George S. Rideout

[Mining Exploration And Development, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on Motion 292, which would require the government to consider a new program of incentives to encourage exploration and development in Canada. In part the question is the definition of incentives and what that actually means.

[Translation]

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Timaskaming-French River, for having brought these important matters to the attention of the House.

Mining makes an enormous contribution to the Canadian economy and way of life, representing a vital source of employment in more than 115 communities throughout the country. It provides direct jobs for more than 300,000 Canadians and contributes more than $20 billion to the economy every year.

Moreover, mining activities have a significant indirect effect on the Canadian economy, from the small local supplier to the specialized financial institution in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. For every job created in the mining industry an additional job is indirectly created in other sectors of the Canadian economy.

The Canadian mining industry is known throughout the world for its leadership in developing and applying state of the art exploration and mining techniques and technologies. We are very proud of the expertise that was developed here in Canada to take full advantage of our rich mineral endowment.

The government appreciates the key role of mining to our economic well-being. However, we are also aware of the challenges the industry has been facing, especially from increased global competition and mineral investment. We must meet these challenges by working with all the mining stakeholders to sustain the vitality of the industry and provide conditions that will foster its growth.

In our opinion, the best way to support and encourage the mining sector is to reduce the level of long term structural impediments to mineral investment. Many of these impediments were identified by the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, which saw the federal government, along with the representatives of industry, provincial governments, environmental groups, labour unions, and aboriginal organizations, come to the table to work together. A consensus was reached and the WMI leadership council accord was signed in September 1994, which outlines agreed upon principles and goals to guide the development of mining in this country.

To help develop an action plan to address the WMI issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, the Minister of Natural Resources established a private sector ministerial advisory committee. One of its first tasks is to provide commentary and advice on the sustainable development of mineral, mines, and metals issues paper the minister released in September in Vancouver. This release fulfils a promise the minister made. After discussion on the paper, the minister will work with the stakeholders to develop a mineral and metal policy for consideration by cabinet.

To address the most fundamental industry concerns we introduced a measure in the 1994 budget allowing a deduction for mine reclamation trust fund contributions. Our commitment to mineral development was also reaffirmed when the mining sector was identified as one of the six key sectors where the government wants to see significant improvement to the regulatory regime. Furthermore, our natural resources standing committee is currently examining this very issue.

Some specific areas where we are working to make tangible long term improvements include administration of the Fisheries Act, land use and related decision making, the definition of waste, regulatory regimes north of 60, regulatory impact analysis, and toxic management policy and practices. Important improvements on issues of overlap and duplication could also be achieved through various initiatives to harmonize federal and provincial regulatory regimes.

On October 19 Natural Resources Canada and the Mining Association of Canada co-sponsored a seminar on regulatory streamlining in order to help identify concrete ways of accelerating progress on these issues. In support of the same objectives for jobs and new investments, NR Canada has been marketing Canada's mineral opportunities in Canada and abroad in an effort to attract much needed capital investment for our mineral industry.

The Minister of Natural Resources is a strong champion of the Canadian mining industry. Earlier this year she participated in the international "Investing in the Americas" conference, where she vigorously promoted Canada as an attractive country for mineral investment.

These efforts are very important, because investments are essential to ensure the industry's future.

We know that Canada's geography and geology are attractive. Exploration levels have recently started to recover, thus reflecting increased confidence in Canada as a mining country.

Of course the 1995 budget must be counted among our efforts to help solve the problems of the mining industry. By forcefully proceeding to put our economic house in order, we are sending a clear signal that we want to regain control of our country's finances. The measures implemented in the last budget will result in more favourable investment conditions in Canada, which will certainly benefit the mining industry.

The government remains committed to a prosperous mining sector in Canada and promotes actions that are consistent with our budgetary objectives and the efficiency of the federation. Mining, more than most industries, is global. The influence that Natural Resources Canada exercises in national and international fora makes a significant difference to the sustainable development and competitiveness of the industry. Our science and technology and our policy investments are cost-effective and bring benefits to Canada in all regions.

The initiatives I have discussed are fundamental critical steps that will result in greater levels of certainty for the mining investor. This government understands that reality. We will continue to work in partnership with provinces and territories to ensure that our geological potential is fully realized and Canadians have an opportunity to benefit from a strong mining industry.

