Debates of Feb. 12th, 2009

Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the second reading of Bill C-9, our proposed amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

Some of my Ontario colleagues might remember what happened on Saturday, November 10, 1979 in Mississauga, Ontario. A few minutes before midnight, CP train No. 54 derailed while carrying a shipment of chlorine and 250,000 people had to be evacuated from that area. Indeed, this particular incident stands as the second largest peacetime evacuation in North America, surpassed only by the evacuation of New Orleans during hurricane Katrina in 2005. Very fortunately, no one was injured in that incident, but the risk was indeed extreme. As is the case whenever we are dealing with transportation of dangerous goods, no chances should be taken.

We can never predict when incidents like that may happen, whether accidentally or on purpose. That is why this government has the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act in place. Originally introduced in 1980 and updated in 1982, it provides the federal government with the authority to develop policy, to verify compliance, to conduct research, to guide emergency response, and develop regulations and standards to manage risk and promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods.

In the bill before the House today, our government is proposing amendments to the act as yet another example of how the Conservative government is taking steps to protect and improve Canadians' way of life and public safety in Canada.

Today there are more than 26 million commercially available chemicals sold around the world, and more than 46 million organic and inorganic substances registered with the Chemical Abstract Society. Indeed, more than 30 million shipments of dangerous goods are transported every year in Canada alone. That is right, over 30 million shipments of dangerous goods in Canada alone.

Trade, whether between the provinces or across the border with the United States, continues to grow steadily. Dangerous goods are likewise being transported across national and provincial boundaries more often than ever before.

The provinces approached the federal government to bring forward federal legislation that could help deal with this trade and provide Canadians with the appropriate public safety protections that provincial legislation by itself could not do.

Between Canada and the United States, agreements ensure ease of trade while maintaining safety. In most cases, this permits a shipment of dangerous goods originating in one country to be transported to its final destination in another country without interference, provided, of course, that the shipment is in compliance with the rules of the originating country.

As I said earlier, our transportation of dangerous goods program is based on the premise that proper classification of dangerous goods is absolutely vital to its safe transportation.

Our program is actually harmonized and aligned, as appropriate, to international, United Nations and United States conventions. This new bill will be no different. In fact the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 is under criminal law and applies to all matters relating to the importation, transportation and handling of dangerous goods.

Provincial legislation addresses mostly local transportation on highways. Federal regulations are adopted in one form or another by each and every province and territory.

The current act and regulations are enforced by federal and provincial inspectors. Agreements on shared enforcement result in the provinces focusing primarily on highway inspections and the federal government dealing with marine, rail and air transport and shipping activities.

When the current act came into force, no one at all could have envisioned a new security environment that would emerge following the terrorist attacks of September 11, the transit bombings in London in 2005, or the attempted bombing of the Glasgow airport in 2007.

The current act is based primarily on prevention of disasters during the transportation of these dangerous substances and right now focuses less on the safety and the response capabilities of the government.

This government's proposed amendments in this bill, on which my colleagues will elaborate further, would significantly expand the measures used by the federal government in cases involving dangerous goods.

By working with our provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as key stakeholders and law enforcement, these new safety and security requirements will keep Canadians safe.

In March 2004, the department began broad-based consultations to provide an appropriate review of the act. Meetings were held with industry shippers, manufacturers and producers, industry associations, unions, provincial and territorial governments, first responders to matters of safety, and the public and cities all across Canada. These consultations generated extensive and substantive input, which is reflected in new Bill C-9.

What is more, in 2005 Transport Canada hosted meetings with officials from provincial and territorial governments to discuss the new concepts and potential amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. Discussions continued at each of the twice annual meetings of the federal-provincial-territorial task force on dangerous goods and also at the twice annual meetings of the minister's transportation of dangerous goods general policy advisory council.

Results of the department's consultations with industry, provincial and territorial governments and the public certainly underscored the value and relevancy of the current act while supporting the existing safety program and new security concepts being considered in the amendment of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Following the tabling in the last Parliament of Bill C-9, the department again met with the federal-provincial-territorial task force and the minister's transportation of dangerous goods general policy advisory council, as well as any interested parties on an individual basis to consult on the contents of the bill. This government wants to make sure that all consultations lead toward the best results for Canadians.

Under this revised legislation, shippers of dangerous goods would be required to submit an emergency response assistance plan, an ERAP, to the federal government prior to shipping dangerous substances. These plans outline detailed actions that would be taken by the shipper in case of an accident, including a list of specialized equipment needed to clean up the area. Preparation is the key to this. The plans also provide on-site assistance to local authorities. In the event an incident did occur, this new legislation would allow the federal government to use the measures and resources outlined in the corresponding ERAP to respond to the situation accordingly.

The proposed changes would also allow the federal government to use resources from the private companies that transport the substances in question to respond to the emergency itself, with the understanding, of course, that they would be properly compensated for whatever they were out.

On the security and prevention side, the bill would provide the authority to establish performance regulations for security plans and for training. These would be based on international and United Nations recommendations and in line, quite frankly, with existing U.S. regulations.

With respect to the safety amendments, consultations to improve the existing ERAP indicated that any proposed bill should include automatic activation as well as an authority for an inspector to activate a plan. I think that makes sense. I am pleased to say that these recommendations are reflected in this legislation.

