. However, the fundamental rights of Canadians to privacy and the respect for their human rights are things that we cannot work out. They are fundamental and they have to be respected.

Our difficulty with the bill is that we have been unable to adjust it so it meets the nod test over a period of time that the bill has correctly outlined and that will work for Canadians. While it will ensure that the present government perhaps will respect the rights of Canadians, it does not give any assurances that the next minister of another government would do the same thing.

That is our problem. We want to ensure that legislation not only fits with this Parliament, not only fits with this government but fits in the future and will ensure that basic rights of Canadians are protected. That is why we are standing today to voice our opposition to what has happened with the bill. I would be open still at this stage to see the bill amended to provide slightly better legislation, and I had talks with the parliamentary secretary about that.

We would encourage the government to simply look carefully at the legislation right now. If it can offer up a solution to some of our issues, we would be very happy to support it in its efforts and bring unanimity to the bill to ensure it serves Canadians well. If the government chooses not to do so, then we are stuck in the position we are today.

Our job is not only to keep Canadians safe, to protect them from harm, but also to protect their rights. There is always a balance that we have to strike. It is difficult. We cannot say that legislation is simple or that the way we outline our rights is simple. The Bill of Rights was only established in Canada in 1982. Much of the legislation we deal with has not got to the point where it matches up to our Bill of Rights, so why would we put forward legislation now that still does not accomplish what was laid out in the 1982 Bill of Rights? Why would we not work together to come up with the solutions that could follow an orderly and good system of governance?

When we talk about providing transportation security clearance across the country to workers, we have another approach within the bill. We did not have to go that way. Because we are asking companies that handle dangerous goods to come up with transportation security plans, we have the opportunity to work them. We can work with them in a selective fashion to ensure that their transportation security planning covers the employees they use to move those goods.

We do not need to have a nation-wide program of transportation security clearance in order to accomplish what we want to accomplish with the bill. Already within the bill there is the option to do it another way.

Those are things we need to take into account when we look at this type of legislation. It has been on the books since 2002. The sense of urgency to get it in place now is simply theatrics. We need to ensure we get legislation right for a change.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for getting back to me so quickly after I had asked the question about whether the military would be covered under the bill. He did say that the military would be exempt, but would comply voluntarily to the provisions of the bill.

I want to make a comment about how the current government, when it was in opposition, complained about making criminals of duck hunters and farmers who did not register their long guns. It also said that the registry did not prevent criminals from getting guns if they really wanted them. That has certainly been true.

Now, under this legislation, the government wants to make criminals of farmers who do not register to transport fertilizer, but criminals will still get fertilizer if they want. In the United States, we had an example of domestic terrorism where that happened. No amount of registration will stop criminals from getting sufficient quantities of fertilizer if they want it.

The member has talked about having restrictions. We are happy with the bill, except for a few minor concerns that the member has, and we hope we can get this resolved this afternoon. He mentioned restrictions on the minister. Could he explain the amendments he has in the past suggested and how we might be able to work out a solution today on this matter?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I spoke about a number of amendments but one amendment in particular under clause 5.2 would make it the minister's authority to provide transportation security clearance for those who are transporting goods internationally or for ports and airports. It is a definition of the type of transportation security clearance the minister indicated he really needed this bill for to match up with the requirements in the United States.

The member is quite right. The concerns about security clearances on dangerous goods, if one did an analysis of any kind, would suggest that one might put security clearance on those who sometimes are in possession of weapons. We do not want to go there, quite obviously, because we do not want to encumber hunters, trappers and recreational shooters with security clearances.

However, all of a sudden, within this law, we will be able to put transportation security clearances on people who might be handling dangerous goods a few days of the month. These may be dangerous goods that will not cause an explosion or anything else.

What we do with the bill is very important in terms of how we put transportation security clearances in place. I would point out again that the more likely place to handle transportation security clearance for Canadians is within the transportation security plans of the individual industries. It was a better place to handle this requirement, not by giving the minister the ability to put this in place across Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member for Western Arctic. He, obviously, has read the bill and done due diligence. I wish it were the same for the other parties.

Could the member outline the position of the other parties in regard to the weaknesses in this bill? There is the principle, which everyone agrees to, but the problem with the Conservative government is that the devil always seems to be in the details. It is just not able to get things right when it comes to drafting legislation.

Where do the parties stand and what needs to happen before this bill is actually ready for any sort of sanction by the House of Commons?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, quite clearly, we want to see a little less of the enabling nature of the bill and a little more of a prescriptive nature. It was how the bill was presented. The issue was presented to us as a prescriptive issue when it came to transportation security clearances and the bill should follow that.

When it comes to the other parties, we did not elicit a lot of support from them for this. Certainly, the Bloc showed some keen interest in the issue.

We need to remember that this bill was presented to all members in a fashion of a prescriptive nature rather than an enabling nature. It has taken quite a bit of work at the committee level to get to the point where the government has admitted to the enabling nature of the bill and perhaps also its future plans. We have not come to that yet. Those are some of the problems that we have with the bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, could the hon. member for Western Arctic enlighten us? Is the NDP at this point putting forward substantive motions in order to improve the bill, as I understand it, and the other parties are allowing anything to go through without the due diligence and scrutiny that is required?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, that is certainly my feeling after spending time in committee and after reviewing the Liberal amendment that would enable the committee to review any of the regulations after they have been put in place and have been operating so it can respond to a complaint and adjust things accordingly.

For many of the other provisions within the dangerous goods act, that is a good idea, but for clause 5.2, which deals with human rights, privacy and how we deal with human beings and their work, we felt that there was much more of a requirement for the type of amendment that we put forward which said that these regulations that were put in place by the minister shall be reviewed prior to implementation by a committee of Parliament.

