Transport Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good morning, everyone.

We're certainly going to continue today with Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment.

I've spoken to the committee members. One of the difficulties we had at the last meeting was that definition in that paragraph. It has been circulated. I'm going to ask the committee for a motion that would basically state that the decision to adopt clause 15 as amended be rescinded. Then we can add this clause to that line and approve it as amended.

I've spoken to most of the committee members and I believe there should be agreement for that.

Mr. Jean.

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

Actually, Mr. Chair--I know we did this yesterday as well--I'm wondering if we could put the amendment to the end. There have been a couple of changes, and I would like to have an opportunity to brief with the department, and Mr. Masse as well, to make sure it's accomplishing what I want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If that's agreed by the committee, then we can proceed with the rest and come back to this one.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's fine. Thank you.

We will go to new clause 15.1, and that is G-2 as amended.

Mr. Jean, do you have any comment on it?

Does anyone else have a comment?

I think it's been circulated. Or do you want us to defer 15.1 to get it---

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

Mr. Chair, we can deal with 15.1. The department has suggested that we delete paragraph (b) of clause 15 and put in 15.1, which would be.... Has it been circulated?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think I'll put this clause 15 off until the end, if that's agreeable. By then, everybody will have the right documents in front of them and we'll be dealing with the same thing.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to clause 16. We have an amendment, NDP-8.1

(On clause 16--Regulations)

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The specific language of the amendment is “and implement security plans concerning, but not limited to, the transport of hazardous materials and establish”. It's a continuation of the clause and it specifically calls for hazardous materials to be part of that.

The reason for the explicit notation of hazardous materials is because different crossings have different requirements and different usages of those hazardous material in the communities surrounding them. This is to provide an opportunity for the minister and the government to have some oversight on that. It's not necessarily oversight, but to at least have some expectations of what it is that is crossing.

There has been considerable dispute in my community about the usage of hazardous materials and their crossing the Detroit-Windsor corridor, whether they be through the train tunnel, the Ambassador Bridge, or where they're supposed to predominantly go, which is on a hazardous material ferry system. Truckers have taken placards off their trucks. We have film footage of that, as well as open commentary from them in the community. They do this to expedite their trip into the United States.

They actually can transport a series of things. I have a list from the United States government of some of the ones that are considered possible weapons. They have everything: corrosive liquids, explosives, jet fuel, gasoline, propane, pesticide--a whole series of hazardous materials. What I'm looking for is accountability for that.

If they choose a crossing and the crossing subsequently permits that to go forward, it puts the community at risk. I'll give a specific example. A truck going through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel or over the Ambassador Bridge has considerably greater exposure and safety issues related to that, versus the ferry system, where it's supposed to go. But the ferry system costs more money and can take a little more time.

The ferry system, which has a specific program from the Department of Homeland Security, actually preclears everything prior to it getting on the barge and going to the United States.

This is here to provide the minister and the community some assurances that these materials are properly passing through and that there's some type of degree of accountability and scrutiny there. That's why the amendment is there.

The absence of that is not acceptable. We had to fight for years in my community just to get a sign to say to use the ferry system and not to use any other crossings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Laframboise, go ahead, please.

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

I have no objection to the requested amendment. The government is proposing to implement security plans. I see no problem adding the words “concerning, but not limited to, the transport of hazardous materials”. I thought that was already covered, but it's good to clarify the situation with respect to hazardous materials. We will be supporting this amendment.

[Evelyn Marcoux, Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport]

Would it be possible to have a copy of the motion? We don't have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

Are you talking about clause 16 or clause 18?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm talking about clause 16.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

We don't have either clause 16 or clause 18.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Harvey, go ahead, please.

[Éric Harvey, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport]

Mr. Chairman, my initial reaction is that the motion is aimed at the transportation of hazardous materials. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act governs the transportation of dangerous goods with regard to the manner in which they can be transported in terms of physical containers, but I think it's also correct to say that it's not aimed at specifically the same thing that the motion is concerned about.

However, I understand that there are discussions, and I don't know what point they're at, but the issue of the transportation of dangerous goods over bridges I think is an issue with which the department is familiar. I cannot speak for this branch, because they are not here, but I'm wondering if in fact it would be better or proper to have such an amendment made in the context of a review of the TDGA instead of having it here.

I'm raising the question essentially to inform the committee of the existence of this other statute, and that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, go ahead, please.

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

I was just going to mention to Mr. Masse and the committee that my understanding is that there is currently an act that deals with the transportation of dangerous goods, and this would be a duplication of the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, Mr. Masse?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'd be surprised if the minister wouldn't want to have this as part of safety and security. It's coming from the fact that safety and security often relate to security as the protection of the facility itself and the people who are using it. The safety element often relates to infrastructure.

The specific use of hazardous materials that occurs on these crossings is relatively unique. It's not on highways; it's on a specific crossing or a piece of infrastructure. I would feel a lot more comfort if the minister had the ability--and this is what we're talking about in clause 17. I would suggest adding:

the Governor in Council may, on the recommendations of the minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of the international bridges and tunnels, including regulations.

I would feel better if the act to amend bridges and tunnels would identify one of the unique aspects of transportation related to hazardous materials--which are not just passenger vehicles; they're not just transport trucks bringing auto parts or our toilet paper or something else; they're actually dangerous goods.

This hinges upon the minister's ability to make regulations, and I believe hazardous materials warrant....

There have been spills and leakages on infrastructure. Most recently there was one on the Ambassador Bridge, and I want to make sure there's proper jurisdictional oversight that also cross-coordinates with some of the security measures that are there. You could have a situation where safety, security, and the minister's powers of the day should take into account hazardous materials and there should be no conflict in that.

I think it's a simple amendment that is of benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What this amendment is proposing makes perfect sense. There must be laws on the books governing the surface transportation of hazardous materials, but these aren't clear. We need to know if the legislative provisions apply to all, or only to certain types of roadways. This is a relevant provision. It's important to control to some degree our bridges and international ferries to ensure safety and the flow of traffic.

The legislation, as currently worded, isn't exactly clear and the amendment recommends that the implementation plan take into account the transport of hazardous materials. It's makes perfect sense and is consistent with the aim of the bill, which is to ensure the reliability of international bridges. Therefore, I support the amendment.