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

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the second reading of Bill C-9, our proposed amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

Some of my Ontario colleagues might remember what happened on Saturday, November 10, 1979 in Mississauga, Ontario. A few minutes before midnight, CP train No. 54 derailed while carrying a shipment of chlorine and 250,000 people had to be evacuated from that area. Indeed, this particular incident stands as the second largest peacetime evacuation in North America, surpassed only by the evacuation of New Orleans during hurricane Katrina in 2005. Very fortunately, no one was injured in that incident, but the risk was indeed extreme. As is the case whenever we are dealing with transportation of dangerous goods, no chances should be taken.

We can never predict when incidents like that may happen, whether accidentally or on purpose. That is why this government has the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act in place. Originally introduced in 1980 and updated in 1982, it provides the federal government with the authority to develop policy, to verify compliance, to conduct research, to guide emergency response, and develop regulations and standards to manage risk and promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods.

In the bill before the House today, our government is proposing amendments to the act as yet another example of how the Conservative government is taking steps to protect and improve Canadians' way of life and public safety in Canada.

Today there are more than 26 million commercially available chemicals sold around the world, and more than 46 million organic and inorganic substances registered with the Chemical Abstract Society. Indeed, more than 30 million shipments of dangerous goods are transported every year in Canada alone. That is right, over 30 million shipments of dangerous goods in Canada alone.

Trade, whether between the provinces or across the border with the United States, continues to grow steadily. Dangerous goods are likewise being transported across national and provincial boundaries more often than ever before.

The provinces approached the federal government to bring forward federal legislation that could help deal with this trade and provide Canadians with the appropriate public safety protections that provincial legislation by itself could not do.

Between Canada and the United States, agreements ensure ease of trade while maintaining safety. In most cases, this permits a shipment of dangerous goods originating in one country to be transported to its final destination in another country without interference, provided, of course, that the shipment is in compliance with the rules of the originating country.

As I said earlier, our transportation of dangerous goods program is based on the premise that proper classification of dangerous goods is absolutely vital to its safe transportation.

Our program is actually harmonized and aligned, as appropriate, to international, United Nations and United States conventions. This new bill will be no different. In fact the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 is under criminal law and applies to all matters relating to the importation, transportation and handling of dangerous goods.

Provincial legislation addresses mostly local transportation on highways. Federal regulations are adopted in one form or another by each and every province and territory.

The current act and regulations are enforced by federal and provincial inspectors. Agreements on shared enforcement result in the provinces focusing primarily on highway inspections and the federal government dealing with marine, rail and air transport and shipping activities.

When the current act came into force, no one at all could have envisioned a new security environment that would emerge following the terrorist attacks of September 11, the transit bombings in London in 2005, or the attempted bombing of the Glasgow airport in 2007.

The current act is based primarily on prevention of disasters during the transportation of these dangerous substances and right now focuses less on the safety and the response capabilities of the government.

This government's proposed amendments in this bill, on which my colleagues will elaborate further, would significantly expand the measures used by the federal government in cases involving dangerous goods.

By working with our provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as key stakeholders and law enforcement, these new safety and security requirements will keep Canadians safe.

In March 2004, the department began broad-based consultations to provide an appropriate review of the act. Meetings were held with industry shippers, manufacturers and producers, industry associations, unions, provincial and territorial governments, first responders to matters of safety, and the public and cities all across Canada. These consultations generated extensive and substantive input, which is reflected in new Bill C-9.

What is more, in 2005 Transport Canada hosted meetings with officials from provincial and territorial governments to discuss the new concepts and potential amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. Discussions continued at each of the twice annual meetings of the federal-provincial-territorial task force on dangerous goods and also at the twice annual meetings of the minister's transportation of dangerous goods general policy advisory council.

Results of the department's consultations with industry, provincial and territorial governments and the public certainly underscored the value and relevancy of the current act while supporting the existing safety program and new security concepts being considered in the amendment of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Following the tabling in the last Parliament of Bill C-9, the department again met with the federal-provincial-territorial task force and the minister's transportation of dangerous goods general policy advisory council, as well as any interested parties on an individual basis to consult on the contents of the bill. This government wants to make sure that all consultations lead toward the best results for Canadians.

Under this revised legislation, shippers of dangerous goods would be required to submit an emergency response assistance plan, an ERAP, to the federal government prior to shipping dangerous substances. These plans outline detailed actions that would be taken by the shipper in case of an accident, including a list of specialized equipment needed to clean up the area. Preparation is the key to this. The plans also provide on-site assistance to local authorities. In the event an incident did occur, this new legislation would allow the federal government to use the measures and resources outlined in the corresponding ERAP to respond to the situation accordingly.

The proposed changes would also allow the federal government to use resources from the private companies that transport the substances in question to respond to the emergency itself, with the understanding, of course, that they would be properly compensated for whatever they were out.

On the security and prevention side, the bill would provide the authority to establish performance regulations for security plans and for training. These would be based on international and United Nations recommendations and in line, quite frankly, with existing U.S. regulations.

With respect to the safety amendments, consultations to improve the existing ERAP indicated that any proposed bill should include automatic activation as well as an authority for an inspector to activate a plan. I think that makes sense. I am pleased to say that these recommendations are reflected in this legislation.

It would also enable the development of regulations to establish security requirements for tracking dangerous goods, as well as regulations that would require companies to report lost or stolen dangerous goods. With the threat of global terrorism affecting all nations, including Canada, the government's proposed amendments also address the security of dangerous goods while being transported, stored or otherwise.

To do this, we will require: security plans and security training for all personnel handling or transporting those said goods; additional transportation security clearances for individuals transporting dangerous goods, such as truck drivers, et cetera; and the ability to track dangerous goods during transport.

Canada's role on the world stage continues to grow in importance and we are very fortunate to host a greater number of international events here in Canada. As such, there is growing concern about the need for these important security measures to be in place, and as quickly as possible.

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics is a prime example of this. If there is an incident involving dangerous goods, we need to ensure we have the necessary resources and the capacity to respond appropriately.

Under the proposed bill, the minister or deputy minister would be given authority to establish security measures and interim orders. An interim order would be used as an immediate regulation to respond to an urgent and immediate identified threat where the normal regulatory process, for instance, would take too long to protect public safety. The interim order would become public 24 days after Governor in Council approval. Only the Minister of Transport can put in place an interim order, and this interim order can only be established if the government has the legislative authority to currently make a regulation. Let me be clear. An interim order cannot be used to make regulations that the government does not already have the authority to make under the legislation.

The interim orders we are looking to introduce in this proposed bill would work exactly the same way as they already do in 10 other pieces of legislation across federal departments and agencies, including the Public Safety Act.

Conversely, a security measure is a regulation that would be used to respond to an immediate and urgent identified threat where publishing the regulation would compromise its intent and indeed public safety.

Security measures are required to be reviewed every two years to ensure that they are still valid and required, and to determine if at any time they can be made public. If a security measure is no longer required, it can be repealed immediately.

This bill would also give an inspector the authority to access facilities involved in manufacturing, repairing or testing means of containment according to identified standards and procedures. This is absolutely critical and of very great importance to the success of the safety program. Without the access to manufacturers of means of containment, it becomes very difficult and very expensive for the government to verify that the means of containment are built to the required standard. Failure to build a means of containment to standard may lead to major failures, putting public safety again at risk, and this is simply not acceptable to this government. We will not let that happen.

The federal government has consulted with industry, with provincial and territorial representatives and other key stakeholders that wanted to have input and all of them agree that these amendments are necessary.

It is important that we move forward with the amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. If we do not move forward, we will not have the tools necessary to promote the security of the Canadian public arising from the modern security environment in which we live, including the risk of terrorist activities involving any dangerous goods.

Moreover, our continental partners are expecting Canada to bring forward security requirements for the transportation of dangerous goods and to do our part to keep North America safe and secure.

These initiatives brought forward today would harmonize security requirements for activities, such as security plans and security training, and enable the government to have a prevention and response security program for what all of us in this place and all Canadians are looking forward to, that being the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

I must reinforce that not moving forward with an amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act may expose Canada on both the safety and the security fronts, two significant trade implications with our North American partners, something this government has no intention of doing, especially during these times of economic challenge and global economic downturn.

This government remains very committed to doing what is right for Canadians to ensure that we have the appropriate security and safety prevention and response program in place, to maintain and enhance public safety around the transportation of dangerous goods.

We look forward on this side of the House to the co-operation and the input of the other parties, as we believe that this is a tremendous time for Canada to move forward to keep Canadians safe, and we are looking for their support in this.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a wonderful part of Alberta, for bringing forward the bill. It sounds very laudatory.

When I was the first chief of enforcement for Environment Canada, I was involved in major sting operations, involving fuel cocktails where shipments for disposal were brought into Canada. That was the first alert that we needed to work more closely with our American neighbours. Then when I worked at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, I initiated a project with Mexico, the United States, and Canada to get a better handle on the tracking enforcement of these shipments.

Sadly, the past few governments have intervened and put the priority on fast-tracking the movement of these dangerous goods for the purpose of NAFTA.

I welcome the changes coming forward. There seems to be far more interest. Is this coming from our American neighbours? Instead of concentrating on the issue of hazard goods moving into our country and putting us at risk, the issue, I am presuming, is coming from the United States asking for security checks on our truckers.

