CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 19, 1995
Bill C-71. Motion for second reading 14571
Bill C-83. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14582
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 14594
Division on motion deferred 14598
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14598
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14601
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14602
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 14604
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 14604
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 14605
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 14606
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 14607
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14608
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14608
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14608
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14609
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14609
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14609
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14610
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14610
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14610
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14610
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14611
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14611
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14611
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14611
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14611
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14612
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14612
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14613
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14614
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14614
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14614
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14614
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14614
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14614
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14615
(Motion withdrawn.) 14616
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14616
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14623
Motion for concurrence in 85th report 14623
(Motion agreed to.) 14623
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14624
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14624
Bill C-83. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14634
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 183; Nays, 48 14635
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 14635
14571
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, September 19, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 76 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to present today with well over 2,500
signatures from all across Canada but primarily from the province
of Ontario.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms
in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same
sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Natural Resources)
moved that Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise before
you today to support Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act.
[English]
The Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which
regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives as
well as the manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession
and storage of explosives.
[Translation]
The amendment to the Explosives Act is important for a number
of very good reasons.
(1005)
[English]
First, at the present time there is no way to detect plastic
explosives at airports. This act proposes the marking of plastic
explosives by adding a chemical which would be detected by
equipment at Canada's international airports and thus ward off the
threat of terrorism.
Second, this amendment will allow Canada to be among the first
nations to ratify an international convention requested by the
United Nations and co-ordinated by the International Civil
Aviation Organization with respect to the marking of plastic
explosives. This convention was signed in March 1991 by 40
countries and 14 countries have already ratified the convention.
Five of these nations, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia and
the Czech Republic, are producer states where plastic explosives
are manufactured.
Third, given the fact that Canada is a world leader in vapour
detection technology, Canadian equipment manufacturers will be
14572
able to take advantage of international market opportunities for
their products as more and more countries ratify the convention.
Fourth, Natural Resources Canada which maintains the authority
to inspect and approve the manufacture, distribution and storage of
explosives in Canada will be responsible for the application of
measures to mark plastic explosives following the proclamation of
this amendment.
Let me explain these reasons in greater detail. Members of the
House will certainly remember the tragic events involving crashes
of two passenger aircraft caused by the detonation of bombs made
of plastic explosives. The first instance I wish to refer to involved
Pan Am flight 103 from London which exploded over the small
town of Lockerbie, Scotland. The other was UTA flight 772 which
crashed in Niger, Africa. A total of 442 people were killed in these
two crashes.
Then of course there were the Air India tragedies involving two
747 aircraft both of which began their journeys here in Canada.
One crashed in the Atlantic Ocean south of the Republic of Ireland
while the other miraculously made it to Narita International Airport
in Tokyo, Japan, before a bomb made of plastic explosives blew up
in the airport's baggage handling area. That bomb killed at least
two innocent baggage handlers.
Although the cause of the first Air India crash has never been
officially determined there is strong belief that it was the result of a
plastic explosive device. In any case, plastic explosives have
emerged as the weapon of choice for terrorist groups, both for
bombing aircraft and other targets such as public buildings because
this type of explosive is small, powerful, stable, malleable and
most important, difficult to detect.
It is quite likely that if plastic explosives had been marked or
tagged with a substance that could have been detected by
equipment in Canadian airports it is almost certain that the Air
India tragedies would have been avoided. Consequently, terrorists
would be discouraged from attempting any attacks in Canada using
plastic explosives.
For these reasons an international effort to mark plastic
explosives for the purpose of detection was initiated by the United
Nations and has been co-ordinated by the International Civil
Aviation Organization. The resulting international convention
requires states to ensure the marking of plastic explosives to
enhance their detectability. At the same time the convention
requires controls over the import, export, possession and transfer of
marked plastic explosives and the destruction of most unmarked
plastic explosives.
In March 1991 more than 70 states and six organizations
attended a diplomatic conference where the convention on the
marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection was
adopted by consensus. Forty states, including Canada, signed this
convention.
The main features of the convention are: only plastic explosives
as defined in the convention are required to be marked; existing
unmarked commercial stocks of plastic explosives are to be
destroyed within three years; an international explosives technical
commission will be created to assess technical developments; the
cost of Canadian participation in such a commission will be low;
and the convention will come into force after 35 states including
five producer states have ratified it. Canada is one of the world's
producer states and as I mentioned previously, we will be among
the first countries to ratify this important convention.
It is evident that the proposed bill respects the terms of this
convention. The proclamation of this amendment to the Explosives
Act will ensure Canadian official ratification of this important
international agreement.
(1010 )
Bill C-71 specifies that the explosives branch of Natural
Resources Canada will take the lead role in the implementation of
the provisions of the convention. Plastic explosives are
manufactured by the private sector in Canada.
Following the proclamation of Bill C-71, Natural Resources
Canada's explosives inspectors who issue explosives factory
licences to the private sector under delegation from the minister
will refuse to license any manufacturing operation to make
unmarked plastic explosives.
Inspectors again under delegation from the minister will refuse
import or export permits for unmarked plastic explosives.
Inspectors could take samples of explosives to verify that they are
marked and could seize and destroy unmarked shipments,
unmarked stores or abandon unmarked quantities.
The explosives branch is best placed to determine the location of
unmarked plastic explosives and to assure control over them
through a stringent system of licensing which would be supported
by regular compliance inspections. Regulations would require prior
notification of change of ownership along with a statement of the
details of the physical transfer.
The military agrees that it can, except in times of emergency,
observe all of the terms of the convention. Unmarked stocks of
plastic explosives would be incorporated in munitions or used up
during field exercises on a priority basis.
Transport Canada, which is responsible for the operation of
detection equipment at Canadian airports, has indicated that the
current technology can detect the marked plastic explosives.
Further, the extra costs of producing detectable plastic
explosives are expected to be negligible. The industry has been
involved in efforts to develop substances to mark plastic explosives
for the purpose of detection. Therefore the industry acknowledges
that the impact of extra costs will not be serious. The industry, the
Canadian police community and the military were all consulted
14573
throughout the process to prepare this proposed amendment to the
existing law.
The major consumer of plastic explosives in this country is the
Canadian military. The construction industry is a relatively minor
consumer using plastic explosives for the demolition of large
buildings. Given this comparatively concentrated consumer base, it
will be easy to monitor compliance with the amended act following
proclamation.
While the Canadian military has a 10-year supply of unmarked
plastic explosives, the convention on the marking of plastic
explosives provides for a 15-year period of grace for ratifying
nations to use or destroy unmarked plastic explosives.
In addition, given the low volume of plastic explosives
compared to the volume of conventional industrial explosives, the
challenge of enforcing the provisions of the proposed amendment
and by extension the international convention will not pose a
significant problem or cost to the respective regulatory bodies.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that Canada's position as a leader in
the development of vapour detection technologies will be enhanced
as a result of the ratification of this international convention.
In fact, increased foreign market penetration by Canadian
equipment manufacturers is virtually a certainty. Therefore the
proclamation of this amendment has the potential to help stimulate
job creation and contribute to Canada's future economic growth.
[Translation]
In conclusion, this amendment to the Explosives Act clearly
shows the Canadian government's will to provide good
government. We are committed to doing our part to protect the
health and safety of passengers aboard aircraft using Canadian
airspace and to doing everything in our power in co-operation with
our partners around the world to ward off the threat of terrorism in
the skies above Canada and other countries.
[English]
Passage of this amendment will allow Canada to ratify an
important international convention which sends a strong message
to terrorist groups that plastic explosives will be detected by
equipment in our airports.
Further, Canada's ratification of the convention will demonstrate
our leadership among signatory nations and encourage them to
follow our example. In addition Canada is contributing to the
development of substances to mark plastic explosives for
detection.
With the ratification of the convention by more and more
nations, Canadian manufacturers of vapour detection equipment
will also be able to take advantage of significant marketing
opportunities.
(1015 )
As a result this proposed amendment to the Explosives Act will
contribute to two major federal goals: job creation and Canadian
economic growth. Moreover, the passage of this amendment will
protect the health and safety of all Canadians.
I urge the House give speedy passage to this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what the hon. parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Natural Resources had to say. It goes without saying
that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-71, an act to amend the
Explosives Act, but I still have many questions to ask him.
I must admit that I was surprised when I saw Bill C-71 to amend
the Explosives Act on the orders of the day. I was also surprised not
so much by the bill itself, although one can easily wonder, but by
the delay, the time it took the government to react. It should be
pointed out that this bill implements the 1991 Montreal
Convention. The Montreal Convention was produced at the March
1, 1991, meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
The bill came five years later, give or take a month, considering
that it was read for the first time on February 24. So, it took the
government five years to produce a bill only a few pages long, two
pages and a half to be more precise, giving the impression that this
government is a bad student. Like some students, only a few, it put
off doing its homework till the last minute, if not the last second.
To look good in front of the international community, it has now
seen fit, five years later, to make the Canadian explosives
legislation consistent with the terms of the Montreal Convention.
The impression we get from that is that this government is not
efficient. It seems to indicate that this government is no better in
terms of efficiency than the previous one, which we gladly got rid
of.
As we can see, this government is not efficient. Unfortunately,
acting on the Montreal Convention is not the only area in which the
government is not very efficient.
Unemployment remains high throughout the country in spite of
election promises and other commitments. Regions in Quebec and
Canada are still in an extremely difficult situation in spite of
repeated promises. This government tells us day in and day out that
it is concerned with the economy, yet the country is going from bad
to worse.
14574
With Bill C-71, the government is hoping to convince the public
that it is deeply concerned with the problems associated with
criminal use of explosives. If that were the case, it would be great.
One wonders however what purpose this bill is intended to serve.
Note that I said the purpose of this bill, as opposed to that of the
government, because in my view we must distinguish between the
two.
Officially, the purpose of the Explosives Act is to ensure the
public and workers' safety, and that is fine. It also regulates the
ingredients, quality and properties of explosives as well as their
manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage.
(1020)
Its scope even includes pyrotechnics commonly called
fireworks. The act requires the marking of most plastic explosives,
so as to detect them. It prohibits the manufacture, storage,
possession, transportation, importation and exportation of
unmarked plastic explosives.
The act also seeks to control the proliferation of plastic
explosives used in terrorist incidents. It provides for exceptions
which include research purposes, as well as police and military
uses. These are the official objectives. However, from the outset,
we can easily question the effectiveness of such a bill.
First, it must be remembered that the Montreal convention could
not even be implemented because there were not enough
signatories. Therefore, why bother marking our explosives if we
are practically the only ones to do so? Sure, it can be argued that we
should set an example. Canada has always been very good at that,
but when we are faced with the reality, it is an altogether different
matter.
Canada is a peaceful country, but it is also a major producer of
military equipment and explosives. I would love to think that, with
this bill, we will solve the problem of international terrorism and
that tragedies such as the Air India bombing and the incidents
currently occurring in France will never happen again.
Unfortunately, I cannot be convinced that this will be the case,
because not all countries of the world are members of the
International Civil Aviation Organization.
Those countries that provide weapons and explosives to
terrorists will be even more reluctant to sign such a convention.
They will certainly not pass similar legislation. If they do, they will
continue to act like hypocrites. They will continue to make
unmarked explosives and to sell weapons and ammunition on the
international market.
The government's only real objective is to save face and to make
Quebecers and Canadians believe that they will be better protected.
With this legislation, the government is trying to look better than
the others; however, there is a huge gap between theory and reality.
Indeed, the government's real objective is to give the impression
that it is doing what it should at home and on the international
scene. This enables it to publicly pat itself on the back, even though
it is well aware that the problem will in no way be solved and that
the safety of Canadians will not be improved at all.
As a matter of fact, this government has always created illusions:
illusions regarding safety, better economic performance, debt
reduction, greater social justice, etc. So, we are going to mark our
explosives. We cannot go against virtue. Once explosives are
marked in Canada, so as to make them easier to detect, terrorists
will surely be scared to buy them. They will no longer dare bomb
anything in Canada. They will no longer dare fly on our airlines and
use our airports. At least this is what the government would like us
to believe.
Let us be honest with Quebecers and Canadians. Let us tell them
that we are in fact passing this bill to ease our conscience. What
will terrorists do once our explosives are marked? You know as
well as I do they will go buy explosives somewhere else, where
they are not marked.
(1025)
The question immediately arises: Who sells explosives to
terrorists? The federal government has no answer to this question.
However, we do know that Canada is used by many criminal
organizations as a convenient gateway to North America. This is
true, for instance, in the case of organizations linked to the drug
trade. It is common knowledge. Canada has a lot of trouble
controlling drug trafficking within its own borders.
Canada has always had and still has trouble controlling alcohol,
tobacco and cigarette smuggling. And now we are supposed to
believe that this legislation will help them control the smuggling of
explosives.
Now, do not get me wrong. I would be delighted if this
happened. However, I am not so naive as to think that all of a
sudden, this legislation will give us a superefficient government.
Once the legislation is passed, its implementation will not be easy.
Marking explosives is pretty straightforward. Of course we have
the technology, but do we have facilities across the country to help
us detect marked explosives? What is the use of marking
explosives if we do not monitor them?
Are border controls stringent enough to prevent smuggling of
explosives? Will this government invest enough money to ensure
the bill is actually implemented? I doubt it.
Good intentions are fine, provided they lead to tangible results.
The government will have to answer all these questions if it wants
to be taken seriously.
We support marking explosives if it can really make a difference.
I am still waiting for evidence that marking will have any impact
on international terrorism.
14575
The bill also provides for certain exceptions which I had not
discussed so far. These exceptions are substantial and have the
effect of considerably undermining the whole credibility of this
bill. Everyone knows Canada manufactures arms and explosives.
The bill provides that explosives for use in research by the police
or the military will not be marked.
The reason is obvious. If you go to war and the enemy can detect
your explosives, you lose a lot of your effectiveness. That I can
understand. But these exceptions, necessary though they may be,
make the bill practically useless.
They have the effect of telling international terrorists where they
can purchase unmarked explosives, and since we do not mark
explosives destined for research for use by the police or military,
we can say this bill will only affect a negligible part of the
explosives used in this country.
Fine, we can say we will carefully monitor unmarked explosives
destined for researchers, the police or military, although here again,
do not depend on it. Everyone knows that even where security is
supposed to be tight, there is always a leak somewhere. And
another thing, the Canadian border is in many respects as leaky as a
sieve. Government cutbacks have also affected controls at the
border and in our airports.
(1030)
So, even if we do mark explosives, if we cut services further, it
will not serve much purpose. There are good examples both past
and present of the permeability of the Canadian border thanks to
the carelessness of this government.
Canada is currently facing serious problems involving a number
of well armed native communities. Some members of these
communities are almost as well armed as members of the Canadian
armed forces and certainly better armed than the police. We have
experienced this sort of problem in Quebec, unfortunately. We
might ask ourselves where these individuals got the weapons,
ammunition and explosives. Are they Canadian or were they
imported?
The Montreal region is currently in the midst of a veritable war
among organized gangs of bikers. They are also well armed, as you
know. Where did they get their weapons, ammunition and
explosives? Can the government tell us?
They have shown that Canadian controls are not very effective.
They have shown that this supposed great country where people
allegedly enjoy a remarkable quality of life is living on a lot of
illusions.
It cannot be claimed that this bill will give people greater
security. It is true that the government has to legislate. It was
established to govern our society. But it has yet to acquire the
means to carry out the legislation it enacts. What is the point of
enacting legislation, if we are unable to carry it out?
Instead of trying to ease its conscience, as it is attempting to do,
and to improve its image internationally and endlessly repeating
that Canada has one of the highest ratings in the world, this
government should really make an effort internationally to try to
correct certain injustices.
Except in the case of organized crime, the use of explosives in
Quebec and in Canada for purposes other than those for which they
were intended is neither obvious nor particularly frequent.
Along with adopting legislation on marking explosives, would it
not be a good idea for the government to take steps to fight
organized gangs, to acquire the means to monitor the movement of
terrorists within the country as closely as possible and to tighten
controls at border points as well as at ports and airports, ensuring
more effective surveillance?
There is much public pressure now for anti-gang legislation. We
know that gangs are the ones using explosives for criminal
purposes. Having such a statute would be a hundred times more
effective than marking our explosives.
Perhaps Canada once enjoyed a certain credibility on the
international level. By adopting Bill C-71 the government is trying
to bolster that credibility, which is seriously drooping these days.
The aboriginal problem has markedly lowered Canada's degree
of credibility.
The Prime Minister's statements implying that he will not
respect the choice of 7 million Quebecers in the coming
referendum suggest that this government does not have a great deal
of respect for democracy. In fact, this government's sole purpose in
passing a bill on marking explosives is to give the illusion that it is
fulfilling its commitments. It is proposing this five years after the
Montreal convention, when it could have done so far earlier.
The effectiveness of such a statute is questionable. Do they
really believe that Quebecers will be fooled, that Canadians will be
fooled? On the international level, will the body of nations be
fooled? Will international terrorism quake in fear of this new
measure? I beg to differ.
(1035)
I would be especially happy if this government really respected
democracy and promised to recognize the results of the upcoming
referendum in Quebec. I would be especially happy if this
government did honour another one of its commitments by really
creating jobs. I would be quite satisfied if this government could
show me how it will succeed in reducing the common debt while
respecting the most disadvantaged in this country.
14576
I would be satisfied if Canada managed to regain a certain
credibility at the international level, but not by taking action at
the last minute in order to ease its conscience, as this government
is doing by proposing this bill. Because contrary to what some
members of this government and some Canadian extremists may
think, we in the Bloc Quebecois are not ill-disposed toward
Canadians. We simply want to give ourselves a country that will
respect its neighbour.
The present government's attitude toward the traffic of
explosives in Canada and toward the commitments made when the
International Civil Aviation Organization met in Montreal shows
everyone that we simply have a vision and that reality is quite
different when one has to manage a country.
For ordinary citizens from the small towns and villages in my
riding, this bill, whose only purpose is to enable the government to
save face at the international level, is a little ridiculous. These
people really feel that the government is wasting its time instead of
dealing with the big problems they must face every day: earning an
honest living so they can put bread on the table, as the Prime
Minister keeps repeating every day; keeping their small businesses
afloat; living safely and peacefully at home.
You can mark manufactured explosives all you want, these
people will say, but if you do not fight social injustice and take real
steps against violence, organized crime and terrorism, you are
simply wasting your efforts. I am convinced that is the message I
will hear back in my riding, and I can only agree with these people.
I urge this government to be a little more serious and take action
for reasons other than to ease its conscience, because although we
support this bill so far, we still have many questions. Is the bill's
only purpose to allow the government to show off at the national
and international level, or is it a real bill that will be acted on
because we will give ourselves the means to do so?
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
good to be addressing this, the first bill I have had the pleasure of
addressing in my new role as the critic for natural resources. I
would like to make a few general comments about the department
before I detail our support for the bill and the reasons behind it.
I would like first of all to tell the Minister of Natural Resources
that in my travels around the country this summer, checking into
the background of the department, how her program is being
received both in industry and among the provincial natural resource
people, in many ways she seems to be moving in the right
direction. She has been working hard. I think she is sincere in
downsizing her department and getting out of areas that are
traditionally and constitutionally in provincial jurisdiction. As she
continues to do that, she will have my support certainly in getting
the federal government out of those areas and allowing the
provincial governments to carry out their mandate.
The resource industry is tremendously important to Canada. The
energy, mines and forest sectors account for something like 13 per
cent of Canada's GNP and a full 39 per cent of its exports, so the
minister has an important resource to look after. If we were to add
up the mining, forestry and gas and oil sectors alone, we have
direct employment of almost two million people in Canada, again
emphasizing the importance of that department.
(1040)
It is interesting that under the new system we heard about the
other day, the new system of rating countries in the world, Canada
came out as the second wealthiest country in the world, based
largely on its natural resources. Again, it is very important,
obviously, that we must be good stewards of our wealth, make sure
that our natural resources are properly managed, and that we take
advantage in a sustainable way of ensuring that prosperity is made
available to Canadians.
With that background, it is a privilege to be the critic in this very
important area. I remind the minister that she will have my support
as long as she continues to move.
It is also interesting that the areas in which the government has
moved in natural resources have stuck very closely to the demands
we made during the last campaign. For example, we warned against
the idea that if we are not careful we could have a carbon tax in the
country. The carbon tax did not come to fruition in the last budget,
and I am not sure why. This was positive for the industry.
The minister has also taken steps to sell off the government's
share of Petro-Canada, which is something we have been calling
for, for some years. That is certainly long overdue. I have
registered my concerns about the process by which the brokerage
firms were chosen, but other than that we are pleased to see that
Petro-Canada is being privatized. It is unfortunate that the cost to
the Canadian taxpayer will probably be something in the
neighbourhood of $20 billion, so the $2 billion that will be raised
by the sale will be a small consolation to the Canadian taxpayers
who are on the hook for about $1,480 each. Be that as it may, it
certainly was a positive move.
Another encouraging move the minister has made was the
guarantee that the government is out of the megaproject business.
Again, that is something the Reform Party has been advocating for
years. We will be out of the Hibernia project after this year, which
is another positive step. It is interesting that all the things I would
like to congratulate the minister on were certainly things we
advocated before and during the last election campaign.
14577
I am here this morning to speak to Bill C-71, an act to amend
the Explosives Act, which will allow Canada to formally
participate in the international convention on the marking of
plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.
The purpose of the convention is to make sure that as many
plastic explosives as possible are detected by the legal authorities,
particularly at airports, in an effort to stop terrorism. This is really
an anti-terrorism bill. I and my colleagues agree with the intention
behind it.
After the Air India tragedy and the Pan Am bombing over
Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1989 the United Nations passed two
separate resolutions. One was passed by the Security Council and
the other by the General Assembly. The resolutions urged the
International Civil Aviation Organization, which is another UN
body, to intensify its work on an international regime for the
marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection. Out of
the resolutions was born the convention I have already mentioned.
It was put forward in Montreal in 1991 and signed by 100 nations.
Although Canada signed at that time, it did not have the legal
authority to ratify it. The bill we are talking about today will give
Canada the authority and the ability to formally ratify that
convention.
For the last four years research has been ongoing to consult with
the industry and to develop an appropriate chemical marker, which
has now been developed at laboratories in New Jersey. The time
has come to ratify the convention.
Unfortunately the convention will not take effect until 35 nations
become signatories. At least five of those signatories must be
producers of plastic explosives. I understand that five producer
countries have now signed, among them Slovakia, Switzerland,
Norway, the Czech Republic, and Spain. Canada will be the sixth
producer country to sign. That still means that only 13 countries,
including Canada, will have legally ratified the convention, which
is a long way from the 35 needed to actually put it in place.
(1045 )
Doubts have been raised as to the effectiveness of the convention
when it is finally put in place. I fear that it may simply increase the
black market for unmarked plastic explosives which will still be in
circulation. It may also strengthen the network of terrorist groups
that will continue to communicate with each other, more regularly
perhaps, to get a supply of unidentifiable plastic explosives.
However I agree that the ordinary terrorist, if I can call such a
thing ordinary, without international connections will be harder
pressed to obtain material that will escape detection devices.
Therefore the convention is a positive thing. I am recommending to
my colleagues that the vote in favour of it.