We were looking for the guarantee that the regulations would not infringe on the rights of Canadians. If the government were acting in good faith, it would pass the review. We are not talking about 3,000 pages of complex regulations that would tie up a committee for months. We are talking about transportation security clearance regulations.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, for the record, if he is aware that there are regulations in place right now that would exempt farmers from transporting their chemicals and fertilizer. Farmers will not be affected by this new regulation. I think it is important for that to be on the record. I was wondering if my hon. colleague was aware of that and if he could please comment on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers. Its great concern with this bill has to do with the regulations that will be put onto it for what it is doing. Of course, the agricultural business is large. There are farmers and suppliers. The delineation point between those two would be something that probably would not be covered under existing regulations. We will have to see how this works out. However, quite clearly, the association has concerns about it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill and, as always, we in the NDP corner of the House are doing our due diligence in scrutinizing the bill, which is what we believe all members should be doing when there are problems such as those that have been clearly identified for farmers and small farming communities across the country. When there are difficulties that concern our workers on the docks in areas like Vancouver and Halifax, when there are areas where there are clear problems, the NDP likes to scrutinize it.

For the record, could the member for Western Arctic tell us what specifically are the three things that need to happen for—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I will have to give the hon. member for Western Arctic 25 seconds to respond very quickly.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, first, prescriptive powers for the minister in terms of who the transportation security clearances can apply to; second, assurances that the information that is collected by the minister under these transportation security clearances is not provided to foreign government; and third, the ability of Parliament to ensure that the regulations match up to the rights of Canadians before they are put into place.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, Environment; the hon. member for Malpeque, Access to Information.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, is an important bill.

The folks listening to the parliamentary deliberations today need to know that the problems in the bill, which the member for Western Arctic just spoke about in the House, are issues that all Canadians should be concerned about. It is a given that no one in this House would want to see less security around the provision for dangerous goods. We all believe in an increased level of safety and security for all Canadians. However, the actions of the government clearly show that its tendency is to move to less safety and less security. It is because of that fact, tragically, that we need to look through every bit of legislation that is brought before this House to ensure that the objectives being set out would actually be accomplished by the bill.

When we look at self-managed safety, the famous controversial SMS, where safety was basically handed over to the companies themselves, the corporate CEOs, to police their own safety, we clearly saw that as a decreased level of safety and security for Canadians. The Liberals brought it in under the railway act where it essentially handed over the safety management of the railways to Hunter Harrison and other corporate CEOs. The government basically went out of the business of protecting Canadians.

What happened after? We had escalating derailment rates. In British Columbia, we have been faced with a number of high profile derailments, deaths and environmental degradation, all as a result of the government pulling itself out of safety management and ensuring protection for Canadians.

When the present government moved on the Liberal model, it moved with the same type of agenda. To save a little bit of money, it wanted to cut back on flight inspectors and hand over to corporate CEOs safety and security in the airline business. The NDP said, no, and we stopped that bill from passing in the House of Commons. It was not because we thought every airline would treat it irresponsibly. Of course not. Some airlines would be very responsible but we knew that some airlines would not be.

The past history of fly-by-night airlines clearly showed that when an airline becomes financially troubled, in many cases upper management would decide to degrade safety in order to save some money and keep the airline afloat. That is why we opposed that bill and why we shut it down in two Parliaments. I am pleased to say that there has not been a full implementation of SMS in commercial airlines in Canada because of the NDP. NDP MPs stood in this House with one voice and said that the government could not move forward with SMS, that it could not cheapen and devalue safety for Canadians and that one party in this House would stand up for an adequate level of safety and for enhancing safety for Canadian families.

Now that SMS has been implemented with business aircraft, we have seen a number of tragic crashes. The TSB is now looking into those crashes to see to what extent the farming out of safety to the companies themselves and the role that played in these tragic crashes. We recently heard of other crashes and the drive by the government to implement self-managed safety in other areas, such as helicopters.

What we have seen is a government track record that is not very good when it comes to safety. It is not very good when it comes to general concerns about public safety as well. We have seen cutbacks in the salaries to RCMP officers and cutbacks in prosecution across the country. The government may move ahead with some criminal justice legislation but it does not get the fundamentals right, which is having a system in place that protects Canadians. That is the problem. The skepticism we have is in the track record of the government. It seems oriented toward cutbacks in providing safety for Canadians rather than moving ahead with an agenda that actually makes sense. Because of that, we are naturally going to re-double our due diligence to ensure that the legislation that the government puts forward is legislation that actually does enhance the level of safety of Canadians. We are not a rubber stamp party like the Liberals.

We believe in our role as parliamentarians. New Democrats work very hard because we believe that Canadians should accept no less. They should demand from their members of Parliament due scrutiny and due diligence when it comes to every bit of legislation that is brought forward.

That is the context of Bill C-9. Essentially, our role in Parliament with the triple caucus that we have seen over the last three elections is to duly scrutinize government bills and ensure that they are accomplishing what they set out to accomplish.

We have some difficulties with the overall approach of the government to dangerous goods. One example that has not changed, that was irresponsible under the Liberals and is equally irresponsible under the Conservatives, is the low level of screening taking place for cargo containers coming into Canada from around the world. Fewer than 1% of them are actually screened for contents.

When we are talking about dangerous goods, fundamentally that is something that the government needs to address right up front, rather than this orgy of corporate tax cuts that seems to be its reason for being. It needs to look at the fact that we have millions of cargo containers coming into Canada every year, and essentially we are screening a lamentably small number of those cargo containers to actually find out what the contents are.

If the government moved forward with investments in that regard, it would get the support of the NDP, but it has made no attempt to increase the scrutiny that is required for these cargo containers coming from other parts of the planet.