In conclusion, this government appreciates the important contribution the mining industry makes to our country's job creation and economic growth. We understand the challenges that face the industry today. This government is following a policy agenda to put in place an attractive investment climate that encourages and supports a prosperous mining industry committed to sustainable development.

[National Housing Act, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. It is an interesting one, because in a country the size of Canada, with a population of roughly 30 million, the key to a lot of our economic success is the role we are to play on the international market and what we will accomplish there.

What is very gratifying for me in my role as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources is dealing with companies that are actually building model homes or sending building materials into the international marketplace.

I recently had a meeting with a model home builder who is building homes for the Japanese market. A lot of people said that would not happen, that we could not crack that market. The manufacturer was telling me that he cannot supply the demand, that if he could generate more he would. The market is flooded with the types of housing that do not fit the strict criteria necessary in the Japanese market. Canadians have developed the techniques, the building standards, and those types of things that make it easier for us to introduce our products into the international marketplace.

I hear the Reform Party from time to time talk about doing away with the Department of Natural Resources, saying that the federal government has no role to play. As we set the standards so that we can meet the international criteria and the International Standards Association requirements, as we do the research and the development that is necessary and develop the new technologies that allow our industries to compete in the international marketplace, we are making that contribution to creating jobs in Canada. That is where the housing market has an integral role to play.

In my home province, Kent Homes, part of a larger company, is building model homes and is trying to sell those all around the world. Just as I described the number of people who were working on my house when I was building it, the same sorts of things are going on in the construction of model homes. These are job creators. They are a transfer of money, jobs, and growth to the international marketplace so that we can then reap the returns from those activities.

The Department of Natural Resources has an excellent role to play, CMHC has a role to play, and we at the federal government

level have a very important role to play in creating employment through housing. This bill will make one small step for that approach.

[National Housing Act, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.

In 1987, CMHC introduced National Housing Act mortgage backed securities, a new way of attracting investors into the mortgage market and increasing the supply of funds available for home buyers. Since then the program has become a key part of the financial system in two respects: first, as an attractive real estate based investment offering very good yields and maximum safety; second, as a source of financing for the Canadian housing industry. The mortgages are all insured under the National Housing Act.

The fact that these blue chip securities are the only ones of their kind backed by the federal government makes them as solid as Canada Savings Bonds but with the added advantage of higher yields. Yields are greater because their liquidity is market based and their value fluctuates with market interest rates.

MBSs help to increase the amount of private capital available to finance the construction and purchase of homes and rental accommodation and encourages competition in the mortgage market. MBSs help to support the availability of lower mortgage interest rates by assisting smaller approved lenders to compete with the larger ones.

MBSs have also improved the security of tenure for Canadians through longer term mortgages. Before they were introduced, mortgage terms usually ranged from six months to three years and now consumers can benefit with terms of up to 25 years. Over $25 billion worth of mortgage backed securities have been issued since the initiative began in 1987.

Turning to the bill itself, it is quite straightforward. It is intended to increase the maximum aggregate mortgage loan insurance from $100 billion to $150 billion. It sounds like a large sum of money, but at the same time we have heard members on this side of the House explain that this is really a profit making venture on the part of the government, which contributes to the reduction of the

national debt and at the same time encourages housing construction.

Many really do not understand what we are talking about when we say mortgage insurance. Some people have the view that it is like life insurance and it is something that is put on a mortgage to insure someone's life. Most lending institutions will only lend up to 75 per cent of the value of a house or a property available for construction, so there is the leftover portion of roughly 25 per cent. That can only be accommodated in one of two ways, either the person who is building the home or buying the home comes up with that 25 per cent, or the financial institution receives a guarantee that it will be paid back that 25 per cent. That is where mortgage insurance comes in and that is why it is essential.

It is clear from everything I have read that if mortgage insurance was not available for that 25 per cent, housing construction would literally grind to a halt and we would see no activity at all.

I have gone through the joys of constructing a house of my own. I use the term joy very loosely. It is a challenge more than a joy. I contracted out the work myself, which means I used to be seven feet tall and have no grey hair, but after having being beat up by all of the contractors and chasing around, I realized exactly what goes into constructing a home.