Interestingly enough, although the United States has signed the
convention, it has not yet introduced legislation to ratify that
convention. We talked with the explosives industry organization in
Washington called the Institute of Makers of Explosives. Its
representatives say they endorse the convention. The Federal
Aviation Administration, which is a leading agency in America,
may introduce legislation soon to ratify it. To date nothing has
come about to make sure this happens.
We have not had an instance for a long time like the Lockerbie
incident or the Air India explosion. The urgency has somehow died
down and the issue has probably taken a lower political priority, at
least in the United States. I hope that it will not take another
tragedy to bring this issue to the world stage once again.
The convention is not in force right now and therefore is not
really relevant. Until the United States recognizes it, the remainder
of the significant players in this game will not join in ratifying the
convention.
The amendment to our act that we are discussing this morning
will continue to be irrelevant until we do something on a political
level to bring the United States into the game. Until that happens,
nothing will get done and airline passengers all over the world will
not receive the benefits that marking plastic explosives will bring.
Today I am calling on the Minister of Natural Resources to
address this on a political level, to call her American counterpart
and bring him up to speed on this issue and to urge the United
States to move on this issue and formally approve the convention
so we can keep terrorism in its hole where it belongs.
The minister has shown leadership. I have mentioned some of
the positive things she has done in her portfolio. I would ask and
encourage her to put her words into action now on the political
front internationally and show some leadership with our American
friends in urging them to sign this convention as quickly as
possible.
I have some relevant comments to make regarding other issues
about the Explosives Act. Allow me first to give our listeners some
background on explosives in Canada and then I will get to the
amendment.
First let me talk a little bit about the general explosives regime in
Canada. There are about 100 licensed producers of other explosives
but only one manufacturer of plastic explosives in the country. This
producer is located in Quebec and only produces plastic explosives
on an as needed basis, mostly for military demolition charges. We
are not talking about a major market for plastic explosives or, for
that matter, a major problem with them.
Our 100 producers of conventional explosives are served by a
30-employee branch within the Department of Natural Resources
Canada and there are five regional offices including one on West
Hasting Street in Vancouver.
14578
I have some personal experience with the explosives branch in
my former life as a logging contractor and a road builder.
Certainly in British Columbia one does not do a lot of that without
dealing extensively with explosives. I have in the past received
my blaster's certificate, taken the exams and so on in order to deal
with explosives. However, we have not had an extensive problem
with abusive explosives in Canada. Historically that has been a
blessing and I hope that will continue.
However, there is an ongoing problem that seems to be
happening in one region of the country. It is what happened when
the Hell's Angels decided to take things into their own hands in
Montreal. These ongoing biker wars in Montreal with cars, kids,
restaurants, bystanders and even the odd member of the biker gang
have been a concern to Canadians and are a growing concern about
the use of explosives in terrorist activities. Police warn that this
could be just the beginning.
(1050 )
The Hell's Angels are the biggest, wealthiest motorcycle gang in
the world. It is working hard to tighten its grip on drug trafficking,
prostitution and gun running right across Canada. It seems to have
chosen explosives as the anonymous method of choice for killing
rivals.
As the police begin to scrutinize these groups more and more
closely, the groups may be driven to use more covert methods.
There is always a possibility that plastic explosives that currently
are not being used for these purposes will be used in their terrorist
acts and innocent people may continue to be killed.
I have been assured that plastic explosives have not been used to
date in any of the Montreal explosions, but only explosives that are
more easily obtainable from regular construction, mining and road
construction.
Who knows when some biker gang could put plastic explosives
on some kind of public transport and kill many more innocent
people? Plastic explosive that is marked with a chemical identifier
would ensure that this would become much more difficult and may
even deter criminals from using it. That is why Bill C-71 is a
positive move. Although it may have a very negligible impact on
that market, at least it is a positive step and deserves to be
supported.
I also have some concerns with conventional explosives. The last
example is in Montreal, which is not a worker health and safety
problem that the Federal Explosives Act is meant to address. It is a
security problem, with these same biker gangs that seem to strut
their stuff by killing innocent 11-year old kids and so on.
What about the explosives used in these biker bombings? It is
interesting that Quebec has the strongest provincial security regime
regarding explosives in the entire country, something which it put
in place following the FLQ crisis years ago. Yet it cannot seem to
find out where these people are getting their explosives.
I want the House to know that not every piece of explosive was
detonated in those killings. In one bombing police came upon
several sticks that did not explode. Why could these explosives not
be traced back to the original vendor so we could find out who sold
these explosives to whom and try to catch these thieves and black
marketeers? Someone must be currently licensed to store or use
explosives and is selling it via the black market to these gangs.
However we just cannot trace them. Although the boxes are marked
at the factory, the individual sticks or cartridges of explosives
inside the boxes are not. To mark each one individually would be
an incredible amount of work and probably far too costly to
contemplate.
However a solution to this has been suggested by the American
Institute of Makers of Explosives, the industry representative of
explosive manufacturers in the states. Its solution could help
Canada's growing security problem with explosives. It is not a
solution that would require legislative change but only a change to
the regulations attached to the act.
The Institute of Makers of Explosives is calling for a study on a
proposal it has made of including tiny plastic and metal chips in the
explosive material itself which is coded by colour to identify the
manufacturer. After an explosion investigators would look for the
chips in the debris and be able to trace the explosives in that way.
I have a description paper on the study that has been proposed.
The institute suggests studying this to see whether it is either
economically possible or even a positive move. At least the study
should include whether those types of identifiable tags of plastic
and metal parts should be used.
The institute promotes the objective study of placing such tags
into the explosives and whether it would be an effective law
enforcement tool. It wants to study whether it would be a negative
impact on the environment because of the presence of these chips.
It wonders how efficient it is and whether a significant number of
bombings would be traceable. Although there were 2,300
bombings in the United States last year, only 36 involved
commercially available high explosives. They also want to know
about the cost.
The institute is willing to take part and participate in a study on
all those things. It would investigate whether this could help to
deter things like the Montreal bombings. It would certainly make
the explosive traceable to where they are manufactured and sold.
(1055 )
This study is worthy of support. It may be a suitable way to trace
explosives. I hope that the Canadian government will participate in
the IME study to see if it could have application here.
14579
I believe that knowing explosives were traceable might deter
people from being dishonest and selling them on the black market.
If they do that, they should know they are contributing to murder
and violence. At the current time they are getting away scot free
because the explosives are untraceable.
I mentioned earlier my support for this amendment. However I
need to mention, in light of the couple of negative comments I have
about this bill, the timing of it and so on had to do with what is
really minor housekeeping business being brought to the House.
Admittedly, as I mentioned, we will support it.
There are a whole slew of very serious issues, some of them
involving biker gangs, some of them involving other criminal
justice issues that could be brought to the House and should be
dealt with as quickly as we are prepared to deal with this one.
We have a multitude of problems that people were telling me
about in my travels this summer, especially in the criminal justice
area that are far more serious than this anti-terrorism bill. It could
save more lives if the government would listen to the Canadian
people and put the rights of the law-abiding citizen ahead of the
rights of the criminal.
I wish today after we deal with this we would be spending time
next on a crucial and critical bill dealing with amendments, for
example, to the Young Offenders Act or on critical bills like
enabling legislation that would allow for a national binding
referendum on capital punishment. Those are measures of some
substance that people would say are moving Canada toward a safer
system or toward a system that I can have faith in.
This anti-terrorism bill we are dealing with today is not going to
affect most people even a little. There are many issues that we
could be and should be dealing with quickly that could reinforce
people's faith in the justice system. Certainly I do not see them on
the legislative Order Paper and that is one of the things that is
unfortunate.
Allow me to sum up. I call on the minister today to contact our
American counterpart and urge the United States to sign the
convention, thus making our legislative amendment more relevant
in the world.
I also urge her to take part in the study being proposed by the
Institute of the Makers of Explosives in the United States which
would look at the idea of placing identifiable chips in explosives so
that we could trace them when we are confronted with criminal
misuse of explosives, a problem that seems to be increasing.
For a long time we have had the luxury of concentrating on
worker health and safety through the Explosives Act. These are
important issues and it has been most of my experience with the
Explosives Act in my own personal background.
I believe the day is approaching when the federal government
will have to turn its attention toward enhancing the security of all
Canadians through more accurately identifying the source of
explosive charges. We should at least have in our possession the
options identified and priorized in case we need to move toward
traceability of explosives in a more extensive way.
I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-71. I do not believe it is
going to set the world on its head, but the intention behind it is
good and I support it. I do not see why we should take any more of
the valuable time of the House to deal with this matter.
There may even be unanimous consent to move directly to a
committee of the whole and dispense with this bill in short order so
that we can get on with dealing with some of the more critical
issues that I mentioned earlier. If the government wishes to make
such a motion, I will stand in support of moving to committee of
the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now go to the 20-minute
speeches.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
offer. I believe the parliamentary secretary to natural resources will
take his suggestion under advisement. Perhaps there is a way to
expedite the bill. I am pleased to speak on Bill C-71, the marking of
explosives for detectability.
(1100 )
I congratulate the parliamentary secretary and the member for
Moncton for his fine words this morning on the urgent need to
essentially deal with an important piece of legislation concerning
the security of Canadians, at the same time hopefully making it
possible for us to deter terrorists from using plastic explosives to
undermine the social fabric and security of the country.
There has been some experience around the world with plastic
explosives being used by terrorists against civil aviation targets.
The roll call of terrorist acts which have resulted in the deaths of
innocent people on aircraft and the destruction of those aircraft as
the result of sabotage by plastic explosives is a tragic one.
Unfortunately the world as we know it continues to have its
dangerous and uncertain elements and conditions remain ripe for
the emergence of people who will take the law into their own hands
and cause such tragedies and suffering. Canada and all like minded
nations must continue to be diligent in order minimize the chances
of such acts of depredation occurring in their countries or be visited
on their citizens.
The legislation before us to date cannot solve the problems of the
world that give birth to terrorism. It can however enable us to put
another brick in the wall which governments are building to reduce
14580
the ability of terrorists to act against the peaceful interests of states
and their people.
As has been described so clearly by my colleague, the bill is
designed to ensure the so-called marking agent is inserted in plastic
explosives. This action will improve immeasurably the ability to
detect these explosives using the right equipment. This is an
essential step in the development of a system which will provide
Canada with the capability to respond effectively to terrorist threats
of sabotage using plastic explosives.
It should also be a matter of some pride that Canada has played
such a pivotal role in developing the international framework for
marking and controlling plastic explosives. Canadian scientists and
technical experts have been world leaders in solving the technical
problems associated with putting markers in explosives in a way
that ensures their detectability while in no way jeopardizing either
the essential function of legal explosives or degrading their safety
or environmental acceptability.
Both the government and the Canadian explosives industry
recognize that Canada must continue to be in the forefront of
developed nations ensuring all reasonable actions are taken to
thwart the activities of terrorists. Our passage of this legislation
will send a clear message to other countries including the United
States that we are committed to improving the framework for
combating terrorism and that we are taking positive steps to ensure
this happens earlier rather than later.
We must continue to remain aware that the legislation represents
not so much an end point of a process but rather a point along a
continuum of actions which must be encouraged and nurtured to
ensure Canada and other nations remain vigilant in the fight against
would be saboteurs.
In consequence of this approach the government is extremely
mindful that along with the ability to make explosives more easily
detectable is the requirement to have the right equipment in the
right places to detect terrorist activities. The sad history of
terrorism demonstrates clearly that the air carrier industry has been
a target for the such activities. We are confident the equipment in
place at airports today is appropriate to the threat and the risk that
prevails in Canada.
Let me assure members of the House as well as the public that
we have the capacity today to detect plastic explosives. That does
not mean the government is complacent about aviation security, far
from it. For its part Transport Canada keeps it aviation security
regime under constant review in order to ensure it is properly
configured to respond both to the situation which prevails today as
well as to any change in threat that might arise.
Mindful of the gains to security that might be available as a
result of the improvements to the detectability of explosives which
will arise in response to this new legislation, and keeping in mind
constant improvements in detection technology, Transport Canada
in co-operation with industry and other interested departments will
soon begin an in depth review of its equipment deployment
strategy at airports. Once the review is complete the Minister of
Transport will be looking to see what refinements might be needed
to ensure Canada remains in the forefront in terms of our ability to
respond to terrorist threats where and when they exist.
(1105 )
This legislation is an essential part of the mosaic to respond to
the scourge of terrorism. It has been developed in close
collaboration among many departments and is fully consistent with
the overall approach among many countries. The principles
contained herein have been embraced by the industry which it
affects.
This collaborate endeavour should be enough to convince the
most skeptical of observers that Canada is fully committed to
combating terrorism. I entreat all members to demonstrate their
personal commitment to this effort by voting for this legislation.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the
parliamentary secretary for his excellent address. I have a question
relating to the role of transport and the detection of explosive
devices and whether this bill will be of any assistance to the
department in trying to regulate that.
We are hearing a number of speeches this morning talking about
a number of things that are not relevant to what we are trying to
achieve here, which is merely to detect plastic explosives normally
in a situation in which they are being transported on an aeroplane.
Transport obviously has an integral role to play with respect to that.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could comment.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, while my remarks may have
addressed Transport Canada's concern with regard to the absolute
necessity that we have this legislation in place, it is important to
note-and I assure my colleagues in the House as well as the
public-that Transport Canada has the ability and the equipment
which are important at our airports to ensure we can detect plastic
explosives.
It is in place now and we will continue to review any
improvements required to ensure the travelling public at our
airports that the aviation security regime is in place and is at the
forefront of detecting these plastic explosives.
It is important that all nations ratify the convention. Our borders
are open and Canada deals with every country in terms of trade, as
well as tourism. It is important to ensure Canada take this
leadership role today and move on with the legislation so that
hopefully it will encourage other nations to participate.
14581
To answer the question of the parliamentary secretary, through
him to the public, Transport Canada has the equipment and the
confidence that we are able to detect any plastic explosives
introduced in the aviation regime.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): 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.
(1110 )
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?
14582
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.
(1115)
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.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
(1120 )
The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
very real pleasure for me to stand to speak in support of Bill C-83.
It is entitled an act to amend the Auditor General Act. It seems to
me that it is very difficult to get excited about a bill with a title like
that. However, I should explain that this legislation is designed to
fulfil a commitment made in the Liberal red book and supported by
all environmentalists and all environmentally minded business
people before and during our election, that is a commitment to
appoint an overseer for environmental matters in the federal
government.
14583
I would like to read out the red book commitment before
addressing the actual terms of Bill C-83. The red book states that
the government:
-will appoint an Environmental Auditor General, reporting directly to
Parliament, with powers of investigation similar to the powers of the Auditor
General. This office would report annually to the public on how successfully
federal programs and spending are supporting the shift to sustainable
development. The report would also evaluate the implementation and
enforcement of federal environmental laws. Individuals could petition the
Environmental Auditor General to conduct special investigations when they see
environmental policies or laws being ignored or violated.
Bill C-83 deals with that promise we made in the red book. It
deals with appointing an auditor for sustainable development in
government.
Sustainable development is simply common sense in
government, in business affairs, and in our everyday lives.
Sustainable development is human beings living on the planet in
such a way that they maintain a healthy environment around them.
It is illogical and also immoral for us to think that we can live on
the planet, conduct a business on the planet, or conduct a
government operation on the planet without taking into account the
health of our environment in the long term. If we do not, one day
those bad policies would catch up to us. Our personal health would
suffer, the health of our children would suffer, and so on.
Sustainable development, which is mentioned in our promise, is
simply a sensible way of living on the planet, a sensible way of
conducting business, and a sensible way of running a government.
I am delighted to see Bill C-83 before the House. Its purpose is
to establish a commissioner for the environment and sustainable
development within the office of the auditor general. I should
explain this, because our red book commitment states that we will
appoint an environmental auditor general.
When the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development was conducting public hearings there was a great
deal of support for the idea of having an environmental watchdog
in the federal government. There was a good deal of discussion on
what form or what powers that person and that office should have.
One view was that there should be a separate office called the
environmental auditor general. That office would have functions
very similar to those of the auditor general's office today, the
general watchdog on government.
Another view was that there should be a commissioner. In some
other jurisdictions there is a commissioner for the environment
who performs not only the sorts of watchdog functions that our
auditor general does for the federal government processes but also
acts much more as a conscience for environmental matters as a
point of contact for ordinary citizens who want to communicate
their concerns with government, in this case about the environment
and sustainable development.
(1125 )
Under Bill C-83, in fulfilling our promise to provide an
environmental auditor general I believe we are going further. We
are providing a commissioner for the environment and sustainable
development, whose office will be within the present office of the
auditor general.
It is important to realize that we are putting our environmental
concerns in exactly the same place as our business concerns, our
concerns about the efficiency of government.
Under Bill C-83 we will see the creation of a commissioner
whose new office will confirm the government's commitment to
put its own house in order from an environmental and sustainable
development point of view. Any greening of government policies
we put into place will be monitored by the commissioner.
This person will be available to the public and will be required to
report to Parliament. By making the appointment the government is
holding itself accountable for its own environmental performance.
Because the federal government is a very large and powerful
organization-and some of us think it too large and powerful-the
commissioner will be able to promote sustainable development not
only in our own government but throughout society by example
and in other ways.
The commissioner will be the auditor general's right hand person
on all environment and sustainable development matters. In
addition to helping the auditor general in those very special and
important areas, the commissioner will monitor and report to
Parliament every year on how all government departments are
putting their sustainable development strategies into practice, on
how the ministers are responding to petitions from the public on
environmental matters.
On reading the legislation I was also interested in something
else, which actually is different from the way I have thought of the
environmental and sustainable development commissioner
watchdog as it was presented in the red book, that is the matter of
appointment of the commissioner. Mr. Speaker, to be honest with
you, I was a involved a little in developing parts of the red book and
I had not given much thought to that. I had not thought through how
one would appoint a person who is independent of government and
who could criticize government.
In this case, it is interesting that the legislation we have before us
provides for the auditor general, who is already well accepted as an
independent arm's length office holder, to make this appointment. I
like the fact that this will not be an order in council appointment. It
will not be an appointment by the Prime Minister. It will be an
appointment by the auditor general, who will be directed to seek
out an appropriately independent person who will become our
commissioner for the environment and sustainable development. I
like that. That fits in with the already existing-and I think
14584
accepted by the general public-arm's length principle of the
auditor general's office. It is very important that the commissioner
for the environment be independent and be seen to be independent
of government. I am glad the appointment is being dealt with in
that way.
I mentioned earlier that one of the ideas discussed was the
watchdog would be a separate office like the auditor general's
office. In this legislation we provide for it to be within the auditor
general's office itself. What are the advantages of that? Mr.
Speaker, since you read the auditor general's reports from cover to
cover when they appear every year, you will know that the auditor
general already makes a point of reporting on environmental
matters. It is not something that has been ignored by the auditor
general. In a sense that function is already there and we are
strengthening it by the appointment of a commissioner who will be
working with the auditor general.
(1130)
The commissioner, unlike some of the other people who are
appointed to the auditor general's office, will be appointed because
of his or her expertise in the area of environment and sustainable
development. That is quite different from the present where
naturally in the auditor general's office accountants and people
who can read financial statements are needed. This is all very
important.
There will be a specialist who can advise the auditor general on
environmental and sustainable development aspects of
government. This will strengthen the auditor general's office and
will give the commissioner a sound foundation for his or her work.
Another advantage is that the auditor general already has a
respectable reputation for independence. Instead of having to start
spending considerable time building a new position and to show
very clearly that he or she is independent of government, this new
commissioner will already be working in a respected arm's length
office which I believe helps.
There is a financial advantage to it. We already have an auditor
general's office and there are efficiencies in terms of support and
things of that nature. It fits in with our concerns for efficient and
economical government at the present time.
There are a couple of other things about this matter. One is that
by being in the auditor general's office the commissioner
immediately has the advantage of sharing the spotlight which is on
the auditor general's report every year.
One way the auditor general works, and I think ministries feel
paranoid about it, is that the publicity which surrounds the release
of the auditor general's report is used as a vehicle to make sure that
the recommendations of the auditor general are implemented. That
spotlight does exist.
The media now wait every year, as members do, for the auditor
general's report. When the scandals appear they are in the
spotlight. It is one way our system works to cleanse itself and make
itself more efficient. By putting the commissioner in the auditor
general's office we immediately get a share of that spotlight for
environmental and sustainable development affairs. I like that.
The other reason I like the integration in the auditor general's
office has to do with what I tried to say about sustainable
development in the first place. The environment and sustainable
development are not things which are separate from government.
They are not things which are separate from the way we live our
daily lives. They are not things which are separate from the way
business is conducted. As I tried to explain at the beginning, if we
do not live in a sustainable way on this planet, in the end the planet
will destroy us. I do not believe the planet is at risk, I think it is
human beings who are at risk.
By putting the commissioner for sustainable development and
environment in the auditor general's office, we are sending out a
signal that we realize business, environment and sustainable
development are all part of the same thing, that the functions of our
auditor general automatically include environment and sustainable
development.
In the section of the red book I reminded the House of, the
recommendation included the matter of citizens petitioning the
government with their environmental concerns. I am pleased to see
in this legislation that the commissioner is required to deal with
petitions and to monitor petitions received by all of our ministries
on environmental matters. This means that citizens dealing with
ministers have someone watching over their concerns.
I like to think that most ministries take petitions seriously but in
this case the commissioner is required to monitor each minister's
response to petitions on the environment. This extends the public's
power to influence government in what I consider to be a very
important area.
Ministers will have 120 days to respond to the petitions with
extensions to that only under very exceptional circumstances. The
commissioner will see to it that the ministers respond. That is very
important.
(1135 )
Another item which is built into the terms of reference for the
new commissioner is the fact that our government departments are
required to develop their own sustainable development plans. They
14585
have to develop these plans within a certain period of time. Once
they are established, every three years they have to renew them.
I know directives of this sort go out on various matters to
departments from ministers' offices and we sometimes wonder if
anything happens because the organization is so big. In this case
the commissioner is specifically directed to monitor each
ministry's ongoing plans for the environment and sustainable
development within that ministry's jurisdiction. The commissioner
is required to report annually on those plans. This is building
checks and balances into the basic system of government which
ensure that the environment and sustainable development are built
into everything we do.
I know this is not easy. When the economy is difficult we have
the tendency to forget environmental matters and the basic health
of our population and the effects a polluted environment will have
on us. When the minister introduced the legislation yesterday she
mentioned some of the things which have been done. These are
things which will help the commissioner to ensure that these
measures are properly implemented.
In Environment Canada we have already implemented green
procurement policies which emphasize reduction, reuse and the
purchase of environmentally sound products. The fact that we have
announced that policy and the fact that we will have an
environmental watchdog to see that we implement it are very
important.
We are already managing the ministry of the environment
vehicle fleet to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2000.
In all offices in the ministry zero waste is now the target. We are
improving energy efficiency in all ministry buildings and
conserving water by means of water audits in all Environment
Canada buildings. Those are examples of what one ministry is
doing. Those are the sorts of things which the new commissioner
for the environment and sustainable development will be asked to
monitor.