Therefore, we come to Bill C-9. As the member for Western Arctic, the NDP transportation critic, has mentioned very clearly, one of our grave concerns is clause 5. Under “Transportation Security Clearances”, we have the following:

The Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, grant or refuse to grant a transportation security clearance to any person or suspend or revoke such a clearance.

That is a fundamental problem. When we give the minister a blank cheque and say, essentially, he or she has total control, what does that mean in terms of government operations? Can the government be trusted to use that total control given to the minister to actually ensure that what is put in place is fair to Canadians?

We have seen various attempts by the government to use that blank cheque that can be given to it by legislation in a way that we do not believe is appropriate, most recently refusing immigration entrance visas to people with whom it disagrees, essentially saying, no, it is going to take that overall control that it has and simply say no to certain categories of people.

When there is no system of checks and balances, that is a matter of great concern to us. The amendments in clause 5 essentially give that blank cheque to the minister and do not provide for that system of checks and balances that we believe, in a free and democratic society, is absolutely essential.

That is the fundamental problem and why we have seen, from various parts of the country, issues raised about the advisability of Bill C-9, as it is, going through.

As I mentioned earlier, there are difficulties with the lack of an overall strategy on the part of the government when it comes to dangerous goods. There is a lack of credibility when it comes to safety, when we look at issues such as bringing in self-managed safety, turning over our safety management systems, turning over Canadians' personal safety and that of their families to a corporate CEO who may or may not consider the safety with regard to other issues that are at play.

Particular legislation we stopped in the House also gave, essentially, a get out of jail free card to those who misbehaved or acted in an irresponsible and inappropriate way. We said no to that. Those were the SMS provisions that we stopped in the House. Only NDP members spoke up about that, and now more and more people are speaking out.

Justice Moshansky spoke out earlier this week about the fact that, under SMS, Canadian skies are more insecure now than they were even at the time of the Dryden tragedy of 1989, that essentially we are moving backwards in transportation safety.

It would be even worse if not for the stalwart NDP members who stopped those bills cold in the House of Commons because we knew it was not in the public interest.

Justice Moshansky is speaking out, flight inspectors are speaking out, and increasingly we are seeing the media taking an interest now, because of these tragic crashes, to ensure that Canadian safety moves to a higher standard, not to a lower standard.

The bill has been brought forward. We have heard from the member for Western Arctic that amendments were brought forward to ensure that the legislation was improved and actually did what it was purporting to do. Yet there have been letters, evidence and testimony from groups across the country that continue to have very strong concerns because of the fact that the transport committee did not adopt the amendments by the member for Western Arctic.

The member for Western Arctic is a friendly guy. He is also razor smart. He presented these amendments in an effort to improve the bill, to actually have the bill accomplish what it set out to do.

The Conservatives have a tendency of being really good on the spin and the smoke and mirrors and very poor on the substance. Criminal justice issues are one example of that certainly. SMS is another example of that. In fact, I could spend a full 20 minutes talking about the various methods the Conservatives use to not do what they are trying to do.

Very clearly we have evidence that there are concerns that have been raised in regard to this bill.

The Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers said in a letter dated just two weeks ago, “Confronted with increasing pressure from government regulations and more stringent industry standards, agri-retailers are facing prohibitive costs to keep their businesses compliant with security and safety infrastructure requirements. This financial burden cannot possibly be shouldered by agri-retailers alone. Without government assistance, many facilities will be forced out of the fertilizer market or will have no choice but to pass these costs on to Canadian farmers in an already recessed economic climate. Crop input dealers are still reeling from devastating fertilizer writedowns as a result of a precipitous drop in commodity prices in the fall of 2008”.

Canadian farmers and agri-retailers are concerned about what this means. Because the legislation was not drafted properly and because there is essentially a blank cheque being issued, they are concerned about the impacts. The government has not listened to this so far, but it is never too late to listen to the NDP. We are putting forward these amendments again and trying to get the government to understand that the bill, as is, is not appropriate to deal fundamentally with the issue of dangerous goods.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada has also indicated in a very lengthy letter its concerns about this bill. The letter was written by Tom Dufresne, who is the president of the ILWU. He is from British Columbia, a very articulate leader of his union and certainly has the support of the rank and file.

These are hard-working, dedicated longshore and warehouse workers who work every day. They make sure that things keep moving in Canada. So one would think that the government would listen to them, but it has not yet.

The letter stated:

On review of Bill C-9, the ILWU is immediately and seriously concerned about s.5.2(1) which requires workers who handle and deal with dangerous goods to hold transportation security clearances.

That is clause 5, which I mentioned earlier.

The letter continues:

The ILWU takes its members' privacy interests and job security very seriously and is consequently concerned about the ramifications of imposing unnecessary and invasive background checks on Canada's workers. The ILWU is committed to ensuring the safety of its members and Canada's ports generally, however, the ILWU does not believe that requiring security clearances to transport dangerous goods will further this objective.

That is, as the bill is conceived now, for obvious reasons. Farmers are not the only ones concerned about this bill.

S.5.2(1) states that no worker can handle or transport dangerous goods “unless the person has a transportation security clearance.”

That is what I mentioned earlier and the member for Western Arctic referenced.

This means that workers will be asked to answer invasive questions about a series of irrelevant personal matters such as...credit history and past travel, employment and education and their associations. They will also be asked to provide information about family members.

Those who refuse to answer those invasive personal questions could lose their employment, as others could as well.

We have to wonder how many Conservative MPs would pass this kind of questioning on credit history, past travel, employment, education and their associations. Conservative MPs would not want to go through that kind of in-depth, personal history, yet they are subjecting hard-working longshore people and hard-working warehouse people to doing that.

At that same time, it is important to note that they are simply allowing well over 99% of cargo containers, wherever those come from in the world, to just come right in to Canada.

