[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 28, 1995
.1100 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. I'd like to welcome the committee members here today, the officials, and all those who are with us as we look at Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act.
I think with everybody's agreement and concurrence we may have a few words from the officials first. Then if we do have any questions, I'm thinking of moving straight into the clause by clause and we can ask our questions of the officials as we are going through the specific clauses of the bill.
First of all, again, I welcome our officials. We have with us today Dave McCulloch, Senior Headquarters Inspector with the Explosives Branch; Anne-Marie Fortin, Counsel, Legal Services; and Hal Whiteman, the Director of the Security, Policy, Planning and Legislative Program in the Department of Transport. Welcome to the committee. If you wish to say a few words about the legislation, I would ask you to do so at this time.
Mr. Dave McCulloch (Senior Headquarters Inspector, Regulatory, Explosives Branch, Minerals and Metals Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you.
[Translation]
Good morning members of the Committee on Natural Resources. I would first like to introduce ourselves. My name is David McCulloch and I'm from the Explosives Branch. I am here withMr. Hal Whiteman, from Transport Canada and Mrs. Anne-Marie Fortin, from the Department of Justice.
.1105
[English]
In my opening remarks, and I'll keep them very short because I understand time is always of consequence, it goes without saying that the use of explosives for criminal purposes is a serious issue.
The spirit of the 1991 convention signed at Montreal, aimed at the marking of plastic explosives for detection, is specifically aimed at eliminating a powerful terrorist tool, that is, plastic explosives. Canada's efforts in ratifying this convention have resulted in the drafting and consideration today of Bill C-71, which is essentially a joint effort by the explosives branch on the product side and Transport Canada on the detection side, which will harden Canada's airports against terrorist intentions.
We are pleased to have been invited to this committee meeting today and are at your disposal to answer any questions you might have about this legislation.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): You mentioned the Montreal convention and that this bill is in response to that. Are there other initiatives from the Montreal convention that you're currently working on as well? Are there things that the government is considering in response to the Montreal convention, or is this it?
Mr. McCulloch: This is essentially it. Bill C-71 is aimed specifically at the issues surrounding the ICAO convention at the international convention signed in Montreal.
In addressing other issues concerning marking explosives, I realize there have been concerns about U.S. intentions in terms of ratifying that convention. I'm happy to report, if it is a concern to this committee, that the U.S., through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is pursuing key anti-terrorist legislation at this time that contains within it a provision for the marking of commercial as well as military stocks of plastic explosives, which would, in this effort, ratify the convention.
Mr. Strahl: That sounds good, but there are no other initiatives that Canada is going to take part in? There is nothing else in the Montreal convention that we have yet to do?
Mr. McCulloch: Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): We know that it took four years after the Montreal convention to get this bill. How come the process was so long?
I would like to ask another question. Who are the main sellers of explosives to terrorists? Who sells them? I will get back to the bill later because the Bloc Québécois is obviously in agreement with it. We won't take much time.
I will tell you what my concern is. Will we be able to provide an adequate follow up so that this does not become a joke? It's nice to mark those explosives. We know that those used by the army will not be marked and we can understand why. Those used by the police will not be marked either and we can understand why as well. It's quite legitimate, I think.
But we know that there are very strong biker gangs in Montreal. That the explosives will be marked or not, do you think that will change anything for these biker gangs? We also saw that on some reserves, there were explosives coming in from all sides. Are we passing this bill only to look good or will it be really useful in the fight against biker gangs? There may not be many of these people, but they are still very effective. Can this bill be useful?
[English]
Mr. McCulloch: In response to Mr. Canuel's question, why so long, legislation often takes a while to generate. In this case, fairly extensive consultations had to take place with other departments, as well as the military, Transport Canada, Revenue Canada, Customs, and also with industry, the sole manufacturer of plastic explosives in Canada,
[Translation]
Produits chimiques Expro, in Valleyfield.
[English]
The memorandum to cabinet had been prepared and was somewhat ready to go when there was a switch in government back in, I believe, 1993, and we had to go through the process again. I suppose four and a half years is quite awhile, but with the pressures of having to do other things within the context of explosives control in Canada, we're just happy at this point that the bill has finally been drafted and is before the House for consideration.
.1110
As for the concerns about where terrorists and perhaps biker gangs are obtaining their explosives, the Explosives Act is aimed at the control of its sale, storage, and transportation by road to a certain extent.
