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.

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today to speak to Bill S-2.

Of course, as always, the Bloc Québécois agrees with what tends to be reasonable. We are very responsible. This is why we thoroughly examined the changes proposed by Bill S-2. If this can help businesses to improve their performance and their effectiveness, we agree. However, we must also be careful, because, even through we agree with what makes sense, we know that errors can sometimes happen. Because we agree with Bill S-2, we would not want Health Canada to think that we agree with everything that is related to the hazardous product problem.

Hazardous products have caused, many times in the past, incidents and major accidents that have left some people handicapped for life and that have even killed others. We only have to think about the case of Produits chimiques Expro inc. in Quebec. We are being very careful and very vigilant in the implementation of this bill.

I had the opportunity to speak with my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry about this bill and hazardous materials. She used to work in a hospital setting. She had the responsibility of explaining to people under her direction how hazardous products had to be used. Of course, when we talk about hazardous products, we are talking about products that may be very toxic. She thinks that this approach is working very well; it is very easy to explain to people. However, she was also telling me that there was not enough time. There was not enough time and, very often, unfortunately, the French versions of WHMIS data sheets were very slow in coming. Businesses should solve this problem, because, when one works in a hospital setting, one is in contact with people who are often very vulnerable and cannot always defend themselves against invasions of bacteria that might come from certain products.

One of her tasks was to explain how to use those products. She was responsible for health and safety but found that employees did not have time to inform themselves. She had to give them the information in the corridors, between two rooms. She regretted that because those dangerous products caused considerable damage. However, I find the amendments to the original act very valuable and legitimate. We can understand the desire to help companies; it was not really necessary to provide the government with the information requested by companies, as long as the companies respected appropriate confidentiality. That way, we know that they will act with full knowledge of the facts and very responsibly.

In comparison, the present legislation forces the HMIRC to give an official compliance order, even if the company which requests an exemption is ready to respect its obligations and to make the necessary changes after being served notice. The process in the present legislation is time consuming and strict. The order sent to companies must be published in the Canada Gazette and is enforceable 75 days later. There are further delays to allow the company to appeal the order and to produce a new data sheet. Once again, in many companies in Quebec and Canada the most obvious language is English. As the sheets must be translated, that unfortunately adds a little too much time. That is regrettable because if the people who have to work with the products cannot read the sheets and understand them correctly they will be at risk.

The HMIRC will also be in a position to give information and to clarify the cases under appeal. Right now, the independent appeal boards cannot consult the commission.

Nonetheless, some aspects worry me, as far as hazardous materials are concerned, and I am not just talking about their composition. We know that often accidents occur in the transportation of these materials. I think we must ensure, for the transportation of hazardous products, that every appropriate safety measure is taken to avoid accidents from happening to people who earn their living under difficult circumstances and who work very hard; people like truck drivers and their helpers, who unfortunately do not always have the luxury of defending themselves because they are not part of a union.

We also know that many questions remain on the choices made by firefighters. There are also many questions about the choices made by transport companies. They have to keep increasing their productivity and efficiency. The cost of gas is so high they have to keep their trucks on the road day and night to earn a decent income, which—even at that—is not guaranteed. Anything that allows companies to put their products on the market in a more diligent manner is fine by us. However, it is important to ensure that these trucking companies and other transport companies are just as diligent in the application of safety measures for their products when it comes to dangers and difficulties.

I also want to note that a number of times now, institutions, even schools, have had to be evacuated because of problems with toxic and hazardous materials.

Take for example an incident that occurred in May 2005 when the handling of nitric acid forced the evacuation of a thousand or so people from the chemistry and biochemistry department at the Université du Québec à Montréal. The incident occurred in a lab when a researcher was busy pouring nitric acid in a recycled container and a chemical reaction ensued. It is very dangerous. A lot of students and other people on site could have suffered extremely unfortunate consequences. Fortunately, this was not the case. The incident was classed as a true accident because the product was not defective. The problem was in the way the product was handled by the professor. The company was not at fault.

There was also the release of a toxic cloud in Valleyfield. Environment Canada monitors 585 facilities in Quebec that may pose a risk, because they store substances deemed hazardous, such as the sulphuric anhydride that was released at Noranda's CEZinc plant, in Valleyfield. That plant is not governed by Health Canada and Environment Canada's regulations. In fact, it does not store that product. The sulphuric anhydride is merely transiting through the plant in its pools. That plant is not deemed to be a facility that stores toxic and hazardous products, and it is not subject to the same regulations. This is why accidents such as the one that occurred in Valleyfield, on the evening of August 12, 2004, can happen. People living close to the plant had to be evacuated, because an extremely toxic product had been released, thus creating a very dangerous situation.