Has the member consulted with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation enforcement working group that has an initiative on dealing with transborder shipments of hazardous waste, including working on shared intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that many stakeholders were consulted, including the provinces and the territories. I am not sure about the particular one my colleague is interested in, but I would be happy to find that out for her.

I can assure the member and all Canadians that the priority of this government and our Prime Minister, as has been heard many times in the House, is the safety and the security of Canadians, and we are going to ensure we do that. As well, there are economic advantages to ensuring our trading partners are happy with some of the things we have done to keep Canadians safe because ultimately that is their job as well.

Our primary concern is keeping Canadians safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary. He is aware that the transportation of dangerous goods is a responsibility shared between Ottawa and the provinces and territories.

Can he explain what sort of discussions the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has held with the Province of Quebec and also with the other provinces to ensure that provincial and territorial jurisdictions are respected?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for some period of time and his questions have always been excellent, as is this one.

I can assure him that we have been in detailed discussions with all the provinces and territories to ensure we work together to have provinces or territories adopt the part of the legislation they want in their rules to ensure they are consistent throughout the country. Some of the provinces have not done this.

I understand consultations have gone on for some period of time and there is some difference between provinces in their provincial acts, but for the most part they are very happy with the initiatives by this government in Bill C-9.

I understand those consultations will continue on a twice a year basis for one group and another twice a year basis for another group. They will continue.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca tell us how the bill would affect all Canadians across the country? Also, how would it affect the 2010 Olympics that will be held in Vancouver?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share a border between Saskatchewan and Alberta, so I understand his interest in the transportation of dangerous goods and how the legislation would keep Canadians, especially his constituents, safe.

I can assure him that the initiatives by the government, especially the submission of an emergency response assistance plan, will ensure that we can keep Canadians safe. If some disaster or some sort of accident does happen and we have to worry about a spill, we will be able to more effectively deal with it quicker and know exactly what the emergency responders are in for and have the proper equipment on hand as soon as possible to deal with the accident.

As far as the Olympics, this is the reason why the government moved forward so quickly with this legislation both in the last session and again in this one. Without the legislation, we will not have the effective safety and security that is necessary for the Olympics.

That is why I think all members in the House will join with the government on this legislation, push it forward as quickly as possible, to get the best results for Canadians, which is to keep them safe and secure.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions.

First, his government has failed to tell my province of British Columbia how much money it will spend for the security costs to cover the security needs of the 2010 Olympics. It is a huge problem for the provincial government. Would the member like to tell the House when his government will tell my province when it will pay for security costs and how much that will be?

Second, DND firefighters have asked for a change in the accrual rate of their pensions. We know actuarially that they do not live as long as the average Canadian. In fact, their average lifespan is only about 59, whereas it is 79 for a male and 82 for a female. Why has my friend's government not implemented the change in the accrual rate for DND firefighters who give of their lives, are brave souls and are the first people who respond in dangerous times when there are chemical spills or spills of hazardous materials?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure if the question by the hon. member is relevant to the bill being debated, but I see the hon. parliamentary secretary is rising. If he wishes to comment, he may.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I had the opportunity to look at the legislation brought forward by the government after only two years in office, I asked myself a very similar question. Why would the previous Liberal government, which that person was a member of, not do anything in over 10 years when it had the opportunity and knew it needed to do so, especially when it knew what happened on September 11?

We are moving forward with this legislation aggressively to ensure we keep Canadians safe. Why did member, when he was in government, not take the opportunity to move this kind of legislation forward?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians have a problem with regulating the transportation of dangerous goods. What concerns me about the bill is the effect it has on people. Clause 5.2 of the proposed bill says that no prescribed person shall handle, among other things, any dangerous goods unless that person has a transportation security clearance.

I happen to know through my work prior to being elected that right now there are very onerous obligations imposed upon Canadians handling federal materials, whether it is at airports, ports or in warehouses. In particular, the United States has compelled Canadians to be subjected to extreme invasions of their privacy, including things like providing biometrics, fingerprints, criminal record checks and supplying information about their spouses and even sexual preference.

My question for the member is twofold.

First, could he give assurances that no Canadians will have their constitutional and charter rights violated by complying with this transportation security clearance to satisfy the Americans?

Second, will the bill and the security clearance apply to people who do not cross borders but who simply live and work in Canada so American incursions into our privacy are imposed upon Canadians on Canadian soil? Just like under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, our civil rights have been eroded under the government's watch.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the member that I had a friend some time ago who worked with dynamite. He was not properly trained and now we call him Lefty.

What is important is we first keep Canadians safe and secure. That is ultimately what we need to do. To have people going around the country without proper training or without knowing what they have in the back of their trucks is not acceptable, especially if there is an accident. Roadways are congested at this stage, especially in major centres. Having trucks go through major centres with chlorine or other products that can cause serious problems for Canadians is just not acceptable. Indeed, they need to ensure people are properly trained and understand what they are carrying. That is why the need to be certified.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to engage in this debate, especially after the parliamentary secretary. We always have an opportunity to correct the record after he speaks because he engages us in a historical perspective on events usually laced with a bit of partisanship, even though we are dealing with a very serious topic.

I enjoy the opportunity simply because there is always a chance to re-address and clarify exactly what is happening with some of the legislation.

This bill was born out of an initiative, since the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned this a moment ago, of a government of which I was a part. It is the Liberal government that he wishes to emulate so assiduously. First, in 1992, when that Liberal government was in opposition, it prompted amendments to the Transportation Act. Second, the Liberal government initiated a series of studies in 2002 and consultations in 2004 in order to lead to legislation that we have before us today.

Although I am a little too kind to repeat it in its original form, one might say that the Conservative government has waited far too long to present the bill, even though it had in its disposition prior studies and work and energies contributed to the satisfaction of a problem that the legislation attempts to resolve.

However, those of us who were a part of the Liberal government, which the parliamentary secretary suggests was not as quick to address the problem as he would make it out to be, proposed through our consultations a five point plan. I am pleased the government has accepted those proposals.

That five point plan engages these words. If we think about it each one of the words, then we will get an appreciation of what it was that we on this side of the House wanted to accomplish and indeed planned to accomplish in legislation to address the movement of dangerous goods throughout the country.

First is the word “reinforce” as in reinforcing the existing emergency response assistance program. I say this, before I go on to the other four, because it is important not to raise the spectre of paranoia that the parliamentary secretary has visited upon us. He has suggested that the world might collapse if we stop to study the legislation for but a mere moment. I say this because a plan was already in place. There is a response mechanism, but it is to reinforce. This is the first key. It is the first sense we on this side of the House want everyone to appreciate, that we had already infused into the process.

The second one is “require”, requiring, obligating security training and screening. We can think about that again. We were talking a moment ago about reinforcing. Now we are talking about requiring. One requires training only when it is being applied voluntarily and perhaps not as assiduously as the rest of the public's interest might demand.

The third word is “enabling”. Enabling for us in the House always suggests, in fact it directs us, to presenting legislation as to enable us to put in place laws, regulations, agreements, protocols that must be followed. If we do not pass enabling legislation, the public watching this debate would say that we have good ideas but how. The legislation is intended to establish that how process. If we are to discuss this transportation of dangerous goods legislation, we have to think in terms of the effectiveness of the how in the enabling.

The fourth word is “amend”. We are talking about amending what? Again, I bring it back to what I said a moment ago. I do not want to preach an aura of paranoia, but in one where there is consistency, that we want some improvement. So we amend certain definitions in order to identify the obligations that will be imposed on individuals, on institutions and on corporate interests. If the legislation does not address the issue of amending certain items then it cannot be complete legislation.

Finally, the fifth word is “clarification”. Again, clarifying what is already there. So we are talking about clarifying an act to ensure that the applications of the rules surrounding the transportation of dangerous goods around the country, province to province, across the border, north to south, follows a particular protocol and that the protocol is enforced with uniformity throughout the entire country. There is a genuine and firm expectation by all Canadians that the rules will apply no matter where in the country those goods are being transported.

I know that the parliamentary secretary also said this is a joint jurisdiction. It is one where we have entered into an agreement with the provinces and the territories to transport goods. We will have carriage of certain responsibilities as we go along with the federal government having, for want of a better word, more exclusive responsibilities for air travel. But whenever we have goods that are moving from one area to another, and here I agree with the parliament secretary, we need to think about the one example which is very close to home for me, which was the Mississauga derailment in 1979. He is right. One quarter of a million people who had to be relocated, displaced, in order to address the issues that came forward out of that derailment are things that we should foresee, that we should anticipate, and that we should be prepared to put in action. What that requires is an emergency response plan and it has to be one that is consistent.

What I think I see in the legislation and what we will want to see as we examine it not just in debate and second reading but as this legislation moves its way through the system and goes on to second reading is an emergency response assistance program. A moment ago I gave an indication of five main themes and I will go back to those in a moment, but an emergency response plan must have the following items.

It has to give us an indication of anyone who is shipping the product, any corporation. We want to know exactly what actions those shippers would recommend or would take in the event of an accident. So we would want people to be proactive. We would want people to think in terms of what could go wrong, so that they could take those initiatives to correct it. If they are thinking in those terms, then they take the preventive measures up front. The legislation will be examined by our party with that in mind, that the emergency response action plan be already present by the shippers and in detail, so that we can have an indication that the problem has already been anticipated.

