Bill S-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

This enactment amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to
(a) allow a claimant to make a declaration that information in respect of which an exemption is claimed is confidential business information and that information substantiating the claim is available and will be provided on request;
(b) allow a claimant to give an undertaking to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to bring a material safety data sheet or a label into compliance with the provisions of the Hazardous Products Act or of the Canada Labour Code; and
(c) allow the limited participation of the Commission before an appeal board.

[Weldon Newton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission Canada]

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to the amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, as set out in Bill S-2.

As president and chief executive officer of the Hazardous Materials Commission, I wish to introduce the officials who accompany me. Sharon Watts is a vice-president, corporate services and adjudication. Also here today is Marc-André Dionne, our legal counsel to the commission.

I will provide you with a brief overview of the Commission's responsibilities and governance structure. Ms. Watts will then present each of the proposed amendments, after which we will entertain your questions.

But first, by way of introduction, I would like to describe how the Commission fits into Canada's overall system to protect the health and safety of workers.

In 1987 the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, known as WHMIS, was established through a consensus of industry, organized labour, and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. The goal was an integrated and coordinated approach to ensuring that workers using hazardous materials had the information they needed to minimize risk of illness and injury.

The WHMIS system ensures that appropriate information--key word, it's an information system--on the handling of hazardous materials is provided to workers through product labels and material safety data sheets. Concomitantly, these information documents provide the basis for workers to receive necessary education and training.

When WHMIS was established, it was recognized that there was a need to balance the right of workers to have accurate health and safety information with the right of industry to protect confidential business or trade secrets. The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission was set up as an integral part of WHMIS to provide this balance.

Like WHMIS, the commission is a joint undertaking on behalf of labour, industry, and the federal and provincial governments. I'll be coming back to this later when I make some comments on governance of the commission.

I will now provide a brief overview of the roles and responsibilities of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and its governance structure.

The role of the commission is to manage the trade secret component of WHMIS. It operates as an independent, quasi-judicial agency established under the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. The commission's mandate is to grant exemptions from ingredient disclosure for bona fide trade secrets, while ensuring that the documentation on the safe use of the hazardous products provided to workers is accurate and complete.

In essence, WHMIS is a hazard communications system. The system requires that product labels and safety documentation include the identification of hazardous ingredients in a product, the specific hazards posed by a product, the precautions to be taken in handling the product, and the first aid measures to be applied in the event of exposure to the product.

The basic rule of WHMIS is that health and safety documentation must include full information on the chemical identity, concentration, and mixtures of all hazardous ingredients in a product. But there's an exception to that full disclosure rule, and this is where the commission's mandate is so important.

Exemption from full disclosure of hazardous ingredient information is possible when disclosure would reveal a trade secret or betray a trade secret, and when this revelation would result in an economic loss to the claimant or an economic gain to the claimant's competitors.

The essence of the Commission's mandate is the review of economic and safety documentation in all situations where a hazardous material has a trade secret component and is being claimed as such. When the disclosure of certain information on a hazardous product would betray a trade secret, an application can be made to our Commission for an exemption from the requirement to disclose that specific information.

The commission is unique, in my opinion, because it is a single organization of government that serves all jurisdictions. The commission receives claims for trade secret protection, reviews health and safety documentation, issues compliance orders, and provides appeal mechanisms on behalf of the federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions.

The commission's mandate has been incorporated by reference into provincial and territorial legislation. For example, if you look at the Saskatchewan Labour Act you'll see the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission named as being the provincial entity for having a provincial mandate to grant trade secret orders, while reviewing and issuing orders for health and safety compliance. It is really a unique, single-window type of commission.

At this point in my presentation, I would like to describe the Commission's activities in three key areas as they relate to its dual role to ensure a balance between workers' right to know what is in the products they work with and their hazards, and the industry's right to protect its trade secrets.

The commission's mandate really breaks down to three business lines, for want of a better description. First, we do an economic analysis to determine whether the claimant's information is truly a trade secret, and whether disclosure will have economic consequences.

Second, there's a scientific analysis to ensure that the health and safety information being supplied to employers and workers about the product is accurate and complete in its description of the product's hazards, ingredients, protective measures, and first aid to be taken should someone be exposed.