A chemical product also caused a number of people to faint at a flea market. Flea markets are very popular in Quebec and families enjoy going there on Saturdays and Sundays. So, when incidents like that occur in such locations, we are concerned about people's health and safety. When people faint because of a chemical product, it means that the substance is really very potent. We do not always know the origin of that chemical product, and we may also not know what it is exactly.

People try to find out where the product came from, but to no avail. This raises some important questions.

I know the companies that make these products are very competent and do as much as they can to ensure that such incidents do not occur. However, humans being what they are, unfortunate things sometimes happen.

I completely agree that we should give companies the opportunity to get their products to market faster and more efficiently. I am pleased with this move to amend the act because it is a little restrictive.

We have strong environmental convictions. Even though some members and government ministers claim that the environment is responsible for a number of plant and business closures, we know that is not true. We know that this is not the principal cause of plant and business closures.

We do not put much stock in such simplistic explanations. We try to do our homework and study the issue in its entirety before making a decision about whether to support this or that bill.

This bill is not a problem for us because its implementation does not directly put anybody’s life in danger. The change that is requested is minimal and only speeds up a process that we know is very long. In all departments, the approval processes are very long.

For example, just in the area of natural health products, some companies have to wait as many as two, three or even four years to get a product evaluated and recognized by Health Canada. These waiting periods are senseless because, after all, some of these products are used by a lot of people all over the world and have very conclusive effects on their health. I myself have been taking some for a number of years, and as you can see, I am in excellent health.

All of this to say that there is not much in the bill that would cause us to oppose it. We cannot be against virtue itself. Unlike the governing party, which seems to be against all environmental virtue, we do not think that a bill like this has any environmental effect at all.

We will therefore be very much in favour of the bill in principle. We hope that hon. members of all parties will also support it because we think that the passage of this bill will make all our companies in Quebec and Canada more efficient. We also believe that the committees charged previously with assessing hazardous products have done a good job of evaluating the implications of this amendment.

This is an amendment, therefore, that will in no way compromise the safety or all the precautions that should be taken to ensure that hazardous products are properly stored, used and provided to customers, as well as properly transported. We also believe that the owners of the companies that produce these hazardous products are competent people who ensure that their products are used properly and who will do even more in the future to ensure that their products include data sheets translated into French as well as English ones so that people who use the products have the information they need more quickly.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

I would begin by noting that the primary objective of these amendments is to facilitate the earlier delivery to workers of the health and safety information essential to the safe handling of hazardous materials in the workplace. Further, all stakeholders, workers handling hazardous materials, their employers, suppliers of those materials, and provincial and territorial officials responsible for worker health and safety are all aware of the proposed amendments and all of them are in full support.

The work of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission may not be highly visible to the general public, but it is to those whose health and safety depend on the commission and to those who rely on the commission to protect the trade secrets on which the competitive advantage of their business rests. This reflects the commission's dual role.

The unique part of that role is the protection of information which is truly confidential business information, a trade secret. Without such protection, products which may be key to the competitive position of industry could very well not be made available for use by Canadian businesses.

The second part of the commission's role is to ensure that those working with the hazardous materials for which trade secret protection is sought have full and complete information on the hazards posed by these materials and on the measures that they must take to handle those materials safely. I stress that the hazards faced can involve threats to their immediate safety, threats to their long term health, or indeed, risks which are life threatening either immediately or in the longer term.

The protection extended by the commission to workers' health and safety is not trivial. I have been provided with information which shows that over the past 15 years roughly 95% of the accompanying health and safety information reviewed by the commission was found to be non-compliant with legislation and that in recent years there have been on average nearly nine violations on each health and safety submission that the commission has reviewed. Many of these shortcomings pose a potentially major threat to the health and safety of workers.

Typical violations include failure to identify the effects of exposure to a product, failure to identify risks of fire or explosion, and failure to provide adequate information on the appropriate first aid measure if a worker is accidentally exposed to a hazardous material. It is the commission's responsibility to ensure that the health and safety information related to trade secret claims is complete and accurate. Workers will then know the risks they face and will be able to use hazardous materials in ways which do not endanger their health and safety.

The trade secret facet of the commission's role in balance with the protection of workers' health and safety is of substantial financial benefit to the businesses whose trade secrets are protected. Those seeking an exemption from disclosure of confidential business information must provide the commission with an estimate of the actual or potential value of that information to their businesses or to their competitors. The estimates provided with the claims reviewed by the commission in 2005-06 show the aggregate value of the trade secrets protected to be in the range of $624 million annually.

The commission is also unique in that it carries out its dual function of protecting workers' health and safety and protecting trade secrets on behalf of not only the federal government but also the provincial and territorial governments. That is, if a business has trade secret information, for example, the full chemical identity of a hazardous ingredient in a product, it makes application to the commission regardless of whether it might normally be subject to the occupational health and safety legislation of the federal government or of one or more of the provincial or territorial governments. In all cases the commission decides whether the claim for exemption is valid and makes sure that the accompanying health and safety information is in full compliance with the relevant federal, provincial or territorial legislation.