Second, what those shippers would do to assist local authorities in the event of an action that, they have already foreseen and attempted to prevent, would occur in any event. What action would they take post-accident? That plan would be very specific. It would include, for example, a third item. One might say the third item would seem to be common sense, why would we have to put it in legislation? Why would we have to legislate that an emergency response action plan actually have these details? Because apparently not everyone is abiding by the same rules.

That third item would be a detailed list of all the dangerous goods. Heaven forbid that we would have a derailment of a train or an accident involving a tractor trailer, or worse, and not know what is on board. We could end up having train derailments, as we have had in the last several years under the government's watch, and some of the toxic substances have polluted rivers and lakes and destroyed the ecosystems in the areas where the accidents occurred in some measure because there was no detailed plan of the types of toxic substances that were being transported.

The fourth item that we would demand, and that I think is resident in this legislation and it should be, and everyone who is watching this debate would want to know that an emergency response action plan would have this, would ask, what does the shipper suggest are its capabilities as a responder to an accident? What are its capabilities to address the problem? More specifically, what type of personnel, expertise, are the shippers prepared to put on the site immediately upon the occurrence of said accident? In other words, what can they contribute to the solution of a problem that emanated from their shipment?

Fifth, they must have the technology. One thing is having the personnel with the expertise, who would have been trained, and who would have been appropriately directed to the transport of these dangerous goods, but the second is the kind of technology that they would bring to bear on the scene of the accident in order to address the spillage of these dangerous goods, these toxic substances, and what that technology would be designed to do. In other words, nobody goes into any kind of transportation of dangerous goods without knowing exactly what the solutions would be if there were an accident.

Finally, they would have to have a system in place for communicating what to do, how to do it, and with whom. How to advise the local communities, the local authorities, the local jurisdictions, how to bring the local expertise to play in those environments.

We would expect that that would not happen just in terms of the transportation of goods, material goods and toxic substances, but we would expect that such plans would be in place and we expect that this legislation would foresee such plans for security risks.

I noted that one of the members from another of the opposition parties, a moment ago, was concerned that we might be a little bit too invasive in terms of training or requiring training of personnel here in Canada if we put in a standard that had to be commensurate with another country. From my perspective, the most important issue is to make sure that we have qualified people to handle these products. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, there are over, I think he said, 30 million shipments of dangerous goods currently taking place in the country, 30 million per year.

One might stop and think for a moment, if that many shipments are going through our territory, then we are putting the population at great risk. Not to play on words, but at the risk of descending into the paranoia that I was accusing the parliamentary secretary of perhaps engendering, this would be a cause for concern if we did not have the appropriate emergency response action plan that was detailed and appropriate, both in terms of personnel and in terms of the technology required to address it.

As I said, we to make sure that we have a system in place. I introduced the word “enable”, and the legislation would have to “enable” the establishment of an appropriate system, codified in regulations that would require that these dangerous goods be tracked during transport, that there would not be a moment where we would not know where those goods were. In other words, we would not accept, we would not tolerate that they would be lost, even for but a brief moment, a brief few minutes or more than that.

Second, when I talked about enabling, we would use security measures and interim orders to ensure that there would be compliance that would be in accordance with the Public Safety Act and other legislation designed to protect the livelihood and lives of individual Canadians and the communities in which they live.

Finally, in that enabling, we would have the development of a program that requires transportation security so that all of our shippers as well as the transport companies would be absolutely diligent in establishing a protocol that would ensure and guarantee the security of the movement of those goods. The obligations we would impose on the shippers would transfer themselves onto the transport agencies and companies that would move the products. We would not be any less diligent with them than we would be with those that actually send the product out.

I will repeat those five words again for everyone so that the legislation, at least from our party, will be examined in terms of those five words. First, reinforcement of the existing system because we want to illustrate that Canadians are not in danger at this moment. We want to improve what we think is a good system. Second, we would require security training and screening for all personnel who are handling and transporting these dangerous goods. Third, the regulations that would flow from this would be enabled by this legislation in order to have security throughout the entire country. Fourth, we would amend the definitions inherent in the legislation, especially with importers and defining the shippers who have the authority to move these products across the country. I think that amending those definitions gives us a clearer handle on the companies, products and associated security protocols that move product around the country. Finally, as I said earlier on, the clarification that this is legislation that is going to be applied throughout the entire country and, as a result, will be uniform in its application and its demands for all shippers and transport companies.

The Liberal Party is committed, as it has been since the inception under its watch of a study in 2002 that expanded in 2004, to come up with those five basic principles that I outlined through those five words as well as the six basic principles under an emergency response action plan that has served Canadians well to this point. We hope this will improve the legislation in order to serve them better as we go forward. We have been very much a part of that ongoing process and have, as the official opposition, been diligent in promoting the interests of Canadians and protecting their security. We want to be very helpful.

In our helpfulness on this very serious matter, we want to bring this legislation over to the next level of the parliamentary process, which is the committee system. From there, we hope to scrutinize it in the context of these items I have just outlined. If it were to pass that test, we would want to do it and do it quickly.

Yes, we are concerned that we would be compliant with all expectations of the world as it comes to Canada and, more particularly, British Columbia and Vancouver for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. I do not think we owe ourselves any less. We want to be in a world where the rest of the globe sees us as prepared, not only athletically and financially but also in terms of security.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal government was famous for initiating ideas but many times it had difficulty bringing them to fruition. I am glad our government will be taking something, which will be very good for the safety of Canadians, and actually putting it into law. I also am glad to hear that the member is tentatively supporting the legislation.

I must say that in the past Parliament he and I served on the transportation committee together where we did a lot of good work, and he had a lot to do with that. There was a significant degree of consensus on the work that we did. In fact, I think he is probably more Conservative than he is prepared to admit.

One of the studies on which we had a great degree of consensus, which was related somewhat to the bill we have before us today, was rail safety. As members know, we had a number of very high profile derailments across Canada, some cases leading to the degradation of wildlife and fisheries resources, some cases leading to the loss of life and other cases leading to significant disruption of communities, and we were able to come up with some consensus recommendations in our rail study.

How does the member see the work that we did on the rail study as complementing the work that we are now doing on the transportation of dangerous goods, which is before us today as Bill C-9.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several observations. Without jest, the member's compliments in my personal regard are doing me great damage because most people think of me as a capital L Liberal. I think he is probably wishing that I were a small c conservative but I am too close to the individual beside me, who is wearing a bright red tie, to even suggest that I would, in a moment of blushing, ever turn blue.

The member did say one thing that is really important and it is a compliment that I will accept on behalf of all parliamentarians. He said that parliamentarians in committee can actually work toward a very positive end. He made allusions to the fact that the committee on transport dealt with those issues related to rail safety, and they are very much a part of this legislation.

He may be right that the Liberal government that preceded his put all the good ideas on the table that everybody who has the public interest in mind should have co-operated and effected, but that Liberal government of that day was not gifted with the same kind of opposition as the current government. In other words, the current government has an official opposition that is working toward the public interest rather than partisan interests. I hope we will continue to work for the public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my Liberal colleague is more of a Conservative than he is a Liberal. When I watch them voting for this budget, I can no longer tell who is Conservative and who is Liberal.

I sit with that member on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We both care deeply about defending our constituents who are on the roads every day, and we want them to be as safe as possible. Can he give some examples of hazardous materials transportation in his riding that we need to focus on as soon as possible?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my hon. colleague. Someone told me a few hours ago that I agree with my Bloc colleague so often that I could become an advocate for provincial interests. Perhaps I should move to Quebec and become a Bloc Québécois member? No, never.

The member points out that problems exist across Canada. There are no problems in my riding, but Highway 401 may have some problems. This bill would therefore ensure greater safety for the people who live near that highway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to enter this Conservative-Liberal debate. I have heard that the problem with Liberals is that they never do what they say they will do and the problem with the Conservatives is that they always do what they say they will do.

On a serious note, my colleague mentioned security. In 2005, his Liberal Party entered into the security and prosperity partnership discussions with the United States. The security part of that had extra parliamentary discussions that avoided this chamber, where executive level discussions were between the Canadian and American officials who harmonized the status between the two countries.

I heard the parliamentary secretary use the word “harmonize”, and that has Canadian workers very concerned. What harmonization means is that the Canadian government has refused to stand up to support the constitutional and charter rights of workers in this country and, instead, has allowed the American government to dictate all sorts of invasive violations of Canadians' privacy rights in this country, like giving biometric information, criminal record checks, fingerprints and the checking of spouses. This is information that must be given to the American government which is then free to share that information with all sorts of governments in the world, including many that do not respect human rights and privacy.

I would like to know from the member whether he has considered the effect of the security and prosperity partnership and the damaging effect that will have on Canadian workers in terms of his comments and views upon the bill.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the member from the NDP to confuse the fact that I am willing to cooperate for the benefit of Canadians at large with any kind of approval of any of the plans that he ascribes to the Conservative Party. Far be it from that.

As well, he will have to accept that I disagree with his definition of harmonization and his inferences that come from his own definition of harmonization.

I would not want to get into a discussion on the floor of the House right now because we probably will not have as much time for the debate as he would like, but the question about whether the executive branches of two governments can have discussions that go outside of Parliament prior to any legislation that is presented in Parliament is a notion perhaps for political scientists to debate, and he might refer to them. However, as far as I am concerned, the security of Canadians always trumps virtually everything else.