It would also enable the development of regulations to establish security requirements for tracking dangerous goods, as well as regulations that would require companies to report lost or stolen dangerous goods. With the threat of global terrorism affecting all nations, including Canada, the government's proposed amendments also address the security of dangerous goods while being transported, stored or otherwise.

To do this, we will require: security plans and security training for all personnel handling or transporting those said goods; additional transportation security clearances for individuals transporting dangerous goods, such as truck drivers, et cetera; and the ability to track dangerous goods during transport.

Canada's role on the world stage continues to grow in importance and we are very fortunate to host a greater number of international events here in Canada. As such, there is growing concern about the need for these important security measures to be in place, and as quickly as possible.

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics is a prime example of this. If there is an incident involving dangerous goods, we need to ensure we have the necessary resources and the capacity to respond appropriately.

Under the proposed bill, the minister or deputy minister would be given authority to establish security measures and interim orders. An interim order would be used as an immediate regulation to respond to an urgent and immediate identified threat where the normal regulatory process, for instance, would take too long to protect public safety. The interim order would become public 24 days after Governor in Council approval. Only the Minister of Transport can put in place an interim order, and this interim order can only be established if the government has the legislative authority to currently make a regulation. Let me be clear. An interim order cannot be used to make regulations that the government does not already have the authority to make under the legislation.

The interim orders we are looking to introduce in this proposed bill would work exactly the same way as they already do in 10 other pieces of legislation across federal departments and agencies, including the Public Safety Act.

Conversely, a security measure is a regulation that would be used to respond to an immediate and urgent identified threat where publishing the regulation would compromise its intent and indeed public safety.

Security measures are required to be reviewed every two years to ensure that they are still valid and required, and to determine if at any time they can be made public. If a security measure is no longer required, it can be repealed immediately.

This bill would also give an inspector the authority to access facilities involved in manufacturing, repairing or testing means of containment according to identified standards and procedures. This is absolutely critical and of very great importance to the success of the safety program. Without the access to manufacturers of means of containment, it becomes very difficult and very expensive for the government to verify that the means of containment are built to the required standard. Failure to build a means of containment to standard may lead to major failures, putting public safety again at risk, and this is simply not acceptable to this government. We will not let that happen.

The federal government has consulted with industry, with provincial and territorial representatives and other key stakeholders that wanted to have input and all of them agree that these amendments are necessary.

It is important that we move forward with the amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. If we do not move forward, we will not have the tools necessary to promote the security of the Canadian public arising from the modern security environment in which we live, including the risk of terrorist activities involving any dangerous goods.

Moreover, our continental partners are expecting Canada to bring forward security requirements for the transportation of dangerous goods and to do our part to keep North America safe and secure.

These initiatives brought forward today would harmonize security requirements for activities, such as security plans and security training, and enable the government to have a prevention and response security program for what all of us in this place and all Canadians are looking forward to, that being the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

I must reinforce that not moving forward with an amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act may expose Canada on both the safety and the security fronts, two significant trade implications with our North American partners, something this government has no intention of doing, especially during these times of economic challenge and global economic downturn.

This government remains very committed to doing what is right for Canadians to ensure that we have the appropriate security and safety prevention and response program in place, to maintain and enhance public safety around the transportation of dangerous goods.

We look forward on this side of the House to the co-operation and the input of the other parties, as we believe that this is a tremendous time for Canada to move forward to keep Canadians safe, and we are looking for their support in this.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a wonderful part of Alberta, for bringing forward the bill. It sounds very laudatory.

When I was the first chief of enforcement for Environment Canada, I was involved in major sting operations, involving fuel cocktails where shipments for disposal were brought into Canada. That was the first alert that we needed to work more closely with our American neighbours. Then when I worked at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, I initiated a project with Mexico, the United States, and Canada to get a better handle on the tracking enforcement of these shipments.

Sadly, the past few governments have intervened and put the priority on fast-tracking the movement of these dangerous goods for the purpose of NAFTA.

I welcome the changes coming forward. There seems to be far more interest. Is this coming from our American neighbours? Instead of concentrating on the issue of hazard goods moving into our country and putting us at risk, the issue, I am presuming, is coming from the United States asking for security checks on our truckers.

Has the member consulted with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation enforcement working group that has an initiative on dealing with transborder shipments of hazardous waste, including working on shared intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that many stakeholders were consulted, including the provinces and the territories. I am not sure about the particular one my colleague is interested in, but I would be happy to find that out for her.

I can assure the member and all Canadians that the priority of this government and our Prime Minister, as has been heard many times in the House, is the safety and the security of Canadians, and we are going to ensure we do that. As well, there are economic advantages to ensuring our trading partners are happy with some of the things we have done to keep Canadians safe because ultimately that is their job as well.

Our primary concern is keeping Canadians safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary. He is aware that the transportation of dangerous goods is a responsibility shared between Ottawa and the provinces and territories.

Can he explain what sort of discussions the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has held with the Province of Quebec and also with the other provinces to ensure that provincial and territorial jurisdictions are respected?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for some period of time and his questions have always been excellent, as is this one.