What is wrong with this picture? We just bring in the cargo containers from wherever, with no screening, no control, no investment to ensure that they are not transporting dangerous goods. But the hard-working Canadians who have spent decades on the longshore will be subjected to a rigorous cross-examination to ensure that they did not smoke a marijuana cigarette when they were in high school or whatever else the Conservatives decide to concoct to try to push those hard-working Canadians out of their jobs.

It is absurd. It is a blank cheque. It is very clear why there would be concerns raised about the blank cheque that the minister gets.

The ILWU goes on to say that it is presently involved in a legal challenge to this requirement that is contained within this particular bill. The letter continues:

Of particular concern to the ILWU is the admissions received during the course of this proceeding from CSIS that personal information collected from employees and provided to CSIS during the background check process could be disclosed to foreign governments

This is one of the issues that the member for Western Arctic raised, that not only are we penalizing farmers for transporting fertilizer, but essentially once this rigorous cross-examination takes place of people who have worked on the docks for decades, the information is sent who knows where? There is no system of control, no system of checks and balances. Essentially the Conservatives are saying they want a blank cheque to do whatever they want.

The letter continues:

There are no set criteria to determine who will or will not be granted a security clearance. Transport Canada explains that “[t]he assessment of whether to grant or refuse a security clearance is based on a global evaluation obtained by the background checks...” Thus, workers may be deprived of their jobs based on subjective criteria.

Obviously, as to letter goes on to say,

This is particularly problematic when it comes to workers who handle dangerous goods since these employees are skilled, full-time, trusted employees who...have the most to lose if deprived of their employment.

The letter concludes by essentially saying that as the front-line workers on the docks of Canada's ports and working throughout the transportation system, they are already subject to a wide variety of security requirements including secured areas, restricted access passes, cameras, water and land patrols, gates, and fences that prevent unauthorized persons from assessing areas in which hazardous goods are unloaded.

As a result of that, the ILWU submits that background checks will do nothing to enhance the security of Canada's ports and transportation system.

The obvious reason is that the fundamentals, as I mentioned, the screening of cargo containers, have not been addressed by the government. The Conservatives do not want to do the investment, but they bring forward legislation that even Conservative and Liberal members themselves will admit is flawed.

The NDP has been offering, in committee and in the House, to improve those flaws so that Bill C-9 actually does what it purports to do. That is our role as NDP MPs, and it is a role that we take on proudly for the interests of Canadians.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to ask my hon. colleague a few questions, because it seemed that he was speaking about a completely different bill from the one we have been working on in committee. He mentioned safety management systems several times, which actually has nothing to do with Bill C-9. I was wondering if my hon. colleague was aware of that.

We have worked extremely hard with the stakeholders concerning this bill. We have talked to the trucking industry. We have talked to the Teamsters. We have talked to farmers, who actually will not be penalized with this bill.

It is important for us to protect Canadians. I am wondering why my hon. colleague seems so opposed to protecting Canadians and making sure that dangerous goods are transported in a safe way by people who have the proper licence to transport these goods.

Why is that such a problem for the member? Why is the NDP opposing everything that we are trying to do for the good of Canadians?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reason I referenced SMS is that very clearly everything the Conservatives are doing is not in the interests of Canadians. The Conservatives have admitted it themselves by pulling the bill on SMS. If the NDP had not stopped that bill, it would have been law and Canadians might have died as a result of that completely irresponsible approach to diminish safety. That is the principle behind why we scrutinize government bills so carefully.

The Liberals are not going to do it. As the member well knows, the Liberals rubber-stamp anything the Conservatives do. The Conservatives could come in with any type of bad bill and we know the Liberals would rubber-stamp it. That is their role. With 63 confidence votes and hundreds of other votes, whatever the Conservatives bring in, the Liberals just rubber-stamp it. We do not rubber-stamp. We scrutinize.

The Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union are opposed to this bill. They have raised very legitimate objections.

My point is that, given these serious objections, I would hope the member for Portage—Lisgar would endeavour to talk to her minister and to other members on the Conservative side so that the bill can actually do what the Conservatives want it to do, which is, hopefully, to protect Canadians in the transportation of dangerous goods as part of a broader strategy that actually makes Canadians more secure. I would hope that she would do that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, safety management systems are very important to this bill. The deregulation of the railroad industry has allowed safety management systems to be implemented. A recent rail traffic study talked about the culture of intimidation and fear that was felt by railroad workers who are supposed to report to the system. Deregulation is very important to this aspect because the components connect together.

The Conservatives are arguing that they are doing this for public safety on one side, but let me give a specific example of what they are doing with deregulation on the other side and the consequences.

CP Rail has filed to fire and move 25 safety inspector officers in Windsor. They will be relocated elsewhere. There will not be an evaluation of rail transportation support from Chicago to Toronto and to Montreal. In between will be left vacant. The minister has yet to respond to this issue to protect those jobs. There has been a refiling request from CP Rail. The reality is that in the upcoming weeks, there could be the potential withdrawal of these workers.

How can we be saying to the United States that we want to do this and at the same time take away inspection for all of southern Ontario?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the key issue. It is the difference between appearance and reality. The Conservative government is very good at spin. It tries to use the title of the bill to say that we must be for the transportation of dangerous goods because we are opposed to the bill, rather than looking into the details and seeing what the implications are. The implications about where the government is moving in other areas obviously show that the government has not been very responsible when it comes to safety issues.

Coming back to the previous question that was asked by the member for Portage—Lisgar, the whole issue of how farmers are impacted by this bill is a wide open question, because any regulations that are put into place can be changed by the minister. The bill that the government is looking to have adopted is a blank cheque that allows essentially the minister to do whatever he or she pleases regardless of the consequences.