In my own province. we had at one time a very heated debate about whether we would have surveillance cameras at stop signs and red lights, but that debate, while it seemed to be raging intensely for a while, has now turned into one where everybody has accepted the presence of security video cameras. Now, virtually every parking lot, every taxi, every elevator and every store has one. I am wondering whether the hon. member thinks that is an intrusion of privacy or whether that is an enhancement in security.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am hardly able to deal with some of the complexities, but the question of security cameras is somewhat different.

Would my hon. colleague not agree that the question of providing information to a foreign country where that information can be shared with other countries around the world is simply not the same level of comparison? When he uses that comparison, he is really not talking about what is at stake within the bill.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we disagree. When we are talking about a principle, we are talking about the transfer of the principle, we are not talking about the technology associated with validating the principle. I think it works the other way around.

Technology may support the principle, as opposed to building a principle on the basis of the application of technology. I think he is wrong and I am sure that, as the debate proceeds, he will find that the error of his ways will be corrected by very enthusiastic members in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

First of all, and I will repeat this throughout my speech, it is important to understand that the transportation of dangerous goods is a jurisdiction shared by the provinces and Ottawa. We will support Bill C-9 in principle because, at this stage, that would allow the bill to be sent directly to committee. Then it could be debated and witnesses and perhaps even representatives of the Government of Quebec could be called in order to ensure, once again, that this bill does not meddle in provincial jurisdictions.

The Bloc Québécois continues to be the most ardent defender of Quebeckers' interests. The first thing that we will ensure in this House is that the bill respects provincial areas of jurisdiction. It is important to us that Quebec's jurisdictions be respected. Thus, we have examined Bill C-9 with an open mind and with great consideration for provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to read the summary, provided when all bills are introduced. It gives a good overview of the content of the bill. I will then expand on that.

The summary states:

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;

The major new element concerns the notorious emergency response assistance plans that the industry should be tabling and that Industry Canada will approve so we can respond to the release of dangerous goods during transport.

(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;

They are saying that it will apply uniformly across the country. So it is important that this takes place in a way that respects provincial jurisdictions. We must ensure that the Quebec government is an integral part of each of the bill's planning stages and that it can confirm that it is willing to amend its own legislation to adapt to this legislation.

(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.

It refers to the authority to inspect any place, but we do not want new policies to be implemented that intervene in peoples' personal lives in every way possible. We have to pay attention to that when a new bill is introduced.

When we talk about modernizing a bill about the transportation of dangerous goods, we have to listen, look, read, interpret and get to the bottom of things. It is important because things change and evolve. There are many dangerous goods and we are relying more heavily on nuclear technology, even in the medical field.

We must be careful. This freight, waste or residue is shipped to landfill sites. There is one in my riding that just never stops growing. It belonged to four municipalities. Initially, there was an objective: it would be administered by an inter-municipal board. Now the municipalities have decided to hand the management over to the private sector. The site keeps on growing and now the locals no longer know what is being trucked in there. My riding is crisscrossed with roads full of trucks that bring waste to this site. I hope that a bill like this can make carriers reveal their contents and can find a way to know let people know what is going past their homes on the way to the landfill. Similar examples to mine could be given from a number of different ridings in Quebec and in Canada. Highways that pass through Quebec lead to the Maritimes and Ontario.

According to everything we read, hear and see in the media. it is important to be able to tell people what is passing by their homes, and what is being shipped by truck, train, ship or plane. If there are dangerous goods, it must be ensured that there is a real way of containing and shipping them, whether it is waste or material to be used in a manufacturing process.

It is time this legislation was brought up to date. In the amended legislation, the safe shipping of dangerous goods would remain a shared responsibility, between the Government of Canada, Quebec, the provinces, the territories and industry. Within a framework of agreements, the provinces and territories would continue, in conjunction with Transport Canada, to enforce the requirements relating to the shipping of dangerous goods by road. We must be careful. We pass regulations, but who will be responsible for enforcement?

I take pride in saying that in recent years the Government of Quebec, under the good governance of the Parti Québécois, was able to set up a system of inspection and checking of all vehicles travelling through on the highway system. This entire system, once again paid for by the taxpayers of Quebec, ensures safety. It is important that another inspection system not be set up. If one were set up across Canada, in provinces and territories that might not have the means to do it themselves, the Government of Quebec would have to be compensated for the funds it has invested into highway safety. We do not want duplication or a new network or a new system of inspectors. It is understandable that we would want that.

If there were any chance representatives of the Government of Quebec would appear in committee, we could hear confirmation that everything is being respected. We are in the process of establishing a bill that could respect provincial jurisdictions and require full compensation for services provided directly by the provinces.

The act and its associated regulations are enforced directly by federal inspectors designated under the act, and by provincial and territorial inspectors. When offences are identified, immediate corrective or enforcement action is taken. This could include fines, prosecution or both. Enforcement responsibility would not change with the proposed amendments to the act.

A series of infractions is being added. When an emergency response assistance plan approved by Transport Canada is required, if the industry does not respect that or does not provide such a plan, we must be able to implement a system of offences, corrective action and penalties.

This could go as far as judicial proceedings. We cannot establish an entire system to monitor the transportation of dangerous goods without also including mechanisms to penalize those who break the law. If we did that, as we all know, this bill would be doomed to failure.

It is important to understand that all carriers would need to submit an emergency response assistance plan to Transport Canada before shipping dangerous substances. , Once again, anyone who transports such substances must submit an emergency response assistance plan. That is important. In committee, it will be important to ensure that shippers from outside Canada, for instance from the United States, who cross our borders, would also be required to have this emergency response assistance plan. Thus, it is important to ensure not only that this procedure applies to our domestic shippers, but also that those who transport goods and enter from the United States, for instance, are subject to this legislation.

The emergency response assistance plan outlines actions the shipper would take should an accident occur, and how it would assist local authorities. Emergency response assistance plans must include detailed information, such as a list of the dangerous goods being transported, a description of the shipper's emergency response capabilities, a list of specialized equipment available for use at the emergency site, a list of qualified persons available to advise and assist at the scene, and the communications systems expected to be used.

Of course, the location of an accident cannot be predicted, but it is important to understand that the individual who undertakes to transport the goods must ensure that, at all times throughout the journey, rapid intervention with suitable equipment, if necessary, is possible, and that local authorities can be contacted immediately.

Plans would be required only for substances that are potentially most harmful—certain explosives, toxic gases and flammable substances—and that may pose a widespread threat in the event of an incident. The revised legislation would require that ERAPs also be submitted to cover security incidents.

The committee will have to discuss which substances qualify as potentially most harmful. We need a definition that is consistent with the public's expectations. As I explained earlier, if we want to go forward with this bill and create any kind of framework for the transportation of dangerous goods, we have to ensure that the word “dangerous” is consistent with what our communities and our people expect. There is a reason we have this kind of bill. As I was saying before, in print and electronic media, we see things that happen around the world, and we do not want them to happen here. So, when we are trying to define “substances that are potentially most harmful”, we have to agree on a definition that is consistent with the public's expectations.

The proposed amendments include reinforcing the existing emergency response assistance program, which requires emergency response assistance plans to be in place should incidents occur involving dangerous goods. Assistance plans mean having everything in place to ensure assistance, as well as a financial plan to help communities. Personnel working with dangerous goods would require security training and screening.

Naturally, if we decide to pass this bill, to require companies to submit plans and to ensure that staff working for these businesses and who are in contact with these goods have the necessary training, we will also have to conduct screenings. We were speaking earlier of the transportation of explosives and toxic gases. For that reason, we must screen individuals working with these materials while respecting personal rights. The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of personal rights. We must ensure that such processes comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Once again, only the Bloc Québécois rises every day to defend the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers.

Third, it will establish regulations requiring dangerous goods to be tracked during transport and incidents to be reported if goods are lost or stolen. Regulations must be established in order to ensure that any accident would be automatically reported, which is not the case at present. In reading the summary of the bill, it becomes evident that reporting of incidents is not mandatory at this time. That is worrisome given that all manner of goods are being transported on our roads.

There is the use of security measures and interim orders, in accordance with the Public Safety Act and other legislation. We have to be careful when we talk about interim orders. Such powers are usually given to the minister or other representatives, and they must be clearly defined. There must be no secret as to what they are. Too often, the Conservatives bring in legislation, but there is no transparency. Even though they campaigned on transparency the first time they were elected, I noticed that the Conservatives were no longer talking about transparency during the most recent election campaign. Clearly, they were too embarrassed to mention it. The first time around, people did not know them, but after a year and a half, people knew that transparency was not the Conservatives' strong suit. We have to make sure that if there are interim orders and the minister is given special powers, the general public can know what those powers are, what happened and why.

Then there is the development of a program requiring a transportation security clearance to transport dangerous goods and the change in the definition of importer to specify who, in Canada, is subject to the requirements of the act and regulations with regard to the importing of dangerous goods. As I said, importers need to be made accountable, but so do the people who distribute the goods, who bring them across the border from the United States.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle, but feels that Transport Canada should continue conducting extensive consultations to make sure that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces are respected.

Clearly, we would like Transport Canada to come before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and report on the hearings held across Canada on this issue, in order to make sure that all partners—governments, companies, carriers—were consulted.

It must be understood that this is a process of modernization. For some companies, having an emergency response plan is a major responsibility. We need to ensure that the industry can support it. If ever there were a problem, we need to see that there is help in place to ensure that companies are able to implement the complete system. What is needed is not only a bill and a series of fines, telling ourselves that if companies do not do this or do not comply there will be criminal proceedings. Yes, we can always send all the CEOs to jail, but that will not be great for the employment situation in our communities.