I can assure him that we have been in detailed discussions with all the provinces and territories to ensure we work together to have provinces or territories adopt the part of the legislation they want in their rules to ensure they are consistent throughout the country. Some of the provinces have not done this.

I understand consultations have gone on for some period of time and there is some difference between provinces in their provincial acts, but for the most part they are very happy with the initiatives by this government in Bill C-9.

I understand those consultations will continue on a twice a year basis for one group and another twice a year basis for another group. They will continue.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca tell us how the bill would affect all Canadians across the country? Also, how would it affect the 2010 Olympics that will be held in Vancouver?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share a border between Saskatchewan and Alberta, so I understand his interest in the transportation of dangerous goods and how the legislation would keep Canadians, especially his constituents, safe.

I can assure him that the initiatives by the government, especially the submission of an emergency response assistance plan, will ensure that we can keep Canadians safe. If some disaster or some sort of accident does happen and we have to worry about a spill, we will be able to more effectively deal with it quicker and know exactly what the emergency responders are in for and have the proper equipment on hand as soon as possible to deal with the accident.

As far as the Olympics, this is the reason why the government moved forward so quickly with this legislation both in the last session and again in this one. Without the legislation, we will not have the effective safety and security that is necessary for the Olympics.

That is why I think all members in the House will join with the government on this legislation, push it forward as quickly as possible, to get the best results for Canadians, which is to keep them safe and secure.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions.

First, his government has failed to tell my province of British Columbia how much money it will spend for the security costs to cover the security needs of the 2010 Olympics. It is a huge problem for the provincial government. Would the member like to tell the House when his government will tell my province when it will pay for security costs and how much that will be?

Second, DND firefighters have asked for a change in the accrual rate of their pensions. We know actuarially that they do not live as long as the average Canadian. In fact, their average lifespan is only about 59, whereas it is 79 for a male and 82 for a female. Why has my friend's government not implemented the change in the accrual rate for DND firefighters who give of their lives, are brave souls and are the first people who respond in dangerous times when there are chemical spills or spills of hazardous materials?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure if the question by the hon. member is relevant to the bill being debated, but I see the hon. parliamentary secretary is rising. If he wishes to comment, he may.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I had the opportunity to look at the legislation brought forward by the government after only two years in office, I asked myself a very similar question. Why would the previous Liberal government, which that person was a member of, not do anything in over 10 years when it had the opportunity and knew it needed to do so, especially when it knew what happened on September 11?

We are moving forward with this legislation aggressively to ensure we keep Canadians safe. Why did member, when he was in government, not take the opportunity to move this kind of legislation forward?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians have a problem with regulating the transportation of dangerous goods. What concerns me about the bill is the effect it has on people. Clause 5.2 of the proposed bill says that no prescribed person shall handle, among other things, any dangerous goods unless that person has a transportation security clearance.

I happen to know through my work prior to being elected that right now there are very onerous obligations imposed upon Canadians handling federal materials, whether it is at airports, ports or in warehouses. In particular, the United States has compelled Canadians to be subjected to extreme invasions of their privacy, including things like providing biometrics, fingerprints, criminal record checks and supplying information about their spouses and even sexual preference.

My question for the member is twofold.

First, could he give assurances that no Canadians will have their constitutional and charter rights violated by complying with this transportation security clearance to satisfy the Americans?

Second, will the bill and the security clearance apply to people who do not cross borders but who simply live and work in Canada so American incursions into our privacy are imposed upon Canadians on Canadian soil? Just like under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, our civil rights have been eroded under the government's watch.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the member that I had a friend some time ago who worked with dynamite. He was not properly trained and now we call him Lefty.

What is important is we first keep Canadians safe and secure. That is ultimately what we need to do. To have people going around the country without proper training or without knowing what they have in the back of their trucks is not acceptable, especially if there is an accident. Roadways are congested at this stage, especially in major centres. Having trucks go through major centres with chlorine or other products that can cause serious problems for Canadians is just not acceptable. Indeed, they need to ensure people are properly trained and understand what they are carrying. That is why the need to be certified.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to engage in this debate, especially after the parliamentary secretary. We always have an opportunity to correct the record after he speaks because he engages us in a historical perspective on events usually laced with a bit of partisanship, even though we are dealing with a very serious topic.

I enjoy the opportunity simply because there is always a chance to re-address and clarify exactly what is happening with some of the legislation.

This bill was born out of an initiative, since the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned this a moment ago, of a government of which I was a part. It is the Liberal government that he wishes to emulate so assiduously. First, in 1992, when that Liberal government was in opposition, it prompted amendments to the Transportation Act. Second, the Liberal government initiated a series of studies in 2002 and consultations in 2004 in order to lead to legislation that we have before us today.

Although I am a little too kind to repeat it in its original form, one might say that the Conservative government has waited far too long to present the bill, even though it had in its disposition prior studies and work and energies contributed to the satisfaction of a problem that the legislation attempts to resolve.

However, those of us who were a part of the Liberal government, which the parliamentary secretary suggests was not as quick to address the problem as he would make it out to be, proposed through our consultations a five point plan. I am pleased the government has accepted those proposals.