That is why the NDP is saying that this needs to be reworked. If the government is sincere, rather than its ideological drive, on handling dangerous goods, there is a wide variety of things that needs to be brought into play, including investments. We would certainly support the government in that and we would certainly support a reworking of this bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking to this bill at third reading.

I want to comment at the outset that the member for Portage—Lisgar asked a question a few minutes ago and I want to assure her that she should not be personally affronted by comments made on this side of the House. We want to assure her and all members opposite that we are very serious in trying to make this legislation good legislation. We want to do it right, and we want to do it right the first time. There is no advantage to the government in having legislation that will be attacked in the courts or that may not be workable in the long run.

We are doing our job. We were elected as opposition members. If our constituents had wanted us to come here and rubber-stamp everything the government wanted to do, they would have elected Conservatives or, as my colleague said, Liberals, but they would not have elected NDP members. However, they did elect NDP members and have done so for years. They will continue to do so in the future.

It is our job to point out mistakes that the government is possibly making, to try to make improvements before bad legislation gets on the books, or gets on the books and is knocked down or thrown out by the courts.

The member from Vancouver had mentioned a very gaping area of security in the fact that 99% of containers coming into this country are not inspected. News organizations have done investigations in the past in Canada and in the United States and they have found a lot of illegal substances coming in in containers. It is very easy to load drugs into containers and get them through the borders. If the government wants to look at very serious breaches of security, that is certainly one area it should be looking at. We would encourage the Conservatives to do that.

We also think there are some improvements that can be made. We have made amendments at second reading and at committee, and so far, the government has chosen to ignore them, although there are signs, and the parliamentary secretary was telling us recently that he would be willing to talk about an amendment that needed to be made. I think that if we were to give ourselves a little bit more time here, we could possibly get this resolved to the betterment of the bill and a better situation for Canadians.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words following “That”, and replacing them with “Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for the purpose of reviewing clause 5.2 with a view to reviewing the procedures on security clearances”.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The amendment is in order.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for moving the amendment. I will have a chance to speak to it a little bit later. In the meantime, I want to ask him a question.

Perhaps he could describe some of the conversations we have had on this particular bill. Perhaps that would explain why we feel it is appropriate to move this amendment at this time.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made an important observation. I am quite familiar with the ability in some jurisdictions of ministers to be a little bit independent in their actions and their thoughts and to make good amendments and even cooperate with the members of the opposition to arrive at a successful conclusion.

The parliamentary secretary seems to be a little bit different from some of the members opposite in that regard. I think there is potential here. I believe he has expressed some interest and concern that perhaps one or two of the NDP amendments could be worked upon at the third reading stage. Perhaps we could come up with a compromise that the member for Western Arctic could support and the NDP caucus could support in support of this bill in an effort to get it through.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for moving the amendment and trying to reach a consensus on this issue. We all want to improve rail safety.

I think it is important to provide a couple of examples to make sure that people understand the context of what could happen. On the border in my region, with 40% of Canada's daily trade, often there are people who are caught within legislation with unintended consequences. I do worry about the powers of the minister with regard to the screening process. Even now we are seeing some extreme behaviour by current ministers who are denying a British MP entry into Canada and other types of behaviour that have not really been effective in terms of the original intent of their discretionary power.

In Windsor often it is the issue of someone having a marijuana charge from back in the person's teens. There are people who drive trucks for just-in-time delivery for the auto industry who 25 or 30 years ago committed an offence that prohibits them from having access to different programs and screening. Not only that, it depends upon the interpretation and discretionary power of the people they encounter at the U.S. border.

I will give a particular example of a worker who worked at a major auto company for 25 years and had an outstanding employment record. The worker, who as a teenager had one charge of having a marijuana cigarette, was detained every time at the border for two to four hours. We had to work that through to stop that from happening. I commend the member for making sure that these types of situations could be resolved before they create a drag on the economy.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a very good observation. We have an economic slowdown at the moment. We are looking at putting a lot more restrictions on workers when all they are trying to do is their jobs.

We have a government which for a number of years now has been attempting to repeal the long-gun registry on the basis that it is going to make criminals out of farmers and duck hunters. The argument it makes is that the criminals are still going to get the guns.

I see a parallel here, because the same government that is trying to eliminate the gun registry is now attempting to put in regulations that possibly could put big restrictions on people. We just had a letter given to us by the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers, who are very concerned that their compliance costs with this legislation are going to be very high. They are going to have a lot of difficulty with this type of legislation. We should be listening to these people and trying to work around the problems rather than trying to ram this bill through.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee worked very hard on this bill. In the short time I have been on the committee, I have seen members from every side of the House work together. We brought in a variety of witnesses and all the stakeholders. I believe that the work we did at committee has brought this bill to the place it is and the consensus that has been built on this bill. The amendment as it stands is something on which I do not think we need to move forward.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member for Portage—Lisgar to reconsider those comments. This legislation not only has to make it through third reading in this House but also has to go to the Senate to be dealt with before it becomes a law of the country. I have already mentioned that if we develop legislation that is simply going to be challenged by the courts and end up being ruled out of order at the end of the day anyway, we have not really accomplished much.

As the member said, we have spent a lot of time on this bill. However, the fact of the matter is that we are just asking for a little bit more consideration here. That is why we moved the amendment at third reading.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I find a little incomprehensible. The Conservatives did not get the job done. They did not put together a bill that did not have huge flaws in it. They did not listen the first time around when the member for Western Arctic brought forward those amendments. They did not listen to the testimony and the letters from organizations that raised real concerns about the impact on farmers and longshore workers.

We have a government that did not want to do the job right, and now it is being confronted with an amendment that says sorry, but this House requests that it gets the job done and that the government does it right. Yet, there are Conservative members who seem to object.