We need to ensure that our companies are able to cope with the bill. Therefore, they will have to be called before the committee to find out if they are ready, if the people involved in carrying dangerous goods are informed, and if they have been properly consulted. For our part, we will have to ensure that we have the right information and that they are prepared to cooperate fully with the government. We will also have to ensure that the provinces and territories are well aware of the situation, that there is a full inspection system in place, and that the ones that have inspectors in place already will be able to do the job. Compensation would need to be provided if any additional work were required by this bill.

The federal government must ensure that, while it may have to provide the network of inspectors in certain areas, it can compensate the provinces that have their own network and are capable of doing the work. Too often the federal government does this, for example with the Criminal Code. Certain cities are required to have a police service that enforces the Criminal Code. The cities are given more work but are not compensated for it.

We obviously do not want that to happen with this bill. There is a chance that carriers in Quebec could be required to obtain security certificates. Interprovincial carriers need to be aware of that and if ever the expenses were out of the ordinary, a program would be needed to compensate them.

So, we agree in principle, as long as Quebec's jurisdiction is respected. We will ask the necessary questions in committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He is a member of the transportation committee and of course is very concerned with these issues around hazardous goods, as am I.

In Canada and in this bill, we are not really looking at any changes to the very well-developed and world-recognized Canadian standards for the handling of hazardous or dangerous goods. The issues we are really looking at here are security clearances and the need for security plans around the movement of goods.

The nub of the question comes down to whether the bill will carry forward security clearances that are required for international truckers across the border, versus security clearances that would apply to Canadians and Quebeckers who may be travelling between Sherbrooke and Montreal.

In this bill, the level and the dividing point for the security clearance requirement that the minister would be able to enact with this legislation are not clear. It may be that this legislation would cause problems for Quebec if it affected local carriers, with the rather onerous requirements for security clearance that the Americans are asking for.

Has my hon. colleague considered these issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the last paragraph of what I was saying earlier because I have the text here in front of me. As I said, there is a chance that carriers in Quebec and the other provinces could be required to obtain security certificates for interprovincial transportation.

My colleague is absolutely right. We have to be very vigilant. When the Conservatives use the word “clearance” and they are the ones deciding who gets certificates, we know how they operate. They invade people's privacy, and that could put the entire transportation network at risk, so we have to be careful, and we will be vigilant on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have seven minutes left for questions and comments when this bill comes back to the House for further debate.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-9, a bill to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. This is a bill that was introduced into Parliament yesterday by the government and which is a very important piece of legislation in many respects. I am very glad to see the legislation coming forward.

Yesterday we had a chance to start debate on a number of issues. I want to take the time right now to comment a little bit on one of the things that I found very pleasing yesterday.

As a New Democratic Party member of Parliament in my second term, I was pleased during the debate to have the counsel of two new NDP MPs, both skilled lawyers in their fields. I speak of course of the new member for Vancouver Kingsway, a person who has had decades of work, although he appears very young, in the labour legislation field and will be a great addition to the House of Commons in identifying issues that surround the rights of working people and the rights of all of us. I was very pleased to see that. That provided an element that perhaps I did not have as much of in the previous Parliament.

To my left I have another lawyer, a very skilled environmental lawyer, our new member for Edmonton—Strathcona, a person I have worked with personally on environmental issues for over 25 years, going back to the days when we worked on issues like the Slave River hydro project in northern Alberta.

These people are a great addition to the House of Commons. When we have new members in Parliament, I think it is incumbent on all of us to understand what they bring to Parliament, what they bring to this place to provide that additional knowledge and understanding that can do so much in making good legislation, ensuring that what we are doing is correct and will serve Canadians over a long period of time, as legislation should.

As to the background on the bill, the public consultation began almost five years ago. There have been meetings on a continuing basis with provincial and territorial governments. I am sure that there will be some continuing consultation after the bill has passed.

The bill is the result of a process that has gone on for quite a long time. The safe transport of dangerous goods will remain a shared responsibility between the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments and the industry. It will be based on agreements and understandings, and working together to enforce requirements for protecting the movement of dangerous goods on highways in Canada.

Transport Canada would remain responsible for enforcing regulations that govern transport by rail, ship and air. The federal government still has a very large role to play, not simply in making legislation but ongoing enforcement, ongoing consideration of how best to ensure that dangerous goods are handled and identified in a manner that Canadians can remain protected.

Identification is important as well. I refer to a previous experience I had with the illegal movement of dangerous goods when I was mayor of my small town in the Northwest Territories. We had a case once that came out of a practice in Alberta where there is a black market for the sale of hazardous products.

Individuals could take a 45-gallon drum of hazardous products away and have $1,000 given to them on the black market. If the hazardous waste is taken away, they do not have to send it to the disposal site. We found someone in our community who was doing that and mixing it with home heating oil, burning it in buildings and spraying it all over the community. The movement, identification and understanding of where dangerous goods are is very important. It makes a difference and can make a huge difference to the health and well-being of Canadians if it is not handled correctly or taken care of in a proper fashion. Of course, we are very interested in making sure that this bill does the job it is supposed to do.

However, much of the bill does not talk about safety. Much of the bill deals with security, which is another matter of great importance to people. The government has said that it wants this bill moving ahead for security, the Olympics and a variety of other reasons. Within the bill, it would set up a transportation security clearance system where Canadians would be reviewed for security clearance by the Canadian government. The process would include appeals and disclosure of reasons for denial of clearance, but at the same time the bill is very open on this issue. It is enabling legislation. It does not lay out the conditions for the security clearances. It simply provides that the government can do this.

According to the proposed bill, under transportation security clearances, we see:

5.2 (1) 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 that is specified by regulation — unless the person has a transportation security clearance granted under subsection (2).

(2) 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.

It is pretty open-ended. The bill has been presented to us in a fashion that says that, while we currently have inter-country transport between ourselves and the United States, the U.S. has very onerous provisions for security clearance. This would take the responsibility of performing clearances from the United States and put it in the hands of the Canadian government so that shippers who are working in the transportation of dangerous goods across borders would find that their clearance is established within Canada. That is, ostensibly, its purpose.

However, none of this was laid out in the bill. The bill enables the development of transportation security clearances for virtually any part of our transportation net that handles dangerous goods. Of course, that is pretty well the entire transportation net because every carrier, airline, train and ship carries dangerous goods at one time or another. We have an act that enables the minister to make some fairly large and unknown security decisions about Canadians. That, to us, is a bit of a problem within this act, because we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our sense of privacy here is much different than in the United States. It is much more held in trust by Canadians and by their governments.

This act creates a framework that enables the creation of regulations but gives the Minister of Transport enormous powers to control Canadians and the transport industry. The minister will also be able to enable the use of security measures, in secret, for any perceived situation where dangerous goods may be part of any particular criminal occurrence.

In other words, under this legislation the minister would be able to decide not to move something, not to allow a company to operate, many different things, without any recourse and without anyone understanding the reasons. Some strong powers would be given to the minister, powers that the minister would be able to wield in secret. We do not know how those powers would be defined.

The bill is not a prescriptive bill. It is an enabling bill. In some ways the law would allow the minister to create a secret national security system that would demand of people whatever the minister, through regulation, would set as a security clearance.

Do we know what those restrictions are? The government says it is not interested in doing anything except catching up to our U.S. obligations. This has been reported to me through the department.

The government is not interested in providing security clearance for somebody hauling dynamite from Ontario to Quebec. That is not what the government is doing here. That may not be what the government is planning to do, but the bill would enable the minister, through regulations, to set conditions on security clearances for every aspect of our transportation system that deals with dangerous goods. This is a pretty strong piece of legislation.

The argument against secret laws dates back thousands of years. In 449 B.C. the Romans published the Law of the Twelve Tables creating an official public legal code that had to be published so that ordinary people would know the law. The principle that laws must be public has been the foundation of our law system since then.

The government says we need flexibility to protect Canadians, and this really concerns me. What we need are laws that protect Canadians, that are laid out so that Canadians understand the limitation of the law. Giving ministers this kind of overwhelming control over a situation, I find difficult.

When things are done by regulation, the vital process of public review and debate is short-circuited. Parliament is removed from making the laws. As a democrat, as a person who believes in the rule of Parliament, I find this difficult. I do not believe in enabling legislation. I believe in prescriptive legislation that lays out what we want to accomplish.

Just yesterday Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart delivered a stern warning to the federal government saying she is strongly opposed to any legislation that would allow the mass surveillance of private emails and phone calls. That is part of the government's plan to update Canada's wiretapping laws with new police powers to monitor criminal suspects in the digital era of cell phones and chat lines.

What did the Minister of Public Safety have to say about this? He said:

The concerns of the Privacy Commissioner are quite legitimate. We don't want to have legislation that intrudes on privacy rights and I can assure you we wouldn't come forward with that kind of legislation.

Let me get back to Bill C-9. This legislation would create a situation where the minister would be able to impose, through regulation, conditions on Canadians that may interfere with their privacy rights. It is a difficult situation for any of us who believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, civil liberties, the protection of the rights of an individual, and the right to privacy. These are all things that are important to us.

If the security clearance that is required by the United States is put into place by Canada for our people who are involved in cross-border trade and movement of goods, I think we would all understand that. We all understand that we would rather have our Canadians being judged by Canadians rather than by Americans. That is a fair thing and it is good. When it is presented in that fashion and the scope of what can be accomplished by the bill is clear that that is what is at stake here, I do not think we have a problem with that.