That five point plan engages these words. If we think about it each one of the words, then we will get an appreciation of what it was that we on this side of the House wanted to accomplish and indeed planned to accomplish in legislation to address the movement of dangerous goods throughout the country.

First is the word “reinforce” as in reinforcing the existing emergency response assistance program. I say this, before I go on to the other four, because it is important not to raise the spectre of paranoia that the parliamentary secretary has visited upon us. He has suggested that the world might collapse if we stop to study the legislation for but a mere moment. I say this because a plan was already in place. There is a response mechanism, but it is to reinforce. This is the first key. It is the first sense we on this side of the House want everyone to appreciate, that we had already infused into the process.

The second one is “require”, requiring, obligating security training and screening. We can think about that again. We were talking a moment ago about reinforcing. Now we are talking about requiring. One requires training only when it is being applied voluntarily and perhaps not as assiduously as the rest of the public's interest might demand.

The third word is “enabling”. Enabling for us in the House always suggests, in fact it directs us, to presenting legislation as to enable us to put in place laws, regulations, agreements, protocols that must be followed. If we do not pass enabling legislation, the public watching this debate would say that we have good ideas but how. The legislation is intended to establish that how process. If we are to discuss this transportation of dangerous goods legislation, we have to think in terms of the effectiveness of the how in the enabling.

The fourth word is “amend”. We are talking about amending what? Again, I bring it back to what I said a moment ago. I do not want to preach an aura of paranoia, but in one where there is consistency, that we want some improvement. So we amend certain definitions in order to identify the obligations that will be imposed on individuals, on institutions and on corporate interests. If the legislation does not address the issue of amending certain items then it cannot be complete legislation.

Finally, the fifth word is “clarification”. Again, clarifying what is already there. So we are talking about clarifying an act to ensure that the applications of the rules surrounding the transportation of dangerous goods around the country, province to province, across the border, north to south, follows a particular protocol and that the protocol is enforced with uniformity throughout the entire country. There is a genuine and firm expectation by all Canadians that the rules will apply no matter where in the country those goods are being transported.

I know that the parliamentary secretary also said this is a joint jurisdiction. It is one where we have entered into an agreement with the provinces and the territories to transport goods. We will have carriage of certain responsibilities as we go along with the federal government having, for want of a better word, more exclusive responsibilities for air travel. But whenever we have goods that are moving from one area to another, and here I agree with the parliament secretary, we need to think about the one example which is very close to home for me, which was the Mississauga derailment in 1979. He is right. One quarter of a million people who had to be relocated, displaced, in order to address the issues that came forward out of that derailment are things that we should foresee, that we should anticipate, and that we should be prepared to put in action. What that requires is an emergency response plan and it has to be one that is consistent.

What I think I see in the legislation and what we will want to see as we examine it not just in debate and second reading but as this legislation moves its way through the system and goes on to second reading is an emergency response assistance program. A moment ago I gave an indication of five main themes and I will go back to those in a moment, but an emergency response plan must have the following items.

It has to give us an indication of anyone who is shipping the product, any corporation. We want to know exactly what actions those shippers would recommend or would take in the event of an accident. So we would want people to be proactive. We would want people to think in terms of what could go wrong, so that they could take those initiatives to correct it. If they are thinking in those terms, then they take the preventive measures up front. The legislation will be examined by our party with that in mind, that the emergency response action plan be already present by the shippers and in detail, so that we can have an indication that the problem has already been anticipated.

Second, what those shippers would do to assist local authorities in the event of an action that, they have already foreseen and attempted to prevent, would occur in any event. What action would they take post-accident? That plan would be very specific. It would include, for example, a third item. One might say the third item would seem to be common sense, why would we have to put it in legislation? Why would we have to legislate that an emergency response action plan actually have these details? Because apparently not everyone is abiding by the same rules.

That third item would be a detailed list of all the dangerous goods. Heaven forbid that we would have a derailment of a train or an accident involving a tractor trailer, or worse, and not know what is on board. We could end up having train derailments, as we have had in the last several years under the government's watch, and some of the toxic substances have polluted rivers and lakes and destroyed the ecosystems in the areas where the accidents occurred in some measure because there was no detailed plan of the types of toxic substances that were being transported.

The fourth item that we would demand, and that I think is resident in this legislation and it should be, and everyone who is watching this debate would want to know that an emergency response action plan would have this, would ask, what does the shipper suggest are its capabilities as a responder to an accident? What are its capabilities to address the problem? More specifically, what type of personnel, expertise, are the shippers prepared to put on the site immediately upon the occurrence of said accident? In other words, what can they contribute to the solution of a problem that emanated from their shipment?

Fifth, they must have the technology. One thing is having the personnel with the expertise, who would have been trained, and who would have been appropriately directed to the transport of these dangerous goods, but the second is the kind of technology that they would bring to bear on the scene of the accident in order to address the spillage of these dangerous goods, these toxic substances, and what that technology would be designed to do. In other words, nobody goes into any kind of transportation of dangerous goods without knowing exactly what the solutions would be if there were an accident.

Finally, they would have to have a system in place for communicating what to do, how to do it, and with whom. How to advise the local communities, the local authorities, the local jurisdictions, how to bring the local expertise to play in those environments.