In summary, under Bill C-83 the auditor general's office is
exclusively given the environment and sustainable development
responsibilities and the staff to carry out those responsibilities. The
commissioner will allow us to show leadership in a wide range of
areas involving green government and sustainable methods of
governing. The commissioner will monitor all ministries
continuously and will ensure that they are accountable. The
legislation will allow Canadians to approach the government much
more readily with their environmental concerns.
In particular, the commissioner will integrate the environment
into the normal business of government. That is what sustainable
government is all about. I congratulate the Minister of the
Environment on this legislation and I look forward to its rapid
implementation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague's speech indicates a certain naivety. I understand the
creation of a Commissioner of the Environment and, moreover, we
are in agreement with the bill, but it will not solve all
environmental problems.
In listening to what he has just said, I got the impression that this
commissioner was to solve all of the problems in place within
departments and all of the problems in Canada, and I do not think
that this will be the case.
(1140)
If I may, I would like to make a small comment on the role of the
Commissioner of the Environment, his or her appointment in
particular.
It is our sincere wish that this commissioner's appointment be
non-partisan and non-political. In environmental issues, I feel that
the minister has made political decisions rather than environmental
ones. Among others, the Irving Whale issue alone is a great
scandal.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he feels that the
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
ought to have total power to reverse a decision such as the one in
the Irving Whale situation, where everyone is fully aware that the
environmentalists were against that decision anyway. I would like
to know his opinion. Should this commissioner not be totally
empowered to act in a very timely manner so as to be able to
reverse just such a decision as we have seen this summer?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Bloc member for her
question.
[English]
On the matter of the member's first point, I am sorry if in my
enthusiasm I conveyed the idea that one step like this can solve all
problems. We all know that in all areas of government there is no
magic formula which solves everything. It does not.
I believe that this is not just one decision. It builds something
into government which will tick away day in day out, year in year
out for decades and I hope longer to come. It will continuously
influence and produce changes which will go on for very long
periods of time. I appreciate the member's point and I apologize if I
gave the impression that it would solve everything.
On the appointment I explained that I like the idea it will not be
an order in council, that it will be an appointment made by the
auditor general. The auditor general is an arm's length person. He
is not a political person. I believe it will be non-partisan. As I said
in my remarks I like that idea.
14586
On the point about the power to reverse decisions, I do not
believe for example in the case of the auditor general who
overviews all government that a watchdog of that type should be
able to step in and have draconian powers to interfere with the
general running of government. I believe he or she should have
all possible power to pressure for changes, but I do not believe
it is feasible to have a watchdog who in fact can stop government
or change government on any particular issue.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will make my question very short and succinct for the
hon. member.
Government watchdogs in the past have proven to be little more
than government lapdogs taking the direction of the government. Is
it the government's position that it is going to come up with a new
concept of a watchdog, or is this simply the government's way to
ensure that it can control the agenda of environmental processes?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I really am shocked by this,
particularly in the context of this debate. Perhaps there are some
specific examples which the member can refer to. Is he really
saying that the auditor general is a lapdog of this government or
previous governments?
I believe it is something that the member should withdraw with
respect to the person of the auditor general today and with respect
to the office of the auditor general. He can criticize the way an
office like that functions. He can criticize their views and things of
that sort. I know he did not mention the auditor general and perhaps
that is what he is going to say, but this is what the debate is about. It
is about the office of the auditor general. I think that is a shocking
aspersion on the auditor general.
I have agreed that such offices do not cure all our problems. I
have to believe the auditor general is independent, is honest and is
efficient. I know the auditor general cannot cure all the ills in
government.
I hope the member will withdraw.
(1145)
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I might just clarify my colleague's point to the hon.
member for Peterborough.
He was saying that we have seen example after example in the
House, during this Parliament and in Parliaments before, where the
auditor general has come down with scathing reports about the
operation of government departments and ministries, only to have
these reports totally ignored by the government of the day.
Unless the government is truthfully committed to
acknowledging, respecting and acting on the recommendations and
the findings of the auditor general we could appoint a million
government watchdogs and a million auditors general to keep an
eye on the government. If the government continually will not do
anything about it, what is the use? That is the point.
What assurances do the House and the Canadian people have that
this new appointment, if it is to be effective, will act on the
recommendations and on the reports and criticisms of this
position?
There has been no example in the past of the government making
any meaningful move toward acting on auditors general's reports.
What assurances do we have now?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley for his remarks and for his clarification. I
accept that and it was not as personal as his colleague intended.
It is the job of the House, including the member opposite, to see
that governments of the day carry through with their commitments.
In this case I mentioned environmental policies put into effect by
the government. We are debating a promise the government made
before it was elected, which it is putting into place. Here is an
example of something being done.
When the commissioner starts to report and the member
opposite receives this new information about what is happening in
government I hope he will use it as a stick to see to it the
government of the day, ours or any other, makes the government as
green as possible.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the second reading of Bill
C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act to establish an
office for monitoring and auditing government departmental work
involving sustainable development.
I am pleased to speak to the bill because it addressed a subject
very important to me. In the previous Parliament I had a private
member's motion that called for the government to establish an
environmental auditor general. It had a lot of support from all
political parties of the time, environmental organizations and
ordinary Canadians. I also sat on the environment committee last
year when it studied and reported on the idea of establishing such
an office.
That report, issued in May 1994, looked at the need for
environmental auditing and concluded Canada needed not just an
auditor but a commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development.
The committee stated in its report: ``Virtually all witnesses saw
the area of independent policy review as being the biggest gap that
currently exists in the framework by which the government is to be
held accountable for its sustainability efforts''.
Most of the witnesses said more than an auditing function was
needed. François Bregha, president of Resource Futures
International, said a policy evaluation role was necessary because
we do
14587
not have the criteria right now to measure our progress toward
sustainable development.
Bill Andrews, executive director of the West Coast
Environmental Law Association, agreed: ``What is missing is an
independent policy analysis role so that if there are major gaps in
policy decisions there is some way of knowing they will come to
public attention''.
The committee also recommended that the office of
commissioner be established by new and separate legislation, not
just with an amendment to the Auditor General Act.
(1150 )
Paul Muldoon, former member of the task force on the Ontario
bill of rights, stated separate legislation is necessary because the
roles, functions, mandates, scope and powers must be crystal clear
in the minds of the public, in the minds of government and in the
minds of other affected constituencies.
Sadly, as with so much the government does, its actions in
response to the good words of the committee and to the witnesses
who appeared before it fall short of what is needed. Bill C-83, as
we will see in our study of the legislation, has little to do with
sustainable development and is not what is desperately needed in
Canada today.
When second reading concludes the legislation will return for
clause by clause study to the same standing committee on the
environment which drafted the original report. I hope the other
members of the committee will challenge Bill C-83 aggressively
and defend the interests of the report they wrote. The committee
cannot overlook the fact that the Minister of the Environment in
drafting Bill C-83 has ignored 11 out of 17 recommendations
contained in that committee's extensive report.
At the same time it is important that we do not lose sight of the
fact that witness after witness told the committee environmental
auditing would not be proactive enough.
Art Hanson, president and chief executive officer of the
International Institute for Sustainable Development, said the audit
of how well existing policies are implemented does little to inform
the need for new policies.
Kenny Blacksmith, deputy grand chief, Grand Council of the
Cree, agreed: ``It would be preferable to have no commissioner
than to have a commissioner whose terms of reference are so
restrictive that she or he cannot influence the substance of policy,
implementation and content and interpretation of laws on
environmental issues''.
I quoted yesterday in the House Helen Hughes, New Zealand's
commissioner for the environment, who said she would find it very
difficult to operate without being able to look at government
policy.
As these witnesses confirmed, what is needed is an independent
commissioner who can take a forward looking approach to
evaluating the effectiveness of the federal government's policies,
laws, regulations and programs in moving Canada toward
sustainability. Instead of independent policy analysis what we have
in Bill C-83 is an auditing function of how well existing policies
are being implemented and whether government departments are
meeting the objectives of their own sustainable development plans.
For all intents and purposes and with all sincerity this is a role
that should be carried out by the departments and the auditor
general today. There is nothing new in Bill C-83 that could not be
done without it.
Truly effective environmental auditing is something different.
Truly effective environmental auditing would look at the policies
and objectives which govern the departments and their programs
and tell us if those policies and objectives are adequate or
desirable.
The function proposed by the minister for this new office
through Bill C-83 is a reflective model. It asks the office holder to
look at the past and tell us what we have done wrong. The function
proposed by my previous work and the function supported by
Canadians and the committee as most needed is a proactive one,
one that looks at the future and guides us through policy and
program design to that future, a future in which Canadians through
their efforts and activities can live a sustainable life and ensure our
activities on the earth are sustainable.
It is most important that this generation leave the earth a better
place for the next generation. This means we have to change many
of the ways we are currently doing things. Obviously we can learn
from looking at the past and therefore an audit function in and of
itself about to be performed by the auditor general's office, if the
legislation passes, is important. I am not saying we should scrap
the legislation and go back to the status quo, which is obviously
even more inadequate. What I am saying is that simply knowing we
have done something wrong is not good enough.
(1155 )
More than anything else it is important Canada have a vehicle to
help promote sustainability in all that we do. This means knowing
how something can be done right and then steering the mechanics
of government in that direction. We do not get where we are going
simply by looking at where we have been and acknowledging the
mistakes we have made along the way. We need a map in hand and
the foresight to design our travel route to achieve our stated and
understood goals.
Bill C-83 will not help in moving Canada's environmental and
sustainability goals forward. It will not give us the tools we need to
14588
evaluate our policies until whatever damage those policies will
cause have already been done.
There is a big job in this field to be done. When the environment
committee concluded its review of this matter it said the new
commissioner's office should have many functions. I will outline a
couple of those functions as set out by the environment
committee's report.
The commissioner should evaluate all federal policies, laws,
regulations, programs and guidelines to determine those which
encourage and those which impede Canada's progress toward
sustainable development and to make recommendations
accordingly.
The commissioner should examine all federal policies, laws,
regulations, programs and guidelines to determine the extent to
which they comply with Canada's international commitments,
including protocols, treaties and conventions in the area of
sustainable development. We know how important this function is
in relation to the latest round of agreements Canada has signed,
particularly those reached in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; agenda 21
comes to mind immediately and Canada's commitments to the
international community.
In this regard Bill Andrews, whom I quoted earlier, told the
committee: ``We have a glaring lack of systematic assessment of
the extent to which we are meeting our international
commitments''.
The committee also recommended the commissioner be given
additional tasks to encourage consultation and co-operation
between federal and provincial levels of government with respect
to sustainable development, to liaise with government,
non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to monitor
and report on the evolution of sustainable development concepts,
practices and technologies. The committee further recommended
to advocate to Canadians the necessity for sustainable development
in all of our actions.
These were among the many functions recommended by the
environment committee one year ago, recommendations worth
defending by every member of the environment committee who
debated these issues before the report was written.
In response Bill C-83 guts that report and instead sets out the
following function. Section 23(1) of Bill C-83:
The commissioner shall make any examinations and inquiries that the
commissioner considers necessary in order to monitor (a) the extent to which
category I departments have met the objectives, and implemented the plans set
out in their sustainable development strategies.
What a difference in approach. The committee which studied
this field extensively says many important functions are necessary
for this office to operate successfully. The Minister of the
Environment responds by saying in Bill C-83 it is just enough to
monitor how well the departmental staff has succeeded in meeting
the targets it has set, targets that have been designed with this in
mind.
These sustainable development strategies do not have to be
written for another two years. The legislation exempts
departmental staff from rewriting them for another three years, if it
wishes. Under the terms of Bill C-83 the new auditor will not even
have plans to monitor for the first two years of his term of office.
None of the matters before government, as I mentioned earlier as
set out by the committee, can be looked at during that period of
time.
All the plans the departments write during those two years will
be recently written plans. This whole thing strikes me as being a bit
ridiculous.
Another provision of the legislation requires our attention as
well. We should all object in principle to the provision that directs
government departments to respond to public petitions on matters
of environmental concern. As it stands, if Bill C-83 passes
unamended, any public petition to investigate a complaint received
by the auditor general's office must be passed on to the relevant
government department for review, report and response within four
months. This means that any department that wants to justify its
actions rather than evaluate them is given carte blanche to do so.
(1200)
What is needed is an ombudsperson function where members of
the public can petition the commissioner to conduct special
investigations if they think that environmental policies or laws are
being ignored or violated. The minister called for this in the
original terms of reference given to the committee. Writing polite
responses to serious environmental concerns is simply not good
enough.
A further provision in the bill allows the minister to tell a
petitioner that it is not possible to reply within four months. My
question to all on the government side, and particularly those who
have served on the committee, is what happens then. How long can
departments take to respond to petitions?
What moves me to speak at length about this is the recent court
case involving the government's decision to raise the Irving Whale
off the coast of Prince Edward Island when the environmental
impact assessment had not considered the PCBs which were in the
heating system of the barge.
The court upheld the citizens' petition and threw out the
government's nice words defending itself. If Canadians and myself
as concerned environmentalists want real teeth in our
environmental legislation, there must be real independence and
enforcement in
14589
the monitoring and investigating office charged with protecting all
of our long term interests. Bill C-83 provides none of that.
At the same time there is plenty of other evidence, including the
collapse of the east coast fishery, to show that we need a truly
independent environmental auditor. By not recommending this
independent ombudsperson function for the commissioner, the
environment committee's report did not go far enough. This
missing investigative role is an important aspect of the issue before
us today as we review Bill C-83 and before the committee studies
the issue for a second time.
In conclusion, in support of my argument that Bill C-83 is
inadequate and different legislation must be written to take its
place, let me, as I did yesterday in comments and questions, quote
briefly from the chair of the environment committee, the hon.
member for Davenport who has contributed a great deal to the
debate already. I quote from the foreword to the committee's
report, written by the chairperson a year ago:
In the 1993 election campaign, all major political parties committed
themselves, once again, to the concept of sustainable development. In
particular, the current government made several specific promises designed to
further the implementation of environmentally sustainable policies.
As a result of its deliberations, the committee has concluded that the most
appropriate way to implement the government's proposed functions is through
the creation of a commissioner of sustainable development in conjunction with
an expanded role for the office of the auditor general.
The committee believes the creation of a commissioner of the environment
and sustainable development is a priority, one which appropriately answers the
requests of the government and which will provide the necessary momentum for
the shift toward sustainability.
Obviously the member for Davenport thinks as I do, that Canada
needs to begin the shift toward sustainability at the first available
opportunity, not two years down the road from now as Bill C-83
implies.
The member for Davenport, the chairperson of the committee,
acknowledged that his party campaigned on such a platform. He
clearly states that at the very least to fulfil those campaign
promises, a new office with new functions is required.
If Bill C-83 passes it is clear to me and to Canadians watching
that yet another Liberal promise to the people of Canada on the
environment has been broken. More important, the needs of the
planet and its ability to sustain life have once again been ignored by
the government.
At this time when the environment department's budget is being
cut by 30 per cent to 40 per cent and the government's commitment
to the environment seems to be lapsing, a commissioner working
for the auditor general is not necessarily what is needed. This
response to Canada's long term sustainability needs does not go far
enough.
(1205 )
Yesterday, as I listened to many of the speeches that were made
relating to this issue, I questioned certain members of government
on this issue. It totally amazed me that as Liberal members of the
environment committee stood to speak to this issue not a single one
defended the report. Not a single member of the environment
committee that met last year on this issue, who worked so hard and
listened to so many witnesses testify about the need for an
independent proactive commissioner of the environment and who
signed that report indicating their support for that position,
defended the report in the House.
The environment committee has just finished a major report
reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Thousands
of hours have been committed by members of the environment
committee. They produced a report of which I think most members
of the House would be most supportive. The recommendations of
the committee have been well received in the environmental
community across Canada.
I am most concerned these members who will not defend their
own report on an environmental auditor will now not defend this
important report on CEPA when the government responds to it in
five or six weeks. I would hope the members who worked so hard
on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act review are prepared
to defend the interests of the committee, the witnesses who
appeared before the committee and the recommendations
contained in that committee report when the government responds.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time today to speak on this
important issue. I look forward to the work the committee now has
to review the clause by clause study of Bill C-83.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last speaker talked about the need for independence
and authority on the part of an environmental commissioner. I
agree.
In follow-up to the comments made by the previous speaker on
the Liberal side, trying to twist and make light of the integrity of
the auditor general, I find it very curious that he defends the
integrity of the auditor general at a time when his party ignores
most of what the auditor general recommends.
To put into perspective what I was talking about with regard to
watchdogs being lapdogs I would point his attention away from the
auditor general and toward the ethics counsellor. It is absolutely
useless to appoint someone who is either going to do whatever the
government tells him or her or who is going to make
recommendations only to have them ignored.
The last speaker has clarified the issue. If we are going to have
some kind of commissioner or special watchdog-if we can use
14590
that word-it has to be someone who has both the independence of
this body and the authority to see these actions are carried out.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the member was not actually posing a
question to me but responding to a matter that occurred earlier this
day in the House. I want to comment briefly also on the auditor
general who appeared before the environment committee as a
witness during our deliberations on this important matter.
It is worth stressing, as the member for Davenport did yesterday,
that even the auditor general indicated to the committee that it was
beyond the scope of his office to do some of the things the
government is now asking his office to do. The auditor general's
office is one that functions as an auditor of government programs.
The audit can only occur on matters that have already been set out
as objectives of the government. If the government's objectives are
wrong, the auditor general is not in any position to comment on
that. Obviously those rules would apply to any desk or any worker
within that office including the new commissioner of the
environment.
(1210 )
It is quite possible that the auditor general's response to Bill
C-83 will be that he is willing to take on the task before him, but we
must bear in mind that some of the mandate which he has been
given goes beyond the realm of what his office is capable of doing.
It is important to recognize in reviewing Bill C-83 that the
auditor general performs a valuable function, but to ensure
sustainability we need to go beyond the office of the auditor
general. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year supported the view that we need something
over and above the role which an auditor general can perform. I am
surprised that members of the environment committee have not
defended their own report.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-83.
It has been over a year since the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development took on
the task of examining the government's commitment to establish
an environmental equivalent of the auditor general. This was a key
commitment of the Liberal red book in the 1993 election campaign
and it is a commitment to Canadians. It is an idea which has been
discussed and debated for many years and a request of the public.
One message which came through loud and clear from the
stakeholders was the message that there is a real need in Canada for
leadership in making the shift to sustainable development. For
more than a decade we have been exploring the concept, examining
the implications and considering the measures it requires. Now is
the time to move words into action. That will take bold and
decisive leadership. That is the leadership which we are seeing in
Bill C-83.
Another message was that, above all, the leadership must come
from the federal government. This is the largest business in Canada
and what it does has an immense influence throughout our society.
That is true not only of federal policies, programs and regulations
affecting various sectors, but also of the way in which the
Government of Canada operates. The federal government must be
held publicly accountable for its progress in making the shift to
sustainable development and to sustainable policies. These are not
only sustainable policies which are fiscally responsible and
economically responsible, but, specifically, environmentally
responsible.
At the same time the government must look back and assess
whether existing initiatives create barriers to the achievement of
sustainable development. The government must consider how to
achieve existing policy goals in a way that promotes sustainable
development. We must build the cost of the environment into the
cost of doing business in Canada today.
I know that in preparing its report the committee paid careful
attention to the stakeholders' messages. The office of the auditor
general has much clout and that is why in preparing these
amendments the bill has put into the Auditor General Act. We are
creating a commissioner who is part of and the responsibility of the
auditor general's department. It is independent from government.
The reason is because the auditor general's department has high
respect among the public of Canada. It has solid expertise which
can be put to use at once. It has the framework and the structure in
place that may be held responsible to the public. For all of these
reasons it can greatly enhance the auditing of the government's
environmental performance.
In addition, by giving this department specific environmental
responsibilities we can ensure that the issues of the environment
and issues of sustainable development will be integrated solidly
and directly into economic considerations. This kind of integration
is what sustainable development is all about. The office of the
commissioner will provide leadership. It will put Canada in the
forefront in making the shift to sustainable development.
(1215)
First, the amendments create a commissioner of the environment
and sustainable development. This official will report directly to
and work closely with the Auditor General of Canada on matters
relating to the environment and sustainable development.
One priority is for the work to carry on. No matter what happens
to the position of auditor general there would be continuity. The
position of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development would be ensured. By doing this we are guaranteeing
14591
that it becomes a post created for a commissioner who will serve
the sustainability of the environment for Canada.
There are other amendments in the bill which do provide for
more leadership in making the shift to this sustainable development
policy. They require that federal government departments, that is
every department of the Government of Canada, prepare and table
results oriented sustainable development strategies within two
years. That is, they must set goals and spell out the action by which
they will achieve those goals.
These strategies will promote the shift to sustainable
development policy at the program level and also in other ways the
departments operate their buildings and facilities. This is a means
of control, a watchdog, over all departments in the Government of
Canada.
The departmental strategies will be developed in an open,
transparent manner with the involvement of external stakeholders
such as the national round table on environment and economy. We
will involve the environmentalists, the public sector, the private
sector and all citizens of the country so that they have an
opportunity to be heard to express their views on what the country
should be doing to maintain a sustainable environment, sustainable
economic development.
They will also establish benchmarks against which to measure
the government's performance. These will enable the
commissioner and the auditor general to do their job effectively
and independently.
What is more, every three years each department must update its
sustainable development strategy and the minister responsible
must table this update in the Parliament of Canada. This makes
sure that the strategies are continually updated, continually
responsible to new technologies and new developments which
occur throughout the country.
Public accountability has come up this morning. The
amendments provide for enhanced public accountability by the
government in making the shift to sustainable development. The
commissioner must submit a yearly report to this House on matters
relating to the environmental aspects of sustainable development
whatever the commissioner considers appropriate. By that
amendment I believe he has the freedom to look at any issues in
any department of this government and to make assessments to
report on those if he deems it appropriate in his opinion.
The report will focus on the environmental performance of all
federal departments. In other words, the extent to which the
department has implemented its plan of action it will be held
accountable and the extent to which the department has achieved
its sustainable development objectives it will be held accountable.
Further, the report will present the number, the subject and the
status of petitions received by ministers on environmental matters.
Let me refer to the bill. In this context the public has the
opportunity to present a petition; that is any citizen of this country
might present a petition, if he takes the time to get citizens'
signatures.
(1220 )
The petition would be received by the commissioner. It would be
forwarded to the minister responsible for that specific department.
The recipient minister would then be required to acknowledge in
the House receipt of that petition within 15 days and to respond to
the petition within four months. The four-month period might be
extended by the minister if the petitioner and the auditor general
were notified that it would be impossible to respond within the four
months.
This puts the petition on a time line. It holds the commissioner,
the minister and the department responsible to the citizen who has
presented the petition. That is accountability on behalf of the
government in the introduction of Bill C-83.
The task of appointing the commissioner of the environment and
sustainable development will be the responsibility of the auditor
general. This arrangement will give the commissioner the needed
and utmost independence from the Government of Canada. This
again gives him credibility and accountability to carry out his
duties responsibly.
The third message of stakeholders was the need to assess new
and existing government initiatives for their consistency with
sustainable development. The government has already acted in this
area. Keeping track of its performance will be the responsibility of
the auditor general and the commissioner.