My question for the member for Elmwood—Transcona is quite simple. Why would the Conservatives object to getting the bill right? Why did they not choose to get the bill right in the first place and actually listen to what people were saying about it?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those are very good comments as well. In many respects, the Conservatives in some ways do not realize they do not have a majority government. They think they do, but they do not. They have to deal with all the parties in the House and on a proper basis.

We have had a third reading procedure in Parliament for many years now. An hon. member who is new here, as I am, will recognize at some point that the bill must get through all the stages. One does not get it to second reading and demand that a vote be taken because one sat on a committee for a few days and heard a bunch of presenters.

There are numerous people across the country who do not know about this bill at all. As a matter of fact, we have dealt with another bill dealing with charities and 90% of the charities do not even know this bill exists. It has now gone through at least three parliaments in six or seven years.

For the hon. member to think that somehow the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers and its members know about this bill, I think she is sadly mistaken. I am sure they do not and there are many others who are going to wake up one day and find out this bill is in effect and they were not even aware of it. There is no harm in taking a little more time to hear more people's concerns and do more study on this bill.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Olympics are coming. The Olympics are very important to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are preparing for them.

One of the reasons this bill is very important is that Canadians expect the government will take care of them. That is what this bill does. This bill ensures that Canadians will be protected and that people who come to visit the Olympics will be protected.

I find it amazing that the hon. member has voted against security at the border and the military. When he has had the option to make sure that Canadians are protected, he has constantly voted against it. Now we have another opportunity to protect Canadians and the hon. member is trying to delay it yet again. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ranting and raving. His government lets 99% of cargo containers into this country without screening. If the hon. member is concerned about security, why does he not deal with that issue?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to see that we are actually debating this in more detail. Some of the questions raised deserve more attention. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar pointed out that many witnesses were before the committee. There were a few witnesses in front of the committee, but I might jog her memory about some of the witnesses who talked about the amendments.

I have committee transcripts from Tuesday, March 10, where the government representatives presenting evidence to the committee on the amendments that I put forward did not understand the amendments and had to admit in the transcripts that they had it wrong on two out of three of the amendments. In fact, when they presented the departmental view on the amendments, it was an incorrect view. It did not speak to the actual substance of the amendments. Officials had to retract those statements and agree with them. So what we saw was a lack of interest on the part of the bureaucrats in this process in informing the committee members of the nature of the amendments.

The member for Portage—Lisgar said we did a very detailed job on this. This is not the case. Quite clearly the transcripts show what happened in the committee meetings. We did not give this enough time. We did not see enough witnesses.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar brought up the point about farmers and the fact they are protected under regulations. Are they protected under statutes which can hold them free of the conditions that the minister could apply to them under the statute we are passing? When we talk about the farming industry, we were not presented with information at committee. There is no mention of farmers at committee. That issue was not dealt with. Quite clearly, once again, we have more work to do.

The issues raised in the House of Commons at the time of this debate are actually very serious issues when we are talking about the imposition of very onerous conditions that can be imposed on any industry in this country by the minister through regulations, through governor in council, without any further opportunity for parliamentarians, who are the ultimate judge of legislation. That means we have not done our job. We should take the opportunity that has now been given us, through this amendment, to go back and look at the amendments again to ensure that we get this right.

This is not a delaying tactic. This is an opportunity to make good legislation. What else do we stand in the House for other than to provide the very best of service with our thoughts and our directions as parliamentarians? I take my work seriously. I look at the legislation. My staff takes its work seriously. If we make mistakes, they are honest mistakes, and we want to be corrected. We want to ensure that what we are saying, the principles, the philosophy, and the direction the legislation applies will carry through in that fashion when it is applied to Canadians. That is our job here. There is no smaller job. There is no larger job. That is our job.

When we see that is not being accomplished, we have to go back to make it happen. We are not here simply to engage in partisan politics. This is not why we get up in the House of Commons and talk about issues like this. I really hope that perhaps we can come to some understanding on the bill through a process that would allow us to go back to the committee, allow us to continue the work needed to be done on this legislation and bring it forthwith to Parliament and get third reading done, and then moved on to the Senate in good fashion where it would not have questions about it. Let us get it out to the public where the public is satisfied with what we have created. All those things are the work that we should be doing here.

As a New Democrat, as a person who has worked with legislation at a municipal level, who understands what happens when we put in legislation that is not appropriate, we have to do things right. We have a chance to do things right. I am very happy that my colleague has brought forward this amendment. I trust that this amendment will pass and that we will be able to deliver to Canadians, in a timely fashion, a good piece of legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that this amendment has been brought forward by the member for Western Arctic, who is very concerned about how farmers are treated in this bill, how longshore workers are treated in this bill.

It is interesting to note that where there are more Conservative MPs, farmers are worse off. In Manitoba, where there are fewer Conservative MPs, they actually have much better farm receipts. Saskatchewan is worse. In Alberta, where there are more Conservative MPs, they have the worst farm receipts in the country. So, I can gather from that, that the Conservatives do not seem to care much about farmers and people in the agricultural sector. They just seem to sell them out. It is tragic.

However, we have an opportunity. Essentially what the member for Western Arctic has done, since the government failed the first test, is allowed the Conservatives, is allowed the government, a retake on this exam to actually get the bill right, subject to the testimony that has already been provided and the letters that have come in about the major flaws and problems in this bill.

My question for the member for Western Arctic is this. Why would the Conservatives not snap up this offer on a retake on an exam that they failed so horribly the first time?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really think the Conservatives have failed here. This is not a question of fail or pass. This is a question of production of good legislation. It is a complex business. Sometimes we want to move things ahead because we have other agendas. Perhaps we have concerns about things like the Olympics that say this has to be done and if we allow the other parties to interfere with the process, it might not get done.

