Transport Committee on June 8th, 2006

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'm in favour of reviewing sometime soon the legislation governing the safety and transportation of hazardous materials. However, given the current delays we're encountering at this level, no doubt we won't be able to get to this for several months. We're talking about bringing in additional protection. Since the government is keen on passing this bill quickly, why not include this safeguard that would give the department the authority to comment on the safety plan?

No reference is being made to specific acts, only to the subject-matter. The amendment reads “concerning, but not limited to”. Other subjects could be listed. Someone mentioned terrorism. That's a security issue that does not fall within the scope of this committee.

My question is directed to departmental officials. When a bridge is privately owned by a U.S. firm, is that company subject to our laws governing the transport of hazardous materials? Perhaps that's a unique situation -- a privately owned bridge -- but at the very least we should have some say in the operation of that structure.

[Éric Harvey]

Federal jurisdiction and laws apply within and up to the Canadian border. When a bridge is owned by an American firm, but is nonetheless located within Canada's borders, Canada's laws apply, just as they would apply to any operator, whether Canadian or foreign.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm just trying to help resolve this from the point of view of those of us who have expressed concern and would like to see this flagged. I understand the points raised by my colleagues with respect to the way this reads.

The way the amendment reads, by inserting after the words “security plans", by saying “to develop and implement security plans concerning, but not limited to, the transport of hazardous materials, and establish security management systems", maybe grammatically or positionally, to let it read the way it does it should be, “to develop and implement security plans and establish security management systems”, and then add....

Mr. Masse, I'm trying to respond to your point.

I'm saying that rather than your wording, which does indicate “to implement security plans concerning, but not limited to, the transport of hazardous materials", it tends to give a greater focus, if you want to call it that, that the plans are to concern that but not be limited to it, and it takes away from the emphasis of the broadness of the security plans.

If you were instead to leave it as it is in (a) “implement security plans and establish security management systems”, and then say “which would include the provisions contained in the Transportation of Hazardous Goods Act".... That is highlighting it, which is something some of us are agreeing to, but it puts it in the proper context. It's saying there need to be these security plans, there need to be the security management systems, and we want them to include provisions contained in the act. It is redundant to the point that they are there in the act, but it is highlighting it for those of us who feel the reference needs to be put into this particular act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm having some difficulty with this whole debate, because usually the movement of hazardous materials falls under safety plans and not security plans. I know we're making a great issue of it and have spent a lot of time on it, but in terms of most movement of goods, you deal with the safety issue rather than the security issue. What happens if there is a spill?

I'm not sure of your intent, Brian, but if it were a load of gasoline going through a tunnel, is it a security problem or is it a safety problem? I contend it is a safety problem. We're probably putting this in the wrong place, even if it were a good idea.

If we're going to spend so much time on this, Mr. Chair, I would suggest we leave it until later, until maybe our witnesses can come back with the so-called traffic security, and we'll look at the content of that legislation. But we have a lot of the bill, and we can pass a lot of that today and get this off and come back later to clause 15, and this article too...to proceed and get some work done.

Above all, I think most people around the table...and, Brian, I don't know how you call this security. Movement of hazardous waste or hazardous material is a security problem. Maybe my legal definition is not...I'm not a lawyer, but what is security?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Even in the United States a lot of it falls under the Department of Homeland Security. It's the safety of the actual movement of it, and it is a security issue as it proceeds through the infrastructure.

I know the parliamentary secretary has a proposal, if he's willing to table that. That might get to the root of everything we're looking at here as well. If he's willing to propose that, then that might move this thing along more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you very much for recognizing me.

I was going to suggest, in consultation with Mr. Masse, that we include a paragraph (d), which would just simply state some of the things Mr. Fast just said. I think he had some excellent points.

And indeed it would read:

respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations

(d) concerning those items such as hazardous materials, trafficking of illegal products, terrorism.

I'm more than happy to do that as long as the criteria just give examples of different expectations of this report or guidelines of the report, rather than leaving it as it is, which I think really does restrict the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What I'm going to suggest, then, if you want to try to formalize that in writing, Mr. Jean, is that we could move on to the other clauses while we're getting that. That way we can actually move forward in the time we have.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay. So I'll ask you, Mr. Jean, to have the wording so everyone can see it.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, I'll get that done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Okay, we're moving on to clause 17.

(Clause 17 agreed to)

(On clause 18--Authorized officer may make emergency direction)

Mr. Masse, you have an amendment in clause 18.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, sorry, Mr. Chair. I was looking at the other line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have an amendment, NDP-8.2.

Just before I go to Mr. Masse, I'll ask everybody to make sure they have that copy in front of them.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

This is just a change in the wording again. It would read:

of the Department of Transport or any designated person to make, subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Minister may specify, any direction that the Minister may make under section 17 whenever the officer or person is of the opinion that there is a threat

That's just to give the minister more authority to designate somebody, with relation to the previous clause. It's as simple that. It's an expansion of the minister's designation ability. I won't waste the committee's time with too much detail, but I believe it could be very important, for example, for other officials. That could be part of the condition that requires the minister to take action, be it, for example, a fire chief, a police chief, or whatever. It might be part of the process.

That's the reason for this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey]

Clause 18 exists to allow the minister to designate another person to do the same thing the minister himself does. What is very important to understand here is that the powers under clause 17 are very serious. I cannot emphasize that more.

They're very serious because they allow the minister, through his own decision, to order a series of very significant things in terms of “do this, do that”, and it's aimed to be done on a very urgent basis only. In other words, the power of the minister under clause 17 is circumscribed to very urgent matters.

The idea of why we need to authorize a person other than the minister is simply that the minister may not be reachable. But the fundamental principle is that this power would be used, or exercised if you want, primarily by the minister to start with, and only under very exceptional circumstances would somebody other than the minister do it.

With all due respect, I don't believe the power found in clause 17 can be delegated to the chief of a fire department or anything of that sort. Cooperation will be required from perhaps the local police or the local services, but I don't believe the power in question here should be delegated to anybody other than someone who is very close to the minister, given the seriousness of what is being done and the related accountability that must come with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have just a quick clarification to make on this.

I was concerned that the minister would be restricted if he did designate authorities to intervene at that time, and that they may themselves be restricted.

Are you assuring me that the minister or his designates will have no...because right now, as private property stands, we require permission to enter.

What I'm looking for here is that under the minister's authority there can be no restriction whatsoever. I mean, look at how many bridges and tunnels we have. The minister can't be everywhere.

So I want to make sure that anybody he authorizes is able to take precedence on the site.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey]

Perhaps another way to explain why clause 17 exists is that it essentially gives the minister the power to regulate a behaviour, just like regulations would otherwise. It's just that there's no time to develop regulations when a threat is imminent.

The words, “anything that in the opinion of the Minister it is appropriate to do or refrain from doing in order to respond to the threat” are very broad in scope and certainly allow the minister to say, go on that property and do this to address the threat.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll drop my amendment. I apologize. The legislation wasn't as explicit as I thought.