In addition to its responsibilities to government, the commission also draws advice and guidance from those most directly affected by its operations: those working with the hazardous materials, suppliers of hazardous materials and employers using hazardous materials in their operations. The main vehicle for obtaining the input of stakeholders is the commission's council of governors, which has representation from organized labour, industry, the federal government and all provinces and territories.

It was through the council of governors that the commission initiated its renewal process. This involved extensive consultations and resulted in the identification of many modifications which would improve the operations of the commission, with the focus being on early compliance with health and safety legislation. Many of these changes could be made administratively or through regulations. These changes are already in place. There were, however, three changes which could be implemented only through amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. Those amendments needed to effect these final changes are contained in the bill that we have before us.

In brief, the three changes required to complete the renewal program are: a provision to permit claimants to make a declaration that they believe that the information for which they are seeking protection from disclosure meets the regulatory criteria for confidential business information; a provision to allow the commission to enter into undertakings with claimants through which the claimant would make the necessary corrections to the health and safety documentation without the issuing of a formal order by the commission; and a provision to allow the commission to provide the boards hearing appeals of the commission's decisions and orders with factual clarifications of the record. Let us consider each of these in turn.

Under the current act, a claimant seeking an exemption from disclosure of what the claimant considers to be confidential business information must file a detailed justification for that claim. This includes information on the steps taken by the claimant to maintain the confidentiality of the information and estimates of the financial value of the confidential information to the business of the claimant or to the claimant's competitors. This information must be reviewed by the commission to determine whether the information meets the regulatory criteria for confidential business information, and a decision is then rendered on the validity of the claim.

This is an administrative burden on claimants and on the commission. The reviews carried out by the commission since its inception have shown no tendency on the part of claimants to make frivolous or false claims of confidential business information. In fact, nearly all of the claims for exemption that have been reviewed by the commission have been found to be valid.

The amendments we are considering will allow claimants to submit a declaration to the commission that the claimant believes the information is confidential business information as defined in the regulations and that information substantiating the claim is available and will be provided on request.

To guard against false claims, the amendments require full substantiating information to be provided when an affected party makes written representations regarding the claim, when the information contained in the summary provided with the claim must be verified, and when a claim is identified as requiring full documentation through a validation scheme established to protect the integrity of the system.

The benefits of this change are simplified procedures for industry claimants and a reduced administrative burden for both industry and the commission. This increased efficiency will expedite the delivery of health and safety information to workers who are handling the hazardous materials.

The second change will again shorten the time required to make the necessary corrections to the health and safety documentation provided to workers.

As the act now stands, when the commission finds that the documentation is not compliant with legislation, it must order the claimant to make the necessary corrections. Many claimants are prepared to make the necessary corrections without an order being issued and see these orders as questioning their commitment to workplace safety.

The amendments set out in this bill allow the commission to enter into an undertaking with a claimant to make the required corrections to the health and safety documentation on a voluntary basis. If the claimant fulfills the conditions of the undertaking, the commission will confirm compliance and, for transparency, will publish the corrections that have been made in the Canada Gazette. If the undertaking is not fulfilled, the commission will revert to the current process and order the claimant to comply.

Aside from the increased satisfaction of claimants, this amendment will avoid delays built into the system currently and will therefore significantly speed up the process of getting full and accurate health and safety information on the handling of hazardous materials into the hands of the workers.

The last change deals with appeals of the commission's decisions and orders. The act does not now provide for any participation by the commission in appeals. This has meant that the commission cannot respond to requests of appeal boards for clarification of the record. The amendments we are considering would rectify that situation. This will facilitate the appeals process and, again, speed up the process of getting accurate health and safety information into the hands of workers.

In summary, then, the amendments set out in the bill are very positive for workplace health and safety and they will simplify and streamline processes to the benefit both of workers and of industry. I cannot stress too strongly that those amendments have the full and unanimous support of all affected parties. There is no opposition. I most strongly support the passage of this bill.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She was very well prepared, and it showed. But I would like to ask her a question about the responsibility of companies that make hazardous products. We know that the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission conducts ongoing evaluations to determine whether these products are always properly used, properly packaged and properly transported.

In the past four years—2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006—there were fairly serious problems that, I think, deserve our attention. For example, there were 92 very serious violations where the concentration ratio of hazardous ingredients was missing or incorrect; 147 violations in 2004-05 involving preparation information, where the preparer's name or telephone number was missing; 101 violations concerning reactivity or incompatibility with other products; 119 violations regarding the effects of acute exposure, that is, toxicological properties; 127 violations pertaining to the effects of chronic exposure; and 85 violations regarding exposure limits. Products therefore had no documentation on the effects they could have on the people who use them. With respect to first aid, there were 80 instances where manufacturers of first aid products even removed the advice to administer water in cases of ingestion and 84 instances where there was no description of how to treat people in the event of skin contact with a product.