I do not think we have a problem with giving those kinds of conditions within a bill, but when we do not have that clearly outlined, when we have a bill that would allow much more than that to happen without the will of Parliament behind it, that is not a correct situation.

There are things that we really need within the bill. This bill is important but it is not important enough to give up the concept of civil liberties, privacy rights and the concern of Canadians to work and live in an environment where their rights as individuals are not threatened. We need to work on the legislation.

To that end, I can see us going along with this legislation moving to committee, but at the same time we do have some serious concerns with the legislation. We do not see that this is a direction in which we want to go, giving a minister of the Crown the kinds of powers without prescription, which the bill represents.

As we move along with this bill, we will see what kind of willingness the government has to support amendments, to support clearly defining what it wants to accomplish. If the government wants to define what it wants to accomplish in this bill, it would make the bill much better and more complete. It would not simply be a way for the government or future governments to intrude into the important aspects of Canadian rights and freedoms.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened with a degree of interest as my colleague across the way spoke to a number of issues in the bill, I tried to get a real grasp as to his position on the bill. On the one hand, he said that it was a dangerous bill that would give the minister far too much leeway and sweeping powers, but, on the other hand, he said that it was a pretty good bill.

Not only since 9/11 in 2001, but over the past number of years I think Canadians have recognized the need for security, not just from terrorist attacks from outside but also security on our highways and in and around our country. Bill C-9 does deal with security for Canadians, security in regard to dangerous goods that are being transported around our country, not only the goods that are involved in some kind of a terrorist attack but goods such as propane, fuel and hundreds of other products that we see moving up and down our highways every day. Most parties here recognized that there is a real need for this legislation.

I have a bit of a concern with the New Democratic Party when, regardless of what type of bill we bring forward that would give Canadians more security and safety, it seems it is always throwing up roadblocks. This bill has come out of public feedback to the government. I think other parties have recognized that the Canadian public is on the side of protecting Canadians through the transportation of these goods.

What does the member opposite have against protecting Canadians and keeping them safe?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is an important one. He wants to know whether the bill would change the way we deal with dangerous goods and propane on our highways? No, it does not because we have a very good system in place, one that is copied worldwide, for the movement and for the response to problems we can have with all measure of dangerous goods. It is written in a handbook that is reprinted over and over again and sent to people all over the world.

This is not about what we are doing with the product. The bill is about what we are doing with the people who are involved in the system. What we are doing is not going to change the way we deal with dangerous goods. The bill deals with what we are doing with the people who move those dangerous goods and who work in the industries, real Canadians. The bill is about Canadians. It is not really about dangerous goods. We need to keep on what the bill is about, not say that somehow we are standing in the way of a good, safe system of dangerous goods.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on joining the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I thank him for his speech.

My question is simple. On a couple of occasions he mentioned the culture of secrecy that the Conservatives again seem to want to keep in this bill, such ministerial powers that are not transparent and the lack of public accountability. I saw a Conservative colleague asking questions. The Conservatives themselves must be careful. When we talk about being transparent, we must mean it. I would like my colleague to talk a bit about his position on the culture of secrecy that the Conservatives seem to want to establish in this bill.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, not only in the House but on the standing committee because we will be working together very closely on all these matters and I look forward to that as a parliamentarian.

The principle of secrecy is important with security, and I am not going to say that it is not and that there are no grounds to continue to look at ways to make things more secure for Canadians, but we need to put it in legislation. We need it in front of us so we know what we are talking about.

It is not to enable some minister, maybe not the current minister nor the government, to do things to Canadians that are not appropriate and do not match up to what Canadians stand for, not only in this country but everywhere else in the world. We need to ensure we do things right. I do not like enabling legislation because to me it shows that the thinking has not been done and that the process has not been completed.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague from the Conservative Party will have any concerns from this side about security and supporting security. After all, it was our party that supported the hiring of more RCMP officers and the government did not get the job done. We asked that the government not claw back the RCMP wage increase, which it is doing, not us. We support keeping a fair wage for the RCMP. We have no lessons to be learned from that side.

However, I want to ask my colleague from the north about his concerns about consultation and the importance of having real consultation. Is he satisfied? Some good work has been done, and we support the idea of the legislation, which the member has made clear, but when it comes to consultations, does he think we have met the test of sufficient consultations and should there be more consultations when it comes to this bill to ensure we get it right?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where the government has introduced legislation that is open-ended. We need to understand, very well, what security measures would be enacted with this bill and we need to talk about them.

We do not need to show the terrorists where all our planning is but we do need to talk about what the parameters of the security are, and that needs to be done in committee. We need to understand, perhaps from the Privacy Commissioner or from human rights lawyers, where this fits in a spectrum. We need to know the kind of security clearance the U.S. is demanding of our people right now and how that information is being used.

Many of those questions need to be answered and they can only be answered through consultation. As parliamentarians, that is how we get the information and expert opinion on these bills that can actually guide us in making good decisions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have one other question for my colleague from the north. I just want his take on the privacy issue and his concerns around how this bill would affect privacy.

When it came to changes in the Elections Act for photo ID, one of the problems around the government's legislation when it came to privacy was that we did not have the Privacy Commissioner at the table. I wrote to her. There were concerns about birthdates on election lists that would be shared with political parties. That is in the amendments that some of the parties wanted. I was against that.

On this bill, does the member think it would be a wise idea to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner is actually consulted and that, when the bill comes to committee, we ask Ms. Stoddart to appear before the committee to hear her concerns and essentially give us the principles of and the criteria for privacy when it comes to this bill?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have said that better myself.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about the act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. I will talk bit about the threats and responses to deal with the problems of the transportation of dangerous goods.

I think most Canadians would find it very interesting to know that literally tens of millions of times every year dangerous goods are shipped somewhere in our country. Problems can arise either from a domestic accident or, as some of my colleagues have mentioned before, from a terrorist activity.

We have seen much in the way of domestic challenges at home. Basically, there are two factors in the response. The first is the people and the second is the infrastructure, and we use the word “infrastructure” quite liberally.

Let us talk about the response from the people. We have first responders, which are ambulance personnel, police forces as well as firefighters. Firefighters do not have the equipment, training or tools to engage in what we call hazmat. Hazmat training, material and infrastructure is what they need. They are the first people in line to address these dangerous situations. Part of the challenge is to ensure that we have some level of coherence in how things are labelled.

As everyone can appreciate, first responders, such as firefighters or RCMP officers, need to know what is in a shipment. That is part of the problem. When people respond, they do not necessarily know what they are up against. What the hazardous material is determines in many ways what one needs to do and how to respond to that threat.

I recommend that the government listen to what first responders say they need in infrastructure, training and personnel and let them have it. Them not having it compromises their very lives.

I want to talk about the RCMP. I think most Canadians would be shocked and appalled to know that before Christmas the government tore up the wage agreement that the Prime Minister announced in Vancouver. He stood in front of the RCMP and said that the government would give it a wage agreement, an agreement, I might add, that was nothing more than to provide parity between our RCMP, one of the finest police forces in the world, and provincial and municipal forces. That is all it was asking for. What did the government do, without any consultation? It tore that up.

This has huge implications. We know we have a manpower deficit in the RCMP across the country. In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, many times our RCMP officer contingent is down by a third or more. How does officers respond to urgent situations, particularly in view of the fact that RCMP officers now have to respond in twos situations?

This means they are unable to respond on the ground to a number of call-outs important to the public, such as public security. The fact that the government has torn up this agreement is not only an affront to one of the finest police forces we have in the world, but it is also exacerbates the deficit because it will make it more difficult to recruit and retain RCMP officers.

When RCMP officers ask themselves why they should not get more money on a municipal or provincial force, with less risk, not having to move around as much, which is better for their families, they decide to do that. It not because they do not love the RCMP, but it is an affront.

On behalf of our front line RCMP officers, I ask the government to honour its wage agreement and its promise. I ask the Prime Minister to honour what he said and allow the wage increase to happen. It is a matter of honour and fairness to RCMP officers.

The Department of National Defence firefighters, and there are only about 400 of them in our country, respond to some of the most serious threats in hazardous spills. DND works with some very dangerous materials.

The average lifespan for a firefighter is about 59 years. The average lifespan for a male is 79 years and for female, it is 82 years. We can see there is quite a difference.

When we were in government, we negotiated a change with the firefighters in the accrual rate for their pensions, so they could increase the payments they made into their pension to make up for the fact that they retired early and they did not live as long as other Canadians, in part because of the dangerous work they do.

The government agreed to this. It was all signed. The problem is it has not been implemented. It is sitting on the minister's desk. We ask the minister, again, to do the right thing and honour the accrual rate for our DND firefighters and implement it today. There are only 400 of them. Again, it is a matter of fairness as they engage in very hazardous work. It is a matter of fairness and it makes actuarial sense.

On the other aspect of infrastructure, search and rescue operations are very important. We have Buffalo fixed-wing search and rescue planes. They are excellent, but they are old. We had an agreement that was to go cabinet. Unfortunately, there was a change in government and that sat there, and it sits there today.

The need is there and the process is there. The problem is the Conservative government will pursue a single-sourced contract. A single-sourced contract with who? With an Italian company. Why is the government doing this when we have Canadians, like Viking Air on Vancouver Island. It has the contract to build the a modernized version of the Buffalo fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. Why can it not to compete? It is not asking for the contract, although it would like to have it. It is asking to have the chance to compete. A Canadian company is asking to compete fairly, openly and on a level playing field with other competitors, whatever they may be.