What I was struck by in the process was the amount of employment created in the construction of just one home. People have no real appreciation of the facts because a lot of people have contractors build their homes and do not really see the full effect of what one house has in the construction industry.

I had five framers working on my house for six weeks. Those are the people who build the house and do all the rough construction. I had two plumbers working on my house for at least two weeks and three electricians working for another two to three weeks. Eight roofers put on the roof in two days, which I was very impressed with, but there were eight people scampering all over the roof. Four people put up the gyprock and another two put on the plaster. As well, there were painters and finish carpenters.

I was lucky to have fixed contracts so that I did not get beat up by the time that it took on this particular contract, or else I really would have been looking stupid, but fixed contracts are very important in these circumstances. What struck me was the sheer number of jobs created. That does not even account for the other people who were involved, the building supply people, the manufacturers of the pipes, the sinks, the toilets, the sewer pipes and those types of things, the cabinet makers, the people who do the hardwood floors and the carpets.

I am sure I have forgotten some of the people who were actually involved in the process. My wife is sitting at home telling me I have forgotten about this and I have forgotten about that because she did it all and that is why I do not know. She did most of the contracting rather than me.

The fact is that literally hundreds of jobs are created because one person chooses to build a house. If we can make that happen throughout the country, then we are really going to be creating a large amount of employment. It is clear that housing is a major contributor to the creation and the maintenance of employment. That is why mortgage insurance and CMHC have a very critical role to play.

In this major indication of commitment, the government is saying it wants to spur on the housing industry. For those on the opposite side that say it is crazy, that we should not do it, that we should let the marketplace do it on its own, I would like to read some of the stats that are put out by the housing industry.

In a press release in September of this year CMHC forecast housing starts of 112,500 for 1995, an astonishing 30,000 drop from the initial forecast of 141,000 starts at the beginning of the year and far below national housing requirements of 165,000 starts. While the news is a little better in 1996 with CMHC forecasting another 127,000 starts, the housing industry is at recession levels. Ways have to be found to encourage the housing industry because it creates the employment Canada needs.

The press release went on to state that lower interest rates are not the cure all for the current situation. Lower rates will not address the principal problem, the loss of confidence among many Canadians in their employment prospects.

That is why we have a double barrelled task here. First, to create that confidence, which is what the Liberal government is doing now by getting our financial house in order, while at the same time providing those mechanisms like mortgage insurance so that the housing industry can easily facilitate the increase in construction which is necessary. I want to emphasize that the key is confidence. We have to establish confidence. We have now turned the corner on the referendum. It is time to start talking about confidence, about creating employment and carrying this country into the 21st century.

New approaches and new directions for financing the housing industry have to be found. I know the industry has brought forward a number of imaginative approaches. It talked about RRSP loans for mortgages and all of those things. I found it interesting to look at some of the things that Central Mortgage and Housing is actually doing now. I thought I should read those into the record because they are important as we try to grapple with housing. If this country is going to succeed, one of the areas which will help cure crime

problems, create jobs and, in effect, fuel a positive, caring society is through the provision of adequate and proper housing.

Here are some of the objectives of the National Housing Act and what CMHC supports. Through social housing, CMHC works with provincial, territorial and municipal housing agencies and with local non-profit organizations, co-operatives, urban native groups and First Nations, for those whose needs cannot be met by the private market. Assistance is provided to more than 661,000 social housing units.

CMHC's direct lending program enables CMHC to act as a break even lender to public and private, non-profit and co-operative projects that are subsidized by CMHC.

CMHC is helping the Canadian housing industry to promote the Canadian housing system abroad by helping to develop housing export strategies to assist the Canadian housing industry market Canadian housing technology, products and services in world markets.

CMHC's Canada Centre for Public-Private Partnerships in Housing facilitates housing partnership projects involving the production of affordable and accessible housing for low to moderate income households without ongoing federal subsidies.

CMHC continues to provide leadership in improving not only Canadian but international housing standards. Those are just a few of the things that are ongoing.

In conclusion, this bill will be pooh-poohed by the members opposite, some saying it is too little and some saying it is too much. Mortgage insurance has been one of those key catalysts to keeping the housing industry functioning and a positive contributor to the economy and to the creation of jobs. At the same time, as has been mentioned before, it makes a contribution to the reduction of our debt as CMHC returns a profit to the Government of Canada.

