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

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce legislation that has the full support of all stakeholders.

The amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act will benefit workers exposed to hazardous materials in the workplace, employers in whose businesses these materials are used, suppliers of hazardous materials to Canadian industry and provincial and territorial governments in their responsibilities for occupational health and safety. All of these interested parties see the amendments as very positive. There is no opposition to their adoption.

In particular, the net result will be earlier delivery to workers of full and accurate information on the safe handling of hazardous materials. As everyone will appreciate, the outcome is welcome for all those involved in the use of hazardous materials in Canadian workplaces.

Before discussing the provisions of Bill S-2, I would like to outline the responsibilities of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission in order to provide context for the amendments. The commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency of government which, while it may not have been in the public eye, plays an essential role in the protection of workers' health and safety and of industry's trade secrets.

The commission is part of the workplace hazardous materials information system, or WHMIS, a joint undertaking of labour, industry and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Under the authority of the federal Hazardous Products Act, WHMIS is the mechanism by which the health and safety information needed to handle hazardous products safely is disclosed to workers using those products.

The information which must be provided to workers identifies the hazardous agreements in products, the specific risks to the health and safety of those using those products, the precautions that must be taken in handling the products and the appropriate first aid measures in the event of accidental exposure to hazardous ingredients.

When WHMIS was established in 1987, industry was concerned that there were situations in which the full disclosure of information on the hazardous material would betray trade secrets. This in turn would result in financial losses to companies holding trade secrets or financial gain for a company's market competitors.

For example, a company might find through its research a new application for a hazardous ingredient in a manufacturing process. If the full chemical identity of that ingredient was made available to workers, it would be available to that company's competitor and the company making the discovery would lose a competitive advantage that it has gained. The commission was created with a mandate to grant exemptions from disclosure for bona fide trade secrets while at the same time ensuring that documentation on the safe use of hazardous products provided to workers is accurate and complete.

I also draw the House's attention to the fact that the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act has been incorporated by reference into the occupational health and safety legislation of the provinces and territories. The mandate of the commission to balance the rights of employers and workers to full information on the use of hazardous materials with the right of an industry to protect its trade secrets is, therefore, carried out on behalf of the federal, provincial and territorials governments.

This means that whenever a business wants to protect information it considers a trade secret, it makes application to the commission for an exemption from disclosure and with that application includes the required health and safety documentation. The commission reviews the economic documentation in support of the claim for exemption from disclosure and determines whether the information meets the regulatory criteria for trade secrets.

The commission also determines whether the accompanying health and safety information is in compliance with the federal, provincial and territorial requirements with respect to providing the information needed to protect the health and safety of those working with the product.

If the commission determines that the information being provided to the worker is not in compliance with the applicable federal, provincial or territorial health and safety regulations, the claimant is ordered to make the necessary corrections and to provide the commission with a copy of the corrected health and safety documentation.

The decisions and orders of the commission are published in the Canada Gazette so all parties have full information on the corrections the claimants have been required to make. If the corrections are not made within a specific time period, there are measures at the commission's disposal, including steps leading to the restriction of the sale of the product in question.

A key part of the national program delivered by the commission is a tripartite Council of Governors. The governors represent organized labour, industry, the federal government and all provincial and territorial governments. The council acts as an advisory body to the commission and provides strategic advice and guidance. It is through the council that concerns of stakeholders are expressed and it is through the council that appropriate means of resulting concerns are identified.

With the full support of the Council of Governors, the commission undertook a competitive and comprehensive renewal program with the objective of making its operation more transparent and efficient, with a focus on early compliance with the health and safety standards.

Through an extensive consultation process, many improvements in the operations of the commission were identified. Most of these improvements have already been implemented administratively or through changes in regulation. For example, the commission changed its procedures to make the scientific basis for its decision available to applicants early in the process. With a better understanding of the reasons of the decisions, applicants will have less incentive to appeal. Because appeals take time, this means that full and accurate information is in the hands of the workers much earlier if there is no appeal than if there is an appeal.

The legislative changes set out in Bill S-2 complete the renewal process and further the goals of making the commission more efficient and transparent and shortening the time required to get full and accurate health and safety information into the hands of the workers.

There are three changes set out in Bill S-2.

First, the bill amends the act to allow claimants to declare that the information for which they are seeking an exemption for disclosure is confidential business information. That documentation in support of this claim is available and will be supplied on request. Currently, claimants are required to submit detailed documentation on steps they have taken to protect the confidentiality and on the potential financial implications of disclosure. This is an administrative burden on claimants and on all of the commission. The commission has found nearly all claims for exemption to be valid.

While this amendment will generally allow claimants to declare that information is confidential business information, the commission will collect full documentation when affected parties, such as labour organizations, challenge a claim or when a claim is selected through the validation scheme set up to ensure the integrity of the decision making process.

This change will simplify procedure for industry claimants and reduce the administrative burden for both industry and the commission. This efficiency will facilitate getting complete and accurate health and safety information into the hands of workers. It should also be stressed that the protection from disclosure of confidential business information in no way affects the requirement that workers be provided with full information on the safe handling of hazardous materials.

The bill also amends the act to permit claimants to make the corrections needed to bring the accompanying health and safety information into full compliance without the issuing of a compliance order.

Currently, if the commission finds that the health and safety documentation is not compliant with legislation, it must order the claimant to make the necessary corrections and publish the order in the Canada Gazette. A large portion of the claimants are prepared to make all necessary corrections as soon as they need to be identified and feel these orders reflect badly on the commitment to workplace health and safety.

The amendments would allow the commission to enter into an undertaking with the claimants to make the required corrections to the health and safety information 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 which have been made in the Canada Gazette.

If the undertaking is not fulfilled, the commission will order the claimant to comply. This will speed up the process of getting health and safety information into the hands of workers because it will avoid the delays built into the current process.

The act now requires that when an order is made it must be published. There is then a period of 45 days in which appeals can be filed and a further 30 days after the appeal period before the claimant must have the changes in place. After adding the inevitable delays in publication, there are very significant advantages to workers in pursuing the amendments to permit the voluntary correction of health and safety documentation.

Finally, the bill amends the act to improve the appeal process. The amended act would allow the commission to provide actual clarifications to appeal boards when these are needed to facilitate the appeal process.

Appeals of the decisions and orders of the commission are heard by independent boards with three members drawn from labour, industry and government. Most appeals heard to date would have benefited from additional explanatory information from the commission but this is not permitted under the current legislation.

As I previously mentioned, the improvements already put in place through the commission renewal process have significantly reduced the number of appeals filed. With the proposed amendments, the process of dealing with any future appeals will be facilitated. As with the other two amendments, this would speed up the process of getting accurate health and safety information into the hands of workers.

Those are the proposed amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. I stress again the full support of all those affected: the workers using hazardous materials, the employers of those workers, the suppliers of hazardous materials and the provincial and territorial governments as guardians of occupational health and safety. There is no opposition.

The prime attraction of these changes is that they would be vital for the health and safety of workers as they provide information more quickly. The amendments would also provide more efficient and transparent processes and would benefit all the interested parties.