We would expect that that would not happen just in terms of the transportation of goods, material goods and toxic substances, but we would expect that such plans would be in place and we expect that this legislation would foresee such plans for security risks.

I noted that one of the members from another of the opposition parties, a moment ago, was concerned that we might be a little bit too invasive in terms of training or requiring training of personnel here in Canada if we put in a standard that had to be commensurate with another country. From my perspective, the most important issue is to make sure that we have qualified people to handle these products. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, there are over, I think he said, 30 million shipments of dangerous goods currently taking place in the country, 30 million per year.

One might stop and think for a moment, if that many shipments are going through our territory, then we are putting the population at great risk. Not to play on words, but at the risk of descending into the paranoia that I was accusing the parliamentary secretary of perhaps engendering, this would be a cause for concern if we did not have the appropriate emergency response action plan that was detailed and appropriate, both in terms of personnel and in terms of the technology required to address it.

As I said, we to make sure that we have a system in place. I introduced the word “enable”, and the legislation would have to “enable” the establishment of an appropriate system, codified in regulations that would require that these dangerous goods be tracked during transport, that there would not be a moment where we would not know where those goods were. In other words, we would not accept, we would not tolerate that they would be lost, even for but a brief moment, a brief few minutes or more than that.

Second, when I talked about enabling, we would use security measures and interim orders to ensure that there would be compliance that would be in accordance with the Public Safety Act and other legislation designed to protect the livelihood and lives of individual Canadians and the communities in which they live.

Finally, in that enabling, we would have the development of a program that requires transportation security so that all of our shippers as well as the transport companies would be absolutely diligent in establishing a protocol that would ensure and guarantee the security of the movement of those goods. The obligations we would impose on the shippers would transfer themselves onto the transport agencies and companies that would move the products. We would not be any less diligent with them than we would be with those that actually send the product out.

I will repeat those five words again for everyone so that the legislation, at least from our party, will be examined in terms of those five words. First, reinforcement of the existing system because we want to illustrate that Canadians are not in danger at this moment. We want to improve what we think is a good system. Second, we would require security training and screening for all personnel who are handling and transporting these dangerous goods. Third, the regulations that would flow from this would be enabled by this legislation in order to have security throughout the entire country. Fourth, we would amend the definitions inherent in the legislation, especially with importers and defining the shippers who have the authority to move these products across the country. I think that amending those definitions gives us a clearer handle on the companies, products and associated security protocols that move product around the country. Finally, as I said earlier on, the clarification that this is legislation that is going to be applied throughout the entire country and, as a result, will be uniform in its application and its demands for all shippers and transport companies.

The Liberal Party is committed, as it has been since the inception under its watch of a study in 2002 that expanded in 2004, to come up with those five basic principles that I outlined through those five words as well as the six basic principles under an emergency response action plan that has served Canadians well to this point. We hope this will improve the legislation in order to serve them better as we go forward. We have been very much a part of that ongoing process and have, as the official opposition, been diligent in promoting the interests of Canadians and protecting their security. We want to be very helpful.

In our helpfulness on this very serious matter, we want to bring this legislation over to the next level of the parliamentary process, which is the committee system. From there, we hope to scrutinize it in the context of these items I have just outlined. If it were to pass that test, we would want to do it and do it quickly.

Yes, we are concerned that we would be compliant with all expectations of the world as it comes to Canada and, more particularly, British Columbia and Vancouver for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. I do not think we owe ourselves any less. We want to be in a world where the rest of the globe sees us as prepared, not only athletically and financially but also in terms of security.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal government was famous for initiating ideas but many times it had difficulty bringing them to fruition. I am glad our government will be taking something, which will be very good for the safety of Canadians, and actually putting it into law. I also am glad to hear that the member is tentatively supporting the legislation.

I must say that in the past Parliament he and I served on the transportation committee together where we did a lot of good work, and he had a lot to do with that. There was a significant degree of consensus on the work that we did. In fact, I think he is probably more Conservative than he is prepared to admit.

One of the studies on which we had a great degree of consensus, which was related somewhat to the bill we have before us today, was rail safety. As members know, we had a number of very high profile derailments across Canada, some cases leading to the degradation of wildlife and fisheries resources, some cases leading to the loss of life and other cases leading to significant disruption of communities, and we were able to come up with some consensus recommendations in our rail study.

How does the member see the work that we did on the rail study as complementing the work that we are now doing on the transportation of dangerous goods, which is before us today as Bill C-9.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several observations. Without jest, the member's compliments in my personal regard are doing me great damage because most people think of me as a capital L Liberal. I think he is probably wishing that I were a small c conservative but I am too close to the individual beside me, who is wearing a bright red tie, to even suggest that I would, in a moment of blushing, ever turn blue.

The member did say one thing that is really important and it is a compliment that I will accept on behalf of all parliamentarians. He said that parliamentarians in committee can actually work toward a very positive end. He made allusions to the fact that the committee on transport dealt with those issues related to rail safety, and they are very much a part of this legislation.

He may be right that the Liberal government that preceded his put all the good ideas on the table that everybody who has the public interest in mind should have co-operated and effected, but that Liberal government of that day was not gifted with the same kind of opposition as the current government. In other words, the current government has an official opposition that is working toward the public interest rather than partisan interests. I hope we will continue to work for the public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my Liberal colleague is more of a Conservative than he is a Liberal. When I watch them voting for this budget, I can no longer tell who is Conservative and who is Liberal.