I am sure that members opposite will see their way clear to quickly support and pass this piece of legislation.

[Mining, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to speak to regulations in the mining industry.

Regulatory reform has been an issue of great concern to the government. A climate of change will serve as impetus to continue pushing these efforts.

Canadians in Quebec and across the country have made their voices heard and have called on us to continue to make the changes necessary to do business differently.

The mining industry is a prime example of where regulatory reform must take place. It is also one of the six economic sectors targeted by the government.

The Minister of Natural Resources has responded to the challenge with the Whitehorse mining initiative and most recently a new policy paper on sustainable development in mineral and metals that was unveiled in Vancouver in September.

All parties must be prepared to address this issue with greater vigour and with the conviction that mining is essential to our economic balance sheet. Mining is a $20 billion industry in this country and we need to ensure its viability for future generations.

We will do what has to be done to ensure the future of the mining industry.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the agreement on international trade came into effect on July 1. Bill C-88 is intended to make it possible for the federal government to comply fully with its obligations under the agreement. I therefore believe that it is important for the House to proceed expeditiously in its consideration of Bill C-88.

For years, business and private sector groups have complained to both the federal and provincial governments about domestic trade barriers and impediments to a free and open internal market. Numerous studies going back as far as the 1940 Rowell-Sirois commission have recognized the issue and documented the broad scope of the problem.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1991 estimated the cost associated with barriers and economic inefficiencies to be approximately $6.5 billion annually. The most recent Statistics Canada figures indicate that interprovincial exports of goods and services in 1990 were worth $141 billion annually and responsible directly or indirectly for 1.7 million jobs.

A recent study by the chamber of commerce underlined the fact that the Canadian internal market is the most interdependent of any area in the world. In agreeing to negotiate the agreement, Canadian governments recognized that how well our domestic economy works is key to how we will prosper as a nation and how we will compete in the international economy. An open domestic market and economy will allow Canadians and Canadian companies to strengthen their international competitiveness and develop new opportunities to grow and prosper. The alternative offers only an

ultimately self-destructive protectionism that benefits only a few special interests at the cost of the country as a whole.

When they agreed to negotiate the agreement on internal trade, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments all recognized and accepted the importance of working together in the national interest. In concluding the agreement, Canadian governments have demonstrated that they are prepared to work together, both now and in the future.

As the Minister of Industry has said in the House, the agreement is a consensual agreement. Some members opposite have criticized the agreement as inadequate and insufficient. The agreement may not be perfect, but it represents an improvement from where we were before. It reflects a consensus on the principle of an open and efficient national economy. It establishes a detailed rules framework for internal trade and it provides a consistent and defined process for preventing and resolving disputes that may arise over specific issues or measures.

All the parties have accepted to a greater or lesser degree disciplines that in the sectors covered will improve how the national economy functions in the future. It will be possible, indeed it is the government's intention, to work to improve the agreement in the future and to expand its scope and coverage. For the moment it is a start, a point from which to start to work. We can and we should build on that.

Some members have also criticized the government for not exercising its constitutional authority over interprovincial trade to open an internal market more forcibly. The national economy has become considerably more complex than it was when the constitutional powers of the different levels of governments were first agreed to in 1867. In the context of today's economy and modern Canadian federalism, the views of these critics are, frankly speaking, simplistic.

If anything is clear it is that a country operates most successfully when all levels of government work co-operatively in the national interest, not unilaterally and certainly not by fiat. Governments were not negotiating constitutional change in the agreement on internal trade. Rather, they were developing the basis of working together with their respective powers and responsibilities to make the national economy work more effectively and efficiently.

Unilateral action may be theoretically possible as a method to achieve the same ends. Some may consider it to be a desirable way of proceeding. However, it is simply not an effective or acceptable way to make Canadian federalism work.

Some members opposite have suggested that the government has a hidden agenda on Bill C-88, that it conceals a power grab and is intended to provide a means to force provinces to the will of the federal government. That is purely and simply wrong. The Minister of Industry has responded at length and in detail to those allegations. I will not dignify them with further comment. Those should preclude even the most obtuse interpretation of the bill's language.