The third part of our mandate is an appeals process. We issue mandatory compliance orders when violations are found--and I'll come back to this. When the claimant or any affected party, such as a worker representative, a union, challenges a decision of our commission, an appeal board is appointed to hear that challenge.

I'd like to go back to the first part of our mandate. To support a claim that certain information is a trade secret, the current system requires that a claimant--for example, a big chemical company, whether American or Canadian--file documentation on the measures taken to keep that information confidential. The claimant must also file documentation on the amount of economic loss they would suffer if they had to disclose that information and it became public knowledge, or they have to file documentation on the economic advantage their competitors would gain if the information became public.

When the documentation accompanying a claim comes to the commission, it's checked by commission staff. All the relevant information is enclosed in the application, and based on the fact that the file is complete, we issue a registration number that replaces, and therefore protects, the trade secret ingredient information on the health and safety documentation. The registration number permits the product to be marketed by the claimant in Canada.

Based on the information filed by claimants as to the value of their trade secrets protected by the commission during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, the disclosure protection mechanism administered by the commission had an industry value in the order of $624 million.

The second part of the mandate of the commission is the scientific review of the health and safety information to be supplied to employers and workers using the product. The claimant must include this information with the application for trade secret protection.

This second part of the mandate is crucial. Because employers and workers do not have access to the information protected as a trade secret, it is essential that all of the health and safety information they are provided is complete and accurate.

Over the history of the commission's operations, the commission has ordered corrections to the health and safety documentation on a very high proportion--roughly 95%--of the claims filed. In 2005-06, a total of 2,605 inaccuracies--violations, if you will--were ordered to be corrected. On average, eight to nine corrections to health and safety information have been required on each claim filed with the commission.

A significant number of these inaccuracies result in a potential threat to the health and safety of workers. They include, for example, failure to identify hazardous or toxic ingredients in a product, and improper classification of the toxic properties of an ingredient, the first aid measures, and the protective measures that workers can take to protect themselves. That is, to some extent, the clustering of the violations.

Once we've completed our economic and scientific analysis, we communicate to the claimant our decisions: whether the trade secret's valid, and whether the health and safety documentation meets regulatory standards. At the same time, we publish these decisions in the Canada Gazette and on our website for all to see.

When the decision is that the health and safety documentation is not compliant, we oblige the claimant to make the necessary corrections. As I said, last year 2,605 corrections were ordered, obliged. The claimant must then provide the commission with a copy of the amended documentation, or, alternatively, appeal the decision, or stop selling the product in Canada.

This brings us to the third part of the commission's mandate: the appeals process. Appeals can be filed by the claimant and also by affected parties. An affected party could be a union. These appeals are heard by independent boards on which government, labour, and industry are represented.

So those are pretty well the three parts of our mandate. Now I'd like to switch to governance, because this commission has a unique governance structure that's worth sharing with you.

The governance structure of the commission is unique. It's overseen by a council of governors. This council of governors is an 18-member council. There are two representatives of organized labour, two industry representatives, one representing employers of those handling hazardous materials and one representing those supplying such materials. We also have a representative of each provincial and territorial government on our council, and a representative of the federal minister responsible for occupational health and safety.

The role of the Council is one of oversight and governance. Under the Act, the Council has the mandate to make recommendations to the Minister on procedures for reviewing claims, appeal procedures and changes in fees.

With respect to the amendments set out in Bill S-2, which is in front of this committee, these were developed under the aegis of our tripartite council, which then recommended them to the Minister of Health in accordance with the provisions of our act. This 18-member council played a key leadership role in the stakeholder consultations and analysis that were carried out under the renewal program initiated by the commission.

I believe it's unique to have industry, labour, and federal, provincial, and territorial governments at the same table for 19 consecutive years. They work extremely effectively. Throughout the renewal process there was a great deal of discussion. It was always positive. It was always constructive. In the end, unanimity was achieved, with the full support, again, of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments; the workers handling the hazardous materials; the industry supplying these materials; and the businesses using the materials.

In November 2002 the council of governors formally recommended to the Minister of Health that the renewal of the commission be completed through the implementation of the amendments that are the subject of Bill S-2.