Why is the government preventing an open contract to bid for the replacement for the Buffalo fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft? My province of British Columbia has more than 50% of the search and rescue needs in Canada. It is very important for my constituents and my province. It is, in fact, a matter of life and death, not only for the citizens of my province but also for the brave men and women who work as SAR techs, the search and rescue technicians who do extraordinary things, under extraordinary circumstances, to save lives.

Again, we ask the government to honour the agreement. Do what is right and have an open contract, with a fixed period of time, with a simple statement of requirements so our Canadian companies can compete. Do not close the door on them and allow a foreign company to come in and take this contract.

The Internet is an area where there are many opportunities to buy and sell products, but it also has a black side to it. In other words, we can buy and sell all manners of things, including potentially illegal products. I ask the government, and this is a new area, to explore ways to work with Internet providers to prevent the trafficking, buying and selling of products that can be used by terrorists for terrorist activities.

A very sensible thing was done by eBay. On the issue of the trafficking of endangered species products, eBay took the extraordinary act and said that it would not allow that to happen because it would contribute to the destruction of endangered species in our world. Good for eBay.

I ask the Canadian government to extend the thinking on that and pursue, with Internet providers, a list of products that can be bought and sold and used by terrorist groups to kill people or those who simply want to kill people en masse.

On the issue of terrorism, last night I listened to an extraordinary speech by a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Joe Clark. If I may humbly say so, I strongly recommend that all members of Parliament, and in fact all Canadians, if they have the chance, to listen to Mr. Clark's speech. He gave parliamentarians and Canadians an option. He looked at where the nation would go in the future. He contrasted this with what is taking place south of the border and the changing administration in the U.S. in the way of governance.

Mr. Obama has recognized that we can no longer do the things we have done to provide our security. A military option will not solve these problems. We need to utilize our diplomatic skills, our development skills and our military skills as well. We need to use all those in an integrated fashion and intelligently. He is putting a much greater emphasis on the diplomatic and the development side of the equation to address the challenges and threats abroad.

Some people who blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians are simply terrorists. Others are Islamic fundamentalists. Others form a wide range of groups and individuals with varying interests. It is absurd for us to lump everyone into single group and suggest that their motivations and objectives are the same. They simply are not.

Mr. Clark posed the following. He said that there was a greater emphasis on diplomacy and development south of the border. Where is Canada? Where is the Canadian government? What is it doing? This is fascinating. In the last year the government has reduced spending in foreign affairs by 18%. It rightly increased spending for defence by 9% and it increased development spending by a whopping .68%. That is shocking.

One of the major tools and opportunities we have as a country are our extraordinary diplomats. Many other countries do not have this. We have an extraordinary foreign service. However, the government cannot eviscerate our foreign service and expect us to deal with the international threats before us today.

Because of the diaspora in our country, because of our linguistic capabilities, we have opportunities to do what few other countries in the world can do. We are an interface between our friends south of the border and the European Union. We are an Asia-Pacific country. We sit at the crux of major centres of power in the world. We are in some ways a sort of glue.

In this mix we have in our great country we have opportunity: diplomatic opportunities, development opportunities and military opportunities. The point is there has been an absence of foresight, vision and planning in foreign affairs and development, not because of an absence of skill in those areas in our public service, or an absence of NGOs in our country, or an absence of Canadians wanting to contribute and deal with the big global challenges that affect us in Canada and around the world. It is an absence of foresight on the part not of the ministers necessarily but on the part of the Prime Minister and the small cabal of people who surround him where decisions are made in our country. Therein lies the fault.

In my view the Prime Minister has to start changing his thinking in a big way. He must start reaching out in a meaningful way.

We have in my party, as in other parties, wonderful people with great skill sets. They can contribute to dealing with these challenges, and I will name a few.

There are enormous problems In Pakistan, which is the epicentre of what is driving terrorism today. We have Pakistani and a south Asian diaspora in our country that is willing to help.

Is the government reaching out to them? No. Why not? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. These people have skills. They are Canadians, they are Indo Canadians, Pakistani Canadians, individuals who want to contribute and can contribute. Where is the reach out? Where are the initiatives to do that? They are not there. It is an absence of foresight.

Corruption is killing Pakistan. There is an interplay between the ISI, between the politicians, between al-Qaeda and between the Taliban that has refuge there. This will require significant diplomatic and development skill sets that are not being utilized by our country.

On the issue of Afghanistan, for two years now my party has been offering the government solutions to deal with Afghanistan. The government has turned a deaf ear to them. It has produced a military option. Our forces are doing an extraordinary job there. However, we will not enable our forces to do their job and we will not protect them and reduce their threat level unless we address the diplomatic initiatives that are required.

For example, why is the government not pursuing a grassroots, Afghan-led tribal reconciliation process? Why is it not doing that? Internecine conflicts have been taking place in Afghanistan for decades and across generations. Why is the government not working to pursue a regional working group with India, with Pakistan, with China, with Iran, with Afghanistan? Why is it not doing that? We cannot deal with the conflict in Afghanistan unless we have the regional players there. If we do not deal with that, then our threat levels are not reduced here at home.

Why is the government not doing that? Why is it not dealing with the opium crop, which is the substrate that feeds the financial abilities of terrorist organizations to fund themselves, by producing a plan that replaces poppies with the plant artemesenin. What is artemesenin? It produces a drug of the same name that is the drug of choice to treat malaria. Malaria kills three million people a year. Why does the government not do a crop replacement to replace poppies with artemesenin, a high-level crop that gives farmers a high rate of return, and in doing so undermine the financial underpinnings of terrorist groups?

Why does the government not help by working with people like former foreign affairs minister Flora MacDonald, who is doing an unbelievable job in the Bamyan province of Afghanistan dealing with the Hazara people? She is doing extraordinary work. When she asks CIDA for money, what does CIDA say? They do not have any. They are not willing to engage a former Progressive Conservative foreign minister, one of the extraordinary women of our country, who is doing wonderful, amazing work in a country that is a primary development interest of this government. They shut the door or her. Why is that so? This is absurd. The government has to start thinking out of the box and must start engaging with other countries.

I will close off with the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The Palestinians cannot keep living in a cage. That is what they are living in. Rockets cannot keep going over to Israel. Attacks cannot happen against Israel, but the Palestinians cannot continue to--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is more a point of clarification. I have listened with some interest to what the member has been saying. He has spoken about CIDA, about poppies and about Afghanistan, and now he is on a rant about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I am just wondering whether we have moved off Bill C-9 or whether we are still on Bill C-9. If indeed we are still on Bill C-9, I would encourage the member to bring his speech back to some point of relevance that deals with transportation of goods here in our country and with providing safety and security here in our country, which is what Bill C-9 does.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for raising this point of order. I did ask for a copy of the bill so that I could see if the hon. member was tying in some of his remarks. The member for Crowfoot is right: we are still on Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has a very short period of time, so perhaps he could use the remainder of it to address his remarks to the content of the bill.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it deals with the movement of dangerous goods, and I was talking about threats to our transportation arteries. One of the threats that has been brought up by members of the government is the issue relating to terrorism. Part of that is rooted in the lack of resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Why is the government not pursuing a UN stabilization force in the West Bank and Gaza that would terminate the attacks against Israel? Why is it not pursuing an effort to stop the settlements that are continuing to take place on Palestinian territory? Why does it not--

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, unfortunately the member is just continuing his rant against Israel. We are dealing with Bill C-9, which is a transportation act here in Canada.

I would again ask the Chair to again ask the member to bring his speech back to something relevant to the topic of debate today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the remarks by the hon. member. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has a short period of time. Perhaps we could move on to questions and comments, or he could just wrap up with some comments relevant to the bill.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that time has not been taken from my time.

In closing, this issue is very important in terms of security. They have to pursue a two-stage solution that both Israelis and Palestinians want. They want to make sure that they open borders. The people of Palestine want to be able to have an economy. As I said, the UN stabilization--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak to the relevancy of the hon. member's remarks in his speech, because in a way I can see where he is going with it: the burden to be put on Canadians in terms of their rights and freedoms depends upon the problems in the world that are going to create the situation for terrorism.

He is correct in that the debate is around our setting up a law to put burdens on Canadians to prove their ability not to be involved in terrorism and not to be a security risk to the general population. The security risk is measured against the security situation in the whole world. I see his point.

I would like to have a debate about the bill as well. That is important here too, because we are talking about the rights of Canadians. If the hon. member has made his point about the world situation, perhaps he could give me an idea of what he feels this bill does to an ordinary Canadian, to a trucker who is trying to make a living in this country and now has to face this security clearance that might actually prevent him from doing his work.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our position as a party is to move this bill forward to committee, where we can listen to groups such as truckers and others who can provide their concerns and their solutions to any problems with respect to this bill.

In my comments, I hope I have made clear the challenges we have in our country with respect to providing the personnel and the infrastructure to respond when we have dangerous goods spills, the challenges in identifying what those are and the challenges in identifying what our first responders and second responders need in order to be able to deal with those challenges when they arise.

In my comments I was relating to the international scene for the very reasons that my hon. colleague mentioned. We cannot divorce ourselves from that. It is a concern for all of us. It is a concern of Canadians. It is a concern of the opposition, the government and our partners.