Bill C-88 does not deal with the responsibilities of the provinces or provincial measures, only federal responsibilities and measures. It is intended only to make it possible for the federal government to comply fully with its obligations under the agreement and to play its part in making the agreement work.

Bill C-88 gives the government specific authority or makes changes to certain pieces of legislation to enable it to act in accordance with its obligations. It also changes some existing legislation to make it easier for provinces to comply with some of their specific obligations under the agreement.

The Minister of Industry has indicated in a response to his provincial counterparts and to Senator Roberge that he intends to propose one or two amendments to Bill C-88 when it is considered in committee. I expect those will remove the grounds for misinterpretation or misrepresentation that some have made of the government's intentions.

We should be clear in our understanding that Bill C-88 does not by itself legislate or give life to the agreement on internal trade. The agreement has already been signed by the parties-the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. When it came into effect July 1 all those governments became bound by the obligations they accepted when they signed the agreement.

Each government is responsible itself for complying with its obligations and for living up to its responsibilities under the agreement. At the annual premiers conference this summer the provincial premiers and territorial leaders renewed their commitment to the agreement and to removing barriers. Two provinces, Alberta and Newfoundland, have already passed their implementing legislation.

As I said earlier, I believe it is important that we on the federal side proceed expeditiously in our consideration of this legislation. The federal government has played a leading role in getting all governments to work together in the interests of all Canadians on international trade issues.

Bill C-88 does what is necessary to ensure the federal level of government will be able to continue to play its role in the co-operative intergovernmental process. We should not delay it further.

[Petitions, November 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a petition dealing with the tendering practices of the Department of National Defence.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate.

I have looked at some aspects of the bill and think it would make good law. However when I hear the position of the Reform Party then I think I must be wrong.

I have studied the proposals that have been put forward. Some I agree with and some I do not. When trying to come up with criminal law we must always look for a balance. The protection of society is always a primary concern. That has to be balanced with the rights of the accused. In recent years the interests of the victim have also come to the fore.

I believe that the bill put forward by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River tries to strike that balance, particularly in the area of someone who continues with the commission of crimes while he or she is out on early release. The proposal for change so that the person will no longer be eligible for statutory release is a good one.

The threshold for statutory release is also good because it is not at the two-year level but at the five-year level, which indicates that a rather severe crime has been committed. Therefore, more sanctions for the protection of society require that we have this type of an amendment. The example used by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River of a person who commits a murder and would only have to serve roughly a year and half before being eligible for parole is something that needs to be amended. I support those two aspects of the proposed changes in Bill C-242.

I share the concerns of members from the Bloc about changing the age for people who have committed a crime. It seems to me that lowering the age is really not the proper direction to proceed. Perhaps what we have to do is what has been done in some jurisdictions, which is introduce more flexibility. Rather than trying to come up with age limits, we should allow the court in specific circumstances to determine whether the child has the capability of understanding the crime he or she has committed and whether the process would be better served either inside or outside the criminal justice system, rather than come up with some magic line drawn in the sand.

In that sense I cannot support the part of the bill calling for change to a 10-year age limit. Although it is very convenient when we hear the stories put forward by the Reform Party for Mikey Smith or the stories that come forward from the situation in Great Britain.

Most often we hear of the extremes but we have to come up with laws that deal with the norms. Therefore, I see no real benefit in that aspect of the proposed bill. There is some benefit in looking at stiffer bail procedures, crack houses and those types of things to see whether we can grapple with those issues and come up with a system that works.

On the face of it these seem to be good. It is too bad the bill will not get the opportunity for committee study and input. Maybe there are other approaches, other ways to fine tune the bill. However, to me it looks very positive.

I talked earlier about balancing one aspect against another. I cannot not think of anything worse than a person who has been the victim of a sexual assault being doubly victimized by not knowing what possible diseases may have been transmitted as a result of that sexual assault. When I try to balance the rights of the individual who committed the crime and the rights of the victim, from my own point of view I come down on the side of the person who has been victimized. If a blood test would give any comfort to that person after enduring that situation, then I think society would require that we do something.

In that sense this bill proposes a methodology which would allow the court to review the circumstances to decide whether or not an order should be granted. Therefore the rights of the individuals in that balancing act we have to go through are protected to a degree, but the rights of the victim are also protected.