We are not talking about interfering with the process here. We are talking about sending the bill back to committee so that we can top it off with a couple of days on the one item alone, so that we can deal with it in a good fashion and ensure that it is completely correct, that all the committee members understand how this works, that the government understands how it works, that we do not get fed information that is not correct from the government witnesses, and that everything is lined up in good fashion. That is my feeling about it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I did have an opportunity to talk to the member while speeches were going on. I tried to answer a couple of questions he did have that he was not able to do his own homework on, and I provided specific information in relation to the Privacy Act and one of the concerns he had. In fact, we cannot go against the terms of the Privacy Act, and the government cannot. I want to make sure I put that on the record so he clearly understands that the balance between the two cannot be compromised. The Privacy Act protects Canadians and their privacy, and we are going to continue to do that. So, that is not an issue on this particular question.

It is good to see the NDP members stand up for big business like agri-retailers. I really appreciate that because we hear a lot of them talking about farmers. I think they should let me stand up for my constituents, just like all of the Conservatives will continue to stand up for farmers across this country, the only party in this House that has done so. Indeed, I have a huge portion of farmers in my riding and I have heard clearly that they are in favour of this legislation.

However, I do wonder why he is putting off such an important piece of legislation. We have heard from members, from expert witnesses, who have come forward to say that we need this for the Olympics. Why would he put this back on the burner when I have already satisfied those questions?

My question for him today really is this. Why did he vote in favour of moving this particular bill out of committee and into the House? Because it was unanimous. If he were to check the record, he would see that he actually voted to move this out of the committee. I asked him three times if he had an opportunity to talk about a compromise on any particular l piece of legislation that the government could live with. He never talked to me before he put through his amendments. He never talked to me after he put through his amendments. He talked to me today, after it is back in the House. So what more can we do? We listen, we act, and we are reacting. But we have to do this in the best interests of Canadians, and I wonder why he supported this bill at committee to move it on if he is not supporting it today. He is playing games.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I find that statement to be a bit absurd. The legislation was on the order paper for a later time. We had considered putting amendments at the report stage. The Conservative government moved the bill ahead very quickly on the order paper. In fact, it delayed the work it was doing on Bill C-2 today in order to push the bill forward so our amendments could not come forward in the proper sequence, which would have been as the bill came forward.

The question of how the bill is in front of us now is an issue. Quite clearly, in the last committee meeting, we had a lot of testimony that was not correct, and the witnesses had to agree. That is in the transcript of the committee meeting.

When it comes to offering up amendments, the hon. member across had the opportunity in the committee meetings to provide amendments to my amendment and the members chose not to even talk about it, partly because the information the government officials were providing to the committee was incorrect. Therefore, we had a problem.

Now it is in front of the House and we have to have this debate, which is fine. Canadians can hear a bit about what we are doing in the House. We are not trying to slow down this legislation.

Perhaps some of these questions would be better dealt with at a Senate committee meeting, where the Senate could ship it back to us once it had amended it.

What we should do is get the work done in a correct fashion, as I pointed out.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment offered by the member for Elmwood—Transcona, seconded by the member for Western Arctic, is a real gift to the government. Basically we have said that we will work with the government to work out the major flaws that have been identified, not by us but by others across the country. Letters from people, from farmers and longshore workers, were read into the record, letters that said these were major flaws. The government seems to be giving the back of its hand in saying, no, that it does not want anyone to work with it to improve the bill, that it does not want to have anything happen that will make the bill—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has referred to letters from farmers who oppose the bill. I would like him to produce those. I have not seen any. I would like him to produce all these letters that he suggests oppose the bill. If he is going to refer to that in the House, I think it is fair that he provide those to us.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

If the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has any letters that he would like to table, he would need the unanimous consent of the House to do that. Failing that, he can continue with the rest of his question.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak more slowly so the Conservatives across the way can understand. I said that we had read into the record letters that have indicated the concerns raised among farmers and longshore workers. I ask my colleague and other Conservative members to check the blues because the NDP gave it all out them. We provided all that information. The member for Western Arctic did as well.

Essentially the NDP has said that there are deep flaws with the bill. We have produced the letters that have indicated what those deep flaws are. What we have said is that we are willing to help the Conservatives govern right.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much more I can add to what I have said already. I trust we can move ahead with this motion, we can do the work that is required and that should be enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not receive an answer to my previous question. I am simply asking why the member voted to move the bill out of committee, if there were such deep flaws. I am sure he has a colleague behind him from the NDP giving him advice on it. Why did he vote to move the bill on, out of committee and into the House if there were such deep flaws? He raised his hand. It was unanimous. All the members around the table realized the importance of the Olympics and the importance of the bill.

Why yesterday was it good and today it is not? Is he playing politics?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

He should read the transcripts, Mr. Speaker. That would indicate where my dialogue was. We do not need to play silly games.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The vote stands deferred until the end of government orders today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading of Bill C-9.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #31

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment lost.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, be read the third time and passed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill. I want to mention the fine work that has been done by all members of the House but in particular by the hon. member for Western Arctic.

The NDP supports the general aim of this bill, which in short, aims to provide made in Canada regulations concerning the transportation and handling of dangerous goods. The New Democrats believe it is important to ensure the safety of the public, workers, and indeed all those involved in the transportation of dangerous goods. Once again, this bill brings to Canada an updated and made in Canada set of regulations to achieve that goal.

I also want to point out the excellent work done by several industry advocates and those knowledgeable about the transportation of dangerous goods, including those in the Teamsters union, who met extensively with members of the House to give their expert views in the area.

In the NDP's view, there is one major and serious flaw with the bill, which is that the bill requires everyone in Canada who handles dangerous goods to obtain a security clearance, the details of which unfortunately are not spelled out in the text of the statute. Instead, the criteria that would go into a security clearance are left undefined and are left to regulations. In other words, these are matters that will not be debated and passed in the House and Parliament. We have no idea what these criteria will be.