The amendments you will be considering have been the subject of extensive consultation and debate among stakeholders. There were many improvements identified through the renewal process. Most of these have already been implemented through changes to administrative procedures or through regulatory changes.

At this point I will stop and ask Sharon to deal in more detail with the amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I want to thank the committee for being here. I believe we will have a productive and perhaps very short meeting today, in the sense that we're dealing with Bill S-2, which comes to us from the Senate. It's on the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

First I would like to welcome from the department Weldon Newton, Marc-André Dionne, and Sharon Watts. It's good to have you with us.

We will start with your presentation on this piece of legislation. Then we will open it up to questions. The floor is yours.

[Sylvain Lacroix]

I would just add that with the new Official Languages Act and Bill S-3, I think francophone organizations will have to start taking action against the government if it does not provide the funding we require and does not serve us in keeping with our rights. We are not a minority. We are part of an official language community. We are founding people and the Franco-Ontarian nation starting now demands its rights.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

With respect to citizenship issues, I would simply say that we moved forward on Bill S-2 when we were in opposition. There is a pathway now to citizenship for the children of Canadians who moved out of the country. There is a pathway for that now, because of a Conservative initiative, Bill S-2. We are moving forward with Bill C-14. We're trying to get that through and make changes so that Canadian parents of foreign-born children can have their children get citizenship more quickly.

So we are making changes, and we'd like to make other changes in the future, but we don't need to reinvent the act just to do that.

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee to hear the witnesses’ presentation. However, I can say that this decision was made by the council of governors of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. As well, the industry as a whole, labour, and the federal government are involved in this review commission. All of the stakeholders who were entitled to speak to express their desire for change were in favour of Bill S-2. You know very well that if there had been a risk to workers, or if labour had not agreed with this bill, we would have studied it further and we would have gone into much greater depth in our consideration of it.

I think that it would be a step in the right direction to provide better monitoring of safety in the workplace and in terms of the information that has to be provided. We know that labelling and material safety data sheets are very important. The council of governors, which has chosen this arrangement, was in contact with the entire industry, and especially with labour. We know that the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is made up of 18 people, nonetheless. Some of them represent the provinces and territories and the federal government, others represent labour unions and businesses. It is somewhat rare to see so many people around a table supporting a bill. There was ultimately consensus on this question.

This is why the Bloc Québécois wants to see it pass.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech on Bill S-2.

As we know in the House the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is part of WHMIS which is the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. This is a communications system which provides workers with information on the safe handling of hazardous materials used in the workplace.

I noted that since 1988 the commission has registered a total of just over 5,200 claims and that presently there are 1,450 active claims. To help rectify this matter the council of governors has put forward some legislative proposals such as, first, allowing claimants to declare that the information for which an exemption is sought is confidential business information and that full justification is available and will be provided on request; second, allowing claimants to enter into undertakings with the commission to voluntarily correct health and safety information when it is found non-compliant with applicable legislation; and third, allowing the commission to provide factual information to independent appeal boards.

I would like to put a question to my colleague. In her dealings with business and industry, and in her dealings with workers, what sort of feedback has she received from those two different groups with respect to Bill S-2 and these amendments that we would like to bring forward on WHMIS?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague for her excellent presentation on Bill S-2 regarding hazardous materials.

My question is simple. The hon. member represents a very beautiful riding, Quebec City—one of the oldest cities of our nation of Quebec—which has developed and evolved considerably, and has been extensively renovated. Many products containing hazardous materials were used to make these magnificent improvements to Quebec City.

I would like the hon. member to give the House a brief overview of the work that has been done in Quebec City and to tell us about the workers who worked there, who are currently working there in construction and who may receive assistance thanks to this bill.

Quebec City has undertaken some magnificent improvements and renovations because it will soon be celebrating its 400th anniversary. Can the member tell us how the city is getting gussied up for this event?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was confused. That happens sometimes; it is very human. We are here in the House and often we have information to give to colleagues. That sometimes disturbs the concentration that we require to speak on a subject.

I will continue my remarks. The Hazardous Materials Information Review Act governs the activities of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. That is an agency independent of the government with a quasi-judicial role. The commission plays a role in workplace health and safety and in the protection of industrial secrets.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is also a component of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). This system was developed by unions, industries and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. It provides information to workers who are in contact with hazardous materials and who need information for their own safety at work.