Given the unprecedented support and in light of the fact that the overriding objective of the amendments is to speed up the process of getting complete and accurate information on the safety of hazardous materials into the hands of workers, I have no hesitation in most strongly urging the support of the passage of this bill.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing some insight into this important legislation, which is an act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

I listened intently to what the member had to say and was quite surprised that a substantive part of his speech, word for word, was actually written and given by a member in the Senate, the hon. James Cowan, during second reading to amend the bill.

I also realized that the senator was not recognized during the member's speech. I do not know if that would be a form of plagiarism taking place in the House but I would be interested in finding out from the member whether he had any new insights into this particular debate on some of the other important issues versus reading a speech, word for word, from Senator James Cowan that took place in the Senate?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly if there was redundancy, I would acknowledge the senator's speech if that was indeed the case.

The fact is this is a pretty straightforward issue. I hope the member opposite will not cause undue delay or become partisan in the debate just for the sake of becoming partisan. There are times when we can work together here to pass important legislation. This is not exciting legislation, but it is important to the workers who have to deal with hazardous materials.

I will acknowledge the senator's comments. I hope the member will work with the government to ensure the safety of workers.

I will also take a moment to point out that it is not uncommon to find very similar comments in the Senate and the House of Commons. I believe we could find dozens of examples where this was the case with the previous government.

More important, we want to ensure the safety of workers, and this government will do that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about hazardous materials and this bill would make some improvements to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

In my area of Windsor West, approximately 42% of the nation's daily trade goes across the border to the United States. Hazardous material is routinely shipped through this corridor. The material is supposed to go through a number of different procedures, but we have not really seen enforcement of those procedures. We do not have a regional border authority that could actively monitor the way hazardous material goes across the border.

A pre-authorized barge system is supposed to be used for transporting hazardous material, This follows a series of different procedures as opposed to the system of simply going across a bridge and getting into the United States before an inspection takes place. There have been cases in the past of drivers removing from their vehicles placards identifying the material and the procedures to be followed if a spill occurred.

I would ask the hon. member if his government is committed to actually cracking down on the different types of illegal procedures that are happening on the border in the transportation of hazardous materials. Is his government committed to ensuring public safety? The Ambassador Bridge spans the Detroit River where our ecosystem is very much in line with Lake St. Clair and the Great Lakes. We are concerned about them.

What is the government doing to enforce the proper transportation of goods across the border to the United States?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there were several components to the member's question.

With regard to the question of safety, the member will know that this government has made substantial commitments toward increasing border security. Not only will we increase the resources to maintain border security, but over time we will also allow our guards to be armed, which the previous government would not allow.

What the member is talking about is more of a transportation issue. When we are dealing with trade, there are a variety of systems around the world to assess the safety of material. The Canadian approach ensures that workers will have the health and safety information they need, even if the exact ingredients of the products are not disclosed. In this bill, regardless of where the product comes from, the safety of the worker is assured and that is really the main issue.

The issue of transportation and border security is outside my realm, but I am very proud of the work that Minister Day has done and the investment this government has put into the importance of cross-border security. I think the workers at the border appreciate the investment that this government is making to their heroic and tremendous contributions to the safety of our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that we do not refer to ministers by their name, but by their title instead.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express the support of our party, the official opposition in the House, for Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. It is very similar to Bill S-40 which was introduced in the previous Parliament by the Liberal government. The bill seeks to change the process whereby manufacturers of hazardous materials can become exempt from providing full disclosure of the nature of their products where that disclosure would force them to reveal trade secrets.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has very eloquently put forward some of the changes that would take place, but perhaps I could also divulge some information in regard to this piece of legislation.

As was mentioned by the member opposite, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is an independent quasi-judicial agency of government. It plays a very important role in ensuring that we protect the safety of our workers in Canada. Ultimately that is what this legislation is about; it is about protecting workers, both their safety and their health in Canada.

The commission is part of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System which provides workers with information about health and safety. There are product labels which are available to employees and workers who handle hazardous materials, along with material data safety sheets. They provide workers with information that is important for their protection, such as the different types of hazardous ingredients that they perhaps are working with, the specific risks that may be encountered when utilizing those products, and precautions on how to store and transport those products, and also how to ensure the proper disposal of those products. The labelling sheets and the data safety sheets also provide information on first aid measures that one can take if there is any type of accidental exposure.

The commission has played a vital and important role in terms of educating workers and ensuring their safety. The legislation that is before us wants to implement three amendments. The first amendment reduces some of the administrative burden that one requires for documentation. The second amendment deals with the voluntary correction of material safety data sheets and product labels. The third amendment improves the appeals process.

With respect to the first change regarding reducing the amount of administrative burden, when employers put forward information on how to provide for an application for hazardous materials, they must apply for an exemption. One of the difficulties with the exemption is that when they reveal what the chemical compounds are in those hazardous materials, they may end up revealing trade secrets and therefore, they apply to the commission for an exemption. However, the commission has only denied two of the 2,200 applications that have been put forward to the commission. There is an amendment to allow individuals to label their applications as confidential and the commission would only then review those applications if they were challenged on the basis of confidentiality.

The second amendment being put forward is the voluntary correction of material safety and data. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health told the House, if a correction is required to the product labels or the material safety data sheets, it has to appear in the Canada Gazette through a formal order and it is not binding until 75 days after it has been publicized. Thus workers cannot receive the appropriate information until 75 days after it has appeared in the Canada Gazette. This bill would ensure that workers would receive information in a timely manner because instead of having to go through the Canada Gazette, one could make a voluntary undertaking.

The third improvement is in regard to improving the appeals process. Right now the commission cannot have any type of interference. However, if it were able to provide some sort of factual clarification it would actually speed up the whole process.

In conclusion, we support this piece of legislation. It would provide definite improvements to the whole process. It would absolutely ensure that workers in this country had access to safe and effective information that would ensure their health and safety. Also, the information would be made available in a timely manner.

We will be supporting Bill S-2.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to speak to Bill S-2, since the area of hazardous materials was my concern for several years in my career as a health and safety engineer for Hydro-Québec. I even brought with me the guide my colleagues and I prepared on managing hazardous materials.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Act is governed by a board. This large board is made up of 18 members, including 2 workers, a supplier, an employer, a federal government representative and 4 to 13 representatives from the provinces and territories.

This large board is part of the framework of WHMIS, which stands for Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. WHMIS participants and stakeholders can be divided into four main categories. First are the suppliers and manufacturers. Next are the workers who handle the products. Third are the employers or industries that purchase the products. Finally, there are the provincial, territorial and federal governments that monitor the system.

WHMIS, the information system, must provide workers with all the health and safety information they need to handle hazardous materials without any risk to themselves, their neighbours, friends or colleagues, and in order to avoid all dangerous situations for pregnant women.

Information on the use of hazardous materials in the workplace is provided in two ways. First, information appears on the label. All containers must have an identification label. If a label identifying a product is damaged, covered or illegible, the worker has the right to refuse to handle the container and its contents, and can have the contents verified by the manufacturer, if the manufacturer is identified on the label. Otherwise, the product is disposed of in a safe manner.