Last November the task force on economic instruments and
disincentives to sound environmental practices submitted its
report. It contained recommendations to the ministers of finance
and environment. These advised on how to review existing
policies, to check whether they contained barriers to the promotion
of sustainable development. This reviews some of our policies and
legislation that might be outdated, that might be antiquated and
will inhibit or maybe even prohibit the advancement of sustainable
development in a sustainable economy. They also advised on how
to prevent the unnecessary creation of barriers in the future.
As promised in the budget, the ministers will respond to the task
force within the coming months. Once again this holds the
government accountable to sustainable fiscal policy, to sustainable
economy and to sustainable environment for the people of Canada.
14592
As I mentioned, in preparing their sustainable development
strategies, federal departments must act in an open, honest
accountable way. They must involve the citizens of Canada and the
stakeholders, the environmentalists.
In their part III estimates which will come out annually
departments will again be required to report their progress toward
sustainable development. They must provide information on the
number, the type and the status of environmental assessments
which they are conducting.
There are additional actions that will integrate the environment
into decision making. The third component of the government
response is a commitment to additional steps we will take to
integrate the environment into all decision making in all
departments of the government.
I spoke of the task force to identify barriers and disincentives to
sound environmental practices. The government followed up on its
short term recommendations in the last budget. We are in the
process of preparing a formal response to the task force report,
including its longer term recommendations. The response will set
out how the government plans to move forward on implementing
economic instruments and on identifying barriers and disincentives
to these practices in the existing government policies. The
commissioner will play a very important role in holding this
government and all future governments publicly accountable with
ongoing efforts in this area.
These measures along with the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act will do much to integrate environmental
considerations, environmental evaluations into virtually every
federal government decision.
(1225 )
So many things are happening in Atlantic Canada in
development, whether they are large pulp mills, lumbering
industries, the transport of chemicals and products, that are
detrimental to our environment should there be difficulties and
accidents. We talked about the Irving Whale this morning.
The legislation will be a tremendous asset. Citizens will have the
opportunity to bring a petition forward to a commissioner, to a
minister of the department to assess, to evaluate, to judge
objectively what is economically feasible, what is environmentally
sustainable and what will serve the country for the long haul.
The government has taken a strong stand in Parliament on no
quick fix solutions, a strong stand that we will be part of long term
sustainability. This is part of our policy and philosophy. In each and
everything we do, we will build for the next generation.
The Brundtland report ``In Our Common Future'' uses technical
terms describing what is meant by sustainability. I studied that in
doing some university work at the masters level. The kind of
responsibility we have to a global society today is to act in a
responsible way particularly here as legislators over and above the
citizen's responsibility.
We are caretakers of this environment, of this earth only for a
short time. We have a grave responsibility during that period to act
responsibly. We should take only from the environment and the
economy what we need to meet our needs today so that we do not
build our economy on greed but on need. In that way we leave
something for those in the next generation so that they too might
take a living from the environment, from all the wonderful great
natural resources we have been so fortunate to have had bestowed
on this great Canada.
In conclusion, the amendments to this auditor general act are
part of the broader effort I have just described. They are a
fundamental and crucial part of what the philosophy of the
Government of Canada is today. It will radically change the way in
which the federal government does its business, in which the
federal departments do their business.
This will be a major step forward, making sustainable
development a reality to this country. It will be a major step
forward in the eyes of the world. Canada will be viewed as a
progressive nation that is caring, looking to the economy and to the
environment and that one must be integrated into the other.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of the bill now
before the House.
Mr. Speaker, the bill to amend the Auditor General Act provides
for the appointment of a Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development, who will report to the auditor general
and provide him with an overview of all federal government
activities and operations related to the environment and to
sustainable development.
Bill C-83 also requires all federal government departments to
develop sustainable development strategies to be laid before the
House of Commons.
(1230)
[English]
The bill has particular relevance in light of a report that was
released this past week by the World Bank regarding the wealth of
nations. By this report, Canada is the second richest country in the
world. This is not what we are used to hearing about our economy.
We are used to being ranked well down in the teens by the old way
14593
of looking at the wealth of a nation based on income, investment,
and those things that can be measured in dollars moving about in
the economy.
The ranking that was done by the World Bank last week was
formulated using a system of measurement that derives wealth
from the value of a country's natural resources as one of the
components. Based on this measure, the majority of Canada's
wealth lies in its natural resources. Therefore, our capacity to
develop a healthy economy not only for our future but for future
generations lies in how we use those resources. It lies in using those
resources in a sustainable way.
The system used by the World Bank in this new methodology
challenges conventional thinking by looking beyond the normal
measures of wealth that have been used until now. It starts moving
the assessment of the worth of nations to a process and a standard
based on sustainability in the long term.
That is why the measures we take to husband our natural
resources, to use them in a way that ensures that future generations
also have resources on which to build their prosperity, are not only
matters of economic well-being. They are matters of survival.
Perhaps that gives this bill new relevance. We can begin to see it
not only in the context of how much we have in land and the quality
of that land, what we have in forests, what we have in subsoil
resources and the quality of our water, but we can begin to see it in
the context of the whole quality of life.
We had one horrendous reminder this year that if we do not
husband those resources, if we do not regard those gifts the world
has to give as something that has to sustain our country and the
world for future generations, then we face tragedy. We have had the
virtual elimination of the cod stock, which has been a source of
income and an important part of our country and other countries
around the world for generations. That source has now been
virtually lost. We would be only guessing if we tried to estimate
whether that resource will ever be restored.
The World Bank is starting to recognize that the wealth of
nations has to be looked at in a different way, that the value of the
resources we have and how we use them is an important component
of our present and future prosperity and that depleting those
resources in fact depletes our wealth.
I would like to give another example to make the point quite
concretely about what was wrong with the old system and how we
have to start changing how we look at things.
Under the old system the Exxon Valdez oil spill was a
tremendous benefit to the economy. It put up our GDP quite
significantly because it generated millions of dollars in lawyers'
fees and millions of dollars in clean-up costs. It was good for the
economy under the old system. I do not think any one of us wants
to stand in the House to say that the spilling of oil into our oceans is
a positive benefit for our country.
(1235)
Let me now turn to this particular bill and how it is consistent
with this concept of sustainable development. It requires
government to look at every policy, program, spending decision,
activity and operation of government to determine its impact on the
environment. It requires every minister to look at every aspect of
that minister's department and table a strategy to ensure that the
operations, programs, and policies of the department are consistent
with sustaining the environment of the world in which we depend
not only for economic prosperity but for our very survival.
It requires the government to establish an environmental
commissioner who will oversee the environmental impact and the
impact on sustainable development not only of new policies, new
legislation and new programs, but of all existing policies,
legislation and programs.
The legislation sets up a new public accountability for the
government. One thing that has been learned by the nations of the
world over the years is that it is public oversight of our
responsibility that determines how responsibly we act. One of the
key messages coming out of the earth summit in Rio a couple of
years ago was that transparency, public oversight, and
accountability of governments is vital to achieving the plan of
action that all nations agreed to at that very important world
conference.
The World Bank report made it clear that Canada, as one of the
wealthiest countries in the world, based largely on its tremendously
wonderful supply of natural resources, also has the most to lose if it
does not act in a sustainable way. If we do not set up a society in
which government, in our partnership with the private sector,
informs and motivates individual Canadians to do their part as well
to sustain the environment, then all of us lose. The country will
lose. To the extent that any country in the world fails to exercise its
responsibilities for sustainable development, the world itself and
future generations lose.
[Translation]
Before closing this morning, I must say that I have a little trouble
understanding the Bloc's position on this bill. Personally, I
remember very clearly the time when the current leader of the Bloc
Quebecois was minister of the Environment in this House and a
member of the government. I remember very clearly his
commitment to the environment and his belief in the government's
responsibility to take action in order to protect the environment.
I also remember that the Bloc tabled in this House a minority
report proposing exactly what is being proposed in this bill, namely
that the government create the position of Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development as part of the Office of
the Auditor General, instead of creating a new, separate office.
14594
(1240)
[English]
I find it difficult to understand today why the Bloc is opposing
legislation which does exactly what it has proposed to the House of
Commons and to the government.
[Translation]
I see this as a step back from their previous position and that of
their leader, who is now Leader of the Official Opposition, as
regards environmental protection, sustainable development and the
government's responsibility to show leadership in these areas.
[English]
Canada has a right to be proud of the leadership role it has played
globally on many of these important environmental issues,
particularly in the area of global climate change.
It is easy to think of this as an administrative bill that relates to
the Government of Canada and to how it conducts its business and
to how ministries are administered on a day to day basis. I believe
its impact is far greater than that. It demonstrates leadership on the
part of government, just as Canada has traditionally played a
leadership role in these very important issues for some time now. It
demonstrates the kind of leadership that was there when the
previous Parliament implemented the program of greening the Hill,
believing that we as the Parliament of Canada first and foremost
had to demonstrate we were taking our responsibilities both
personally and seriously.
However, the bill does more than that. It addresses some of the
key issues facing the world today. Those issues were again very
much front and centre at the United Nations conference held in
Beijing, which ended just last week. The concerns of women in
developing countries about things we take for granted, like basic
health needs, basic protection and a safe environment for them and
their children, were very much at the forefront of the agenda.
We still face the situation where 14 million children around the
globe die every year of diarrhoea. That is 40,000 children a day
simply for lack of access to clean water. That is the importance of
measures we take as a nation and measures we take as an important
actor in the global community to ensure that preserving the wealth
of this world, which we hold in trust for the next generation, is a
priority for us as a Parliament, for us as individual parliamentarians
and for our government.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore a privilege to witness this bill being
tabled in this House and to have the opportunity to support it.
[English]
I urge all members of the House to support the legislation, to let
us get on with the important work of making sure that everything
the government does is consistent with the preservation of the
environment as part of our global responsibility.
(1245)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
that my hon. colleague from Ottawa West, who just spoke on Bill
C-83, did not have all the facts, when she was wondering what the
position of the official opposition, that is to say the Bloc
Quebecois, was regarding the establishment of a position of
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I
would like to remind her that, yesterday, around 1:50 p.m., I rose in
the House of Commons to say, and I will quote this slowly to make
sure she hears me very clearly: ``The official opposition does not
intend, at least for the time being, to challenge the mandate that the
minister wants to give to the commissioner of the environment.
However, we deplore the fact that, ultimately, the commissioner
will merely have the power to make suggestions''.
If she had listened to me as carefully as I listened to her a
moment ago, she would have found out that the Bloc Quebecois
does not intend to oppose the establishment of a position of
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
On the contrary, we want the commissioner to have power to do
more than just make recommendations like the auditor general at
present.
After the Christmas holidays, the auditor general will once again
present his annual report. We, the official opposition, will have a
field day as the terrible things this government has done are
revealed to Canadian taxpayers. There will be much talk about it
the first week, hardly any the second week and, by the third week, it
will be all but forgotten.
My hon. colleague from Ottawa West mentioned future
generations. I would like to remind her that, as we speak, between
the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island, we have a barge
that has been sitting in the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for
over 25 years, as of last week. This barge contains bunker C oil
and, as we learned at the end of June, large amounts of fuel
contaminated with PCBs. In 1970, and for the next 14 years until
1984, the Liberals were in power in Ottawa. Within three weeks,
your government will be celebrating its second year in office. Yet
nothing has been done.
Your government is all talk and no action. It is all fine and well
to talk about future generations and say that every Canadian is a
billionaire. Those are fine words, but idle talk nonetheless. If my
14595
colleague wants to get richer, I suggest that she buy shares from
Quebecers or Canadians who may be prepared to sell their shares
to her for a very reasonable price.
To conclude, I wish my colleague from Ottawa West would urge
the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the Commissioner
of the Environment and Sustainable Development has not only the
power to make recommendations but also effective power to force
the government and its departments to respect the environment and
sustainable development, favourite topics of certain government
members these days.
I remember the St. Lawrence action plan, phase 1, phase 2,
designed to depollute the river. Just last week, there was a report
where they were catching fish to analyze their flesh. It is worse.
Really.
Mr. Lincoln: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My colleague
should be given an opportunity to respond and there is very little
time left to do so. The hon. member has embarked on a windy
discourse that will leave no time to my hon. colleague to respond to
his tale of woes.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair always gives the hon. member
who asks a question and the hon. member answering it equal time.
(1250)
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is a
tactic of the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis to try to
distract the opposition. These days, it seems as though the
government wants to gag the official opposition. It is afraid to hear
what our fellow citizens are telling us in our ridings.
I was talking about the St. Lawrence action plan to clean the St.
Lawrence River. Listen to this: out of a budget of $19.2 million,
this government took $6 million to commission studies on the
cleaning up of the river. However, these studies were conducted in
Miramichi, New Brunswick, several thousand kilometres from the
St. Lawrence River. Where is the logic in that decision?
I would like to hear the member for Ottawa West tell us about the
effect that this will have, other than to suggest the appointment of a
commissioner of the environment.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, first I want to remind the member
opposite that, when the Bloc leader was Minister of the
Environment, it was his responsibility to take action regarding the
Irving Whale, but he did not do anything.
Personally, I asked specific questions in this House, but the
government at the time, with the Bloc leader as its environment
minister, did not do anything about the Irving Whale. The current
environment minister was the first to have the courage to make
decisions regarding the Irving Whale and take action to have it
refloated.
We know, and so does the hon. member, that the operation must
be conducted with great caution because it involves risks and
danger.
I also have an answer regarding the auditor general's
responsibilities. It may be that the Bloc would like a government
structure whereby the only way to make things move would be for
people to rely on the courts to enforce actions. We prefer a system
where the departments, which are accountable to this House, to the
Prime Minister and to the people of Canada, have a duty to do what
they can and what they should to ensure that their initiatives
comply with the principles of sustainable development and
environmental protection.
(1255)
If the Bloc thinks that the commissioner of the environment will
have no power, then it does not believe in the power of the public.
The commissioner will be required to inform this House and the
public, and he will be accountable to members of Parliament, to the
government, to the departments and to the ministers. This is the
strength of a democracy that works.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
pleasure for me to talk about Bill C-83. This is a very important
bill. I want to talk about this on behalf of my constituents in
Vancouver South. To them this is a very important issue.
The environment is an issue which I have learned a lot about
recently. I have probably learned more about the environment from
my children. I have three young children who have made my wife
and I learn more about the environment than we knew before. It is
very important because our young people often lead in a lot of ways
and we do not pay the attention we should to them. We can learn
from our younger generations, as I have learned more about the
environment.
I was interested to talk about the environment because as we
have learned in history economic prosperity is closely linked to our
respect for the environment. There are lots of examples in history
of how when civilizations do not respect the environment they can
destroy themselves. There are many examples in history of how
societies deforest areas around them and sometimes continue to do
that because of their need for fuel only to be left with erosion and
then have problems in agriculture and in growing their food. Lo
and behold they have taken a resource that was valuable to their
society and destroyed it.
The legislation is in the red book. The Liberal government said
the national environmental and economic agendas can no longer be
separated, which means our future economic prosperity is very
important. We want to preserve that economic prosperity. We want
to grow and respect the environment.
14596
That is why this is very important from the point of view that
government action will be determined by a commissioner and the
environmental factor will be considered when government
decisions are being made. Bill C-83 demonstrates to Canadians
the Liberal government is serious about the environment and
sustainable development.
We often use the term sustainable development. It is a term used
very wisely and widely. We should define sustainable
development. For members in the House and for those watching, to
me sustainable development is that our actions do not take away
from future generations their standard of living or their quality of
life. We in this generation must ensure our actions do not take away
from future generations.
In a lot of ways we have already failed in that. We have taken
away from future generations that which we have had. For
example, we often hear the warning that children should not play
outside during certain hours because of depletion of the ozone layer
and the effect this can have on our children. I can remember as a
child there was no such warning. We did not have to heed these
warnings but our children do. We have already taken away from
future generations in that by having a higher standard of living now
future generations will be deprived of things like being able to play
outside during the day at any time.
(1300)
We have a long way to go but this is a start and sustainable
development is all about ensuring we are not taking anything away
from generations to come and we want to give them more. We want
to make sure future generations have more than what we have
today. I hope we can have that philosophy of giving them more. We
are only the trustees of the resources we have to pass on to our
children at the minimum in the same condition and hopefully in a
better condition than how we received them.
I had an interesting experience when someone who often
lectured about the environment put a time line on the board, a long
line from the start of plant and animal life and stretched on to the
time of mankind on earth. On this huge line there was a very tiny
spot during which mankind has been on the.
Other animals have lived as long as 400 million years, but
mankind between 1 million and 3 million years. If we collectively
destroy our environment and destroy future generations, in respect
of that time line we will barely be a footnote in the history of
animal life on earth. That really opened my eyes to say we have
been on the earth for such a short time and we have done so much
damage already and we have lots of work to make sure we continue
on that time line for a long time to come. We can only do it if we
respect our environment.
Bill C-83 ensures federal government policies and operations are
closely looked at in terms of the environment, as well as what
effects it has on the economy. Canadians look to the federal
government for leadership on sustainable development. By getting
its house in order, by showing leadership the federal government
can promote the shift to sustainable development throughout
Canadian society. This is what Bill C-83 is all about.
The government's response to the committee's report focused on
integrating the environment into federal decision making. The
government has already followed up with a number of initiatives.
To name a few, proclamation of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, actions to green government operations, the task
force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound
environmental practices and the initial follow up to the task force
in the last federal budget.
Bill C-83 explicitly incorporates the environment and
sustainable development in the Auditor General Act. This is very
important because we do not want a commissioner without clout.
We want a commissioner with clout and that is why I commend the
Minister of the Environment who has brought this in under the
Auditor General Act. It will give the auditor general the clear legal
mandate to include environmental effects alongside the
conventional considerations of the economy, effectiveness and
efficiency among the considerations he uses to determine the
observations he will bring to the attention of the House of
Commons.
(1305 )
As I said earlier, Bill C-83 will also provide federal government
leadership in making the shift to sustainable development. The
amendments will proactively promote sustainable development
across all federal departments by requiring ministers to table in the
House sustainable development strategies that include their
departments' objectives and plans of action to further sustainable
development. Departments will be required to update these
strategies every three years and ministers to table the updates in the
House.
Bill C-83 will also authorize the auditor general to forward
petitions from the public on environmental matters to the
responsible ministers. The ministers will be required to respond
within a specified time frame.
These amendments are significant in and of themselves.
However the bill goes much further. Bill C-83 also creates a truly
independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development. The commissioner will be within the office of the
auditor general. He or she will be appointed by the auditor general
and will report directly to him as his right hand person in all his
environmental and sustainable development related duties.
14597
The committee had recommended a stand alone commissioner.
However, the commissioner can operate effectively and efficiently
in the office of the auditor general because the office of the auditor
general is well respected. It has clout and it has solid existing
expertise which can start implementing the amendments right
away.
Moreover, it means environmental and sustainable development
issues will be integrated with the economic considerations in that
office just as they should be in a sustainable development world.
The commissioner will also assist the auditor general in
addressing the environmental and sustainable development aspects
of his general auditing work. The commissioner will monitor and
report annually to the House on the government's progress toward
sustainable development. The commissioner will review
departments' sustainable development strategies and monitor the
implementation of the action plan and the achievements of the
objectives. The commissioner will be required by Bill C-83 to
report annually to the House on anything related to environmental
aspects of sustainable development he or she considers merits
attention, including the extent to which action plans have been
implemented and objectives met and on the number, subject matter
and status of petitions received by ministers.
These amendments are historic and unprecedented. They have
far reaching implications for the way the federal government does
its business. They ensure that no matter who the auditor general
happens to be, environment and sustainable development will have
a high profile in the workforce. They will provide leadership on
sustainable development by proactively promoting and
operationalizing sustainable development within federal
departments and across major economic sectors of our country.
They will hold the government fully accountable to the public for
its leadership and progress in making the shift to sustainable
development.
As I look back over the past year or so I am gratified that the
government has taken a red book commitment and engaged
Parliament and Canadians in fulfilling it and in going beyond.
However, this is only the beginning of the road to making
sustainable development a practical reality. Because of the bill, in
the months and years ahead departments will be engaging
stakeholders in the development and implementation of sustainable
development strategies.
I know some members on the other side have said we should
have gone further and that we did not go far enough. This is a very
important start because it recognizes how important the
environment is. It recognizes how important the environment is to
future generations. It recognizes the importance of the environment
to our future economic prosperity. It is no use enjoying tremendous
economic prosperity now only to have it taken away from future
generations.
(1310)
We must ensure we protect for generations to come that we have
a liveable environment, an environment with clean water, clean air,
and that our decisions as a government fully take into consideration
a development that is sustainable, a development that maintains a
quality of life for future generations, a development that does not
put hardship on any sector of society.
We have seen in some developing countries where when they do
not respect the environment, when there is no clean water
available, for example, sometimes the poor, the women have to pay
a very heavy price when they have to go two miles to get it.
Children die because they do not have clean water.
We have come a long way and I am sure my colleagues and the
Minister of the Environment will continue to work on this. It is
very important to me and to my constituency. In the west this is a
very important issue and I am very thankful I had the opportunity
to speak on behalf of my constituents of Vancouver South.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to comment on some of the statements made
by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
I think all Canadians recognize the importance of paying close
attention to what is happening with our environment, and certainly
sustainability in our environment is a most important factor.
The member mentioned that Bill C-83 contains some
amendments unprecedented in Parliament in dealing with the
environment. We have had the auditor general's department
operating as an exclusive body making a critique of the
government, scrutinizing the operations for many years now.
We have seen report after report from the auditor general being
critical of the different government departments and making
recommendations only to have those reports go somewhere on a
shelf and collect dust.
It is one thing to appoint a commission, a body or an individual
to be independent, to look at how the government runs its business.
It is one thing for the reports to be made, for the recommendations
to be made, for the observations to be made clear, for that outside
body to call for accountability. Another thing is for the government
to act on those recommendations. We have not seen a very glowing
record of governments acting on recommendations and criticism
by the auditor general's department. We have not seen it in many
years. Certainly the government has not done anything to stop that
record of ignoring the auditor general's report.
As Bill C-83 contains some amendments unprecedented in
Parliament in the field of environmental sustainability, I suggest
the government begin to take some unprecedented steps in not only
acknowledging the reports of the auditor general and not only
receiving them but actually acting on them. It would be a most
14598
unprecedented step if the government would start to act on some of
the recommendations of the auditor general's department.
I will leave the hon. member with that thought. I am sure he will
want to give me his assurances that whatever criticism and
recommendations come from the new position will be acted on by
the government.
(1315 )
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
statement and his question.
I assure him that as a government we would not be setting up
such a commissioner without taking full responsibility and
ensuring that the reports that are issued are taken very seriously and
that the government respond to those reports.
I can say that there have been many occasions in the House when
the auditor general has brought forward concerns. On many
occasions I have seen the minister or the appropriate department
respond very quickly and assure the auditor general that they take
those matters very seriously. I have seen members on the opposite
side stand and quote the auditor general. Obviously they also take it
very seriously. I know all members take the issues very seriously
and bring them forward.
There are a lot of examples that have shown that governments do
respond, take action, and investigate to assure that anything the
auditor general puts out, where it is possible and where it is felt to
be advantageous, is responded to and dealt with in an effective
manner. I can assure the member that this will be continued by the
government whenever those reports are issued.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a couple of comments.