Why does such a system exist? As I have said, it serves to communicate all the information workers need concerning hazardous materials. All those workers who come into contact with hazardous products need to be protected. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, along with all the other stakeholders on this subject, including the workers, the industry, the unions and the manufacturers of these products.

WHMIS provides information in the form of data sheets and on labels. For example, if the information is contained on labels that are damaged and the information can not be properly read, a person who must work with that hazardous product can refuse to handle it. He or she can call for the manufacturer to provide information on the dangers of handling certain products. This provides a degree of safety for all workers, and especially for new employees, who also need the data sheet. That data sheet should be available at all times and should be placed in a location that is easily accessed. If it were under lock and key, workers would not have easy access to the data sheet, and that would be contrary to the objectives of the act.

The data sheet provides a list of all dangerous and toxic ingredients, as well as the precautions to be taken in handling the product. The data sheet also describes how to provide help to someone who is exposed to the product, or whose body or eyes have been in contact with the product. There are first aid procedures for anyone who has been in contact with a hazardous product. WHMIS is very important. It is very useful to have an established protocol that all companies must follow for the health and safety of employees in the workplace.

So, there is the establishment of WHMIS, the disclosure of information on the loss of competitive advantage and the disclosure of ingredients. Companies are uneasy about having to provide all the information about the manufacture of a dangerous product. I was going to say, “ a drug.” Since I am our health critic, I almost made a mistake. Really, this is a product that contains hazardous materials. This information must be disclosed; but some company information must remain secret when a product is marketed. The company asks for an exemption from disclosing certain information about certain products to their competitors.

There is a process to claim exemption from disclosure of this information. The bill sets out to ensure that this exemption claim, which is processed by the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, is much easier to make than it is now.

Application for exemption from WHMIS documentation on how to use hazardous products safely will be much easier and will require much less red tape. It will cut to the chase.

Then we will see how a claimant can be exempt from having their information reviewed, while still providing information on the health and safety risks associated with their product's ingredients and their effects. Some information could also be provided that the companies do not want to disclose in order to protect their trade secrets. This process will be much easier and less restrictive.

Those who do not have trade secrets have no problem since there will be no documentation to provide on health and safety.

The companies will be subject to a review by a federal, provincial or territorial agency and not by the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

Others, who want to withdraw from this exemption, will continue their efforts with the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

The significance of the trade secrets will be carefully looked at. Not everyone will be exempt. Furthermore, the compliance of the company's material safety data sheet will be determined based on federal, provincial and territorial requirements. If the documents submitted are not satisfactory, then a new material safety data sheet may be required.

Bill S-2would make a number of changes. It would change the procedure by which a hazardous materials manufacturer can obtain an exemption from disclosing the confidential composition of its products.

As I said earlier, the organization that grants exemptions is the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. This organization works with industry, associations and workers, who are the primary stakeholders.

I think this bill strikes a balance between the challenge of keeping workers safe while handling hazardous materials and industry’s right to protect trade secrets from the competition. The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission will follow up and make the procedures more efficient. In fact, the commission's council of governors asked that the hazardous materials bill be amended in this way.

The commission was established in 1988. The data sheets were reviewed and 95% were found to be non-compliant. This bill makes it possible to determine whether the data sheets are providing accurate information not only on toxic substances but also on hazardous materials. How could we do a better job of training the people who work with these hazardous materials?

Over the past few years, eight or nine corrections have been required on each data sheet. Better protection for workers' health has also been implemented. There were hazards to their health. Monitoring was inadequate. This bill corrects that situation.

Workers must be given all available information to better protect their safety. The commission plays two roles: one in approving exemptions and the other in health protection with respect to exemptions.

The council of governors is the consultative body that sets policy for the commission. It was the council of governors that submitted the three amendments before us today. Only four out of more than 1,400 claims for exemption have been denied in the past. In addition, the documentation was too detailed, and the goal is to expedite this process because of the administrative burden it places on claimants and the commission.

I would now like to come back to the material safety data sheet. It must be available at all times, even for new workers. Quebec has a welcome protocol that provides new workers with information about a company's traditions and practices. But when it comes to hazardous materials, companies have to go beyond traditions and practices and support workers properly in handling these hazardous materials.