The second is the material safety data sheet, which must be kept in a catalogue accessible to everyone at all times. It is important to emphasize “at all times”. Regular drills must be conducted to verify the storage location of the binder or catalogue. The MSDS must also be kept up to date and must be accessible to workers. This means the catalogue or MSDS cannot be locked up in a supervisor's office or someone else's office. All of these details must be discussed regularly during mandatory workplace health and safety meetings.

Careful attention must be paid to making new employees aware of health and safety regulations because they must know where catalogues are located and be familiar with all of the products they will be using in the workplace.

What information does the MSDS provide? First of all, it lists dangerous ingredients and, if applicable, toxic products. Second, it details the health and safety risks associated with using the product. Third, it describes product-handling precautions. Fourth, it recommends the first aid to be given in cases of accidental exposure, such as ingestion, skin contact or inhalation.

Anyone who cares about the environment will be careful when disposing of large quantities of these products and will know how to respond appropriately in case of accidental spills in sewer or storm drains or in sensitive environments, such as lakes and reservoirs, wetlands or other vulnerable ecosystems.

Bill S-2 proposes three changes. I have read the speeches given by the senator and other senators during debate in the Senate. I hope that there will be no questions insinuating that I have cribbed from the senators.

Trade secrets represent the first major change. In my opinion, there has to be a certain balance between the right of workers and employers to have complete information about the use of hazardous products and the industry’s right to protect trade secrets, patents, contents and components, which competitors could use to their advantage.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission will therefore have the power to grant exemptions to protect genuine trade secrets of manufacturers and distributors of hazardous products. The commission will review claims for exemption. As well, the required health and safety documents will be filed, and manufacturers will also be asked to provide documents of an economic nature. Those measures will protect the confidentiality of the information and will also eliminate the financial consequences of disclosure of the documents.

The second amendment to the existing act allows for voluntary correction of material safety data sheets and labels where the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission determines that they do not comply with the act. This is a new procedure. There is also a third amendment proposed in the bill, to improve the appeal process.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill S-2 and believes that when it comes to hazardous materials it is crucial to keep worker safety in mind. We also believe that this essential effect must be the basis of all decisions made. The Bloc Québécois notes that there is unanimous support for the amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act set out in Bill S-2 among the members of the commission’s governing council, that is, among the participants I identified earlier: industry, workers and governments.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-2 so that the amendments that the leading stakeholders in those groups have called for can be enacted. In everything it does, the Bloc Québécois seeks to protect working men and women, and that is why it has introduced Bill C-257 to ban the use of replacement workers. There is also a bill on preventive reassignment on the order paper, the purpose of which is to provide women in Quebec who work in undertakings under federal jurisdiction with the same benefits in respect of preventive reassignment as other working women in Quebec.

A third bill, Bill C-269, to improve the employment insurance system, is one such law that affects working men and women. I would remind you that the Bloc Québécois also had the throne speech amended to incorporate an income support program for older workers.

The Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill S-2.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc mentioned the issue with regard to replacement workers, informally known as anti-scab legislation. The legislation is important to this debate on hazardous materials.

A number of different points were raised about the safety of workers. If working with hazardous materials, it is very important that people have the opportunity to get the appropriate training with subsequent follow ups to ensure that procedures are properly followed.

I know fire departments in Ontario municipalities have to request permission to even go onto CP and CN rail property to do the proper inspection of a number of different chemicals that go through our transportation hubs. It is important to note that chlorine gas, which is transported on railroads, has been classified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as a weapon of mass destruction. In fact, there are now laws in the U.S. It is moving some hazardous materials travelling by rail away from larger urban centres because of the threat they pose to the population. Canada should be looking at that as well.

My question for the member of the Bloc has to due with replacement workers. In my previous work as a job developer on behalf of persons with disabilities and new Canadians, often there was not the appropriate training provided at work places. Sometimes it was because they did not have the appropriate procedures in place. Sometimes it was because there was no organized workforce and safety issues were lax. However, hazardous materials can be quite dangerous, everything from subtle compounds to other types of chemicals have lasting impacts on an individual.

Could the member comment on the importance of protecting workers, not only individuals who are at a regular work place at a regular time, but also replacement workers who are thrown into situations that can be more dangerous and have an effect upon them and their co-workers?

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. In my speech, I did allude to new workers, but that could also include casual and replacement workers.

Because of the way occupational safety and health meetings are regulated, such meetings can take place once a month or once a week, which means there is a potential risk that a new worker may lack proper training. So, perhaps it would simply be a matter of replacing this meeting, where various issues are discussed, with the introduction of a new worker to the work site.

In Quebec, a special procedure is in place to welcome new workers on a work site. It involves providing information on health and safety. Moreover, new workers are informed of the dangers that their work or actions might involve. This could be extended to include information on the products that these workers will have to handle as part of their work.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand and give my commentary on this important legislation. It speaks to the important subject of hazardous materials and the use of them by the citizens of Canada and its industries. It is important for people to have the information so they can deal with this material in a way which is safe as well as productive.

First, I compliment those who have worked so hard to produce the three amendments, not only the labour sector that on day to day work with these materials in many different ways. I also compliment the industry and federal, provincial and territorial governments, which came together collectively and brought forward some of these recommendations. It is important we applaud their efforts.

I look forward to looking at this proposed legislation further when the House votes on it and sends it to the health committee. At committee we will examine it and bring forth witness to discern how perhaps we can make the legislation better. We will certainly give it a full review so we can pass laws in this chamber that are in the best interest of Canadians.

We are looking at three amendments. The first one is to reduce the time it takes to require the review of confidential information that may be covered under patent law. We respect and understand the full amount of wealth, money and investment that it takes to create a product and we want to ensure that proprietary information is protected. At the same time, we must ensure, first and foremost, the safety of the citizens of Canada. We also must ensure that individuals know that the formulations they are working with are appropriate.

One example I can think of that more explains the first amendment is the products that are very familiar to all Canadians. They are not necessarily hazardous, but they drive the point of what the proposed legislation would do. It is protecting formulations and yet ensuring that those citizens who are engaging in these products are safe.

One that comes to mind is Coca-Cola. That product has been on the market for many decades, yet no one really knows what goes into the formula. It is important that Canadians know that the product they drink, if they drink it in moderation, will not be harmful, but the formulation is protected. It is important that we understand that. Moderation also goes to another subject we are talking about in the health committee and that is obesity in a country.

Another product I can think of is Colonel Sanders' secret recipe for his chicken. We do not know what products go into the recipe, but we need to know they are safe.

It is the same thing for hazardous material. We need to know that the formulations which go into be products are safe if they are handled according to the recommendations on the package, but also that they are protected, and in the process we protect patent law.

In essence that is where we are on the first amendment, which I applaud. I think it reaches that golden balance between the two. It is important, as we look at the proposed legislation, that we recognize this. I do not think people have many arguments with the first amendment, as long as we strike that balance.