First, the member went on for a considerable time talking about
clean water and the necessity of being aware how important it is.
That almost goes without saying, but it does not hurt to repeat it. I
wonder if the member is aware of the swim for the Fraser River
effort by Finn Donnelly from British Columbia, who is currently
swimming the entire length of the Fraser River in an effort to raise
environmental awareness about the necessity for cleaning up what
is really the major water artery in British Columbia.
Second, when he talks about sustainable development, on which
coast of British Columbia does he think the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans has done the best job on sustainable
development in the area of fisheries, the east coast or the west
coast?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East said, clean water is a very important asset. As we saw
recently in the World Bank report, clean water is going to be a very
important resource for the world.
I also acknowledge the gentleman who is swimming the Fraser
River to raise awareness of having clean water. An important thing
to remember is when a resource like water is polluted it is
expensive to restore the resource and bring it back. It is much
easier to prevent pollution from happening in the first place.
As parliamentary secretary it has been a great experience to learn
about sustainability and how all resources are so interdependent.
Our ecosystem is so sensitive to change, and we do not understand
a lot of it. We do not understand what water temperature does to
fish. We do not understand the interdependence of our whole
ecosystem. We have a lot to learn. We have to do a better job for
our future generations.
I will do everything I can to ensure that we have sustainable
development and do not take away from future generations. To the
best of my ability I will try to achieve that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1320 )
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the deputy whip for the
government the matter stands deferred until 5.30 p.m.
* * *
The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the
importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based
substances, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the federal government is
given the opportunity to protect jobs, save the environment, protect
consumers, and keep Canada on the leading edge of automotive
technology, should we take it? You bet. You bet that we will seize a
chance to support technology that helps us improve fuel economy
and meet our climate change objectives. You bet that we are going
to do everything we can to reduce air pollution and smog. That is
14599
why we have taken action to remove MMT from Canadian
unleaded gasoline, and that is why I am happy to stand today in
support of Bill C-94, the manganese based fuel additives act.
[Translation]
This bill will prohibit the importation of and interprovincial
trade in MMT, a manganese-based fuel additive manufactured in
the United States. The proposed bill will come into force sixty days
after the day on which it is assented to. At the present time Canada
is the only country in the world still using MMT in unleaded
gasoline. Even in Bulgaris, studies have even been carried out, and
it was decided not to use it. The USA banned it in 1968 from their
unleaded gasoline. Bulgaria and Argentina are the only other
countries showing any interest whatsoever in its use and, as I said,
Bulgaria finally decided against it.
Why is MMT not used by more countries? Because it adversely
affects the operation of the pollution control equipment in today's
cars and trucks.
[English]
My department has received and reviewed study after study of
the effects of MMT on this equipment. I have seen the studies
myself: studies from Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota,
Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen,
Volvo, Saab, Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai. They are
separate studies, which all say the same thing: MMT adversely
affects onboard diagnostic systems where pollution control
equipment is found. These systems are extremely important for the
environment.
One only has to travel in the lower mainland of British Columbia
to know how we need strong legislation on vehicle emissions.
MMT is preventing the kinds of clean emissions governments
across this land are seeking.
These systems of onboard diagnostics are crucial for
environmental gains. They are responsible for monitoring a
vehicle's emission controls and for letting a driver know when an
anti-pollution system is not working. They make sure that the
cleaner burning engines coming off the production lines today
operate as they are designed. They make sure that automobiles are
properly maintained, resulting in decreased tail pipe emissions and
improved fuel economy.
One only has to drive a new car off the lot to know that the
models of this year and next year and the year after are
substantially improved in terms of their emission levels, fuel
economy, and anti-pollution devices. Those cars should be given a
chance to work, not only in the best interests of their drivers, but
particularly in the best interests of the lack of air pollution in our
cities.
(1325 )
This is critical technology. It is technology that has to be given
the chance to do its job. With the legislation we are making sure
that modern anti-pollution technology can be put to work in
Canadian cities, cities that were reeling last summer under the
burden of smog caused by too many cars clogging the arteries of
our nation's communities.
[Translation]
This government would not allow MMT to stop the Canadian
automobile industry from designing far less polluting vehicles.
Canada's environment and Canada's consumers are entitled to the
best pollution control equipment possible.
The federal government had been waiting since 1985 for the
automobile and petroleum industries to get together on a solution
to this problem, which the government had already identified ten
years ago. I made a personal appeal to the two industries to pool
their efforts towards finding a solution. I even proposed to the
MMT manufacturers that they give consumers the choice, that
there be at least one pump without MMT, and they absolutely
refused. They are not interested in what consumers want. They are
not interested in anti-pollution matters. They are interested only in
a polluting product imported from the United States, which is not
even used there, because its use has been prohibited since 1978.
But we have to allow it here. How can that be?
[English]
I want to repeat that, because I think it is important to this debate
that the House understand we have waited 10 years for the
importers of this product to get together with the automobile
manufacturers to find a common solution. We are not interested in
legislating solutions to all consumers' problems.
I offered in personal meetings with the importers of the
particular product to have a solution where at least one gasoline
pump per gas station was free of MMT. Give the consumer the
choice. They refused. They categorically refused, even though
there has been study after study after study. I believe at last count
there 17 automobile companies either manufacturing or selling in
Canada that have asked for gasoline free of MMT. Somehow there
is this tremendous conspiracy inflicted on them by consumers.
Mr. Speaker, how do you think Canadian consumers feel about
the fact that sparkplugs in Canada fail at 17 times greater rates than
in the United States? Why? Why do you think the Toyota manual
right now advises against using MMT gasoline? The new manuals
will have disclaimers in them, that if you use MMT in your
gasoline they may not be able to in fact guarantee your warranty.
Why is it that automobile manufacturers in Canada have suggested
that if we cannot move on MMT they may be forced to add up to
14600
$3,000 to the cost of a new car in Canada, the same car they sell in
the United States? The variable is MMT.
For some reason, despite direct offers by the Government of
Canada for the importers of this product to find a replacement or a
consumer alternative, they refuse again and again. Ten years of
waiting for a solution is long enough. With the new requirements of
automobile emissions pending, we have to move quickly. As we
speak there are cars rolling off the assembly line dedicated to the
1996 market that do not have an onboard diagnostic system
attached because at the moment the companies cannot be
guaranteed that it is going to work as long as we have MMT in the
gasoline.
[Translation]
Even then, I waited, I gave the companies a deadline of last
December to resolve the problem. They could not do it. I waited
until February, but for some reason, the companies importing ethyl
could find no other way but to force it on all fuel levels.
(1330)
Once again, we waited. Well, the ten year wait has gone on long
enough. It is time now for the government to act on consumers'
behalf, in support of anti-pollution technology and above all in
support of the environment.
[English]
Without action our vehicle emission reduction programs will be
put in jeopardy. We risk missing out on major reductions in smog,
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
If we do not act now, Canadian consumers will be prevented
from taking advantage of state of the art emission technology
because they do not have access to MMT free gasoline. If we do not
act now we will face the situation where automakers will turn off
the diagnostic systems for the 1996 models because of the damage
caused by MMT.
Right now General Motors is bringing cars off the assembly lines
with on board diagnostic functions disconnected from the system.
It is no longer prepared to assume the increased warranty risks for
damage caused to pollution control equipment by MMT.
In the end it is the Canadian consumer, the Canadian taxpayer,
the Canadian who drives a car who has to pay more. The
maintenance of our cars is costing more because of the presence of
MMT. We will not let this happen. We will not allow leading edge
Canadian technology to be put at risk.
This substance is not manufactured in Canada but imported from
the United States where it has been banned for almost 20 years.
They can make it there but they cannot use it there so they use it in
Canada, the last bastion of MMT. We will not allow the buck to be
passed to Canadian consumers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Copps: We will not allow anti-pollution equipment in
Canada to be less effective than anti-pollution equipment in the
United States. We will not allow the competitiveness of our
automobile industry to be threatened. We will not allow investment
and the thousands of Canadian jobs which depend on that
investment to be put in jeopardy.
[Translation]
Properly resolving the MMT question will have positive effects
on the environment through the use of the most sophisticated
emission control techniques. Moreover, Canadians will enjoy the
same guarantee as American automobile owners. Resolving the
MMT problem will guarantee that Canadian automobile emission
control programs are in line with American programs. This means
that Canadians will continue to enjoy the economic and technical
benefits of having a standardized North American automobile
population.
It also means that the Canadian automobile sector, whether in
Quebec or Ontario, will remain competitive.
[English]
Let us be clear. The job of reducing motor vehicle pollution can
no longer be addressed just by an industry, whether it be the
automobile industry, the petroleum industry or the government.
Progress at reducing vehicle pollution demands action by every
single Canadian.
The petroleum industry needs to move forward in making
improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels
burned by those engines. The auto industry needs to make
improvements in vehicle emission control technologies such as
those offered through on board diagnostic systems.
[Translation]
As for the government, it must act to reduce pollution from
vehicles. This is the sort of action we have begun with Bill C-94,
the sort of action we take when we establish a global automobile
emission control strategy, which includes more rigorous standards
on vehicle exhaust systems.
In meeting these standards, we are counting on sophisticated
emission control techniques and the fuels they require. We need
new technology. We must reduce smog and carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbon emissions. We have to reduce this type of emission,
which have a significant negative effect on the quality of the air and
on the greenhouse effect on the climate. This government takes its
responsibilities seriously in the area of climatic change.
(1335)
[English]
It is a fact that temperatures increase when carbon emissions
increase. It is a fact that carbon dioxide has reached concentrations
that are 25 per cent higher than at any time in the 220,000 years of
14601
atmospheric history. It is a fact that the average global temperature
today is four to six degrees higher than during the last ice age.
The member of the legislature from Prince Edward Island who is
in the gallery today will no doubt be aware of the profound impact
of what the failure to address climate change will have on our
coastal regions, including the lower mainland of British Columbia
and Prince Edward Island. It is a fact that if we fail to take action
average global temperatures will rise another 1.5 to 4.5 degrees
within the next 50 years.
In other words, our children could confront the kind of global
warming which triggered the end of the ice age. They could face
the kind of global warming that causes sea levels to rise, that dries
forests, that desertifies farmland, that wipes out communities and
in some cases that wipes out entire countries.
Climate change is not like other environmental problems. Action
after the fact is not an option. If we wait for the problem to
overwhelm us, if we ignore the scientific evidence that is coming in
harder, faster and stronger than ever before, it will be too late. With
climate change preventive action is the key. Preventive action
means producing goods more cleanly. It means having access to
cleaner automobiles. It means using less energy through the likes
of onboard diagnostic systems which can warn us when the systems
are malfuctioning and when in fact our conversion is not as
efficient as it should be. It means using less energy. It means
conserving our natural resources and developing and implementing
the latest in green technologies like the emission reduction
technologies in today's cars and trucks.
The bill before the House is one small measure in the battle for a
better environment. The bill is pro-environment. It is pro-consumer
and it is pro-jobs. Eighteen of Canada's automobile companies
think we are doing the right thing. Canadians think we are doing the
right thing.
MMT can no longer stand in the way of progress that we
continue to make on reducing vehicle emissions in the face of the
continuing need for environmental protection.
Let us protect Canadian jobs. Let us protect Canadian investment
in high technology. Let us protect the pocketbooks of Canadian
consumers. Let us above all protect the air that we breath. Let us
make Canada the last country in the world to finally to put an end to
the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I applaud the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to the
environment and what she professes to say. I would like to point
out a few facts which she omitted from her speech.
If we were to withdraw MMT from gasoline the nitrous oxide
content of the environment would increase by 20 per cent which is
a very important additive to smog, a causative agent for smog.
The Deputy Prime Minister brings forward a whole host of
studies. Every one of those studies was done by an auto
manufacturer. I would also like to tell the Deputy Prime Minister
that the EPA just came out with studies which show that MMT does
not do anything to damage onboard devices.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how she can account for
removing MMT from gasoline if the nitrous oxide content coming
from cars is going to increase by 20 per cent. Also, is she going to
commit to having an independent party review MMT to determine
once and for all if it is going to damage onboard computers and also
if it is going to harm people?
(1340 )
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to his question the
member implies that somehow these 18 automobile companies
have an interest in destroying the market for MMT. The only
studies I have seen in support of MMT are coming out very thick
and fast from the company that imports the product, the same
company that I am sure supplied the figures to the member that
talks about the level of environmental contribution made by MMT.
If he wants to put it in context, the abolition of MMT will create
a situation where air emissions can improve by up to 600 per cent
specifically because it will permit the onboard diagnostic systems
of new cars to work. The presence of MMT will not help the
environment. The presence of MMT will hurt the environment.
Companies such as Toyota, Ford, GM and Saab are companies
that are in competition with each other for a market. They are not in
collusion. For some bizarre reason 18 automobile companies both
domestically producing and importing cars have all done
independent studies which have identified a single variable
between the Canadian and the U.S. gasoline which contributes to
the failure rate of onboard diagnostic systems. That single variable
is MMT. Those same companies have provided the department
with studies that show the failure rate for Canadian spark plugs is
17 times higher than in the United States.
Should a consumer in the lower mainland of British Columbia
have to change his spark plugs 17 times? Mr. Speaker, if you buy
the rather weak argument of the Ethyl Corporation that this is such
a fantastically great product, why would the Ethyl Corporation not
accede to the demand of the government that it offer the consumers
a choice? Why would the CPPI producers not arrive at a gas station
and let people have the choice? If this is such a fantastic product
why not let the consumers decide? Why did the company refuse my
offer made to them in person to have only one pump in gas stations
14602
across the country which would be MMT free? If this is such a
great product why is Canada the only country in the world that
currently authorizes its use?
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
some of the remarks the hon. Deputy Prime Minister has made. I
wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would be willing to table
some of the studies she has quoted from today, referenced and held
physically in the presence of this assembly. Would she be willing to
table those for our use and examination?
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, those studies were shared. As the hon.
member will know, when companies test their automobiles it is a
very confidential matter. As I gave my word, the companies in
question actually met with CPPI in a private meeting organized
through my department where they could individually review all of
those studies.
Unfortunately CPPI broke the agreement of secrecy and those
studies ended up being passed to other individuals. It was a breach
of the confidentiality that every automobile company expects to
have in terms of its own testing of vehicles.
I can provide him with analyses of the material that went before
the CPPI. I can provide him with some general views from the
industry. I cannot provide the individual studies because when they
were provided to CPPI through an agreement with my office they
subsequently found their way into the public domain.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Minister of the Environment for her efforts
today.
I believe the bill in front of us does receive the support of the
majority of members of the House of Commons. I congratulate the
minister for bringing it forward. At the same time, as she knows, a
lot of what she says about the environment and fuel, about the need
to be proactive and moving ahead into the future, can also be done
through the support of ethanol based fuel additives.
(1345 )
Many in western Canada are engaged in ethanol development
projects as a way of not only assisting the environment but also of
assisting in regions which require assistance with economic
development. I am wondering if in the course of her remarks today
the minister might indicate her support and commitment for
ethanol based fuel additives and what she can do for western
Canadians.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, when we introduced legislation which
will require 75 per cent of all new federal government vehicles to
be run on alternative fuels it was in part to try to accelerate the
market. The federal government currently has an annual fleet of
about 25,000 cars. If we factor in the number of cars in crown
corporations there are 39,000 cars that are on the road as a result of
federal government activities. We are mandating that 75 per cent of
those cars be fuelled by alternative fuels within the next five years.
We think that will provide the kind of niche market which will
hopefully be a catalyst for further development in the area of
alternative fuels by the private sector. We have not in a sense
mandated a particular kind of fuel, but certainly ethanol is an
alternative and particularly is one which can be mixed into current
vehicle emissions. It is a very positive alternative.
We have tried to build market demand for consumer moves to
alternative fuels in a very large way which will help a rather
fledgling industry. As the hon. member will know, ethanol can
currently be mixed at a 10 per cent ratio. Any further conversions
will be good for renewable resources and an alternative for the
current growth in global warming.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to be able to debate this issue, particularly after having
had the summer months to do research and become more familiar
with this topic.
I was quite flabbergasted when I heard the Minister of the
Environment in her impassioned speech. I could not help but think
that the passion was little more than the political puppet dancing
when the strings are pulled by the masters of the power brokers in
the country.
It is my understanding that the bill has come before the House
today because the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
claimed that MMT was setting off the warning lights on onboard
diagnostic systems when nothing was really wrong with the
systems. I understand the association basically told the minister
that she had to ban MMT in Canada or it would disconnect the
onboard diagnostic systems on cars headed for Canada, or it would
increase the cars' warranty costs or shorten the warranty period.
The MVMA also claims that MMT has caused the misfiring of
certain sparkplugs.
I fail to understand, in view of how extensively this topic has
been studied, particularly in the United States where the product
has been banned for 18 years and will again be available for use
before the end of the year, why the minister has accepted without
question the position of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association.
Furthermore, I understand that the proponents of the bill claim
that banning MMT will lower pollution and health risks to human
beings. There have also been numerous claims in favour of banning
MMT, such as the need for uniformity in gasolines in the North
American market. I would like to address all of these points briefly
in my presentation to the House today but most important I wish to
show how the ban on MMT could be detrimental to the Canadian
market.
Let me say before I get into my presentation that I and numerous
other members of my caucus have met with both sides of this
argument a number of times, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association and Ethyl Corporation, which is more than I can say
14603
for what the minister has done. She has consistently refused to
meet with both sides of the argument and has only met with the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. I hardly think one can
form a balanced view of the issue without meeting and listening to
both sides of the argument.
(1350)
After having done so, I firmly believe that there is no health,
environmental or technical reason for banning MMT in Canada.
MMT has been used in Canada since 1977. It was used in the
United States until 1970 and was banned in 1970 due to a U.S.
clean air act establishing a process requiring new fuel additives not
substantially similar to gasoline to obtain a waiver by
demonstrating compatibility with vehicle emission systems.
The company that manufactures MMT, Ethyl Corporation,
undertook an extensive fuel additive testing program which
resulted in the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion in
December 1993 that MMT will not cause or contribute to the
failure of any emission control device or system.
Contrary to the minister's statement of May 5, 1995, the U.S.
court of appeal ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to
grant waiver approval to Ethyl Corporation on April 14, 1995. The
minister was fully informed of this decision.
In December 1993 following a large fuel additive testing
program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded
that the use of MMT will not cause or contribute to the failure of
any emission control device or system, including onboard
diagnostic systems. The Environmental Protection Agency and
subsequently the U.S. court of appeal rejected concerns about the
impact of MMT on onboard diagnostic systems presented by U.S.
automakers.
The U.S. automakers have experienced significant difficulties in
the certification of onboard diagnostic systems in the United States
where MMT is not currently used in unleaded gasolines. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air
Resources Board have recently changed the regulations to allow for
certification of vehicles that do not comply with the OBD-II
requirements.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated in the
federal register that automobile manufacturers have expressed and
demonstrated difficulty in complying with every aspect of the
onboard diagnostic requirements and such difficulty appears likely
to continue into the 1996-97 model year.
In Canada the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association appears
to be blaming the OBD-II system difficulties on MMT. The Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association members have lobbied the
Canadian government threatening to disconnect onboard
diagnostic warning systems and pass the cost on to consumers
unless the government passes legislation to ban MMT.
The Canadian government appears to have responded to these
threats without noting that the vehicle manufacturers have failed to
achieve OBD-II certification in the U.S. for most new models.
Furthermore, I would like to know if this minister can explain
her statement that if vehicle manufacturers carry through on threats
to remove onboard diagnostic systems this would result in a tenfold
increase in vehicle emissions. This false claim shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of the technical issues involved and
underlies the need for independent technical assessment of the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association claims.
Onboard diagnostic systems do not reduce emissions on
vehicles. Onboard diagnostic systems are a monitoring system
designed to notify the driver when emission control equipment is
not operating properly. Removal or more likely disconnecting the
onboard diagnostic systems would only serve to prevent a
dashboard malfunction indicator light from illuminating. No
emission control equipment would be removed.
On the sparkplug issue that the minister makes much of, the
Minister of the Environment cited the claims to help justify her
proposal for the legislation to remove MMT. However, she failed to
point out that the automakers' claims related primarily to one type
of platinum tipped sparkplug used primarily on one engine version
only in GM automobiles. The sparkplug in question was
discontinued by GM indicating that problems were related to
design, not MMT.
No casual links have ever been established between MMT and
sparkplug problems. To my knowledge no warranty data has ever
been made public.
(1355 )
I have learned that to further assess the validity of GM's
concerns independent testing was conducted at the Southwest
Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, using the platinum
tipped, long life sparkplugs used in all 1994 2.2-litre Chevrolet
Cavaliers. The goal of the study initiated with General Motors
Corporation in the U.S. was to determine the differences between
new sparkplugs, failed sparkplugs and sparkplugs used which have
had no problem.
The sparkplugs were fired by a power supply which increased
output to the plugs in a ramped manner. Current leakage up until
the plugs fired was measured. Movies were taken to document
whether arcs occurred between electrodes or from electrode to
shell.
The sparkplug test program showed that MMT is not associated
with reported sparkplug related problems. To satisfy the U.S. clean
air act requirements for the reintroduction of MMT in unleaded
gasolines in the United States, Ethyl Corporation informed me that
14604
it had conducted the most extensive series of tests ever undertaken
on a gasoline additive.
The testing program was designed with the assistance of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. automakers to evaluate
and document the effective MMT performance additive on
automobile tailpipe emissions and to determine the implications
for air quality if MMT additives were used in the U.S. gasoline.
The initial MMT emissions test program involved 48 cars
representing a broad cross-section of automobiles driven in North
America operated for a total of more than three million miles. Half
of the 1988 cars used the test fuel with the additive and half used
the same fuel without the additive.
Tailpipe emissions were checked every 5,000 miles. Testing
demonstrated conclusively that MMT decreases nitrous oxide by
approximately 20 per cent. As a note, the EPA participated in
determining the test protocols. Also, independent testing data
analysis organizations used procedures similar to those used by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
On the issue of health, I would like to address the concerns with
MMT. On December 6, 1994 Health Canada released the results of
an independent risk assessment focusing on new epidemiological
studies and Canadian exposure data titled ``Risk Assessment for
the Combustion Products of MMT in Gasoline''.
The Health Canada study concluded that the use of MMT in
gasoline does not represent a health risk to any segment of the
Canadian population. Specifically the report states: ``Airborne
manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline
powered vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in
quantities or under conditions that may constitute a health risk''.
The study also concluded that there is no connection between levels
of ambient respirable manganese and MMT sales or use in
unleaded gasoline whether examined by geographical area or by
season.
Back on April 25, 1995 the hon. Minister of Industry stated that
it is crucial that we have uniformity in standards of gasoline in the
North American market. The hon. Minister of Industry was
referring to the fact that at the time MMT was not used in the
U.S.A. but was in Canada and it was important to have the same
gasoline-
The Speaker: Of course the hon. member will have the floor
right after question period. It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
14604
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the Liberal Party of New Brunswick and
Premier Frank McKenna for a decisive victory at the polls on
September 11. The citizens of New Brunswick have reaffirmed
their commitment to the provincial government's vision of job
creation growth.