I think that this is the reason why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. It is a question of facilitating the process to speed things up.

As well, many companies wanted to update their material safety data sheet and the information they gave their workers. The new bill can facilitate that. A company will now be allowed to act voluntarily instead of waiting to be notified to make a claim for exemption.

I think that this is a good idea, because if the company shows that it is willing to support its workers better in handling hazardous materials, it will not have to make a claim for exemption. It will be allowed to proceed voluntarily. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

The Bloc is very proactive when it comes to the health and safety of workers. We have submitted a number of bills that were very proactive in this area. Take, for example, the bill introduced by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on preventive withdrawal for pregnant workers who have to handle hazardous materials. Considerable caution is required.

And then there are replacement workers. It could be dangerous for them to work in places where they have to handle hazardous materials. We are already talking about the workers who are used to their job, but there are all the other workers, including replacement workers. My colleague's objective, or at least her concern, was to introduce a bill on replacement workers during a strike, should a company decide to use such workers. Taking that another step, if a replacement worker should have to work with hazardous materials it would be dangerous for him or her to do so. We have to think about workers who are in daily contact with hazardous materials.

I think I have covered the issue with respect to the body charged with implementing the new procedure. This is an improved procedure that is more functional and less restrictive, but also makes companies accountable. I think that when workers, the company and the people concerned agree with a bill and its amendments, then the Bloc Québécois—which has closely followed this issue and has the workers' interests at heart, as several bills confirm—also agrees. We will therefore also vote in favour of this Senate bill.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill S-2 originated in the Senate. It is the old Bill S-40 from the Senate before the last elections. It was discussed in the Senate. Now it is being debated in the House of Commons. We need to debate this bill on reviewing hazardous materials information.

I am the second Bloc member to speak on this. My colleague, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie, was a health and workplace safety engineer at Hydro Quebec and made his career in the health field. He spoke about this bill, guided us in our understanding of it, and enlightened us on its purposes.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill for several reasons which I will explain over the next few minutes. Its purpose is to reduce the amount of information required to claim an exemption. The current process for claiming an exemption is very long. The form is complex and can delay the adoption of an exemption, even when the company agrees to do so. In the past, this was refused. Now, when there is a claim for an exemption, the process will be much shorter.

The second purpose is to speed up the process for providing workplace health and safety information about using these products. This bill enables the commission to reply to requests for further information on matters submitted by the appeal board. At present, this is not permitted. When companies want to submit rectifications without going through a long process, they are refused.

The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-28, the bill to implement the 2006 budget tax measures. This would be followed, time permitting, with Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the aeronautics amendments.

Tomorrow we will continue with the business from today with the possibility as well of completing the third reading stage of Bill C-16. I will talk to the opposition House leader about that after this.

Next week we hope to begin debate on some of the government's justice bills. The first one will be on the age of consent, Bill C-22. If we could get unanimous consent to pass that at all stages that would be very much appreciated.

We will go then to Bill C-27, our dangerous offenders bill and any cooperation we can get to move that along would be appreciated, I think, by the people of this country.

I am looking forward to sitting down with the official opposition and other parties to discuss the speedy passage of the many popular bills that the government has introduced and I am looking forward to their cooperation on that.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Tuesday, October 31, as the day to continue debate on the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In response to the member's questions, consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, shall take place on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, pursuant to the Standing Orders. The second day for consideration of committee of the whole will be November 7, 2006.

As well, I should indicate that Thursday, November 2, 2006, shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the member's questions with respect to the same sex marriage, we will fulfill our campaign promise on that and we will be proceeding with it this fall.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on an opposition motion which gives the government an opportunity to talk about keeping its promise to review our programs to ensure every taxpayer dollar spent is well spent and by reducing the debt by $13.2 billion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on Bill C-25 , proceeds of crime, followed by Bill C-26, payday lending.

Next week, we will continue with the business from Friday with the addition of Bill C-27, dangerous offenders, Bill S-2, hazardous materials, Bill C-6 aeronautics, and Bill C-28, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006.

With respect to my hon. colleague's question on supply day, just like a child waiting for Christmas, he will have to wait a little bit longer. We will get back to him next week.

