Perhaps I may say this, Mr. Chair. The reality is that clause 16 already allows encompassing hazardous goods. It already allows it. It doesn't restrict it at all. It is wide in its berth, and we all understand here, and even the department in my discussions with them understands, that this is a critical issue and that we need to deal with it. It's under review in the department. How can we be more forthcoming and truthful than to say everybody understands this is an issue?
Clause 16 already includes that. It doesn't restrict it. We've worked cooperatively together to reach it. I think everybody on the committee understands my position and my colleagues' position on all the issues, and I think they would suggest that we all have the same interests at heart. So why would we say something today and not follow through? It's a commitment we want to follow through with because we believe in the safety and security of Canadians.
By way of example, if I can be so blunt, the only highway in my particular riding of Fort McMurray goes right through my community, and not 50 feet from the Tim Hortons we have, I think every 25 seconds, a hazardous load goes through that highway. So I have asked the department myself about some issues respecting that, from a provincial government.... I am very interested in that issue because I have 70,000 people living within that dangerous goods route. I think many more dangerous goods go through there than go through other areas, so I am very interested in looking at the act.