The second amendment deals with speeding up any corrections of the formulations for the workers who are handling the hazardous materials to ensure they are safe. If we are handling a product and we know there is a problem with it, we need to have the opportunity to correct the information and get it to the person who uses the material as fast as we possibly can. It is important that we streamline the red tape so this can happen.

When it comes to labelling of a hazardous product, it is very important that not only are we absolutely accurate in the product label, which is just part of it, but we also have to be absolutely clear in how that accuracy of information is delivered so that it is understood by the person reading the label. We can be absolutely accurate in the product label and still not accomplish what needs to be done to make sure that those individuals who are using the product understand that it is a safe product. This goes back to my years in agriculture, when I handled a significant amount of hazardous products in the pesticides we used on our farm.

I remember when we changed from the imperial system to the metric system and went from acres to hectares and from ounces to grams and kilograms. Not only was it important for us to understand that the formulation on the label was accurate, but it also was important that we, the people using the products, understood the hazards if we did not read properly and really understand the labelling.

So when it comes to labelling, on both sides of it, it should be absolutely precise and accurate but it should also be understood. We find this not only with hazardous materials. There is actually a piece of legislation about the labelling of foods that has been brought forward by a member of this House. I would say the same thing: when a piece of information is given and is put on a label it has to be absolutely accurate. If it is not absolutely accurate, then it is deceptive. If it is deceptive, it is bad information. We have to make sure these labels are right. When they are not right, we have to make sure that we correct them very quickly. We also have to make sure that they are very much understood by those using them.

On the second amendment, if we find that a correction needs to be made, we can accelerate the process so that the individual or industry using a hazardous product, whoever it might be, gets the information sooner rather than being held up in red tape after the 75 days of articling happens.

I think these first two amendments both are very important and very worthwhile. This House should consider them in improving this piece of legislation as it is laid before this House and as it goes out as far as changes to the laws in the country are concerned.

When it comes to the third amendment, we are really talking about the idea of an appeals process and making sure it is there. I believe that is the way we should be with all pieces of legislation or anything we do as far as government is concerned. We need to make sure we are a government that is transparent and accountable and does things in a timely fashion, that we do not bog down our citizens in red tape when it comes to legislation or these types of things. It is an area that we absolutely have to accelerate in to make sure that everything is done in a way that is all of those things.

When we look at this legislation, we look at three things. We look at making sure that we disclose the claims and that the formulations are safe for Canadians to use. We look at making sure that we speed up any corrections that have to be made so individuals can make informed choices when they use these products. We look at making sure that appeal processes are not bogging down the system in red tape.

These are the three amendments I see in this piece of legislation. When we examine Bill S-2 in committee, we will examine these amendments more thoroughly and bring witnesses forward in a more fulsome way and have a debate on it. I am looking forward to that.

I would say to this House that from what I see so far in this piece of legislation at this stage, we should pass this piece of legislation here in this House and get it into committee so we can take a more fulsome review. That is what is in the best interests of Canadians. That is what this House should be concerned about as we move forward with this piece of legislation and all pieces of legislation for the betterment of Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member, who is the chair of the health committee. As we are at second reading, his committee will have the opportunity to look at this in a little more detail. Since it is a bill that includes amendments to an existing piece of legislation, it is extremely difficult for members who are not familiar with that legislation and the intent. It is going to take a little work to do that.

I noticed that in one of the sections it refers to the “Chief Screening Officer” finding that there is something to report which must be reported in the Canada Gazette. One of the things the officer may report is “a notice containing any information that, in the opinion of a screening officer, should have been disclosed on any material safety data sheet or label reviewed by the screening officer”.

The bill goes on to say in the legislation that no order made under the act, particularly paragraph 3(b), “shall have a retrospective effect”. I raise this just as a point of interest. The member might find an opportunity to have this dealt with at committee, but in terms of the principle of the law, if someone is aggrieved or incurs damages with regard to a matter, the intent of the law usually is to put them back in the position they would have been in had things happened the way they should have.

So if there was a label that misinformed or they knew or ought to have known but did not put it in, damages may have occurred. I simply would question this. I do not know if the member would agree, but I would appreciate his comments about whether or not limiting matters on a prospective rather than a retrospective basis might in fact impinge upon the rights and the condition of an aggrieved party.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to supersede any court cases that might come forward in this sort of situation, but I take my hon. colleague's perspective on this. I am sure the committee will examine it more closely. That is really why we have the process we do. We have first and second reading and a fulsome debate in committee, bringing forward the best witnesses we can possibly find to discern how these kinds of issues and others in the piece of legislation will impact Canadians. Then we tweak it to make sure we have an appropriate balance.

Now, as for even after we implement the law, my hon. colleague has a hypothetical, which will work its way out one way or the other, but we also have a court system that allows individuals who feel they have a grievance because of the legislation to state their case before court and a judge and to have it handled in that way. I think that is appropriate for a country that believes in the rule of law.

I will take my hon. colleague's comments to heart. I think they are valid. There may be not only this situation but others that the committee will discern as we move the bill into committee.

I will say, however, that we have a consensus on the legislation from labour, industry, and provincial and federal governments right across this country. I believe the amendments put forward are something we should consider very carefully and consider supporting at this stage. I would ask my hon. colleague to vote for this piece of legislation in that respect.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spent part of his speech talking about trade secrets and what I guess is the balance between knowing the contents of the different types of hazardous materials and also knowing the trade secrets that make the actual chemical products in the market different from competitors' products, the trade secrets that also prevent them from being duplicated, either legally or illegally, so they have an opportunity to have their information protected properly.

Does the hon. member think that during the committee process there should be a review of this whole procedure of how to define what information is going to be there and where the catch-point is in terms of protection? Does he have any thoughts about how closely we should err on the side of caution for this documentation in the labelling? We could have different circumstances and not only in terms of literacy and languages. It is so important to have that on the labels so that people and workers know exactly what they are dealing with. I wonder whether or not the committee would even look at those aspects to find out whether there are some new procedures and techniques that would be helpful so workers of different types of languages, for example, could be protected.

I know that different communities, especially manufacturing ones in urban centres, do have a great deal of diversity. One of the barriers that we have often worked on in terms of labour and management issues in those manufacturing centres has been in getting the appropriate training, in having people routinely understanding not only English but French in the labelling. I am interested in knowing whether or not the committee should be looking at that as one of the potential prevention issues in hazardous material storage.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I believe I alluded to it in my comments. Not only is absolutely imperative that the information on these hazardous materials be accurate, but it has to be clearly understood by those who are using it. If it is not understood clearly by those who are using it, then really it is obsolete and altogether misses the intent of labelling. The member's point is whether we should have it in other languages and more clearly read. Absolutely.

We are going to be dealing with this when it comes to food labelling as well. Just because we have a Canada health guide, does that mean that people who read it really understand it? If they do not understand it, how good is it, really? It is only complied with and safe to the degree that it is understood by those who are using it, by the people of Canada.

I think the member's points are well taken. I am sure the committee is going to examine both sides of this issue because they are absolutely important as we move forward in the committee to deliberations on this piece of legislation.