In conclusion and as a general comment, the main thrust of the bill deals with the issues of the people who commit a crime once they are out on statutory release, the eligibility for bail and the calculation of sentences. Those issues are well aimed. We need some changes in the law in that area.

I do not support the member in his position with respect to the change of age. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River and I have discussed this issue over some period of time.

I do support the general direction. I would be interested in hearing from experts but I think the bill requires the right balance between the accused and the victim in dealing with blood tests. It is unfortunate this bill is not going before committee where we would have the input of others as to how we can make our criminal justice system better.

[Lower Churchill Development Corporation, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 1994 annual report of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation.

[Mining, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. First, it gives me an opportunity to express our condolences to the families and friends of those nine people who lost their lives in the helicopter crash in Kyrgyzstan. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this very difficult time.

Second, it gives me an opportunity give some good news to the House. We are having excellent results as far as mining is concerned in Canada, with exploration expenditure up 32 per cent in 1994 and it looks like it will go to $675 million this year. Twenty mines are opening and only two closing permanently, and there are 2,000 to 3,000 new employees in the mining industry.

This is all due to the excellent financial position the Minister of Finance has set out for the country, the Whitehorse mining initiative, and the efforts of the government to build a more innovative society and remove the overlap and duplication in our regulatory regimes. Science and technology is leading the way in this industry.

[Explosives Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act. Today I will address some of the concerns members opposite have raised during the second reading debate and I will emphasize the major points government members raised during that debate.

Let me begin by thanking members opposite for expressing support from their respective parties for Bill C-71 during the debate on second reading of the proposed legislation.

I note from Hansard that during the debate the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane asked what is the use of marking explosives if we do not monitor them. My response is that we do. Canada's explosives inspectors are doing an excellent job of monitoring legally licensed makers, distributors and users of explosives in the country.

There are concerns about how terrorists and biker gangs get their explosives. Terrorists typically purchase stolen explosives on the black market, or they make their own if they have the expertise, as was the case in the horrific bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building this summer.

Sources for stolen explosives include explosives obtained from break-ins and thefts from storage magazines on construction sites, in mines and quarries. Naturally these incidents fall within the jurisdiction of Canada's police agencies. In any case I submit to the House that it is not a common occurrence in the country. The mere fact that it can happen does not require a maze of restrictive and unnecessary regulations from any government, least of all the Government of Canada.

Furthermore, explosives that are used or intended for use in criminal activities are never purchased from legitimate vendors licensed under the terms of existing federal explosives legislation. That is because legitimate vendors must keep accurate and complete transaction records for all explosives they sell. These records, coupled with the records of police security checks that are required under the terms of the existing Explosives Act, could easily provide a clear paper trail of evidence to anyone who used legally obtained explosives to commit a crime.

Let me return to the issues that are more closely related to the proposed legislation before the House. With respect to the length of time it has taken to submit the amendment to Parliament, I want to make a few points.

Officials at Natural Resources Canada have indicated to me that shortly before the Montreal convention on the marking of plastic explosives was signed in 1991 they joined their colleagues from national defence, customs, and transport to prepare a memorandum to cabinet regarding the proposed amendments to the Explosives Act. As members of the House may recall, there were significant changes in the structure of federal government departments in mid-1993. Shortly thereafter a federal election was held, resulting in even more significant change. Since then the Government of Canada has been working hard to put Canada on a positive new course for the future, to revitalize employment opportunities for all Canadians, to attack major issues such as the deficit and debt and, in short, to get Canada moving again. The government is delivering the good government that Canadians wanted and deserved. In addition we are making excellent progress to reach a number of positive public policy objectives.

Hon. members will know we have faced tremendous challenges to deliver on our promises to Canadians and that the Government of Canada has worked hard to manage our priorities since 1993 in order to succeed. I hardly think this debate is the appropriate forum to trot out the list of our accomplishments but if members opposite wish me to do so I will be more than happy to.

Departmental officials had to review their work to prepare their memorandum to cabinet concerning the amendments to the Explosives Act we have before us today. Consequently the officials made the necessary revisions to meet the demands of a new government. The officials have done an excellent job.

The 1991 convention signed in Montreal represents an international agreement to combine efforts among nations to reduce the risk of any further aircraft bombings. Participation in this effort is viewed by Canada as an essential element in the continuing battle against terrorism.