I sit with that member on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We both care deeply about defending our constituents who are on the roads every day, and we want them to be as safe as possible. Can he give some examples of hazardous materials transportation in his riding that we need to focus on as soon as possible?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my hon. colleague. Someone told me a few hours ago that I agree with my Bloc colleague so often that I could become an advocate for provincial interests. Perhaps I should move to Quebec and become a Bloc Québécois member? No, never.

The member points out that problems exist across Canada. There are no problems in my riding, but Highway 401 may have some problems. This bill would therefore ensure greater safety for the people who live near that highway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to enter this Conservative-Liberal debate. I have heard that the problem with Liberals is that they never do what they say they will do and the problem with the Conservatives is that they always do what they say they will do.

On a serious note, my colleague mentioned security. In 2005, his Liberal Party entered into the security and prosperity partnership discussions with the United States. The security part of that had extra parliamentary discussions that avoided this chamber, where executive level discussions were between the Canadian and American officials who harmonized the status between the two countries.

I heard the parliamentary secretary use the word “harmonize”, and that has Canadian workers very concerned. What harmonization means is that the Canadian government has refused to stand up to support the constitutional and charter rights of workers in this country and, instead, has allowed the American government to dictate all sorts of invasive violations of Canadians' privacy rights in this country, like giving biometric information, criminal record checks, fingerprints and the checking of spouses. This is information that must be given to the American government which is then free to share that information with all sorts of governments in the world, including many that do not respect human rights and privacy.

I would like to know from the member whether he has considered the effect of the security and prosperity partnership and the damaging effect that will have on Canadian workers in terms of his comments and views upon the bill.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the member from the NDP to confuse the fact that I am willing to cooperate for the benefit of Canadians at large with any kind of approval of any of the plans that he ascribes to the Conservative Party. Far be it from that.

As well, he will have to accept that I disagree with his definition of harmonization and his inferences that come from his own definition of harmonization.

I would not want to get into a discussion on the floor of the House right now because we probably will not have as much time for the debate as he would like, but the question about whether the executive branches of two governments can have discussions that go outside of Parliament prior to any legislation that is presented in Parliament is a notion perhaps for political scientists to debate, and he might refer to them. However, as far as I am concerned, the security of Canadians always trumps virtually everything else.

In my own province. we had at one time a very heated debate about whether we would have surveillance cameras at stop signs and red lights, but that debate, while it seemed to be raging intensely for a while, has now turned into one where everybody has accepted the presence of security video cameras. Now, virtually every parking lot, every taxi, every elevator and every store has one. I am wondering whether the hon. member thinks that is an intrusion of privacy or whether that is an enhancement in security.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am hardly able to deal with some of the complexities, but the question of security cameras is somewhat different.

Would my hon. colleague not agree that the question of providing information to a foreign country where that information can be shared with other countries around the world is simply not the same level of comparison? When he uses that comparison, he is really not talking about what is at stake within the bill.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we disagree. When we are talking about a principle, we are talking about the transfer of the principle, we are not talking about the technology associated with validating the principle. I think it works the other way around.

Technology may support the principle, as opposed to building a principle on the basis of the application of technology. I think he is wrong and I am sure that, as the debate proceeds, he will find that the error of his ways will be corrected by very enthusiastic members in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

First of all, and I will repeat this throughout my speech, it is important to understand that the transportation of dangerous goods is a jurisdiction shared by the provinces and Ottawa. We will support Bill C-9 in principle because, at this stage, that would allow the bill to be sent directly to committee. Then it could be debated and witnesses and perhaps even representatives of the Government of Quebec could be called in order to ensure, once again, that this bill does not meddle in provincial jurisdictions.

The Bloc Québécois continues to be the most ardent defender of Quebeckers' interests. The first thing that we will ensure in this House is that the bill respects provincial areas of jurisdiction. It is important to us that Quebec's jurisdictions be respected. Thus, we have examined Bill C-9 with an open mind and with great consideration for provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to read the summary, provided when all bills are introduced. It gives a good overview of the content of the bill. I will then expand on that.

The summary states:

This enactment amends the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, in order to enhance public safety—the safety of human life and health and of property and the environment.

The main amendments fall into two categories: new security requirements and safety amendments. These amendments include the following:

(a) requirements for security plans and security training;

(b) a requirement that prescribed persons must hold transportation security clearances to transport dangerous goods, and the establishment of regulatory authority in relation to appeals and reviews of any decision in respect of those clearances;

(c) the creation of a choice of instruments—regulations, security measures and interim orders—to govern security in relation to dangerous goods;

(d) the use of industry emergency response assistance plans approved by Transport Canada to respond to an actual or apprehended release of dangerous goods during their transportation;

The major new element concerns the notorious emergency response assistance plans that the industry should be tabling and that Industry Canada will approve so we can respond to the release of dangerous goods during transport.