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is now my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Fisheries; the hon. member for West Nova, Agriculture; the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Economic Development.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to be here in this House as Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition.

In the 38th Parliament, this bill was Bill S-40. At the time, the Liberal Party of Canada formed the government in power. The bill that is now before this House was introduced under that previous government.

This bill is crucial to occupational health and safety. As I said, it was introduced by the previous government during the 38th Parliament. Bill S-2, which is the reincarnation of that bill, amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. This act governs the activities of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial government agency. The commission plays an essential role in protecting workers' health and safety and also protects trade secrets.

The commission forms part of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, also known as WHMIS. This information system was developed jointly by unions, industry and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. This is extremely important, because it is not every day that all the parties to an issue decide of one accord on the amendments that must be made to a bill or an existing law.

The role of WHMIS is to ensure that information on hazardous products is conveyed to the workers who use those products. A list of all the hazardous ingredients in the products is therefore available, as is information on how to handle those products safely: information on health and safety, first aid in case of contact with the product, how to dispose of the product, and so on. This information is essential to protect the health and safety of workers who have to use this type of product and these hazardous materials and handle them safely in their work.

This information is provided on a data sheet or a label affixed to the product. When WHMIS was introduced, the industry stated that there were cases where the full disclosure of hazardous materials ran the risk of disclosing industrial secrets and making them available to business competitors. To ensure that Canadian industry and our economy continue to grow and that new jobs are created, it is very important that companies that create this type of product have an assurance that confidential business information will not be communicated to or made accessible to their competitors.

If the complete chemical composition of ingredients were listed on a data sheet, a competitor could use that information in unfair competition and gain an advantage. Therefore, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission intervenes by examining the claim for exemption. That means that a company can file a claim for exemption so that the list of dangerous products does not appear on the label. However, the commission still provides documentation concerning the risks and dangers of the product.

In that case, it means that the competitive advantages of a company and its industrial secrets are protected. However, at the same time, sufficient information must appear on the label or in the data sheet to ensure that the health and safety of workers who are involved in the production or handling of this type of hazardous products or materials are protected.

The commission’s mandate consists in establishing a balance between the rights of the employers and the right of employees to obtain information about the dangerous products that they handle.

When a company wants to protect information concerning dangerous ingredients within a product, it must file a claim for exemption from the requirement to disclose the information, and submit the required documentation relating to health and safety.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission determines whether it is an industrial secret and whether the information provided concerning health and safety is satisfactory.

If the information in the data sheet or on the label does not comply with the law, the commission orders changes to be made and calls for submission of a corrected data sheet.

If the corrections are not made within the required time limit, the company is subject to corrective action or the commission can simply prohibit the product.

That is very important. It is up to the commission to determine whether the hazardous materials information is sufficient to ensure the protection of the health and safety of workers who have to handle products containing that kind of hazardous materials.

If a company files a claim for exemption but fails to provide sufficient information to ensure that the health and safety of workers are protected, the commission has the authority to order corrective action or to simply ban the product in question from the market.

The claim for exemption forms have to be corrected 95% of the time because of missing information. On average, eight or nine pieces of information have to be added on each form.

In 1998, the commission undertook a renewal process designed to streamline its administrative operations and better meet the needs of stakeholders.

Many changes have been made to better meet the needs of stakeholders. Three, however, require legislative amendments, hence the need for Bill S-2, which, under the previous government, during the last parliament, was known as Bill S-40.

These three changes requiring legislative amendments correspond to the amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act contained in Bill S-2.

This act has to be amended to allow claimants to make, with a minimum of substantiating information, a declaration to the effect that the information in respect of which an exemption is claimed is indeed a trade secret.

At present, claimants are required to submit detailed documentation concerning the financial implications of the possible disclosure of the chemical components. This places an administrative burden on claimants and on the commission as well.

The majority of claims for exemption are valid. To date, only four out of 2,400 have been rejected.

Second, the amendments proposed by Bill S-2 will enable companies to voluntarily correct any safety labels the commission deems are not compliant.

Under current legislation, the commission must issue a formal order for compliance even if the claimant is completely prepared to make the necessary correction after being notified that some information is missing. Companies must then undertake a long administrative process, even if they voluntarily agree to change the health and safety label.

The second element is the amendment enabling companies to voluntarily correct safety labels, which is a good thing. I think that all of us in the House agree that this is a good thing.

If it is possible for corrections to be made voluntarily, the process can be speeded up. Workers can thus have faster access to any health and safety sheets that have been changed.

It should also be pointed out, however, that in cases of non-compliance with the rules and lack of undertaking by the claimant respecting the corrections requested, the commission can always issue an order to ensure compliance with the requirements, as exists now.

Workers’ health and safety is therefore not at all compromised by this amendment. It only speeds up the administrative process, making information accessible to workers much more quickly than the current system allows.

Third, the amendments will improve the appeal process by allowing the commission to provide the appeal boards with factual clarifications.

The appeals are heard by independent boards composed of three members who represent workers, industry and government. Up to now, 16 appeals have been heard and they would have benefited greatly from additional information from the commission. But to date the law does not allow this. The three parties concerned, that is, government, industry and workers or unions, all agree that this amendment should be made so that the commission can provide factual clarifications or information to the independent board with the authority to hear the appeals.

Representatives of industry, as well as unions in the provinces and territories, have unanimously supported the three amendments proposed in Bill S-2. The amendments to this act are very positive for the health and safety of workers and will simplify administrative procedures. There are of course significant economic impacts for companies, which will no longer have to deal with lengthy administrative procedures.

To recap, the three amendments will enable companies that have claimed an exemption to put their product on the market more quickly, while complying with health and safety requirements. In addition, workers will have access to corrections to health sheets faster since the administrative burden will be considerably reduced.

As I have already mentioned, this enables industry to access the market more quickly, while complying with the requirement to inform workers of any safety precautions to be taken.

In conclusion, I would simply say, as I have already mentioned, first that Bill S-2 is what was called Bill S-40 during the 38th Parliament. Second, these three amendments to the act have the shared support of industry, unions, the provinces and territories, and government.

I think that this is something good and that the members of this House should support it.

On that note, I conclude my remarks.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask a question about an important subject related to workers' rights and safety.

A hazardous material is one that can be about prevention. By having knowledge and the proper information appropriately on display, as well as documented and provided for the workforce, it allows the opportunity for people to be educated about their handling of chemicals. Some chemicals, whether they are mixed or not with others, can be corrosive for hands. As well, other types of mixtures could create odourless gases and significant problems for not only the individual dealing with the chemicals but also other individuals in the area affected.

One of the interesting things the commission found is that since 1988 95% of the data sheets that provide information on dangerous and hazardous materials were not compliant with legislation. I would like to ask my colleague whether this should be a time as well to review the penalty system with regard to the neglect of the existing data system. Workers have a right to have that information in front of them not only in terms of their health but also how hazardous materials affect their families' health. Improper exposure to chemicals can have effects well beyond the individual by bringing it home.