The former official opposition party, the Confederation of
Regions, is a party that opposes bilingualism both in Canada and in
New Brunswick. It is important to note that it was completely shut
out of the legislative assembly. In my own riding, five core MLAs
were defeated and only one finished second. This sends a message
to the people of New Brunswick that both linguistic communities
are an integral part of our province and our country. I applaud the
citizens of Fredericton and of New Brunswick for asserting their
vision of an equitable and tolerant society.
I once again congratulate the Liberal Party and Mr. McKenna on
their victory.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, students will hold rallies throughout Quebec to protest
against the federal government's cuts to social programs and its
intransigent attitude toward the Quebec National Assembly's
unanimous and legitimate demands.
The budget cuts made by the federal government will have a
disastrous impact on the provinces' tax burden, which the Prime
Minister is loath to admit. His government's cuts to social transfers
have left the provinces and the students with no way out. These cuts
are forcing the provinces to impose an unprecedented hike in
tuition fees, on the one hand, and to increase student indebtedness
to unmanageable levels, on the other hand.
Given all the secretiveness and tricks used to hide the
consequences of his reforms, how can Quebecers trust the Prime
Minister of Canada?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since
1970 in the U.K. 89 per cent of Conservative MPs and about 81 per
14605
cent of Labour MPs have voted at least once against the orders of
the whip. This free voting has resulted in the defeat of some
unpopular government bills but it has never caused the fall of the
government. MPs in the U.K. have gained the courage to stand up
and represent their constituents because the benefits of doing so far
outweigh the disadvantages of punishment by the whip.
On Wednesday the House will debate my motion that asks the
government to hold a binding referendum on capital punishment at
the time of the next election. I will be asking members to make the
motion votable and to subsequently support the motion so that the
people who pay our salaries can have their say on this important
issue.
Let us show our constituents that we are prepared to represent
them and to do so in the interests of real democracy.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture needs to reconsider at least
one decision he and his department have made about the Crow
benefit compensation program.
Farmers on the prairies and particularly in northwest
Saskatchewan who grew forage crops in 1994 in rotation with their
grains have been declared ineligible for compensation on those
land acres seeded for forage. All summer long I received calls and
letters from producers caught in this unfair situation. Most recently
I have been receiving letters from individual rural municipalities
asking that this unfair situation be changed because forage acres
will see the same reduction in land values as cultivated acres.
Prior to the decision being made, the Minister of Agriculture
said he consulted with the Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Municipalities and valued its opinion. I hope he continues to value
its opinion and will now reconsider so that producers who are
managing their lands properly will not be unduly penalized by this
unfortunate and unfair circumstance.
* * *
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Shania Twain, one of many famous musicians from my
riding of Timmins-Chapleau, was enormously successful in last
night's Canadian Country Music Awards. Among other awards,
Shania won female vocalist and album of the year.
Shania worked hard to get where she is today and continues to
work hard. No doubt Shania is the fastest rising country music star.
She thanked her home town of Timmins in one of her many
appearances at the podium to receive awards.
In return, I would like to thank Shania and her family, friends,
teachers and neighbours, who can all take great pride in her
achievement last night. I would also like to congratulate all
nominees in the awards. Showcases of such Canadian talent make
me proud not only to be from Timmins but from Canada.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating Shania and the
other Canadian nominees.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
funeral was held yesterday for a distinguished Newfoundlander
who passed away on Friday. Mr. Walter Albert Tobin, 97 years old,
was the last survivor of the first world war Battle of Beaumont
Hamel.
Mr. Tobin was only 17 years old when he enlisted in the army.
He had no way of knowing then that on July 1, 1916, his Royal
Newfoundland Regiment would be virtually wiped out at
Beaumont Hamel. Over 300 people died or went missing; 386 were
wounded. The next morning only 68 men were able to answer the
roll call. Mr. Tobin was one of them. Although wounded, he
received medical attention and then returned to the battlefield.
(1405 )
I recently spoke with Mr. Tobin at a veterans ceremony in St.
John's and I was indeed honoured to meet a man of such courage
and stature.
There are fewer than 2,300 first world war veterans living today.
As we mourn the passing of Mr. Tobin we would do well to listen
and learn from their experience and their wisdom. We should seize
the opportunity to tell these men and women how grateful we are
and how proud we are of their service to our country.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently
returned from Cambodia and subsequently from the Second World
Parliamentarian Conference in support of the United Nations,
which was held in Gifu, Japan.
I would like to again draw the attention of the Chamber to the
important issue of land mines. Despite real progress in Cambodia
toward political and economic sustainability, the people in the rural
northwest are still subject to the aftermath of the war with the
Khmer Rouge. I saw internally displaced people who cannot go
home because their fields are mined. There is still a steady stream
of men and women and children into the hospitals with seriously
disabling injuries as a result of land mine accidents. We know that
the de-mining activities are going to take generations to complete
because the process is so painstakingly slow.
14606
At Gifu, the world's parliamentarians voted unanimously to
work aggressively toward a ban on the manufacture, deployment
and use of land mines. I would ask the members of the House to
please consider doing the same.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all Canadians, including the residents of my riding, are concerned
about the Quebec referendum. In their view, now is the time for all
Canadians to speak about the advantages of Canada. Now is the
time for calm and competent leadership by all elected people who
care about our country.
Everyone seems to understand that except for the Reform Party. I
am saddened and disappointed with the irresponsible behaviour of
that party. Rather than speaking up for Canada, the Reform Party
appears to be interested in contributing to the success of the
separatists.
Whose side are the Reformers taking? Do they secretly want a
yes vote? If they want a vote for Canada, as all federalists do, I
hope they will show the kind of positive leadership that will help
the people of Quebec choose Canada.
The residents of Brandon-Souris and I are happy to have the
sound and sensible leadership of the Prime Minister to defend the
interests of Canada, not the irresponsible exploitations of the
Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians had yet another opportunity to see how ignorant some
federalists are when they heard the comments made yesterday in
this House by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.
The commercial against drugs made by the Matane local
community service centre and broadcasted by Radio-Canada in
eastern Quebec was withdrawn because it failed to disclose the
name of the advertiser as required by CBC regulations.
After the correction was made, the message went back on the air
and is still being broadcasted. It is obvious that the hon. member
for Brome-Missisquoi is totally misinformed. He would have
been better off not saying anything about a matter he was not
familiar with.
Saying No to drugs is a wise decision, especially at a time when
we are getting ready to say Yes to our future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday the heritage minister gave what he claimed would be a
visionary speech on the future of Canadian culture. To be kind, we
will just say it fell somewhat short of its billing.
The speech was really a little temper tantrum replete with
contradictions and embarrassing pleas for respect from the big bad
Americans. The sub-theme of the speech was: ``It is not our fault;
we are all victims''.
In the face of worldwide competition the Canadian cultural
industry needs to take full advantage of American capital markets.
We need competition. We need international partnerships. We need
new markets. Subsidization and protectionism will only produce
trade wars, feeble and inefficient companies, and the loss of the
choice and value that Canadians deserve.
Yes, change sometimes can be frightening, but the minister
should quit his whining and stand out of the way. Even while he
spoke and with no help from the government, individuals and
private sector Canadian companies were charting new ground in
introducing Canadian culture to the world and the 21st century.
* * *
(1410 )
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
two special constituents, their families, friends, supporters, and
hopefully many in this Chamber will walk the final kilometres of a
courageous journey.
Jesse's journey started on May 20 when John Davidson began
pushing his son Jesse across Ontario to raise awareness and funds
for gene research. Jesse is 15 years old and is confined to a
wheelchair, afflicted with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Together
they have seen the faces, hearts and beauty of our province and its
people. It was a humbling experience for those who have shared
some road time in these past months with John and Jesse.
Medical research has gained from this 3,300-kilometre walk. To
date, funds donated are in excess of $700,000. I believe though that
for John and Jesse the summer of 1995 has been more a testament
to the love and the caring of the Davidson family.
Congratulations. Félicitations et bravo.
14607
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is surprised to see that the
public is questioning the validity of the referendum process.
Essentially, this resistance has to do with the three separatist
leaders deciding not to honour their promise to make the question
clear and simple.
Does the leader of the Bloc Quebecois remember making a
speech on October 19, 1994, in which he said that Quebecers would
be asked a simple question that would go something like this: Do
you want Quebec to become a sovereign country, yes or no?
Instead of fulfilling this promise, the Bloc leader decided to do
precisely what he had condemned by asking a question so subtle
and that it makes no sense and is ridiculous, to use his own words.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that he may or may
not recognize the Quebec referendum depending on its results. If
the No side wins, the answer is clear, but if the Yes side wins, he
would consider holding a federal referendum. This new concept
involving various levels of democracy is shocking and must be
denounced by anyone who believes in democracy.
Mrs. Lysianne Gagnon was quoted in La Presse as saying that
Mr. Parizeau has reason to be proud because he kept his promises;
he had promised to ask a clear question and that is what he did.
It is obvious that the Prime Minister is out of touch with reality
in Quebec. Even Quebec federalists recognize the validity of the
referendum results. But such faulty reasoning is hardly surprising
coming from the very man who masterminded the 1982 show of
force and killed the Meech Lake accord.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are only so many chances for a Liberal backbencher to make a
decision that will affect the direction and tone of the parliamentary
session. They face one of those chances now with the opportunity
to elect leaders to the House of Commons standing committees.
Last year backbenchers followed the dictates of their whip and
handed over the vice-chairmanship of every committee to the Bloc
Quebecois. If they once again reward Bloc members with each and
every vice-chair position, backbenchers will be rewarding people
who are determined to tear the country apart. However, if they
choose instead to allow Her Majesty's only real and national
opposition, the Reform Party, to have a fair share of the committee
work, they can send a message to all citizens that the House is
determined to cultivate leaders from every province and region
who want to participate in building a new and united Canada.
It is up to the backbenchers. Are they going to take orders from
the whip or are they going to do what is right?
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): On September
2, 1994, Quebec's premier wondered out loud about alleged studies
that the previous government would have kept from Quebecers. He
said to the
Journal de Montréal: These studies exist. They were
commissioned by Robert Bourassa. If he does not make them
public by September 12, we will have to draw conclusions about
the honesty of these people.
One year later, after the minister responsible for restructuring
wasted millions of dollars in fancy studies, the pequiste
government too finds itself with studies which it refuses to make
public because they do not serve its separatist propaganda. Will the
pequiste premier finally agree to make public all these studies
which Quebecers paid for with their tax dollars, and will he stop
hiding the truth on the real cost of separation? Separation is a costly
proposition and Quebecers will say no to the waste of public
moneys used for the ego trips of the likes of Lisette, Jacques, Mario
and Lucien.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, in a slight departure from our normal
routine, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery
of the Governor of the Tula region in Russia, Mr. Nikolay
Sevryugin.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
>
14608
14608
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the fog thickened yesterday around the Prime Minister's
real intentions, following statements he made in this House. When
he speaks French, he remains ambiguous about the recognition of a
Yes vote, but when he answers in English, he makes it clear he will
reject a Yes from Quebecers.
Since the very future of Canada and Quebec is at stake, the
public has the right to expect the Prime Minister to be consistent
and to be clear about his position.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he, as the
Reform Party did yesterday, respect Canada's democratic traditions
and recognize a Yes or a No to the Quebec referendum question as
equally valid?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said yesterday in English was translated into
French, as you can see in Hansard. We have a system: if I speak
French, it is translated into English, and if I speak English, it is
translated into French. I said the same thing.
And perhaps I could explain this to the Leader of the Opposition.
I would like to quote to him from a document produced by the
government of Mr. Lévesque, and of course he knows Mr.
Lévesque. In 1977, in a document which appeared under the title:
La consultation populaire au Québec, they said: ``Referendums
would be consultative in nature''. I agree. The document says:
``The first imperative of politics in a democracy is a clear
majority''. I agree. The document goes on to say: ``The
consultative nature of referendums'', they should have said
referenda, in any case, ``means that it would be unnecessary to
include in the legislation special provisions on the majority
required or the minimum participation rate''.
It is a consultative system, as Mr. Lévesque and his government
admitted in 1977. Today, we have a confusing and ambiguous
question, and I am asked whether we would recognize a vote with a
majority of one. As Mr. Johnson put it so well yesterday, we are not
about to separate from Canada on the basis of a judicial recount.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister just quoted Mr. René Lévesque.
However, I am sure he will remember, the day after the 1980
referendum, that Mr. Lévesque accepted the people's decision. He
did not see it as just a consultation, a point of view. He agreed and
bowed to the people's wishes, while the Prime Minister reneged on
commitments he made to get a No from Quebecers in 1980.
Some hon. members: Right on.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: We are all aware the Prime Minister is trying to
treat the current referendum as a mere consultation without
consequence. I would ask him to confirm, and he also hinted at this
yesterday in one of his replies, whether it is true he is preparing to
call a federal referendum to put pressure on the Quebec Yes side?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not even have to consider that, because we will tell
Quebec that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing Quebec's
separation from the rest of Canada. They will vote to stay in
Canada. If the question had been clearer- The leader of the Leader
of the Opposition said this during the election campaign: Do you
want Quebec to become a sovereign country on such and such a
date? He said that would be the question.
However, when the Leader of the Opposition realized he could
not win, he said: We will come up with a winning question. Is that
respect for democracy, coming up with a winning question because
they cannot convince Quebecers to leave Canada?
I have great confidence in the judgment of Quebecers. They will
stay in Canada, and the question asked by the Leader of the
Opposition is doubly hypothetical.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to maintain a state of
confusion and ambiguity. He refuses to tell us outright whether or
not he will feel bound by the results of the referendum. He refuses
to set aside the prospect of a counter-referendum by the federal
government.
I would ask him to raise the veil of secrecy at least partially and
clarify the following: Would he not see as illegitimate any federal
referendum aimed at short-circuiting a democratic decision by the
people of Quebec on their political future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition saying that when
Quebecers voted against the Charlottetown proposal that would
have given Quebecers a distinct society-the Leader of the
Opposition himself voted against it-the referendum was
legitimate because everyone was consulted? Canada's future is not
the business of a single group of citizens. This has an impact on all
Canadians.
I must say I hardly have to consider holding a national
referendum as authorized by Parliament, since Quebecers will
realize that the separatists are trying to hide the truth. The leader of
the Leader
14609
of the Opposition has refused to table documents paid for by
taxpayers because these documents will clearly prove they are
trying to hide the truth from Quebecers, because they know
perfectly well that Quebecers want to stay in Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
appreciate the Prime Minister's efforts to create a diversion in
order to avoid answering the real question that the Leader of the
Opposition has been asking and that all Quebecers have been
asking through us over the past two days. I will try for an answer
once again.
He is becoming the ambiguity champion, shifting subtleties
according to whichever language he is speaking or leaving the
possibility of a second referendum in doubt. His answers are never
clear. I will ask him the question once more. I want to give him an
opportunity to respond clearly.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada not realize that he himself is
confusing the whole question with his ambiguous statements? Does
he not realize that his role as Prime Minister in fact is to act
democratically and responsibly in response to the choice of
Quebecers and to say so clearly and unambiguously?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no.
I would like to thank the hon. member for criticizing me for
being too subtle. This is the first time this has happened to me in
my life, and so I am very happy. For me, my duty is clear. I do not
need any lessons from the hon. member for Roberval on what my
duty is. I understand my duty very well. I was elected to administer
this country, to give Canadians good government, to create jobs
and to make this country even better. To do so, we must ensure that
Canada remains united.
(1425)
This is what I am going to do over the next forty days with Mr.
Johnson in Quebec City, to do my duty as Prime Minister and keep
this country united for the future.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true
that subtlety is a quality, but shifting subtleties according to the
language you are speaking is devious.
Speaking of Daniel Johnson, the chair of the ``No'' committee,
he refused this morning to reiterate before the National Assembly
the commitment he made last week to honour Quebec's yes vote.
Are we to understand that the Prime Minister of Canada has just
called the chair of the ``No'' committee in Quebec to order as he
did last week in the case of his Minister of Labour? Did he use the
same process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Johnson understands the current debate very well. He
has said we are not about to divide a country following a judicial
recount to find out whether there was one more vote or not. It was
in fact Mr. Lévesque himself and his government that clearly
established the rules whereby a majority must be clearly expressed
in such a situation. These are the words of the person the Leader of
the Opposition wants to replace. He admires and reveres him, he is
always saying. I am therefore simply following the democratic
principles established by Mr. Lévesque; and Mr. Johnson has said
so as well: Democracy begins with treating people honestly and
asking them a clear cut question.
I challenge the opposition once more; I defy the Leader of the
Opposition to call Mr. Parizeau. With one day of debate still to go
at the National Assembly, let him replace the question with a clear
one: Do you want to separate from Canada on a given date? They
will have a clear cut answer. Quebecers will say: We are staying in
Canada. That is being clear.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has rightly accused the separatists of
softening and confusing the referendum question in a vain attempt
to guarantee a yes vote. This is obviously the separatist strategy
and we denounce and deplore it. However, the Prime Minister is
also sending out contradictory signals on the meaning of a yes vote
that is hurting the federalist cause.
Last week the Prime Minister said that a yes vote would be a one
way ticket to separation, but yesterday in question period the Prime
Minister implied that the one way ticket might include the return
fare.
Will the Prime Minister now make it perfectly clear to
Quebecers that a yes vote means separation and not just a new
round of bargaining with the federal government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I always said that the goal of the Parti Quebecois and the
Bloc Quebecois is to separate from Canada. It is clear to me.
I am very disappointed that the leader of the Reform Party is
trying to position himself in a situation like this. I would like to tell
him that as Canadians we have to be united to make sure that
Quebec remains in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for 25 years I have worked in the political wilderness of
western Canada, working to build a better-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1430 )
Mr. Manning: If the Prime Minister wants to make comments
about the loyalty of members to Canada let him direct them to the
Leader of the Opposition, not the leader of the Reform Party. The
difference is I am committed to federalism with my head as well as
my heart. My head tells me-
14610
The Speaker: I am having a little difficulty hearing.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I am committed to federalism with
my head as well as my heart. My head tells me the only way
Canada can lose this referendum is for some Quebecers to think
they can vote yes for separation and avoid the consequences of that
vote. They think they can vote for separation and still enjoy the
benefits of federalism. That is why we asked the Prime Minister to
make clear that yes means separation and only no means
federalism.
I will again ask the Prime Minister sincerely, as we are not
playing games here, why he is so reluctant to make that distinction
crystal clear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for 32 years I have travelled to every part of Canada and
have made the same speech about this great country. I have
travelled to Quebec and to the west, Alberta and B.C. It is my duty
to say what I said. They want to create separation but they do not
have the intellectual honesty to ask a clear question. This is what I
have to tell them.
In a country like ours to recognize that at one time a rule of
majority plus one could break up the country would be
irresponsible on my part. Even in the Reform Party, as a journalist
wrote this morning, in order to change its constitution one has to
ask for two-thirds of its membership.
Therefore I will not break up the country with one vote. It is not
real democracy. Real democracy is to convince the people they can
express themselves clearly, which is what we are doing.
This is why we are telling Quebecers these people want to
separate but they will not succeed because it is our collective duty
to tell all Quebecers the scheme they have, the virage, the mirage
and so on will not work. They will not succeed in fooling the
people of Quebec because the people of Quebec will know when
they vote 39 days from now that they will not separate. They will
stay in Canada because it is their destiny, their future and their
desire.
(1435 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are asking for volume and cheering and we are still not
there.
On September 12 the federal Unity Minister said: ``Quebecers
have the right to express themselves about the future of Quebec in
Canada. We are a democratic country, so we will respect the vote''.
On the same day Daniel Johnson, the leader of the no forces in
Quebec, when asked if he would accept a 50 plus 1 yes vote, said:
``Yes, everyone will have to live with the result''.
The federal unity minister and the leader of the no forces in
Quebec have endeavoured to be clearer on the meaning of yes than
the Prime Minister.
For the sake of national unity, we are not disagreeing about the
goals, for the sake of making the issue crystal clear, will the Prime
Minister get on side with the unity minister and with the leader of
the no forces in Quebec by saying he agrees with them on the
meaning of a yes vote?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very sad to see the leader of the Reform Party asking
exactly the same questions as the Bloc Quebecois.
I have said all along the minister replied very clearly yesterday
that we want a clear question on separation. This is not a clear
question on separation. It is a confusing question which we are
denouncing. When I hear that confusing question from the leader of
the Reform Party, saying that with one vote he will let Canada go, it
is a very sad day for the people of western Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour,
responsible for the No side.
Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Labour tried to justify
her about-face with respect to the referendum results by claiming
that the question was ambiguous.
On September 12, when she said she would respect the decision
of Quebecers in the referendum, would the Minister of Labour
agree that at the time she already knew what the referendum
question was and had known for several days?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata certainly
did not pay attention to the statements I made in my own riding. I
was in the Lower St. Lawrence the day after the question was
tabled in the Quebec National Assembly, and I said then that we
were dealing with a question that was ambiguous, and I still say so
today. And that is why the ``No'' coalition will work very hard
during this referendum campaign to make the stakes clear to
Quebecers, and the stakes are the separation of Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Labour agree that it was intellectual
dishonesty on her part to refuse to admit that a reprimand from the
Prime Minister caused her to change her position on the results of
the referendum?
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, today we have used the
words ``intellectual honesty''.
Mr. Bouchard: The very words of the Prime Minister.
The Speaker: Order, please. Now we are saying ``intellectual
dishonesty''. I would ask hon. members to be very careful in their
choice of words. These are very important matters, and I realize
14611
that, but I would ask all members to please be very judicious about
the kind of language they use.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder who is obsessed with hiding the facts. They want
to hide what is basically at stake in this referendum, the separation
of Quebec. They want to hide the consequences of this referendum,
should the outcome be Yes, the economic consequences first of all,
and the political and legal consequences.
(1440)
As well, they are trying to hide studies that would be
unfavourable to the option of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc
Quebecois. Who is acting democratically in this country?
* * *
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government claims to be champing at the bit to deal with other
issues in Parliament and Canadian taxpayers from coast to coast are
concerned about their economic security regardless of the outcome
of the Quebec referendum.
Can the Minister of Finance give us a precise date for his fall
financial statement and will that statement include a target date for
elimination of the federal deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, taking the questions
in the reverse order, we will proceed as we have stated to operate on
the basis of rolling two year targets so that in the course of the next
budget we will obviously be setting a target for the year after
1996-97.
It will be a pleasure at that time to be establishing that target
since it will be the fourth year in a row the government will have hit
its deficit target.
We intend to proceed in terms of the fall update exactly as we did
last year. At a certain point following the beginning of the
consultation process when it is important to make that appearance
after there has been enough consultation so that the government
reacts I would be delighted to appear.
There is one major distinction between this year and last. It was
very important last year to very clearly establish the direction the
government was taking. That direction has now turned out to be
very successful. What I will be doing this year is confirming that
direction.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
had all summer to deal with this issue and I am surprised we are
back here without a set date for an economic and financial
statement.
[Translation]
My supplementary is for the same minister. Among the eleven
governments in Canada, the PQ government and the federal
government are the only ones without a commitment to deliver a
balanced budget. Why has the Minister of Finance pursued the
fiscal policy of the separatist government by avoiding a
commitment to a deadline for a balanced budget?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has no
shame. His allies are laughing.