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It was tax deductible. It is unbelievable. While other organizations in North America were fighting to increase those penalties and fines, if we poisoned the water that our children drink, at tax time we could get up to 50% of that money back. We found that unacceptable, which is why this party in this corner of the House fought to end that diabolical practice. It was unfair to ordinary citizens and to other companies. Other companies, which were practising the right procedures, doing the right things by labelling their chemicals, by having the proper disposal practices and by living up to the bargain that has been part of the law of our country, had unfair competition from those that actually could subsidize their industry by polluting and not paying those fees.

It is important to note that Bill S-2 would provide us an opportunity to update those types of chemicals and materials. I believe we need to go further. I think that if, for example, we are going to have a continued non-compliance of 95% of the data forms and updating, there have to be significant consequences. These are known factors. We have seen the continual effects on human health in our society.

Most recently, because of the chemicals, the toxins and the pesticides in their environment, we have seen that people in farming communities are experiencing much higher degrees of breast cancer. We are trying to eliminate the pesticides that are not necessary. My municipality has worked very hard on this. Why our legislation to ban pesticide uses that were unnecessary failed is unconscionable. It has an effect. The prevention issues that this bill has and what we can do would not only improve our economic development through ensuring that we have a higher productivity value, it would also lessen our costs for health and other types of problems that emerge by neglect.

When the laws of the land that define the responsibility and the use of those products are not being administered and not being followed, then I believe there needs to be greater consequences. These products affect society as a whole.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre skirted around the issue of asbestos quite well. In his recent press release, “Canadian officials are acting as globe-trotting propagandists for the asbestos industry”, is about as straightforward as one can get.

It is important to note that this type of advocacy and prevention, similar to Bill S-2, is how we can actually eliminate some of the tragedies. The member went into great detail about the asbestos industry but I would hammer home the fact that prevention is really a lot of the solution to some of our problems here and it is one that we can control. Why we would be sending trade delegations abroad to push a killer industry is unacceptable and unconscionable.The member has done justice to this file and it is one that can apply to the fact that we need to start examining our responsibility internationally.

A number of different chemicals and hazardous materials are transported on a regular basis between Windsor and Detroit and we are supposed to have specific laws to do so. However, the regulations and laws do not always match up with the United States. The situation on the Ambassador Bridge which runs between Windsor and Detroit is that the Americans can come into Canada some types of chemicals and hazardous materials but some Canadian chemicals cannot go to the American side. The chemicals still cross on the same bridge no matter what but it all depends on which regulation is being used as to where the chemical ends up. We can do some work on those regulations because there are a series of potential problems with hazardous materials.

We have a ferry service that actually does pre-clearance. This is important with regards to the data sheets. Greg Ward and the ferry service receive the information on the hazardous materials. It is cleared by customs before it even gets on the hazardous materials barge and then the barge goes across to Detroit.

We have a system in place where the information is necessary for entry into and exit from the United States but it also has to be provided correctly. This operation has been in existence for over 11 years and there has not been one accident. The Department of Homeland Security supports the operation and has given it a number of different accolades. It is a model that has been very good.

While that was happening on the U.S. side, as the U.S. government was dealing with supporting the ferry service and its management of hazardous materials across the Detroit River and the ecosystems that are so delicate in that area, the previous Canadian government tied the Americans up in the courts for years because they provided free customs officials to the Ambassador Bridge but then they charged the customs people and the ferry service.

The safer route that has enjoyed the support of the Department of Homeland Security on the U.S. side, being touted as a responsible mover and administrator of these types of materials, was being unfairly treated by the Canadian government and still is to this day. They had to settle in court and I know they have to pay for some of their customs officers. It makes no sense because it is unfair that one business would have an actual subsidy of customs officials and another one, a competitor, that is supposed to be providing the hazardous material waste movement for the region, is being attacked in a sense by having to pay for their customs officials. It raises the price and costs.

What we would have would be similar to what we have now where truckers take off their placards, placards that are supposed to go on the back and sides of a truck to show that chemical materials are being transported across a different region. We know that the price of the ferry is a little bit more.Truckers were taking off those placards and then using other means to get to the U.S. side, and that has been done openly. Why the government has not cracked down on that has been very disappointing. We have not seen the proper action.