In the manufacture of explosives, there are certain security requirements for storage, handling and purchase. In discussions with the RCMP, principally the Canadian Bomb Data Centre, we asked the same question: where do they feel the sources are? Some are from break and entry and theft of explosives from magazines within the province of Quebec but also outside of the province. Explosives move somewhat freely in the event of break and entry and theft, not only there, but possibly also from the U.S. northward. Break, entry and theft is not as big a problem as it would seem.
Quebec is the only province in Canada that has its own specific provincial legislation, which is aimed principally at security of storage and at those people who handle and use explosives.
The federal requirements certainly represent a good minimum compromise that is enjoyed throughout Canada and is felt to be quite sufficient in terms of its breadth of control.
As a result of the FLQ crisis back in the early 1970s, Quebec did enact its own explosives act and regulations specifically to target terrorist-type activities and to really control and tighten the control over possession, use and storage.
A source that has been targeted for explosives...typically the biker gangs and the terrorists do not conduct the break, entry and theft operations themselves. These are usually committed by other people looking to sell on the black market. One potential source is ``skimming'' of explosives, i.e., by certain employees of dubious background who are working in the industry. A stick here or a stick there during blasting operations can be smuggled off the work site and can amount to a reasonably useful cache over a period of time. We think this is specifically where a lot of the explosives are coming from nowadays.
Certainly once it gets out into the realm of use, it becomes quite difficult to control. Employers must be more vigilant in terms of the accountability of their employees.
Whether or not the bill will achieve the desired thrust or purpose of enhancing safety...having been with the explosives branch for almost 20 years now, I really think this will go a long way to helping on an international basis. Certainly if one country or only several countries participate in such a program of marking plastic explosives, it will be of very limited use worldwide. I think if we all show a good example and buy into this project, air travel and detection of conventional plastic explosives will be enhanced. Terrorists will have to select means of achieving their objectives other than plastic explosives.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Does the term ``plastic explosive'' also include dynamite by the stick? Is industry itself using plastic explosives, or are they not using dynamite?
Mr. McCulloch: I can address those questions.
For the purposes of this bill, plastic explosives do not include commercial blasting explosives such as dynamite, commercial emulsions, slurry, and the types of things that are being used in the mining industry.
.1115
Specifically, plastic explosives cover two types. The first is essentially military demolition charges, which typically are used by the Department of National Defence in military types of activities and exercises. Secondly, there is a type of plastic explosive that is sold in a sheet form, and this is used in industry for the purposes of hardening metal surfaces and explosive welding. You can weld a metal plate together with the use of explosives.
Industrial use is typically limited to sheet explosives, and it's not big.
There's only one producer of plastic explosives in Canada, and I mentioned that's in Valleyfield, Quebec. That company manufactures only on a required basis for the military, and it's in very minute volumes.
Mr. Reed: So here we're really not talking about the business of curtailing material that gets into the hands of biker gangs, per se, at all. This is another market entirely.
Mr. McCulloch: Typically, the type of material being used by biker gangs tends to be more along the lines of commercial blasting explosives that are being stolen and pilfered off of construction sites.
Things such as the Oklahoma City and World Trade Centre bombings were home-made explosives. It's been estimated that, at least in the U.S. experience, roughly 97% of all criminal bombings involve home-made or improvised devices as opposed to commercial blasting explosives.
From my discussions with the RCMP, I am not aware of the biker gangs using anything as sophisticated as plastic explosives. It's typically commercial stuff that's stolen off of construction sites.
Mr. Thalheimer (Timmins - Chapleau): It says ``for the purpose of detecting plastic explosives''. That's the purpose of the act. It's not to prevent bikers and so on from getting it; it's to detect it at airports. That's what the bill is all about.
Mr. McCulloch: It's to enhance air travel and safety and to dissuade the terrorist community from using plastic explosives to bomb aircraft.
Mr. Thalheimer: Because we have the technology to detect it.
Mr. McCulloch: Absolutely.
Mr. Strahl: I have just a short comment. I wrote to the minister on the 22nd, asking if she was going to take part in a cost-benefit analysis on commercial explosives specifically, to see if one could trace explosives that typically have been used by the biker gangs or whatever. I actually got a copy of her letter in reply today, which says that the director and chief inspector of explosives is going to participate in a cost-benefit study of including plastic tags in commercial explosives. I think that's a wise move and I don't think we should go further. She is going to pursue that and see if there is any benefit. That's a different issue, but I think she's moving in the right way there.