(e) the establishment of regulatory authority to require that dangerous goods be tracked during transport or reported if lost or stolen;

(f) clarification of the Act to ensure that it is applicable uniformly throughout Canada, including to local works and undertakings;

They are saying that it will apply uniformly across the country. So it is important that this takes place in a way that respects provincial jurisdictions. We must ensure that the Quebec government is an integral part of each of the bill's planning stages and that it can confirm that it is willing to amend its own legislation to adapt to this legislation.

(g) reinforcement and strengthening of the Emergency Response Assistance Plan Program; and

(h) authority for inspectors to inspect any place in which standardized means of containment are being manufactured, repaired or tested.

It refers to the authority to inspect any place, but we do not want new policies to be implemented that intervene in peoples' personal lives in every way possible. We have to pay attention to that when a new bill is introduced.

When we talk about modernizing a bill about the transportation of dangerous goods, we have to listen, look, read, interpret and get to the bottom of things. It is important because things change and evolve. There are many dangerous goods and we are relying more heavily on nuclear technology, even in the medical field.

We must be careful. This freight, waste or residue is shipped to landfill sites. There is one in my riding that just never stops growing. It belonged to four municipalities. Initially, there was an objective: it would be administered by an inter-municipal board. Now the municipalities have decided to hand the management over to the private sector. The site keeps on growing and now the locals no longer know what is being trucked in there. My riding is crisscrossed with roads full of trucks that bring waste to this site. I hope that a bill like this can make carriers reveal their contents and can find a way to know let people know what is going past their homes on the way to the landfill. Similar examples to mine could be given from a number of different ridings in Quebec and in Canada. Highways that pass through Quebec lead to the Maritimes and Ontario.

According to everything we read, hear and see in the media. it is important to be able to tell people what is passing by their homes, and what is being shipped by truck, train, ship or plane. If there are dangerous goods, it must be ensured that there is a real way of containing and shipping them, whether it is waste or material to be used in a manufacturing process.

It is time this legislation was brought up to date. In the amended legislation, the safe shipping of dangerous goods would remain a shared responsibility, between the Government of Canada, Quebec, the provinces, the territories and industry. Within a framework of agreements, the provinces and territories would continue, in conjunction with Transport Canada, to enforce the requirements relating to the shipping of dangerous goods by road. We must be careful. We pass regulations, but who will be responsible for enforcement?

I take pride in saying that in recent years the Government of Quebec, under the good governance of the Parti Québécois, was able to set up a system of inspection and checking of all vehicles travelling through on the highway system. This entire system, once again paid for by the taxpayers of Quebec, ensures safety. It is important that another inspection system not be set up. If one were set up across Canada, in provinces and territories that might not have the means to do it themselves, the Government of Quebec would have to be compensated for the funds it has invested into highway safety. We do not want duplication or a new network or a new system of inspectors. It is understandable that we would want that.

If there were any chance representatives of the Government of Quebec would appear in committee, we could hear confirmation that everything is being respected. We are in the process of establishing a bill that could respect provincial jurisdictions and require full compensation for services provided directly by the provinces.

The act and its associated regulations are enforced directly by federal inspectors designated under the act, and by provincial and territorial inspectors. When offences are identified, immediate corrective or enforcement action is taken. This could include fines, prosecution or both. Enforcement responsibility would not change with the proposed amendments to the act.

A series of infractions is being added. When an emergency response assistance plan approved by Transport Canada is required, if the industry does not respect that or does not provide such a plan, we must be able to implement a system of offences, corrective action and penalties.

This could go as far as judicial proceedings. We cannot establish an entire system to monitor the transportation of dangerous goods without also including mechanisms to penalize those who break the law. If we did that, as we all know, this bill would be doomed to failure.

It is important to understand that all carriers would need to submit an emergency response assistance plan to Transport Canada before shipping dangerous substances. , Once again, anyone who transports such substances must submit an emergency response assistance plan. That is important. In committee, it will be important to ensure that shippers from outside Canada, for instance from the United States, who cross our borders, would also be required to have this emergency response assistance plan. Thus, it is important to ensure not only that this procedure applies to our domestic shippers, but also that those who transport goods and enter from the United States, for instance, are subject to this legislation.

The emergency response assistance plan outlines actions the shipper would take should an accident occur, and how it would assist local authorities. Emergency response assistance plans must include detailed information, such as a list of the dangerous goods being transported, a description of the shipper's emergency response capabilities, a list of specialized equipment available for use at the emergency site, a list of qualified persons available to advise and assist at the scene, and the communications systems expected to be used.

Of course, the location of an accident cannot be predicted, but it is important to understand that the individual who undertakes to transport the goods must ensure that, at all times throughout the journey, rapid intervention with suitable equipment, if necessary, is possible, and that local authorities can be contacted immediately.

Plans would be required only for substances that are potentially most harmful—certain explosives, toxic gases and flammable substances—and that may pose a widespread threat in the event of an incident. The revised legislation would require that ERAPs also be submitted to cover security incidents.

The committee will have to discuss which substances qualify as potentially most harmful. We need a definition that is consistent with the public's expectations. As I explained earlier, if we want to go forward with this bill and create any kind of framework for the transportation of dangerous goods, we have to ensure that the word “dangerous” is consistent with what our communities and our people expect. There is a reason we have this kind of bill. As I was saying before, in print and electronic media, we see things that happen around the world, and we do not want them to happen here. So, when we are trying to define “substances that are potentially most harmful”, we have to agree on a definition that is consistent with the public's expectations.