We have made it very clear that the way the previous
government operated, the government for which the hon. member
once worked, which never once met its deficit targets-that is to
say to simply set five year targets, long term targets out of the way
after an election was held and never meet them-was not the way
to go.
As far as we are concerned what this country wants is credibility
in government. We have provided it by establishing clear targets
and hitting them and we will continue to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, whereas the official opposition has done nothing else for
the past two years, the Prime Minister only yesterday discovered a
sudden desire to address real problems: job creation, economic
growth, public finances. His finance minister does not share that
interest, however, since he will not be taking part in the work of the
finance committee leading up to the pre-budget consultation before
the Quebec referendum is held.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How does the
Minister of Finance explain his decision not to personally initiate
the pre-budget consultations starting up today, but to wait until
November to appear before the finance committee?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is nothing but a
coincidence that the Reform Party and the Leader of the Opposition
asked exactly the same questions on national unity, but now that
they ask the same questions on the finances of the country I wonder
why we need the two parties. Perhaps one would do or maybe one
research branch between the two would do.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
14612
(1445)
[Translation]
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I will give you the answer. It is our
intention to follow exactly the same timetable as last year. In other
words, I went before the Finance Committee around October 17, or
after the financial statements had been tabled. They are not yet
ready for last year. Presentations were made to the Finance
Committee by four or five other groups. I certainly intend to go
before the Committee, once I am able to make worthwhile interest
and growth rate projections. I want the submission by the Minister
of Finance to be worthwhile for the members. And I shall make it
when the time is right.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if a prebudget consultation process is initiated, the
minister should be present to provide guidance. Last year, he gave
direction to prebudget consultations. So, why is his office now
telling us that he will be available from November 1 to 4 only? Is it
because he has things to hide from the people of Quebec, who are
about to make a decision regarding their future? Is he trying to hide
his incompetence, seeing that there has been no net job creation
since November 1994 and that economic growth is stalled?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason why I
testified slightly ahead of schedule last year, on October 17, was to
clearly set out the government's economic policy. This year, as I
said, we intend to confirm this.
Now, I must say that I am quite pleased to see that the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe is looking to me for guidance. I was
under the impression that he always took his orders from-
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, October 15 is the
deadline this government has given to the provinces on the issue of
semiprivate medical clinics. Does the Prime Minister know this
edict will affect not only Alberta but high quality health care and
choice in Ontario as well as Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of
Health as we speak is meeting to follow up on the suggestion of all
provinces, with the exception of Alberta, who agreed at a
September 1994 meeting ``to take whatever steps are required to
regulate the development of private clinics in Canada''.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, some examples
of those clinics, Médiclub in Montreal and IVF Canada in Toronto,
would be gone as we know them. Does the Prime Minister feel so
passionate about outdated legislation that he is willing to withdraw
funds and decrease choice to Canadians coast to coast on quality
health care?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is the Canadian one
tier health care system costs 25 per cent less than the American
system. It has full coverage whereas in the United States, the king
of private clinics, they pay 25 per cent more and they leave 30
million Americans without a penny of coverage.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated in this House that his only
priority was to deal with the real problems. How does the Prime
Minister explain then the fact that his government has postponed
until after the referendum every major reform affecting ordinary
people, seniors, families, the unemployed and the poor? Is this
what dealing with the real problems means?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contrary is quite the case.
(1450 )
If the hon. member had been more actively looking at the
initiatives being taken over the past several months, she would
know that we have been able to very successfully introduce a new
program to aid students. Under this initiative 300,000 students will
now have a new program of loans and grants for the first time,
including new grants for those in the province of Quebec.
We have a new program where close to 25,000 young people will
now be enrolled through various private sector initiatives in a
series of apprenticeship programs. This will give them a real
chance to move from school to work.
We have introduced a brand new system of delivery across the
country. We will now be able to tell senior citizens that their
applications for pensions can be processed in half a day rather than
eight days and that they can get coverage in close to 700 centres.
If the hon. member had been more active in looking at the real
things going on in the country rather than campaigning for
separatism, she would have seen that we are in fact improving the
lot of Canadians.
14613
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we did
look carefully. We saw that Quebec is number one in the poverty
sector and that nothing serious was done about that.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he decided to postpone the
announced reforms because he wants to save the bad news for
Quebecers until after the referendum?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member shows
that rather than looking carefully at the important initiatives being
taken this summer, she was off on her political campaigns.
If she had been more aware, she would recognize that we have an
agreement with the Government of Quebec for about $80 million to
support the APPORT program. It directly provides assistance to
poor single mothers to help them go back to school and to get
income supplement to help their children. That is how we are
dealing with poverty in the province of Quebec.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking
about hiding the truth, the Quebec minister responsible for
restructuring claims that the methodology used for the study
prepared by Georges Mathews of the Institut national de recherche
scientifique was flawed in many ways, which is why it has not yet
been made public. As for the author, he claims to have been
censored.
Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us in what
way this study done by Mr. Mathews is so embarrassing to the
Quebec government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first reason why the Mathews study, which was kept
secret by the Quebec government, is so embarrassing to the Parti
Quebecois is that it shows that, in recent years, Quebecers provided
21 per cent of federal revenues, while accounting for 24 per cent of
total federal expenditures. This clearly contradicts the claims made
by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois.
Second, the study shows that the deficit resulting from the
transition would be much higher than indicated in previous studies.
The PQ government has always tried to hide the transition costs
and that study shows what these costs would be.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the residents of the town of Bosanquet at Ipperwash are
the victims of an illegal occupation. The town feels betrayed by the
federal government and wants the laws of Canada enforced. The
town issued a press release yesterday directed to the federal
government and is considering legal options.
Why do federal ministers continue to refuse to meet with the
town?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back. I did not
expect to be congratulated by the Reform Party but I think in the
last three weeks even Reform could admit that we can deal face to
face with aboriginal people.
(1455 )
Quite frankly I went into Ipperwash when everybody said don't
go, that it was dangerous. I found spiritual leaders and I found
people who wanted the Liberal Party there, who wanted some
leadership there. I am sorry that the Reform could not come.
What has happened in Ipperwash is that we have an outstanding
agreement from 1942. It is about time that we implemented the
agreement. They have been waiting. We have agreed to do it. We
will have a credible negotiator there. He will meet with the First
Nations and presumably he will meet with the townspeople.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone agrees that Camp Ipperwash is going to be
turned over in an orderly fashion. That is not the question.
The minister of Indian affairs stated that he would not involve
himself in situations where there were illegal activities. The people
who have not been involved at all in any of this are the residents of
the town who have to live with the consequences.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence stated that
negotiation is better than enforcement of the law. Why is the
government so obviously refusing to enforce the laws of Canada?
Why this double standard?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even the hon. member realizes
that we are dealing with human emotions and grievances go very
deep. At the Ipperwash camp I thought it was better that the First
Nations be out there policing and they are the peacekeepers there.
We practise the policy of hope. We are not always going to be
successful because we never accomplish everything we want to
14614
accomplish. Reformers practise the policy of despair and they
prove every day that they have reached their goals.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
Recently, representatives of various student associations wrote
the Prime Minister to express their concerns regarding the impact
of the Axworthy reform on the rise in tuition fees and on student
indebtedness.
How does the Prime Minister justify his refusal to reconsider the
decision to drastically reduce the federal government's transfer
payments, as the students were asking him to do?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon.
member has his arithmetic a little bit mixed up. In fact, this year
the federal government will be increasing its transfer for education
to the province of Quebec by $20 million. In the meantime, the
government of Quebec cut the budget for education by $200
million.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would simply
point out to the Minister of Human Resources Development that I
did not mention any figures.
My other question is also for the Prime Minister. Since the Prime
Minister said yesterday that he wanted to talk about the real
problems, is he aware today that by ignoring the students and
standing by his decision to cut tuition fees, he is creating a major
problem for students?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Prime Minister, I am quite satisfied with the answer
given by the minister responsible.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Canada pension plan is a fiscal mess. On February 2 of this
year the HRDC policy director sent a memo to the chief actuary of
Canada and said that the Canada pension plan disability benefits
program is financial healthy. However, an internal HRD briefing
note dated February 23 indicates that a senior policy analyst
directly contradicts this assessment.
How can the minister explain this contradiction?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by welcoming
back the hon. member for Calgary Southeast who has the very
important responsibility of being a commentator on matters
dealing with the social programs of this country. I am sure she will
be offering constructive suggestions along the way which will be a
refreshing change from what we have heard so far from members
of her party.
(1500 )
First, if I could provide the hon. member with a word of
comment or advice. It is unfortunate the hon. member is using
language such as ``the Canada pension plan is in crisis or in
collapse'', which I saw her being quoted as saying a few weeks
back.
The Canada pension plan is not in a state of collapse. In fact it is
providing very secure pensions for all Canadians. We will be
changing the Canada pension plan as we are required to do every
five years. The Minister of Finance will be meeting with his
counterparts to discuss those matters because it is based on a pay as
you go system.
We will have to look at funding the program to make sure it is
sustainable for generations in the future. That is the position of the
government: we want to maintain a sustainable Canada pension
plan and we intend to do that.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the hon. minister but I would very
much like him to address his answer to me with respect to the
question I asked regarding the contradiction in those two
documents I mentioned in my first question.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get
used to the fact that all kinds of strange and weird documents will
be circulated in this field. I would ask her to check with me to make
sure of their authenticity or their reliability.
If those do not interest her, she might check with a document
produced by her own party which talks about privatizing the
Canada pension plan. This would mean a reduction of benefits for
1.6 million senior citizens.
We would like to check on that before she issues such a
document.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The effects of street prostitution are devastating to street
involved youth and to those who live in the affected communities.
At our street prostitution forum in Edmonton East there was an
overwhelming consensus that stronger penalties must be imposed
14615
against pimps and johns who exploit our children and our young
people.
What measures will the minister take to protect the victims of
prostitution and by when?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the things I did during the
summer was to visit and travel with police officers in seven
Canadian cities, spending evenings with the police, learning
something about the criminal justice system from their perspective.
Among other things, I saw for myself the nuisance of street
prostitution and the tragedy of juvenile prostitution for the children
who are exploited. It served only to deepen the commitment I have
to doing something about juvenile prostitution.
I can tell the hon. member that Edmonton was one of the cities I
visited. The Edmonton police was one of the forces that was kind
enough to take me with them in their work.
I want to tell the hon. member the government is now preparing
legislation. We expect to introduce proposals later this year to
amend the Criminal Code to deal particularly with juvenile
prostitution.
The hon. member should also know we have distributed an
options paper to the provinces with respect to other measures and
we are awaiting the completion by at least three of those provinces
of their own internal consultations before taking further steps.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. There are many things
today that are not unifying Canada but one thing that does unify
Canadians is our belief in a national health care system.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that the
ministers of health are meeting, as Minister of Finance what
message did he give to the Minister of Health to take to this
meeting about the federal government's commitment to stable
funding by the federal government for our health care?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the budget
produced last February we stated unequivocally that the principles
of the Canada Health Act were there to stay. They were conceived
by a Liberal government, they are part of this country's greatest
heritage and we will defend them to the hilt.
Subsequently the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and
myself all stated that as part of the negotiations of the CHST we are
going to ultimately stabilize cash at a level that will enable us to
protect the health care system for as long as Canada is here.
* * *
(1505 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, today we have some rather special
guests with us. In keeping with an initiative that I started in the last
session, on your behalf I am inviting distinguished citizens of our
nation to be with us. Today we have with us five members who
were chosen by our national magazine
Maclean's to be part of its
honour roll.
If you would, I would like you to hold your applause. I am going
to introduce the five recipients. We can all be justly proud of them
and for what they were noted. At the end, if you would join me in
saluting them on behalf of our Canadian citizens, I would
appreciate it.
I would like you to recognize in the gallery Dr. Adolfo de Bold,
whose medical research led to the discovery of a substance linked
to the control of high blood pressure; the Right Hon. Brian
Dickson, whom many of us have known for many years as Chief
Justice of Canada from 1984-1990; Colonel Don Ethell, Canada's
most decorated peacekeeper; Mr. Bill Kelly, one of our outstanding
labour negotiators; and Mr. Arnold MacAuley, a search and rescue
specialist. These are our distinguished Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, our
Standing Orders provide that matters raised during question period
must have to do with, and this is clearly spelled out, government or
ministerial responsibilities.
Here is my question: How can the Liberal member for Vaudreuil
be allowed to question the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
Canada about something that is not within his jurisdiction or that of
the government, about a document tabled by another government?
How can the minister be allowed to be asked a question, and then
proceed to give an answer for over two minutes, when the matter
falls outside his purview?
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, as you know, our colleagues are
entitled to ask questions and that is what one of them did. I will
14616
review today's Hansard. The hon. member is right in saying that
questions put to government members must be related to their
administrative responsibilities. I will look into this matter and
return with an answer shortly.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if you
were to ask, you would certainly find unanimous consent to
withdraw Motion M-208 standing in my name from the order of
precedence of Private Members' Business.
(1510)
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
were you to seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent that
private members' hour this evening be cancelled but that all items
on the order of precedence retain their position on the order of
precedence so that we can proceed with item number one
tomorrow.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: This concludes question period.
_____________________________________________
14616
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-94,
an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Athabasca has approximately eight minutes remaining in his
intervention.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before I
was interrupted by question period I attempted to raise substantive
questions concerning the position taken by the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers' Association as voiced through the Minister of the
Environment.
In continuing my presentation, I would like to talk about some of
the difficulties that will be imposed on Canadians if this bill is to
proceed and become law.
On April 25, the Minister of Industry stated that it was crucial to
have uniformity of standards in gasoline formulation in the North
American market because we exist in one North American market.
I hope that the minister still agrees with that statement and still
agrees that it is crucial to have uniformity of standards, particularly
since the U.S. court of appeals has now ordered that the U.S. EPA
grant Ethyl Corporation's application for waiver, paving the way
for the use of MMT in unleaded gasolines in the United States. In
fact, several refiners in the U.S. have provided written notice of
their intention to use MMT in gasoline formulation.
Uniformity of gasoline additives within North America would
now require that Canada maintain rather than restrict MMT.
Certainly it should not mean that it is no longer crucial to maintain
that uniformity of standards.
Also the refining industry has raised a number of objections to
the initiative, basically that it would increase the cost to refiners
and it will increase refinery emissions. A 1995 study by T.J.
McCann and Associates Limited of Calgary concluded that
removing MMT from Canadian gasolines would add significantly
to the refinery cost for formulating gasoline and increase the
severity of the refining process required to achieve cleaner burning
fuels, leading to increased refinery emissions and higher oil
consumption.
The Minister of the Environment made much of need to control
pollution in this country. The study by Calgary based T.J. McCann
and Associates and Environ International Limited of California
showed the likely range of increase in nitrous oxide emissions if
MMT were banned. The testing utilized Environment Canada's
own criteria, Mobile 5-C data and Ethyl fleet test data. The study
concluded that the banning of MMT would increase Canadian
nitrous oxide emissions from its vehicle fleet by 32,000 to 50,000
tonnes by the year 2000, an equivalent of adding over one million
automobiles to Canadian roads.
(1515 )
Last May, Environ California concluded that Environment
Canada and the McCann study underestimated the annual increases
in tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions that would result from the
removal of MMT. Environ examined the inappropriate use and
application of the Mobile 5C emission factor by Environment
Canada and concluded that Canadian nitrous oxide emissions
increases resulting from the removal of MMT would range
between 49,000 and 62,000 tonnes.
Putting these studies in a non-technical format, removing MMT
would increase nitrous oxide levels from automobiles by up to 20
per cent. I cannot believe the Canadian Minister of the
Environment is pushing legislation that would increase pollution in
Canada.
14617
Almost all provinces in Canada oppose this initiative by the
environment minister. In the interest of time I will quote Alberta's
position. Ty Lund, Alberta's minister for environmental
protection, said:
It is unclear that the removal of MMT from gasoline has net environmental
benefits.
Alberta favours the design of a suitable, binding process to resolve the
dispute in a fair and timely fashion. An open, multi-stakeholder review of the
environmental and economic merits of MMT should be key to this dispute
resolution mechanism to credibly solve the vehicle-fuel compatibility issue.
Further, Alberta is concerned that the actions of the federal government to
affect the interprovincial trade of MMT appear to contradict the provision
found in the energy chapter of the draft agreement on international trade.
Article 1209, section 1 of the draft agreement currently states: ``No party shall
prohibit or hinder access to its petroleum markets or its petroleum products
markets''. It is our understanding that the intent of the federal-provincial
agreement was to remove interprovincial barriers to trade in petroleum
products.
I also have similar objections from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick.
When we examine all the evidence before us and if we examine
the evidence impartially we cannot help but to at least conclude
there is some doubt to the argument and position put forward by the
Canadian Automobile Manufacturers Association.
Based on that information it is only reasonable that instead of
passing this bill the government should ask-in my mind there is
no doubt-if there still remains a doubt and ask for an independent
study to determine what the affect of MMT in gasoline is required
in Canada.
The minister says she has seen numerous studies on the issue in
Canada but those studies come from only from the automobile
manufacturers association which has refused to release those
studies or the minister has refused to table those studies in the
House so that we might all have a look at them in order to decide
whether they are legitimate studies containing legitimate evidence.
I challenge not only the Minister of Industry to reject this bill
and vote against it, but I challenge Alberta's only representative in
cabinet, the Minister of Natural Resources, who professes to
support the industry and Alberta's position, to vote against the bill
on that basis.
I am disappointed that Canada's environment minister has been
unwilling to listen to both sides in this argument and judge the
evidence from both sides. She chose instead to simply voice, as a
political puppet, the concerns of the motor vehicle manufacturers
association and carry it forward on its behalf instead of taking the
interest of all Canadians into consideration on this issue.
(1520 )
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talked about the minister being a
political puppet of the auto manufacturers association, which is a
very serious accusation. Contrary to what he stated in his speech, is
he aware the minister met with the Canadian Petroleum Producers
Association directly as representatives of the Ethyl Corporation on
this very issue twice and that they twice flew in in the corporate jet
to meet with the minister?
Is he also aware the minister has met with the CPPI on at least
four or five occasions? I do not think the hon. member is fair when
he says the minister never gave the Ethyl Corporation or its
representatives any hearing. That is completely false.
If this is your information, I suggest you correct it. I do not think
the minister is the type to be a political puppet of anyone I know.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I grant the floor to
the hon. member to reply, I simply caution both sides of the House
and all members to please make all interventions through the Chair
and not directly across the floor to one another.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by Ethyl
Corporation, one of the stakeholders in this issue, the other being
the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers Association, that the
Minister of the Environment refused to meet with it. That is the
information I have to go with.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, maybe the member should, because
he seems to have very close relations with the Ethyl Corporation,
ask it to correct this misstatement. The minister has assured me
personally that she met twice with the CPPI on behalf of the Ethyl
Corporation to discuss this very subject.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is not who has
met whom and on whose behalf but whether both sides in this issue
have had a chance to argue directly with the minister the question at
hand and whether both sides have had an equal chance to produce
unbiased independent studies on the issue, which has not been the
case in Canada.
This issue has been studied to death in the United States. The
conclusion by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been
that MMT has no detrimental effect on the environment, on health,
on the onboard computer equipment in cars. That should indicate at
least some doubt in the minds of the Minister of the Environment
and the parliamentary secretary to the validity of the automobile
manufacturers association's evidence, which it have refused to
provide to the public.
The very lease we should do is provide an opportunity in Canada
for independent study, independent of both stakeholders in this
issue. We should then make a decision based on that impartial,
independent evidence. I do not think that is an unreasonable
request.
14618
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend from Athabasca initially made what one would consider a
rather unwise accusation in his speech. He suggested the
government was succumbing to big powers or big business or the
shakers and movers in the country and so on.
I listened intently when he talked about the wisdom of
continuing to use this American produced product and I wondered
where he was getting his information and the kind of thing he was
reading into the record.
(1525)
The first of three questions is who is turning his crank? Who is
cheering him on to stand up and deliver his own set of figures
especially when a perfectly valid Canadian produced substitute is
available?
No oil refiner would feel threatened in any way to be substituting
an oxygenate like ETBE or ethanol or whatever for MMT. Some
refineries are in the forefront of that change right now. He
suggested refineries have been reporting they would have increased
emissions. Did all refineries say that? Some refineries are a way
out in front.
He referred to the pollutant nitrous oxide. NOx is the one
pollutant whose quantity increases without the use of MMT or with
the inclusion of an oxygenate, but it increases from what? What is
the base line of the pollutant?
If the pollutant increase were 150 per cent it would still be
incredibly small. How does that tiny increase in nitrous oxide
emission compare with the decreases in all of the other emissions
when one takes MMT out?
Maybe it is not fair to ask the hon. member to deliver statistics
but I want to get on the record the fact that NOx, while it is an
admitted pollutant, is not the big ticket item here. There are other
things.
In terms of the minister's supporting the industry she has
supported the petroleum industry very well and has been written
up. Her support has been publicized.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite perhaps sheds
some light on the mysterious position of the minister and the
government on this issue.
I was under the impression the issue here was one of a problem
with onboard diagnostic equipment and environmental protection.
He raises the issue of perhaps finding a way to force the refining
industry to use a Canadian product rather than an imported
American product. Perhaps that has something to do with the
position the government has taken on this issue. Others would find
interesting under the free trade agreement with the United States
that it would choose to do that. That was not my understanding as
part of this issue.
Certainly the people who turn my crank on this issue are my
constituents and the Canadian people who are being sold a con job,
a fraud job on this whole issue because the environment minister
and the government refuse to do independent studies on the issue
and to gather independent unbiased information. They choose
rather to accept solely without question all the evidence presented
by the one stakeholder in the issue.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a couple
of hours ago the Minister of the Environment indicated in the
House her meetings with industry and the offers she made to
industry in the period preceding the introduction of this bill. Was
the member in the House when the minister spoke a couple of hours
ago?
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I certainly was in the House. I called
into question her sincerity in offering to meet with all the parties
involved in this issue. That is not my understanding of what has
happened. I raised what I think is a valid question. According to my
information, she consistently refused to meet with-
(1530)
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chatters: I heard her and I questioned the validity of that
remark. I think it is a legitimate question and I will continue to
raise it.
She also raised a lot of other issues. I might point to the one
concerning sparkplug failure. In a very emotional manner she
raised the issue of Canadians having to change their sparkplugs 17
times more frequently than Americans. However in an
independent, valid and verifiable study it was concluded that was
an absolute fraud. One particular sparkplug failed 17 times more
often than others simply because of a flaw in the manufacture of
that sparkplug. It did the same with MMT or without MMT. It had
no significance.
If I am not allowed to raise questions concerning the validity of
the comments made by the minister, then what am I doing here? I
believe my question was valid and reasonable and I will continue to
raise it.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my support of Bill C-94 on the abolition of MMT in the
gasoline we Canadians use every day comes out of a strong
conviction.
For me it is not a question of backing this or that kind of
production, this or that manufacturer.
[English]
I have no brief for the automobile industry nor have I a brief for
Ethyl Corporation. That is not my business. I believe very deeply in
the environment. I have always done so. I am convinced that the
bill will go a long way to solving a very significant environmental
problem relating to gasoline in our cars.