I was outlining some of the international challenges taking place in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine and Israel, and some of the solutions we can proffer if the government is willing to act in an innovative way. If the government is willing to be a leader, not a follower, it could actually make a difference in trying to reduce our threat level here at home and abroad.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Western Arctic has asked, I would like to hear comments from my colleague, the member from British Columbia.

My border crossing at Windsor-Detroit is the busiest one in the country. We have had an ongoing problem with transport trucks getting across the border and being stopped on the U.S. side because the Americans are very concerned that we have not done enough to protect the transport of hazardous goods. This has mostly been from the security standpoint, but it is also from concerns over the potential degradation of the environment on their side of the border.

Does the hon. member have an overall analysis of this legislation as to whether it is going to be strong enough in the security and environmental areas to give our partners on the U.S. side some relief and some satisfaction?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously security is a two-way street when it comes to our borders. We have to work together with the Americans. I am hoping this issue will be on the Prime Minister's agenda so that we will have a border that enables us to move goods and services back and forth in a streamlined and efficient way while still ensuring that security is paramount.

The issue of shipping by sea receives short shrift. Sea lanes, sea shipping and containers that come into the country do not receive the checks they ought to receive. This is a very serious problem. Interestingly enough, the technology that would enable us to check the compartments does exist, so I believe that what we have are technological and human resource deficits. We do not need to develop and devise new technologies. They already exist.

I would ask the government to adopt and use the technologies that exist to check not only the products coming by land, but also those coming by air and sea.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some relief that I rise in the chamber today to speak to Bill C-9 in that this bill is long overdue, at least that part in dealing with the issue of transportation of dangerous goods.

The riding that is immediately adjacent to mine is held by the NDP member for Windsor West. It contains several border crossings that are the busiest not only in Canada and the United States, but we believe the busiest between two sovereign countries anywhere in the world. More passenger vehicles and vehicles carrying cargo cross that border daily in numbers that are not matched anywhere else in the world.

The issue of moving dangerous goods in this country has been a long-standing problem from an environmental standpoint. I can remember dealing with this issue over a good number of years. The municipal levels of government, the city of Windsor and the county of Essex, were greatly concerned about the movement through their jurisdictions of goods that were not properly regulated. Safety regulations were not in place. There were no requirements in provincial or federal legislation to identify that dangerous goods were moving through their jurisdictions. Over the years there were a number of incidents where it came to the knowledge of the municipal governments that on a regular basis certain dangerous goods, toxins, and in some cases even radioactive material such as medical isotopes, were moving through their jurisdictions and they had no idea it was happening.

This has been a great concern not just to the elected officials in the municipal governments in my area, but also to our firefighters and police and emergency responders. Oftentimes they are called to scenes of motor vehicle accidents involving goods that are unknown to them in terms of the quantity and how dangerous the goods are. Historically, on a number of occasions, we have been very worried as to whether our emergency responders, police and firefighters have been exposed to toxins and other serious pollutants that would damage their health and the environment in the region around the accident.

This is not something that has been going on for the last few years while consultation on this bill has been going on; it has been going on literally for decades in our area because of its geographic location. Much vehicular traffic moves through our area on a daily basis. In order that people can appreciate the significance, in terms of the numbers, more goods and vehicular traffic goes through our city and crosses to the American side and vice versa on a daily basis than all of the traffic that goes across the Confederation Bridge to Prince Edward Island in a year. Having to cope with that traffic has been a major issue, and perhaps the major issue, in our community for a long time.

It became even more of a concern when the incident of 9/11 took place. It moved from being an environmental and health and safety issue to one of national security. Since 9/11 there has been a significant slowdown in the traffic patterns across the border, at the bridge, at the tunnel, and even with regard to the rail tunnel that moves a huge amount of cargo between the two countries on a daily basis.

The United States has been very adamant and protective of its side of the border. The U.S. refuses to accept that our standards, our safety and precautionary measures are sufficient to respond to the concerns the Americans have. Again, this is around the transport of hazardous waste and goods, but also with regard to the potential for that transportation network to be used by terrorists to attack the United States.

It has been a grave problem for us since 9/11, one to which the government has finally responded. In the last few years the Conservatives and the Liberals before them were very slow to pick up on it. In a number of other ways, we have spent huge amounts of money to deal with national security issues. One can argue that it was probably spent unwisely in a number of areas and that it would have been much better to have spent some more time and to have been more focused on this particular area so that the legislation and standards would have been in place and we could have been moving to deploy and enforce those standards.

I am going to use one example to highlight one of the concerns. The City of Toronto has been transporting huge volumes of municipal waste, general garbage from households in particular, to the state of Michigan. In the last few weeks the City of Toronto has announced that because of some recycling programs it has put into place and other policies around the reuse of items, it has been able to reduce the number of trucks crossing at the border crossings in Windsor and Sarnia by almost 50% in the last year. That is a good development, but one of the reasons it was pushed to do that is that the state of Michigan had taken some very strong measures to prohibit the importation of that garbage into its jurisdiction.

Michigan specifically used the example of the number of times that hazardous goods had gotten through the Canadian side and the American side of the border and ended up in the landfill sites on the Michigan side, and it was discovered only at that point that there was hazardous waste in that garbage. The state of Michigan has now taken steps to pass legislation that has curtailed the amount of garbage that is being transported into its jurisdiction.

This legislation is badly needed from that perspective with regard to environmental and health and safety factors. It is also badly needed to satisfy our concerns on this side of the border with regard to items that are coming in from the U.S. side. By raising our standards here in Canada, we would be able to prohibit goods coming in from the United States that we do not want in our country. That part of the legislation is badly needed. It is a good step forward.

Since 2004 the government has spent an extensive amount of time on consultation. However, that consultation was over in a meaningful way sometime around 2006 or 2007, at least two years ago. This legislation should have been before the House in that period of time. It should have gone through committee, been amended, clarified and refined as necessary, gone back into the House, passed through the Senate and given royal assent. We should have been at that stage at least a year and a half ago, perhaps even as much as two years ago. We could have been at the stage now of deploying the bill and the law and, in particular, putting in place the regulations that would flow under this law so that we could dramatically increase the safety in our communities. I mean safety in terms of the natural environment of my city and county and the national security items that this bill addresses.

There is one significant negative in this bill. Generally, members of the NDP are supportive of this legislation, but we have a significant concern with regard to the methodology that is going to be used by the government with regard to security clearances for truck drivers, but also for personnel at our border crossings such as in my area, but also at our airports to some lesser degree, and most important, at our shipping ports on our coasts. The difficulty we have with the legislation is it would appear on the surface that a good deal of the methodology that will be used to institute the surveillance of employees will be done in secret.

If we are trying to satisfy the Canadian people that we are serious about these security clearances, they will have to be done in an effective, efficient and state-of-the-art way. We have to do it as well as anybody in the world does, and hopefully better. It is hard to imagine how we are going to instill that confidence in the communities most affected by these types of goods being transported through them that we are doing it effectively. We cannot convince people that we are doing a good job unless they can see it. It is an issue of transparency.

I have heard no argument on the part of the government as to why there is this insistence on these regulations that will govern how people will be cleared for this type of employment. How does not telling the general public the criteria that people have to meet and the process they have to go through in any way enhance that sense of confidence in our government and our government institutions, that we are doing a good job in protecting our citizens? I say protecting them both from a personal security basis, that their personal security is assured in this country, but also that the natural environment around their homes and businesses will be protected as well as it can be, and that our emergency responders will be protected as best they can. This insistence on secrecy makes no sense to us in the NDP.

However, there has been a history, and it has been particularly true that some of the tools that we have tried to put in place at our ports to screen employees and the types of methods that were being used were, quite frankly, offensive to our charter of rights, basic human rights and civil liberties. I am going to use one example that came up, I think it was a couple of years ago, when I was a member of the public safety and national security committee.

Transport Canada was proposing at the time to do clearances not only on the employees but on a very wide range of people who were associated with candidates for employment, the candidate's immediate family and extended family, without any reasons for doing that. There would be no suggestion that the person had an extensive criminal record or was associating with people with extensive criminal records. Transport Canada was going on the assumption that everybody was a potential criminal or a potential terrorist, rather than doing the reverse and assuming that unless there was at least some indication that the person was a security risk, it would do a fairly conventional security clearance for the person through our regular police forces.

We are concerned and we will need to take this up, to a significant degree, assuming we can get the government to move beyond its secrecy, almost paranoia, to understand why the security clearances are being done, it appears from the legislation and from some of the comments we have heard from the government, behind the scenes in total secrecy. That does not advance the level of confidence and security in the country. It certainly does not give our citizenry additional assurances that things are being done properly and that we are advancing the level of security, both with regard to environmental issues, health and safety issues and national security issues, if they do not know what is going on.

I can well understand, because of the extensive amount of work I have done in national security since 2004, that there are times when we do need to do things behind the scenes, to do them undercover and to maintain them that way when national security is at issue.

However, I also learned throughout that period of time that oftentimes national security is used as a cloak for breaching civil liberties in this country. It is used as a cloak to, at times, cover up mistakes made within the public service. This, obviously, is a rare exception, but if we start with a system that says that we are entitled to keep everything behind closed doors, that we will not tell the citizenry anything about it nor will we tell members of Parliament about it, we will not even give access to this kind of information, then that is the wrong approach. It is one the NDP will be looking very closely at in committee and moving amendments, if that is necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)