The proposed amendments include reinforcing the existing emergency response assistance program, which requires emergency response assistance plans to be in place should incidents occur involving dangerous goods. Assistance plans mean having everything in place to ensure assistance, as well as a financial plan to help communities. Personnel working with dangerous goods would require security training and screening.

Naturally, if we decide to pass this bill, to require companies to submit plans and to ensure that staff working for these businesses and who are in contact with these goods have the necessary training, we will also have to conduct screenings. We were speaking earlier of the transportation of explosives and toxic gases. For that reason, we must screen individuals working with these materials while respecting personal rights. The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of personal rights. We must ensure that such processes comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Once again, only the Bloc Québécois rises every day to defend the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers.

Third, it will establish regulations requiring dangerous goods to be tracked during transport and incidents to be reported if goods are lost or stolen. Regulations must be established in order to ensure that any accident would be automatically reported, which is not the case at present. In reading the summary of the bill, it becomes evident that reporting of incidents is not mandatory at this time. That is worrisome given that all manner of goods are being transported on our roads.

There is the use of security measures and interim orders, in accordance with the Public Safety Act and other legislation. We have to be careful when we talk about interim orders. Such powers are usually given to the minister or other representatives, and they must be clearly defined. There must be no secret as to what they are. Too often, the Conservatives bring in legislation, but there is no transparency. Even though they campaigned on transparency the first time they were elected, I noticed that the Conservatives were no longer talking about transparency during the most recent election campaign. Clearly, they were too embarrassed to mention it. The first time around, people did not know them, but after a year and a half, people knew that transparency was not the Conservatives' strong suit. We have to make sure that if there are interim orders and the minister is given special powers, the general public can know what those powers are, what happened and why.

Then there is the development of a program requiring a transportation security clearance to transport dangerous goods and the change in the definition of importer to specify who, in Canada, is subject to the requirements of the act and regulations with regard to the importing of dangerous goods. As I said, importers need to be made accountable, but so do the people who distribute the goods, who bring them across the border from the United States.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle, but feels that Transport Canada should continue conducting extensive consultations to make sure that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces are respected.

Clearly, we would like Transport Canada to come before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and report on the hearings held across Canada on this issue, in order to make sure that all partners—governments, companies, carriers—were consulted.

It must be understood that this is a process of modernization. For some companies, having an emergency response plan is a major responsibility. We need to ensure that the industry can support it. If ever there were a problem, we need to see that there is help in place to ensure that companies are able to implement the complete system. What is needed is not only a bill and a series of fines, telling ourselves that if companies do not do this or do not comply there will be criminal proceedings. Yes, we can always send all the CEOs to jail, but that will not be great for the employment situation in our communities.

We need to ensure that our companies are able to cope with the bill. Therefore, they will have to be called before the committee to find out if they are ready, if the people involved in carrying dangerous goods are informed, and if they have been properly consulted. For our part, we will have to ensure that we have the right information and that they are prepared to cooperate fully with the government. We will also have to ensure that the provinces and territories are well aware of the situation, that there is a full inspection system in place, and that the ones that have inspectors in place already will be able to do the job. Compensation would need to be provided if any additional work were required by this bill.

The federal government must ensure that, while it may have to provide the network of inspectors in certain areas, it can compensate the provinces that have their own network and are capable of doing the work. Too often the federal government does this, for example with the Criminal Code. Certain cities are required to have a police service that enforces the Criminal Code. The cities are given more work but are not compensated for it.

We obviously do not want that to happen with this bill. There is a chance that carriers in Quebec could be required to obtain security certificates. Interprovincial carriers need to be aware of that and if ever the expenses were out of the ordinary, a program would be needed to compensate them.

So, we agree in principle, as long as Quebec's jurisdiction is respected. We will ask the necessary questions in committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He is a member of the transportation committee and of course is very concerned with these issues around hazardous goods, as am I.

In Canada and in this bill, we are not really looking at any changes to the very well-developed and world-recognized Canadian standards for the handling of hazardous or dangerous goods. The issues we are really looking at here are security clearances and the need for security plans around the movement of goods.

The nub of the question comes down to whether the bill will carry forward security clearances that are required for international truckers across the border, versus security clearances that would apply to Canadians and Quebeckers who may be travelling between Sherbrooke and Montreal.

In this bill, the level and the dividing point for the security clearance requirement that the minister would be able to enact with this legislation are not clear. It may be that this legislation would cause problems for Quebec if it affected local carriers, with the rather onerous requirements for security clearance that the Americans are asking for.

Has my hon. colleague considered these issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the last paragraph of what I was saying earlier because I have the text here in front of me. As I said, there is a chance that carriers in Quebec and the other provinces could be required to obtain security certificates for interprovincial transportation.

My colleague is absolutely right. We have to be very vigilant. When the Conservatives use the word “clearance” and they are the ones deciding who gets certificates, we know how they operate. They invade people's privacy, and that could put the entire transportation network at risk, so we have to be careful, and we will be vigilant on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have seven minutes left for questions and comments when this bill comes back to the House for further debate.