In my opinion, this is very important. In the years covered by the commission's report, roughly 45% of all violations regarding “effects of acute exposure” for all routes of entry involved failure to disclose that the product has harmful effects on the central nervous system.

I would like my dear colleague, who works with me on the health committee, to give me her opinion of these data and statistics. In my opinion, even though we are giving companies permission to be more efficient, we must also ensure that products that are sold are safe.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite certainly brings up some issues that are of prime importance to all of us, whether we are the workers involved with using the hazardous materials, the industry involved with developing them, or the commission that is involved with regulating. Those certainly have been issues in the past. We know that. We also know that the amendments we have before us in Bill S-2 have been developed in consultation with all those involved, whether it was the workers or the industry and so on.

There has been a consensus that we need to move forward to do this. Over the history of its operation, the commission has ordered corrections to health and safety information in a very high proportion. In roughly 95% of the claims that have been filed, there has been some type of inaccuracy. The commission has acted on them. In 2004 and 2005, we saw a total of 2,103 inaccuracies. It was ordered that they be corrected. On average, eight to nine corrections to health and safety information have been required for each claim. In most instances, it has not been just a single issue. There have been several different issues identified.

A significant number of those inaccuracies result in a potential threat to the health and safety of workers, so it is extremely important that the commission is on top of this, that it continues to order these corrections and that it includes things such as first aid measures and the danger of fire and explosion. Certainly the amendments to this act in no way diminish the role of the commission. In fact, they enhance that role. The member has brought up very important issues in her question.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her documentation and for knowing her file well.

I would like to get an answer about something that puzzles me a lot. We always talk about industries, but an agricultural business such as a big farm can be seen and is seen as an industry.

On farms, whether small or big—but mostly the big ones—all kinds of very dangerous materials are used. Some materials even come from far away, for example, building maintenance materials. I remember seeing creosote on farms recently. This product is extremely dangerous. It is there, as if it were nothing and it is not a worry. No one feels the responsibility of treating it as a dangerous product. I also saw products that were used to sanitize and clean farm buildings and even products for cleaning animals.

I ask my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton when a farm is considered to become a big enough industry that the regulations that the government wants to pass are applicable?

Second, I would also like to ask her whether, on farms, the implementation of ISO 14000 could help to make toxic and dangerous products more safe.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we all know that in today's world, in many cases, farming or agriculture is industry, and large industry. Farming, like anything else, comes in all sizes and shapes these days. In some instances, there is still the small family farm. In other instances, we have very large corporate operations that are industries for all intents and purposes.

In those areas, we know that a lot of chemicals and hazardous materials are handled. There are also regulations that apply to those hazardous materials, the same as they do to any other hazardous materials. There are certainly a lot of training programs already in place for persons who work in the agricultural community. Certifications have to be held by many of the farm owners and workers in order to use many of these chemicals.

So yes, regardless of the workplace, I firmly believe that if a hazardous material is being used there needs to be education and people certainly need the same protection as workers in any other kind of industry.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member. We support the bill and we expect the Conservatives to do likewise.

Does the hon. member not see a contradiction in the fact that she supports a bill that seeks to ensure greater public safety regarding the handling of hazardous materials, while one of her government colleagues, who is a minister and the member for Jonquière—Alma, just condemned environmentalists and accused them of being responsible for the demise of the softwood lumber industry?

The government's objective with this bill is to better monitor plants that use or make such products, while also helping the public and creating a safer environment, particularly for workers who handle these hazardous materials. Similarly, the objective pursued by some environmentalists is also to help the public. They want renewable energy to be available, and they want future generations to have a better quality of life.

Therefore, does the hon. member believe that her colleague is being irresponsible and disrespectful, considering what has already been accomplished? Should he not instead fall into step and help the companies that are also suffering because of the previous government's inaction? Now that the Conservatives are in office, it is up to them to show that they are proactive and to help the companies that are suffering.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question at all that this government is certainly in favour of improving the environment. There is no question about that. When it comes to the purpose of the amendments to Bill S-2, I think the first and foremost and prime purpose of the bill is to improve the health and safety of everyone in this country.

I think that is what this bill is going to do. I certainly look forward to the support it deserves. The sooner we can have this improvement put in place for the workers of this country, the better it will be for all of them.

[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.

[An hon. member]

It used to be tax deductible.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

There will be a question and comment period, which follows the hon. member's speech, the next time the House returns to the subject at hand.

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Québec.

[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.