I come from an area that has a lot of environmental toxins. In fact, there was a motion in the House that was narrowly defeated that would have created an action team, so to speak, to go to areas that have higher rates of cancer and other types of diseases related to environmental and human health to start providing remedial action to those communities so they could actually have some solutions to offset it and produce some prevention strategies.

One of the things we can control is the conduct of the data sheets in terms of being up to date and relevant. I ask my colleague whether the penalties should be looked at in terms of being increased because it is completely irresponsible not to have up to date information sheets and to have 95% of them in disrepair is not acceptable and a message has to be sent.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member from the NDP talks about hardening or making more severe penalties when the three elements of the legislation for which amendments are being proposed in Bill S-2 come as a result of unanimity among the unions that represent the workers, the governments and industry. Obviously these three principal actors, if I can use that word, came to an agreement that these were three elements in the legislation which required amendment and modification in order to better ensure the health and safety of workers who must precisely manipulate hazardous material.

Had the issue of strengthening penalties been discussed, obviously there was no agreement. I am not aware of any discussions on that particular issue. It may be something that one or more of the parties wish to discuss, and they are more than free to do so, but right now I have no indication that the penalties need to be made more severe. What is needed, however, are these three amendments.

The member spoke of 95% of the cases, demande de dérogation, and I apologize that I do not know the term in English.

The data sheets must be updated because the information is incomplete. I have not seen any evidence that the missing information places the health and safety of workers at greater risk. If that were the case, the unions would be in a very good position to lead the fight and they would have asked for more severe penalties.

I leave it to the union representatives to take up that fight.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill S-2. I have great personal interest in this legislation dealing with the WHMIS, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System.

In 1988, when I was a journeyman carpenter, WHMIS came into effect and all of us had to be trained on a 40 hour WHMIS course. We were not allowed to go back on the job until we had our WHMIS certification.

Since that time I became the leader of the carpenters' union in Manitoba. It was our job to ensure all of our membership had passed WHMIS. I therefore am very aware of the value of this right to know legislation, which is how we phrase it. WHMIS is the right to know and, flowing from that, the right to refuse unsafe work is the next logical step to the right to know. It is based on the premise that workers have the right to know that the materials they are being asked to handle as an aspect of their job are in fact safe. They also have the right to know if they need to take any safety precautions in terms of a mask or gloves.

However, the workers also has the right to know some of the complex things that my colleague from Windsor West tried to raise in that sometimes there is a perfectly benign chemical or compound and another perfectly benign chemical but when those two are added together they create a third product that can be very hazardous.

The WHMIS data sheets need to be very accurate and they are very complex. Workers need to be well versed to understand the complicated chemical language that is sometimes on these material safety data sheets.

I was shocked to hear my colleague from Windsor West point out something that I had never heard before. He said that roughly 95% of all the material safety data sheets reviewed by the commission had been found to be non-compliant with the legislation. Ninety-five per cent is a pretty appalling figure. Many of these shortcomings, in fact typical violations, they found were not minor in terms of misspelling the name of a chemical or something. Many of the violations included the failure to identify the effects of acute or chronic exposure to a product and the failure to identify that a hazardous ingredient in a product is a known carcinogen. Those are serious shortcomings in the WHMIS data sheet regime as we know it.

However, I take some comfort in the fact that we are addressing this, that Parliament is seized on the issue of workplace safety and health as it pertains to material safety data sheet. I only wish that we could extend that same interest in the rights of workers to know hazardous products to our international activities because what WHMIS is to the Canadian workforce, the Rotterdam Convention is to the international workforce. The United Nations has come together under the auspices of the Rotterdam Convention to identify hazardous products and to require labelling of these products when prior informed consent of the user is deemed to be necessary.

The most graphic illustration of Canada's failure to take into account the long term health effects of foreign workers is asbestos. Canadian asbestos continues to pollute and contaminate most of the free world. The legacy of the contamination from Canadian asbestos is still being realized in places like Europe but it has had the common sense to ban asbestos completely. However, Canada continues to be the third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world and we dump it all into developing nations and third world countries because no one else will buy it anymore.

Where the Rotterdam Convention comes in and where this contradiction comes in is that just last week in Geneva, Canada barred the inclusion of asbestos on that list of hazardous materials which would require the PIC, prior informed consent of the user. This is appalling. I personally hang my head in shame that Canada is acting like international globe trotting propagandists for the asbestos industry.

I do not know what we owe the asbestos industry but we are doing the industry a great favour by fighting its battles when we send teams of Department of Justice lawyers half way around the world to Geneva to argue against having asbestos listed as a hazardous material. They are serving some master in the asbestos community and it is beyond reason as far as I am concerned.

The Rotterdam Convention does not even seek to ban asbestos, although I personally believe the world should ban asbestos. The Rotterdam Convention only says that if asbestos is going to be sold and used that it at least should be mandatory that the users at the other end be cautioned that the material is hazardous to their health and safety and that safety precautions should be taken.

Canada opposes that as a nation. For the third time in a row Canada has gone to COPs, the committee of parties that form up the Rotterdam Convention, and we have done more than resist this. We have been an international bully. We have arm twisted. We have used every diplomatic means that we know of to convince other countries to follow our lead and not allow asbestos to be listed.

In the context of debating WHMIS and a workers' right to know, I wish somewhere in Bill S-2 we could require that what we want for ourselves we should extend to our business activities internationally. This is a concept of corporate accountability that was introduced in the last Parliament by the former member for Ottawa Centre, the hon. Ed Broadbent. Ed felt that some of our activities internationally were an embarrassment in terms of labour standards, human rights standards, health and safety standards and environmental standards. He felt that what we do in Canada, where we are guided by certain principles of fairness, of ethics and of a commitment to workplace safety and health, that by extension we should be propagating those principles in the third world and in developing nations because we want to bring them up to those same high standards that we enjoy in this country.

For all those people who think asbestos is banned in this country, I am here to say that asbestos is not banned in this country at all. I used to work in the asbestos mines as a young and foolish man. I can say that they were lying to us about the health hazards of asbestos then and they continue to lie to us about the health hazards of asbestos today.

I call the asbestos industry corporate serial killers. I do not hesitate to do that. The asbestos industry is the tobacco industry's evil twin because both of them have made a fortune in the last century by pushing a product that they know full well kills people and hiding behind fabricated research, tainted research, cover-ups, falsehoods and lies about the health hazard.

It is bad enough that the asbestos industry itself is lying to workers, its own employees, its own industry and to people around the world, but the Government of Canada feels some obligation to be the handmaiden to the asbestos industry and, as I say, to be globe trotting propagandists and spending millions of dollars artificially supporting and subsidizing an industry that is killing millions of people nationally and internationally.

Now that the government has done its dirty work for the asbestos industry in Geneva last week, it will be another two years before we have the chance to get asbestos back on that list. I am concerned that there will not be a Rotterdam Convention in two years when the next biannual meeting is convened because we have seriously jeopardized the integrity of the whole convention by allowing commercial considerations to override the health considerations around which that convention was first established.