Mr. Wood (Nipissing): My main concern is the exemptions in the bill for certain groups, such as the military and police departments' research and development. Why do they need undetectable plastic explosives, particularly the police in these R and D applications that are taking place in Canada? Are they not just as much at risk of theft as is any industrial user of plastic explosives?
The other thing is, why are they exempt for fifteen years - or at all, for that matter?
Mr. McCulloch: I can speak to that.
These parameters of three and fifteen years, respectively, were contained within the international convention and represented reasonable international guidelines.
Certainly Canada is not a huge stockpiler of plastic explosives. On the other hand, the U.S. has a much more extensive military application for plastic explosives, having a much bigger military than Canada. It was perceived that fifteen years was probably enough time, certainly with secure storage and handling and accountability, to make use of existing stocks.
Commercially, three years was selected because it represented, again, the smaller use of explosives by commercial industry.
Why? It's not a necessity to have unmarked explosives. It's to avoid having to destroy huge stockpiles, in places such as the U.S., of product that already exists.
I understand that some research is being undertaken to enable the marking of already existing products with an after-the-fact additive that could be sprayed on, as well. So research is still going on to try to mark product that has already been produced.
.1120
Mr. Wood: I'm also curious about the penalties involved in not complying with the act. How severe are the penalties, and, I guess more importantly, have there been any recent convictions under the current act? I ask this only because I wonder if this act is being enforced today. If it's not, then the amendments we're looking at today are hardly worth the effort.
Mr. McCulloch: In terms of the penalties, for this particular thing there's nothing specific in the Explosives Act that is aimed at the plastic explosives legislation right now. However, there is a general penalty clause that I think provides for a fine of up to $5,000 on a first offence and up to $10,000 for a second contravention.
Again, in Canada the volume of legitimate use of plastic explosives is quite small. In terms of legal use and storage and handling, plastic explosives is not an issue, not a problem in this country.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): I wonder if there are sufficient penalties in here. While I take the point that there's not a great industry in plastic explosives, the illegal and improper use of such explosives is very devastating in the case of a terrorist use.
I don't know whether or not it's the place of this committee to make a recommendation to the effect that maybe the penalties should be looked at and increased. From $5,000 to $10,000 doesn't strike me as being a very significant penalty if the plastic explosive is going to wind up in terrorist hands and bring down an aircraft.
The Chairman: I believe the officials will take the concerns of this committee as expressed and provide due consideration to them.
I thank the officials for their presentation and for answering the questions, and perhaps a few more to go.
Now we can move to the clause-by-clause consideration.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
I wish at this time to thank the officials for coming, to thank the members of the committee for their input, and of course to thank the staff for working.
When would the people in the steering committee like to get together to make some decisions as to future business? Is there any suggestion there? As soon as possible? Next week? Would that be sufficient?
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Wednesday afternoon next week if possible.
[English]
The Chairman: Next Wednesday. Okay. My office will call the members of the steering committee in order to try to arrange it.
Mr. Strahl: I mentioned that I won't be here next week.
The Chairman: And there's good reason.
Mr. Strahl: And I have a good reason.
The Chairman: If you wish to send an alternate -
Mr. Strahl: Okay. I'll try to send somebody.
The Chairman: Terrific. Thank you very much.
Mr. Thalheimer: Why don't we do it after the break? We're just sitting next week. Why don't we wait until after the break? Would that be better?
Mr. Strahl: We might want to set some things in motion.
.1125
The Chairman: We can see if there have been many suggestions of potential topics. If it looks as if there's something worth while to discuss, then we can meet next Wednesday. If it looks as if not much has come in, then we'll wait until after the break. Again, I would like the committee members to make suggestions as to topics that we can study.
Mr. Thalheimer: Let's hope that the weather for next week will be good and there will be a little bit of golfing left.
The Chairman: That will be taken into consideration as well.
I have one quick point. There will be a meeting at a model forest on October 3, next Tuesday. It will be at a location about an hour out of Ottawa. If anyone on the committee is interested, let me know.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): You'll be back by Question Period.
The Chairman: It might be something in which we'll be interested.
This meeting stands adjourned.