Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to say a few words about Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act.
The Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives, in addition to their manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage. It also controls the use of fireworks. This amendment is necessary, according to the government, to require the incorporation of a detectable additive in plastic explosives, coupled with a provision to make regulations to control unmarked plastic explosives.
It is claimed this will hinder terrorism and enable Canada to ratify an international civil aviation organization convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.
The principal provisions of the bill require the marking of most plastic explosives for the purpose of detection and prohibit the manufacture, storage, possession, transfer of possession, transportation, import and export of unmarked plastic explosives, except that may be permitted by the terms of the convention or required by overriding military necessity. Also the principal provisions of the bill allow the governor in council to make regulations governing the possession, transfer and disposal of any unmarked plastic explosives.
New Democrats support positive initiatives which reduce crime, reduce terrorism or which make our country safer for Canadians, all those to be included in that heading.
The bill, although not as timely as we would like, will be a positive first step in addressing illegal and other terrorist acts. We are concerned as New Democrats that this initiative is a delay on the government's part.
We have other concerns about the bill. One is that in June 1989 a United Nations Security Council resolution called for the international civil aviation organization to intensify its work on devising an international regime for the marking of plastic or sheet explosives for the purpose of detection. Later that year, in December 1989, the same resolution was passed by the United Nations General Assembly of that sitting. We are now looking at 1995 where the government is undertaking to introduce this bill which would achieve the convention.
I heard the parliamentary secretary say in the House that it was a leadership role. I have some questions with respect to how forthright and how strong this leadership is mainly because Canada has had five or six years to introduce the legislation in the House of Commons. The government is just meeting the requirements of the convention. Why is the government not undertaking to make it more restrictive to purchase explosives and safer for Canadians? Why is the government not undertaking to make it more difficult to purchase explosives?
We have seen a long and drawn out debate on gun control legislation and the registration of firearms. Where was the government in terms of saying there is one manufacturer in Valleyfield, Quebec, manufacturing explosives? However the government will not deal with making it more difficult to purchase bombs.
It is a indication of the weak leadership capacity of the government where it is not going beyond the convention. Why not go beyond the convention and undertake to introduce regulations which will make the purchase of plastic explosives and bombs more difficult for Canadians and for others outside the country? The government could have gone one step further.
Has the government undertaken to study whether there is new technology on the horizon which would detect existing plastic bombs? We have seen all sorts of new computer technology introduced in the last number of months. It is being introduced on a weekly basis from a number of different companies, not just computer companies but technologically based companies. Why has the government not pursued with private sector corporations developing a technology which would identify plastic explosives now as opposed to waiting for 35 other countries to sign this convention and hopefully in the next 15 years have this problem addressed?
I think 15 years is a bit long to be waiting to have this problem addressed. In 15 years a lot of people and a lot of organizations can purchase explosives and use them in a very damaging way, especially on the Canadian population.
We are wondering what the government is doing in that regard, why it has not taken a leadership role, as it calls it, in undertaking to make it safer as opposed to meeting the basic requirements of an international convention which will not be in effect internationally for another 10 or 15 years, or who knows how long.
I wonder what the bill will do with respect to diminishing terrorism in Canada, for example in the Montreal situation where motorcycle gangs are having a bit of a set to in essence. They are killing each other with bombs, perhaps not plastic explosives but with dynamite and other explosives. What is the government doing in response to making our communities safer, making Montreal safer and addressing this very serious problem in Quebec?
Let me share with members of the House and Canadians what the government is doing. It is not doing a lot. The Minister of Justice travelled to Montreal to meet with the mayor of Montreal to discuss anti-gang legislation which the mayor has asked the federal government to implement. What has the Minister of Justice done? He listened to the mayor, had a nice little trip and had a lunch, but he will not do anything with respect to this issue because there are more important issues like gun control and registering which are creating all sorts of problems. He will not look after the bombs. We will leave the bombs up to the gangs. We will let the manufacturers of explosives continue to manufacture these things and sell them in the communities of our country so that people can use them to kill each other and innocent bystanders in larger numbers than with rifles.
I am wondering what the government is doing with respect to solving this problem in Montreal. I share the concern of members of the House, particularly from the province of Quebec, who are very concerned that this very serious problem be addressed. The bill will have absolutely nothing to do with addressing this problem in Quebec. I am sorry to see that happen.
I will not take up a lot of time on the bill. As I said, it is a good first step. I have another concern, and it is in response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources when he says that the military has a 10-year supply of plastic explosives.
Canadians are wondering what will happen with this 10-year supply of plastic explosives as it relates to the bill. Will the military use the explosives as they are, with undetectable components in the explosives? Will the government have the military destroy the undetectable explosives and have it purchase the new formula explosives so that they are detectable?
These are questions the government should be answering. I guess Canadians would like to ask what the military is doing with a 10-year supply of plastic explosives. Are they assuming that something very serious is going to happen internationally and we may require these explosives?
These questions have to be addressed by the government. The bill excludes the military use of plastic explosives being detected for emergency purposes. I would like to know how the government defines emergency use of plastic explosives by the military so that it may be exempt from the clauses of this convention. Does this mean that all the military in every country in the world is exempt as well, or is it just the Canadian military? If that is the case, does it have a very secure system of storage of plastic explosives so that if it is undetectable at least it is safely stored away and for the purposes of military uses only?
What kinds of restrictions, what kinds of regulations, what kinds of registration systems do they have for plastic explosives for the military?
In summary, we are very concerned with respect to the bill. It is a good first step. It is not a large enough step in terms of addressing the issue. I do not think it is happening quickly enough. If the Canadian government is serious about passing the bill, it will have a plan of action in place to contact other countries that are co-signators of the convention to have them introduce their legislation in a very timely way so that we can address this problem quickly, as opposed to over the next 15 years.
I would ask the government in its initiative to undertake to contact these other governments in a very formal way to ensure that this convention is signed by the minimum number of countries required to make it effective internationally.
New Democrats support the bill in principle. If some of these questions can be answered accurately and satisfactorily, we will give our support to the bill. I wait for and look forward to the bill coming to committee so that we can ask these questions in greater detail.