Like all international agreements, the convention on marking of plastic explosives is based on trust among signatory nations. Canada respects this spirit. Canada is known around the world as a leader in encouraging progress to increase the trust among nations that leads to progressive international conventions.

We have every intention of living up to all of our international obligations in the hopes that other countries will follow our example. This is not a blind trust; this is the essence of good leadership.

At present there is no way to detect plastic explosives in airports, while conventional explosives materials can be detected by equipment at our airports. The act proposes the marking of plastic explosives by adding a chemical which would be detected by equipment in Canada's international airports and thus ward off the threat of terrorism.

The amendment would allow Canada to be among the first nations to ratify an international convention requested by the United Nations and co-ordinated by the international civil aviation organization with respect to the marking of plastic explosives.

The convention was signed in March 1991 by 40 countries, and 14 countries have already ratified the convention since April 1992. Five of these nations, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, are producer states where plastic explosives are manufactured.

Given that Canada is a world leader in vapour detection technology, Canadian equipment manufacturers will be able to take advantage of international market opportunities for their vapour detection technology as more and more countries ratify the convention.

Plastic explosives have emerged as a weapon of choice among terrorist groups for bombing aircraft and other targets such as public buildings because this type of explosive is small, powerful, stable, malleable and, most important, difficult to detect.

If plastic explosives are marked or tagged with a substance that can be detected by equipment at Canadian airports, it is quite likely that terrorists would be discouraged from attempting any attacks in Canada using plastic explosives.

The convention on the marking of plastic explosives requires states to ensure the marking of plastic explosives to enhance their detectability. The convention also requires controls over the import, export, possession and transfer of marked plastic explosives and the destruction of most unmarked plastic explosives.

Let me remind the House about the main features of the convention. Only plastic explosives as defined in the convention are required to be marked. Existing unmarked commercial stocks of plastic explosives are to be destroyed within three years. An international explosives technical commission will be created to assess technical developments.

The cost of Canadian participation in such a commission will be low and the convention will come in force after 35 states including the 5 producer states have ratified it. Canada is one of the world's producer states and by passing the proposed legislation before the House today Canada will be among the first countries to ratify the important convention.

Looking at other departments, the military has agreed it can except perhaps in times of emergency observe all of the terms of the convention. Priority will be given to the use of unmarked stocks of plastic explosives in the military stock of explosives materials. As always, tight security of storage facilities will be maintained. In addition, tight accounting procedures regarding the use of all stocks will also be maintained.

Transport Canada, responsible for the operation of detection equipment at Canadian airports, has indicated current technology can detect the marked plastic explosives.

The extra cost of producing detectable plastic explosives is expected to be negligible. This is primarily due to the relatively low volumes of plastic explosives manufactured in Canada. The industry has been working in co-operation with organizations involved in the effort to develop substances to mark plastic explosives for the purpose of detection. Therefore the industry acknowledges the impact of extra costs will not be that serious.

In addition, given the low volumes of plastic explosives compared with the volumes of conventional industrial explosives, the challenge of enforcing the provisions of this proposed amend-

ment and by extension the international convention will not pose a significant problem or cost to the respective regulatory bodies.

Canada's position as a leader in the development of vapour detection technology will be enhanced as a result of the ratification of the international convention. Increased foreign market penetration by Canadian equipment manufacturers is virtually a certainty. Therefore the proclamation of the amendment has the potential to help stimulate job creation and contribute to Canada's future economic growth and trade.

The amendment to the Explosives Act demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment to good government. We are determined to contribute to the health and safety of passengers on aircraft. We are committed to working with our international partners to do whatever we can to stop the threat of terrorism in our skies and around the globe.

The amendment to the Explosives Act will send a signal to terrorists everywhere that Canada will not be an easy target for their deadly campaigns of violence. In the process, Canadian manufacturers of vapour detection equipment will be able to take advantage of significant marketing opportunities. As a result, the proposed amendment to the Explosives Act will contribute to two major federal goals: job creation and Canadian economic growth. Moreover the passage of the amendment will protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

I thank members opposite for their support in passing important legislation. I urge all members of the House to give speedy passage to the amendment.