Mr. Speaker, I cannot pretend to know what was in the minds of the government members who initiated this bill. However, we have to ask ourselves: What is government for?
Surely one of the key roles of government is to protect its citizens from harm. After the fact, to say that we should have done this or perhaps we should have been responsible for that is cold comfort to people.
I believe that part of the rationale is simply a transition in the public service, a generational change. It will be costly and there is always a strategy that needs to be worked out to do that transition. I believe the government has not planned adequately for that. This is a very cut rate way to get out from under the responsibility of generational change in our inspectors. It is transferring responsibility to the private sector, to the companies themselves, surely something that is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. It is of great concern to the members of this caucus and, if Canadians knew about it, I think it also would be of great concern to them.
My colleague raised the issue of harmonization with U.S. laws. If that is a rationale, then I would argue that it is a poor one.