In the NDP's respectful view, it means the criteria that go into deciding whether someone in the country obtains a security clearance, which will be necessary for the individual to obtain and maybe retain his or her employment, are left to the discretion of the minister and are subject to change. That leads to a very real concern. The criteria that ultimately will be discerned and applied in the security clearance certificates will violate Canadians' long-standing privacy and constitutional rights.

Because of this flaw, the NDP tried to refer the bill back to committee, to get the committee to work on the matter to improve the bill and put it in a position that would address our party's concerns. Unfortunately, that has not been the will of the House. I want to elaborate on why we think this is such an important feature of an otherwise sound bill.

Prior to being elected, I worked for 16 years with a union that represented many workers involved in the transportation industry, many of whom were involved in the transportation and handling of dangerous goods.

I also did a lot of research on the drive to inculcate security requirements in this field. In particular, I became aware of the security and prosperity partnership process which began in 2005 under the previous Liberal government and championed by then Prime Minister Paul Martin. This process was carried on by Prime Minister Harper, and continues to this day.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would remind the member that he is not to use the given names of members of the House of Commons.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly strike those references and refer to them as the previous Liberal prime minister and the current Prime Minister.

The SPP essentially comprised executive level and bureaucratic discussions among Canada, the United States and Mexico. These discussions have been conducted outside Parliament and have been conducted in secret. We have found that in these discussions over 300 separate areas of government involvement have been under discussion with a view to harmonizing these standards, things that involve food safety, consumer protection, water. Almost every aspect of our country's sovereignty has been up for discussion in these talks.

One of our concerns is regarding the essence of the matter before the House right now and of which I am speaking, which is, the criteria that go into security clearance for workers. The United States has imposed draconian requirements upon workers in the United States ever since 9/11. Many of these violate long-standing principles of Canadian jurisprudence and law, including our human rights, our rights to privacy and our rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For example, in the United States it is considered lawful and there is legislation to require workers who are not only involved in the transportation and handling of dangerous goods but in all sorts of areas to provide things like biometric information, retinal scans, fingerprints, hand shapes, and DNA samples. They have been asked and, at the risk of losing their jobs, are required to provide invasive information, such as their sexual orientation, the ports of entry when they immigrated, notwithstanding that they may have been citizens for decades, criminal records, marital status, and educational institutions they attended. This information has also been required of their spouses.

In the United States this information is not only required of these workers but they are required to sign forms that authorize the United States to share that information with any other country in the world. In many countries these workers do not have the same protection and many countries do not have the same respect for human rights that Canada has.

Those of us who have been following the SPP talks for the last three years are very concerned that Canada has tacitly agreed to follow the standards set by the United States in these areas. Because the criteria that will go into the granting of a security clearance are not specified in the legislation, we have grave concerns that these criteria will drop to those invasive standards that have been imposed by the United States.

One might ask what the difference is, that this is about the transportation and handling of dangerous goods, and people who have to cross the border into the United States should be subject to these standards. Here is where there is a major problem. It may be justifiable for these standards to be imposed on workers who transport dangerous goods across the border. That may be reasonable, but it is not reasonable to impose those standards on workers who never leave this country, those workers who work in warehouses and storage facilities in the body of our country. For them to be subjected to the extraterritorial application of American law when they may choose never to leave our country is wrong. It leads to concerns about people's democratic rights where Canadian citizens are subjected essentially to American-made requirements when they have no democratic right or means to influence those standards.

There have been cases where workers in the United States have lost their jobs when they decided to enforce their privacy rights, or they have lost their jobs when some aspect of the information that they have provided has caused concern.

If this were to happen in Canada, if someone were denied a security clearance certificate, how would the individual be able to challenge that?

In this case, we in the New Democratic Party are concerned. Canadian workers should have their right to privacy and their human rights respected.

We do not, in any manner, dispute the requirement to impose standards that ensure Canadians are safe and that the transportation of dangerous goods is conducted by people to protect the safety of the public. However, I would point out that there has not been one instance, not one in this country, where anybody who has transported goods in the transportation industry has been charged with any offence.

It is a great price to pay for Canadian workers to subject collectively the potential loss of their civil liberties when there has not been demonstrated in even one instance across this land, a need for same.

We must jealously and sedulously guard our civil rights at all times. It is easy in a time of peace to stand up for those rights, but it is harder when we are under threat. It becomes even more incumbent upon us as parliamentarians, I would respectfully submit, to stand up for those civil rights, those rights that our forefathers have fought for and that people are currently fighting for across this globe, to make sure that our rights are protected at all times and are only deprived of those rights for good and sufficient reason.

The bill would be an excellent bill, were it to include in the legislation, now debated in the House for all parliamentarians to see, the criteria Canadian workers would have to satisfy in order to get security clearance. Unfortunately, once again, the bill does not have that measure, and therefore, we are unable to support the bill because of that one aspect.

I would encourage and implore the members opposite who have done fine work on the bill, in many aspects, to look at this section. I am sure it is not their intent to violate the privacy and civil rights of Canadian workers, but they should be vigilant to ensure that the bill does not have that effect, even inadvertently.

I want to congratulate the fine work of my colleague from Western Arctic who has been such a strong supporter and protector of Canadian workers, and vigilant in making sure that their rights are taken into account, so that we can ensure not only the safety of dangerous goods in this country, and the transportation and storing of same, but also the civil and privacy rights of Canadian workers.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Accordingly, the vote is deferred.

(The House resumed at 5:30 p.m.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It now being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-9.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before I put the question to the House, I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the honourable veterans from the Canadian Armed Forces who are with us this evening. I would like to welcome them to the House of Commons.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #41

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)