So that there is no question, in any way, of trying to appear to supercede the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and since this whole Bill C-3 is dealing specifically with bridges and tunnels, and we want to secure those under security and safety, the issue of hazardous goods....
We've seen examples of them. I'm thinking not of bridges and tunnels but of rail in British Columbia, where the derailment of some goods had a severe environmental impact on salmon and fish stocks, and where a hazardous goods spill on a bridge in the province—not an international bridge—very seriously affected traffic or the connection and use of the bridge.
So I'm wondering if the reference to hazardous materials should be back to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. In other words, these plans should address the transport of hazardous materials, as provided for in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. This would refer back to the other act, so it doesn't attempt to supercede that act, but it raises the issue.
I don't know if Mr. Masse understands what I'm saying. I agree with my colleague here, Mr. Scott, who referred to the one being planning and the other being a response to an offence, in terms of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. But that act, to the degree I'm understanding it, provides requirements and penalties. If we reference that act, we don't appear to be weakening it, but we're raising the issue of hazardous goods within this.