Of the 90 countries that were in attendance in Geneva last week, only 8 countries supported Canada's position. The chair of the Rotterdam Convention introduced the subject on day one saying that chrysotile asbestos was a sensitive issue and that there have been difficulties with it before. He suggested that we follow the four point framework to assess the health hazard and to review the science.

Before the chair of the committee could even finish speaking, the Canadian delegation rushed to the microphones and said, “we don't need to waste our time. We move that asbestos not be put on the list”. Because that international institution runs by consensus, everyone has a veto. As soon as Canada set the tone by being rude and ignoring the international diplomatic protocols of courtesy at one of those conferences, that set the tone.

Then all of our customers went to the microphones too because we had twisted their arms: India, Thailand and Senegal. These are countries where we are dumping 220,000 tonnes, not pounds or kilos, per year of Canadian asbestos. It is being dumped into the third world creating a legacy of illness that is of epidemic proportions.

It is not an exaggeration to state that we are exporting misery on an astronomical scale because one single asbestos fibre is a carcinogen. We in Canada rank asbestos as a class A listed carcinogen. One errant asbestos fibre finding its way into the mesothelium of the lungs, heart or internal organs can trigger mesothelioma, the cancer that is caused only by asbestos.

No doubt some people will try to argue that Quebec asbestos is somehow benign, that it is different from other asbestos. The Institut national de santé publique du Québec did a study in 2005 and found that of the people who live in the asbestos region of Quebec, the men have the fourth highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world and the women of that region have the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world. There is nothing benign about Quebec asbestos.

Quebec asbestos kills the same way that Yukon asbestos kills. I worked in the mines there. Newfoundland asbestos kills because that mine was shut down, too. There is Timmins, Ontario. Everywhere where they mine asbestos they have merchants of death. I can say it in no other way.

The asbestos industry, the tobacco industry's evil twin, continues to pollute the world with a product that should never have taken out of the ground.

As we are debating Bill S-2, which originated in the Senate as the workplace hazardous material information system bill, we should try to contemplate at least that what we wish for ourselves we wish for all. We should contemplate the fact that there is no business case for pushing asbestos.

There is an enormous scientific case for banning asbestos altogether, but we have to ask ourselves, by what convoluted pretzel logic is it in anybody's interest to keep pushing a product that kills people and to keep subsidizing that industry to this degree?

The Asbestos Institute, paid for solely by the federal and provincial governments of Canada and Quebec, pushes asbestos around the world. Our foreign missions and embassies host these trade junkets for them, 120 trade junkets in 60 countries around the world in recent years by the Asbestos Institute trying to find new markets for Canadian asbestos and trying to quell the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that illustrates clearly that asbestos kills.

That is the dual function of the Asbestos Institute, to come up with phony science. It just paid for a research study recently by Dr. David Bernstein. It paid $1 million to add a question mark beside asbestos, so that it can safely say that the scientific community is not unanimous in its condemnation of asbestos. The one scientist who we just bought and paid for clearly has a question about whether Quebec asbestos is good for us or bad for us.

I am here to say that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known and 100,000 deaths a year are directly attributed to asbestos, and hundreds of thousands more are never diagnosed because of the long incubation period. Parts of the world where Quebec asbestos is killing people today do not have the diagnostics and treatment centres that can accurately diagnose that asbestos in fact is killing these people.

There is an additional twist that I have to add to Bill S-2 and the workplace hazardous material information system because there is a mill in Kamloops, British Columbia, that is just about to close. It is owned by Weyerhaeuser. It has developed a product using the cellulose fibre from Douglas fir that is a perfect substitute for asbestos in ferrocement. It has a perfect substitute, but yet it cannot break into the market because the cement pipe manufacturers and the cement building material tile manufacturers all use asbestos from Quebec as the binding agent in their material.

There is a better product that grows in British Columbia. We have all these standing dead forests that are killed by the beetles et cetera, but the Douglas fir byproduct cellulose is the perfect substitute for asbestos in asbestos cement.

We could save that mill in Kamloops, British Columbia, if it could only find a market for the material it is willing produce. Instead, we are inexplicably married to the idea that we have to support asbestos and that Canada has to push asbestos.

I cannot believe the fact that we send teams of Department of Justice lawyers around the world to represent the asbestos industry. I do not know what they have done to deserve that level of public support. I do not know what they have done to deserve that kind of corporate welfare. Here we have corporate welfare for corporate serial killers. Corporate welfare, in any sense, should be condemned. In actual fact, we are aiding and abetting this industry that is knowingly and willingly killing workers.

Thailand is the world's second largest importer of Canadian asbestos. I went to Thailand this summer to speak at a conference of the medical community and the industry about the hazards of Canadian asbestos. I believe we had them convinced. Speaker after speaker from Japan, Australia, the European Union, all those countries that have banned asbestos, stood up and spoke. I think we had the government of Thailand convinced except when one very honest diplomat went to the microphone and apologized. He simply said his country was under enormous pressure internationally to buy Canadian asbestos. It is as if buying Canadian asbestos is tied to other aid, although he did not go that far and suggest that. It seems to me that the Canadian government will stop at nothing to promote this material.

Gary Nash, the assistant deputy minister of Natural Resources Canada, was the founder and first president of the Asbestos Institute.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member was in the habit of returning to the subject at hand every once in a while, but he has fallen out of that habit and it has been a long time since he has said anything about Bill S-2. I wonder if the member could remember the rule of relevance.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You are right, Mr. Speaker. I was taking the long circuitous route to bring me back to my original point which was dealing with workplace health and safety issues. The connection was so plain and so obvious in my mind.

What I am advocating here is an amendment to Bill S-2. I believe there should at least be a reference in Bill S-2 to our international obligations. The type of workplace safety and health conditions put in place in Canada in 1988 are admirable. They are some of the best in the world. There are some hiccups and some problems with the material safety data sheets, but the intent is laudable and honourable.

There is a glaring contradiction though in the fact that we do not extend this beyond our own shores, and as such, we are doing a great disservice to other underdeveloped countries. Part of our overall development aid in recent years has been building the administrative capacity of countries as well as brick and mortar development in terms of digging wells or infrastructure.

With the globalization of capital, one of the things that is terribly lacking is the fact that there has not been a globalization of harmonizing workers' rights. We have globalized the free movement of capital, but we have not globalized things like a commitment to human rights, and a workplace safety and health standard. I wish Bill S-2 dealt with these things.

I think there would be broad interest in the general public's point of view. Canadians would be horrified to learn that we continue to be the third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. Canadians do not realize that asbestos is not banned in this country and we need to caution them about this fact.

Just because we will not let a Canadian be exposed to a single fibre of the stuff does not mean it is banned. It certainly does not mean that we are doing anything to stop pushing this material into underdeveloped countries in the third world.

We have put the Rotterdam Convention in jeopardy. At the same instant that we are debating WHMIS in this country, the international equivalent of WHMIS, the Rotterdam Convention, is near collapse because of the corporate greed of the asbestos industry and Canadian government officials who are handmaidens to that industry. They have put the integrity of the Rotterdam Convention at serious risk. I predict they have jeopardized its very future.

