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.