The materials identified in the bill are very serious. I will give another important example. Chlorine gas is being transported on rail systems through my region as well. The Department of Homeland Security in the United States has classified those containers of chlorine gas as weapons of mass destruction because they can kill up to 100,000 people in a 15 mile radius if there were an accident or an attack on one of those types of containment vessels.

Several jurisdictions in the U.S., and I believe Washington is one, Cleveland is another and Dayton county in Florida, have come up with specific strategies to re-route those chemical materials outside of those jurisdictions which ensures that large urban areas are not exposed to this.

It is also important to note that our first responders, the police and firemen, but in particular firemen, who need access to the rail yards to deal with the issue in case of an accident, need permission first. We need to get Bill C-3, which deals with the bridges and tunnels act, passed by the Senate. The Senate is dealing with it and I believe it will be going to committee. However, until that bill is actually passed, the Ambassador Bridge will continue to be considered private property. We will have the same jurisdictional problems, which must change.

These are all things we can control and these are issues on which we can actually have a positive impact. I believe this bill will get wide support to move forward because it is a first step. It contains a number of different prevention strategies that are important. I would urge all members to consider what we can do on the other fronts, whether it be asbestos management and Canada's international relations or other types of human health and toxic chemicals that are in our environment. We should be thinking of ways to take remedial action and find prevention techniques to offset their harm so people do not get sick from those materials because they have been exposed either improperly, by accident or by design.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill S-2. This is an important bill and it does have consensus among industry and labour organizations. Bill S-2 would update the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. It would provide an opportunity for chemicals and their contents to be registered in a much more appropriate fashion. Some of the problems we have right now would be corrected by Bill S-2, such as updating current data sheets. Ninety-five per cent of the current data sheets have not been updated.

It is important to note that this debate on Bill S-2 is about prevention. It is about controlling the appropriate regulations documenting chemicals and their contents and their effect upon human health.

I was privileged to be in the House when the member for Winnipeg Centre gave his speech. I listened to his great remarks relating to the asbestos industry and the issues that he has been dealing with in his attempt to raise attention to the problems with asbestos. Prevention is very much a part of the solution to many of our problems. The fact that we could head off some of the problems in terms of spills or chemical use in a general sense and the rights of workers is very important.

I would like to congratulate the labour community for its dogged determination to ensure that the law is updated. This community does not just work for itself, but it works for all workers across this country. It ensures that standards are met and that workers who are not represented know about the chemicals they are working with and how those chemicals will affect them and their co-workers. This is an important point to note because these chemicals do have an effect on all of us.

My previous occupation was that of a job developer for persons with disabilities. I worked at Community Living Mississauga and I worked at the Association for Persons with Physical Disabilities. I also worked at the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County as a job developer and an employment specialist.

WHMIS training and data sheets are very important, not only in terms of the content descriptions labelled on the sheets and on the products, but also the visual pictures. I have had the privilege of working on behalf of individuals with learning disabilities or literacy problems. These individuals did not have the ability to understand some of the terminology on the data sheets but they did understand some of the visuals. It is important for people with disabilities to understand chemical labelling because chemicals do affect their health.

I have a passion for eliminating the unnecessary chemicals and taking remedial action to deal with their effect on humans. The simplest thing to do is to have appropriate training in place so accidents can be prevented. Data information sheets are important, not just in terms of understanding the use of a chemical, but whether that chemical is being used in a way that it is not supposed to be used. If there has been a leak or if there has been a spill, it is important that there be an immediate response by employees and management to contain the situation.

On behalf of the people with disabilities, we were able to use a number of different techniques to associate the labelling with necessary action and they were also able to understand how to handle the chemicals properly.

The reason chemicals need to be identified and appropriately marked is that one chemical by itself may not have a severe consequence if it is spilled, but if that chemical is mixed with another chemical it could create a toxic cocktail so to speak that could cause greater damage. It is important for an individual to know how a chemical is being used and how to dispose of that chemical. It could create a huge health problem if these chemicals are disposed of through our sewer systems or our ordinary plumbing systems. This could have a causal effect on our water systems. Windsor and the surrounding area has had to fight some of the environmental problems. It is amazing to think how far we have come.

It was an NDP amendment that actually ceased the elimination of corporate tax deductions for polluting our Great Lakes system and our environment.