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

Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague opposite, the member for Winnipeg Centre, got sidetracked somewhat since Bill S-2 does single out asbestos, and I think he used the bill to talk about the era when he worked in the mines. I agree with him that it was actually dangerous at the time. He is correct, back then it was called long fibre asbestos.

However, the asbestos produced at that time is not the same fibre as the cryolithe being produced today. That is a lie. It is not the same fibre, it is not the same thing, it is not as dangerous and does not even come close to posing the same risks.

My colleague stated that he was a carpenter, and so was I. I imagine that we worked at similar workplaces. At the time, we knew very well what it involved.

He stated that asbestos was extremely dangerous. It was a hazard for the workers, for those who mined it and those who carried out renovations. This fibre remains dangerous. However, it was never dangerous when properly installed in walls, around beams or when properly contained or hardened.

Asbestos cannot be readily replaced in high temperature areas. Contrary to what my colleague stated, it cannot be replaced with cellulose, which can be used as insulation but not for anything else.

I would like to ask my colleague for Winnipeg Centre why he did not once mention cryolithe?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, chrysotile asbestos kills in the same way that all types of asbestos kill.

The mine that I worked at mined chrysotile asbestos, long-fibre chrysotile asbestos. That is the same material that is currently being mined in Thetford Mines, in the Jeffrey mine and the LAB Chrysotile mine. Both mines were recently bought by Warren Buffet, I should point out.

We are really putting Canadian workers at risk in these mines to make foreign capitalists rich. We are exploiting Canadian workers in these dangerous workplace conditions. I pointed out that the incidence of asbestosis and mesothelioma is among the highest in the world in the Asbestos region of Quebec. No one can ever tell me that chrysotile asbestos is in some way benign or in some way healthy because chrysotile asbestos causes cancer the same way all asbestos do. There are five different kinds. Chrysotile is deadly.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a funny thing happened to me on the way to S-2. That was the member's speech. However, we should probably give him some credit for being so tenacious on this issue that he feels very strongly about. It does raise a question though.

In Bill S-2, when the chief screening officer has to make some changes, the bill prescribes that they have to be gazetted. I would suspect, if we asked the 308 members of the House whether or not they have ever scanned the Gazette and followed it to see what was in there, there is a very high proportion of members who have not even had a look at the Gazette. It is a formality of sorts. However, the question really becomes: How does this link in to the health and well-being of Canadians?

I must admit, other than asbestos, that I was thinking of the recent study and report that on farms the likelihood of women developing breast cancer is significantly higher than women who are not in agricultural sites. Perhaps, here is yet another example that hearkens home to a lot of members about the importance of this information when it comes up.

I wonder if the member has any thoughts about how this process of having this hazardous materials information review act in place which gazettes information, whether or not the rubber really hits the road in terms of making sure that all of that gets down to ordinary Canadians, would ensure that Canadians are also made aware of the health risks associated with certain chemicals and other dangerous materials.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's helpful question gives me the opportunity to point out that the proposed amendments in Bill S-2 will permit the voluntary correction of material safety data sheets and product labels when the commission finds them to be non-compliant. We can save that burdensome step.

At present, the commission must make formal correction orders even if the manufacturer or the person distributing whatever material claims it is fully prepared to make voluntary corrections. Therefore, there is some room for optimism that we can benefit the situation in workplaces around the country if it is not such an onerous task to make orders to correct deficient workplace safety and health data sheets.

One of the figures my colleague, the member for Windsor West, pointed out, which we should all be well aware of or take note of and be concerned about, is that 95% of those data sheets examined by the commission were found to be non-compliant and not just in immaterial ways. On average eight or nine errors were in those sheets examined. Therefore, clearly the WHMIS regime in the country is sorely lacking and it needs correction.

I hope I did not overstay my welcome by arguing about asbestos, but I would like to see the material safety data sheet on Quebec asbestos, on chrysotile asbestos. That safety data sheet would say that there is no safe level of asbestos, that we should not handle the product and that our wives and children should not be exposed to it because it will kill them. This would be the only fair WHMIS data sheet on asbestos that we could put because there is no safe level of asbestos. There is no control or safe use of asbestos. Exposure to one single fibre can and in many cases has caused life threatening disease.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre on not only his work on asbestos but also on Zonolite. We are talking about the right to know, not only for workers and consumers, but also about our ability to have an opportunity to know the product and its effect upon us and the environment. That is what the member for Winnipeg Centre is talking about in his crusade on asbestos and on other issues around human health. The prevention aspect is not only good for human health, but it also saves the economy and significantly affects planning issues for the environment in the future.

The House has had the opportunity to act on these issues in the past. The subamendment to my motion on environmental contaminants and human health passed through this chamber. Then some Alliance members and Liberal members switched their position and killed it.

Similarly, we had another tragedy recently when the Bloc voted against banning pesticides. This is amazing because Quebec has some progressive laws on pesticide use and they could have been applied across the country. However, I guess children across our country are less important if they are not in Quebec. There is no reason that should not have passed in this chamber. It was a solid legislation and it would have had real results.

How can we use the data sheets to the fullest extent to ensure that prevention will be at the forefront so people can make educated decisions about the use of the product in their workplace and also have their rights respected?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, asbestos is the single greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. There is no safe level of asbestos exposure and no material safety data sheet will protect us if we are exposed to it. Asbestos kills. It should be banned globally. At the very least, the Government of Canada should stop being a globe trotting propagandist for the asbestos industry and it should stop handing out corporate welfare to corporate serial killers.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleagues in the NDP be a little quieter? They are very excited and I can hardly hear myself speak.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The hon. member for Québec is asking for the cooperation of all hon. members of the House.

I would hope that members of all parties will allow the hon. member for Québec to be heard.

[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.

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.

[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?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

The city is certainly gussying itself up. We hope, though, that this bill will provide more assurances to the workers who come into contact with hazardous materials. The city is fixing itself up for its 400th anniversary and a number of projects are underway. We have been talking about the health and safety of workers in contact with hazardous materials. In my view, though, we need to go further in workplace health and safety and take a broader view of these materials.

My hon. colleague was speaking about construction workers. When I was a college student, I did some papers on workplace health and safety. In the old days in pulp and paper plants, for example, they did not have safety railings. Workers walked along in front of machines that could shred a human body in five seconds. One of my uncles passed out and fell into a machine. We need to be sensitive to this kind of thing when we think about our working people.

I could list all the things being done at construction sites in beautiful Quebec City, as my colleague requested. However, I will have to keep that for another speech because I would not have time to list all the major projects in the city in just a few seconds. We hope that the federal government will support one of the major projects that can also be dangerous for construction workers: the improvements to the Quebec bridge, which have not been made yet.

There will certainly be some fine work done. However, one thing will not get done, despite the federal government's promise: removing the rust from the Quebec bridge. It is too late for 2008. The bridge will remain rusty and all our fine visitors will see it like that. It is too late because the necessary decisions were not made on time. I have high hopes, though, that the Bloc Québécois will finally force the government to move because this will be an important election issue in the next campaign.

[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?

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)