14619
For me it is a question of pollution prevention. I have satisfied
myself, not because I believe in Toyota, General Motors or any
other company. Frankly I do not care.
Unfortunately there are more and more cars on the road. I wish
we had cars that used ethanol, electricity and hydrogen rather than
gasoline, but that is a fact of life. As long as there are cars the only
way to ensure that they perform with the least damage to the
environment is to ensure, first, that they are equipped with the
latest technology and that they are inspected and maintained
properly.
That is why all provinces across Canada have an inspection and
maintenance service which ensures that the drivers of cars,
especially older cars, go to inspection stations in order to verify
that their cars are safe and sound for the environment. The idea of
putting new technology on board the cars is to prevent damage
before it occurs, to ensure that we have less need for inspection and
maintenance stations and the cars will tell the drivers when the
systems have failed.
I have satisfied myself that MMT does not help the systems. The
fact is that the manufacturers in Canada have said that if we
continue with MMT they cannot and they will not install the latest
diagnostic systems in these cars. That is not hypothetical, it is a
fact.
If we are conscious of the environment, and if we use a
precautionary system, we have to make decisions in favour of what
is the most environmentally and technologically sound decision.
(1535 )
Acting to ban MMT makes us uniform with the United States,
paradoxically. The speaker before me was pretending that we
should do exactly the reverse. He was quoting the Ethyl
Corporation's many appeals to the United States' courts-which it
eventually won-to force the EPA to permit MMT to be added
again to gasoline.
I will correct the member because the EPA has still not agreed.
Contrary to what the member stated, in August 1994 Mrs. Carol
Browner, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, indicated the EPA had concerns about the potential effects
of manganese emissions on public health, especially in light of the
broad exposure of Americans to car emissions.
A risk assessment on manganese emissions conducted by the
EPA determined there were important unanswered questions about
potential public health risks and that studies on health effects and
exposures are needed.
The EPA has said: ``Despite the appeals of Ethyl Corporation we
want a risk and health assessment to be completed before we will
okay MMT''.
[Translation]
Some time ago, our standing committee on the environment and
sustainable development held environmental hearings where
Ralph Ferguson, a former MP and colleague, gave testimony on the
MMT issue. He raised a number of points relating to health. I know
that they will tell us that Health Canada has found that MMT
presents no significant problem for health. This is their decision.
Still, according to many experts we ought to be very careful. I
would like to quote from this hearing we had on the environment,
where Mr. Ferguson spoke of a hearing that the American EPA had
held on June 22, 1990. Helen Silbergeld of the University of
Maryland and the Environmental Defence Fund gave the following
testimony:
[English]
``Manganese, like lead, is a cumulative toxin in that both its
absorption and retention as well as its toxicity increase with time''.
[Translation]
She also cited well-known Canadian scientists specializing in
neurotoxicity, Dr. John Donaldson and Dr. Frank Labella and
others who have carried out experiments at the University of
Manitoba on the manganese question. Dr. Donaldson also stated
the following at that same EPA hearing in Washington:
[English]
``I believe that manganese is such an age-accelerating toxin and I
believe it is the answer to manganese's ability to produce
biochemically, pathologically and clinically the picture that is very
similar but not identical to Parkinson's disease''.
[Translation]
Later on, the health and environment committee of the United
States House of Representatives also appeared before the EPA. Its
representative said:
[English]
``Like lead, manganese is not only neurotoxic, it is an element
and thus does not degrade or lose its potency with the passage of
time. As a result the manganese released into the environment
through the use of MMT in a given year accumulates over time
with all the MMT released in the next year and all subsequent
years''.
[Translation]
The University of Pittsburg, the Western Psychiatric Institute
and Clinic, said the following in a report to the EPA:
(1540)
[English]
The 15-page appendix to their waiver application, parlant de la
corporation Ethyl, that deals with health, nowhere mentions the
newer toxic properties of manganese, nor does it attend to the
14620
extraordinary risks to the brain of alkali manganese compounds.
This document cannot be taken as a credible submission in support
of this application. It is incomplete, biased and tendentious.
[Translation]
That is why Ms. Carol Browner, the administrator of the EPA,
said as recently as June 1994 that many health questions remained
unanswered and that additional assessments were needed before
MMT could be approved.
So there are potential problems. I am not saying that it has been
proven 100 per cent or 50 per cent safe, but if we feel that caution
must be a guiding principle in health and environmental matters,
we must be very careful indeed. If we really believe in climatic
changes and are convinced that cars are the main source of air
pollution in Canada, it is because it is a fact.
According to a recent study by all deputy ministers of the
environment in Canada, cars are the main source of harmful
atmospheric emissions. These figures are quite striking.
Gasoline-and diesel-powered motor vehicles account for 60 per
cent of carbon monoxide emissions; 35 per cent of nitrous oxide
emissions, which cause smog; and 25 per cent of hydrocarbon
emissions. I know we will be told that MMT reduces nitrous oxide
emissions.
[English]
As stated by my colleague very recently in a question to the
Reform Party, what is the basis of that? In fact our studies show in
the Ministry of the Environment that the way this figure is
contrived, used in test cars of Ethyl Corporation, in fact results in a
completely insignificant factor when explained in actual ratio
relating to all cars in Canada.
The gains produced by the use of onboard diagnostic systems in
new cars are so much greater in proportion that the environmental
advantages far outweigh any disadvantages by the removal of
MMT.
We have been debating this issue for 10 years, since 1986.
Contrary to what the member from the Reform Party said a few
minutes ago, the minister sat not only with both sides, but talked to
the Ethyl Corporation directly twice on this issue, and as she stated
very recently in the House, offered Ethyl Corporation this
compromise: ``I won't put legislation through if you will agree
with me to produce one type of gasoline blend without MMT to let
the consumers make their own choice''. Ethyl refused this very fair
and open compromise because it did not want to let the consumers
judge.
I ask the members here who believe that Bill C-94 is not needed,
how is it that environmentally sound countries, leaders in the field,
the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany
and Japan do not use MMT. How come it is only in Canada of all
the countries in the world that is using MMT? Are we supposed to
be the smart ones? The irony is that we do not even produce it
ourselves. The Americans produce it but do not use it. Then we
take the American product and use it on our own soil regardless of
the fact that the rest of the world does not want any of it.
(1545)
The Reform Party will suggest that we be uniform with the
United States, co-ordinate so that MMT is used both in Canada and
the United States when the EPA has been fighting tooth and nail for
18 years to ban MMT. The only reason they are now faced with the
possibility of MMT being reintroduced is court case after court
case after court case by Ethyl Corporation.
Does Ethyl Corporation care about the environment? No it does
not care about the environment. It cares about its profits, about its
existence. It cares about the Canadian market because it is the only
market it has for selling MMT. If it was such a good product the
Dutch, the French, the Germans, the Finnish and the Japanese
would buy it to put in their cars but they do not want any of it. Why
should we be the suckers?
Instead of defending Ethyl Corporation and MMT it is time that
we started to think, as my colleague from London stated so clearly,
about using our talents, our brains, our tremendous resources to use
environmentally sound products. There are additives which are
beckoning us. We could use ethanol in gasoline tomorrow morning
and it would perform even better than MMT and is completely
environmentally sound. It is time we started to use ethanol fueled
cars, electrically driven cars, hydrogen fueled cars. I do not have
any grief for the Ethyl Corporation which fights for MMT and goes
back like the dinosaurs into the past. I want to see the future.
Bill C-94 points to a change of habit. It forces all Canadians to
look at a different way of doing things and not to accept the dictates
of a big corporation that only wants big profits and could not care
less about the consumer or the environment.
I am an environmentalist. All I care about is quality of life and
potential health dangers if it is slightly possible that there are
health dangers. I have read these documents and they prove that
there are significant health dangers. Many universities and many
doctors of repute have said to beware. They said it about lead many,
many years ago and we never believed them.
As a result of what I have heard and because of the weight of
evidence I have read, I say let us go with Bill C-94. Let us change
our habits and make our gasoline cleaner. Let us go to the new
generation of fuels, the clean fuels, ethanol and the new energy
patterns of electricity and halogen. Let us live more cleanly. Let us
put the environment first. The automobile industry and Ethyl
Corporation can come last. I do not care.
To Canadian consumers I say Bill C-94 is one step forward and I
hope we all vote for it.
14621
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
members on this side of the House are well aware that, according to
certain documents, MMT is said to be a dangerous pollutant, while
other studies say that it has not been conclusively proven to be
harmful.
The member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis made comments
about Ethyl Corporation which, over the years, has commissioned a
number of studies on MMT. Consequently, I do not think it is
appropriate to lash out at a company which, after all, did its
homework. And if the courts made some decisions in favour of that
company, it is because Ethyl Corporation did its homework
properly.
As regards MMT, the problem is that the United States could
re-introduce that product.
(1550)
I am not saying that they will, but they are considering
re-introducing it on the American market. Personally, I am just
concerned that Canadian companies, including our oil companies,
will have to make major and costly changes in order to stop using
that product.
As you know, we agree with Bill C-94. Nevertheless, I ask
myself this question, which I put to the hon. member opposite: Is
this truly the right decision to make? Should we pass this bill that
quickly, without knowing what the United States will ultimately
decide?
Let us not forget that we live in North America. We could pass
Bill C-94 only to find out two years down the road that the
Americans are re-introducing MMT. In the meantime, we would
have asked our oil companies to change everything so as to comply
with this legislation. I am not convinced that MMT is harmful to
our health. I have read studies. Ethyl Canada provided us with its
studies and we also had discussions with the EPA.
We were told that it remains to be seen whether that product is
truly harmful. Sure, we have to promote progress, environmental
protection and sustainable development. We fully agree with that.
However, we should wait for the decision of the Americans,
because it is vital for us regarding this issue.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I think the points made by the hon.
member for Laurentides were very constructive and they are well
taken. I agree these are important matters that must be dealt with.
After a lot of soul searching, we finally decided that Bill C-94
was the answer. There was a decisive factor. The United States is of
course looking into the MMT issue, following a number of appeals
filed by Ethyl Corporation. However, the EPA is dragging its feet.
Until June 1994, the EPA administrator was fighting very hard, but
in fact they keep asking for studies and health impact assessments.
The United States might reintroduce MMT and it would then
become legal. It is quite possible, but meanwhile, it is up to us as
Canadians to take the kind of action that may also influence our
neighbours to the south.
Today, we are part of NAFTA. NAFTA includes Mexico, and I
think that we have to make decisions on the basis of their intrinsic
value. We think that today, Canada could add ethanol to gas. My
colleague has done an extraordinary study of ethanol. Today, we
have an ethanol industry in eastern Canada. We have one in western
Canada. The United States, because of the legislation, is now
getting involved in massive production of ethanol. I believe that
they want 10 per cent of the oil industry to be ethanol-based by the
year 2000.
It seems to me we should start making an effort to seek additives
that are more environmentally sound. I realize there are arguments
for and against MMT.
I think the weight of the evidence would support a new process:
gas without MMT. What strikes me particularly is that none of the
countries that enjoy an outstanding reputation for the quality of
their environment-the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and the
Scandinavian countries-none of them uses MMT.
If tomorrow morning one of these countries were to opt for
MMT, I would think again. If the United States had opted for MMT
because it was environmentally safe, I would reconsider. However,
the EPA does not accept it because it wants to but because it was a
legal decision. I think we should go ahead with C-94.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that this issue is not terribly unlike the issue of the ethics
counsellor. We need to have some distance between the person who
is making a judgment and the people who are directly involved.
(1555 )
It looks to me that what we have here are two studies that were
made and are being distributed by the principals of the dispute. I
personally feel that we have a very strong reason to doubt the
validity of the evidence.
I would like to become very personal here. I do most of my own
mechanical work. I always have in order to save a buck or two. On
Saturdays I change my own sparkplugs.
Not long ago, I turned out the plugs on my car in order to replace
them because they had 75,000 kilometres on them and I had never
touched them. It stood to reason that by then I should be changing
them. I turned them out. They were almost as good as new. I
cleaned them up, regapped them and put them back in and finally
replaced them at 100,000 kilometres.
14622
The studies we are asked to believe say that these plugs will fail
17 times as often using MMT. I am in an environment where as far
as I know there is MMT in our fuel. If that is really a cause of
sparkplug failure then either I was the recipient of a miracle or the
studies are not to be depended on.
I have a tendency to think that it is the studies that are not
reliable because I have many acquaintances and I talk to many
people and not a single person has complained to me of premature
sparkplug failure. That is a sample of I do not know how many
thousands of people. I am sure that if that were happening, I would
have heard about it as the representative from Elk Island.
If we cannot trust this study in the area of sparkplugs, why
should we then trust the same study when it tells us that it is very
harmful to the environment and has all these other dangers? It may
or it may not.
I personally do not believe that these are to be trusted. That is
why we need to call for a truly independent agency that is reliable
and trustworthy to evaluate the merits or demerits of the use of
MMT. Let us have the truth instead of a bunch of wildly stated
causes and effects that may or may not rest in truth.
I would like the member who just spoke to respond to this. I
would like to ask him also why there is a reluctance on the part of
the government to submit this to a truly independent study.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I have always considered that in
these questions the government is there to make decisions after it
evaluates both sides of a story.
The feeling is that only the automobile industry's case has been
studied but that is not correct. I have letters from the deputy
minister. There are evaluations made by the Minister of the
Environment completely, impartially and objectively, including the
minister's commitment to the Ethyl Corporation to suggest to Ethyl
not to go with legislation, that the minister would prefer to have a
compromise on this issue between the two industrial groups
concerned and suggesting and offering to Ethyl to produce one type
of gasoline without MMT to let the consumers judge and compare.
That is fair. It is objective. It is impartial. It is a fact. I know the
minister made this offer. I know that this offer was turned down
because Ethyl Corporation today has a solid market with MMT that
it does not want to give up. It is a monopoly.
If Canada turns down MMT, there would be no MMT sold
anywhere around the world. That is a fact. As I said before, if it is
so good for cars why is MMT not used in the fuels in all the
countries that are just as sophisticated as we are? I find that very
strange. I am convinced that the step we are taking today is a step
forward for the environment.
(1600 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While we do not have a great
deal of time left, I know the hon. member for Mackenzie has been
seeking the floor. I ask if possible the question to be as brief as
possible, and the reply.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for the last
number of years I have been involved along with the former
member from London, Ralph Ferguson, in pushing the issue of
better acceptance and more use of ethanol, one of the alternate
octane enhancers to MMT.
I believe we were very close to passing, if we did not pass in the
House in the last Parliament, a private member's motion to accept
ethanol as a replacement for MMT. There was a lot of support at
that time for replacement of MMT for many of the reasons the
parliamentary secretary has outlined for us today.
At that time we were not made aware of the EPA's requirement to
review the whole question of MMT because of the court ruling.
However, one of the things we were trying to use at that time from
the farm production point of view was the fact that ethanol was a
very good replacement. It was renewable and at that point there
was a surplus of grains, the source of ethanol, and they were very
cheap.
Could the minister tell us what the economics of ethanol
production has become? I know I have one of the larger ethanol
production units in my riding. It is concerned about the sudden
increase in the cost of inputs. Grain prices have more than doubled
since the time that Ralph Ferguson introduced his bill.
Will this change make a sizeable change to the cost of gasoline
because the ethanol may cost more than the MMT and what will the
economic costs of such a change be? Has the Department of the
Environment looked at the new costs of ethanol given that the raw
material going into ethanol production, namely grains, has
virtually doubled or more over the last three or four years?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I do not have these figures with me at
present. I know the ministry and others, including several MPs
here, have made extensive studies on ethanol and the cost of
ethanol as an additive. I will commit myself to make these figures
whatever we have available to the hon. member as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think that you will obtain the
unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of
committee reports.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House had heard the
motion of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
14623
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-94 to ban the
importation and interprovincial trade of MMT.
The bill is fascinating but for the duplicity inherent in the
process of how the bill came about. MMT is
methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, an additive to
unleaded gasoline, an octane enhancer. It reduces nitrous oxide
emissions and makes gas burn a lot cleaner.
Nitrous oxides when released are the primary cause of smog
which causes respiratory problems in a great number of people
within our country, in particular those suffering from asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The minister tried to ban MMT but found she could not do it.
MMT has proven not to be a hazard to people's health. She tried to
find some other way of getting MMT out of Canada by putting
forth this bill to ban the trade of MMT which in effect is a ban on
MMT in this country.
(1605)
It has been demonstrated through Health Canada which has
looked at MMT that this was a perfectly benign substance for the
people in the country. Therefore there is no scientific ground to ban
MMT.
Let us take a look at why is the minister doing this. Before the
minister put the bill forward MMT was made the Ethyl
Corporation. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
claimed MMT has been destroying its on board diagnostic
computers which no doubt are very important to keeping cars
burning cleaner so we can all have a healthier environment. No one
would dispute having OBDs.
However we dispute having one view from the manufacturers of
automobiles saying MMT destroys its OBDs and one view from the
Ethyl Corporation which says it does not. The Ethyl Corporation
supports this view through studies done by an independent
environmental protection association. It has proven conclusively,
contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister said, that MMT does
not affect on board diagnostic computers. In spite of this the
minister has proceeded with this ban.
We can see this is clearly not an environmental bill. Health
Canada has even shown MMT has not been deleterious to the
health of Canadians. However, it has been proven-
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. member but I think there is now unanimous
consent that I put these motions which are somewhat urgent
because I understand there are committees waiting for and
depending on these.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14623
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 85th report of the House Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the list of members
of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development, as well as the list of committee associate members.
[English]
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
this almost immediately.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
propose, seconded by the Chief Government Whip, that the 85th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
presented to the House today be concurred in.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I move that the names of the
following members be added to the list of associate members of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Proud,
Mr. Richardson, Mr. Solomon and Mrs. Ur.
While I am on my feet I thank the hon. member who was
speaking and all hon. members for their co-operation in seeing
these routine matters dispensed with this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
>
14624
14624
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-94,
an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is clearly not an environmental bill. MMT has proven
not to be deleterious to the health of Canadians. I quote from the
Deputy Prime Minister's own press statement demonstrating our
commitment to protecting the environment. It had nothing to do
with that but everything to do with protecting the auto
manufacturers' industry.
(1610)
Before the bill came about both the Ethyl Corporation and the
vehicle manufacturers' association were under negotiation to solve
this problem outside of the House. They were close to making a
decision. Then the minister came forward with this bill and the auto
manufacturers, knowing they would get a response in their favour,
understandably backed away. Sure enough this bill rather than
solving a problem is muddying the waters. That is unfortunate. We
would not be wasting House time with the bill if we had let nature
take its course.
We have requested an independent third party to review MMT to
determine if it damages onboard devices. If it does we have two
options. We need to look for an alternative to MMT or we need to
change the onboard devices and work out some agreement with the
private sector.
The minister noted that MMT has been banned all over the world
and Canada is the only country still using it. I bring to the attention
of the minister that last year the U.S. district court of appeals said
MMT could again be used in the United States. Therefore while we
are pursuing a course to ban MMT the United States will now allow
its use. Why are we engaging in this behaviour?
The Minister of Industry wants one unified gasoline for the
entire continent. Why are we pursuing a course which would take
us into a different type of gasoline when the United States is trying
to bring back gasoline which contains MMT?
This is telling us there has been an abuse of power. We have seen
legislative shenanigans and the government is favouring one group,
the automobile association. That is reprehensible.
I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will take the mature course
and ask for an independent study, as my friend from Elk Island has
requested. That study would give us the answers we require and it
would serve the people of Canada and the environment well. It is
fundamental for us to get these answers not only for the citizens of
Canada but for the environment.
If we remove MMT the minister must lay out another plan. She
must be aware that nitrous oxide content would actually increase in
the emissions from cars by up to 20 per cent or more, which would
greatly increase health hazards to Canadians. Having seen many
people with pulmonary diseases, that is grossly unfair.
She also spoke about having two types of gasoline in Canada.
Quite frankly that is a fantasy. Why do we not have one gasoline,
the best and the cleanest, which we could responsibly and cost
effectively use, that would be fair to both sides, the auto
manufacturers and the petroleum corporations?
I ask that we act together on this issue. It is not an issue of one
side against the other. It is an issue for all Canadians and for the
country.
I also strongly suggest that in the area of transport there is much
which can be done by new technology. Fascinating advances have
been made in making cars and other vehicles burn cleaner and
safer. Much of these technologies have not been brought forward in
an aggressive fashion. I believe we can take a leadership role in
promoting these very substantial discoveries and bring them to the
forefront. It is the responsibility of the House to bring them
forward in order for them to become a practical reality for all
Canadians.
(1615 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for his comments.
I would like to get his opinion on a couple of suggestions we
have put forward. What does he feel would be served by having a
completely independent study done by an independent agency, for
example something from the National Research Council, to study
independent of the automakers or the Ethyl Corporation whether
this MMT stuff actually does any harm? Is there a need for that? Is
there a need to have a completely independent study? If so, is the
National Research Council perhaps the group that could perform
that?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, my
apologies for getting up prematurely. It was such a good question
from my friend that I could not resist it.
To echo basically what my colleague, the hon. member for Elk
Island, just said, the reason we are asking for an independent study
is that the Deputy Prime Minister brought forth a slew of papers, all
14625
of which were from members of the Automobile Manufacturers
Association. They are very interested party in this debate, but in
fact they are one side of this debate.
What we can do is determine whether or not the studies that have
been put forth are in fact legitimate, sound, scientifically based
studies. If they are, then we should believe them. If they are not, if
there is any question whatsoever, then we definitely need to have
an independent third party to do the study. We cannot have a
member or a group as intimately associated with the question at
hand-in fact a combatant in this debate-to decide what is true
and what is not. That is why we in this party are asking for an
independent review, an independent group to do this. Perhaps the
National Research Council or some other group could do this. The
important point to remember is that it must be an independent party
that is not intimately associated with either the Ethyl Corporation
or the automobile manufacturers association.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask this question because I do not hear the question coming from
the opposite benches and I think it is an important issue.
After we have heard all of the discussion about using ethanol as a
substitute for MMT, given that the two products are equally
effective and setting aside the argument of whether one is better for
the environment or not, I would ask my colleague to tell the House
why this government would not choose to ban MMT in favour of
ethanol in gasoline as an octane enhancer.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. friend for the interesting question on ethanol.
Ethanol is a very important additive, but it unfortunately
requires a government subsidy in the order of eight cents per litre in
order to get to market. That would be an enormous cost to the
government, and during these times of fiscal restraint we would not
advocate in any way, shape, or form that the government put more
money into this and spend more money. It would cost billions of
dollars to do this.
This party has been very emphatic about prompting and
encouraging scientists and researchers in the country to come up
with a more cost effective way of making ethanol and other fuel
additives so we can have automobiles burn fuel more cleanly.
(1620 )
We have always been strong advocates for the research and
development sector in the country because it is one of the pillars
that will enable our country to be highly competitive in the future
to create economic niches for longlasting, high paying jobs.
I encourage the government to continue to support the research
and development sector, which does some fantastic things in the
country. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is a pillar that will
enable us to be economically competitive in the future.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
always intrigued by how hard things die. Here we have a situation
where a product has been on the market and it was discovered
nearly 20 years ago that there were problems with it. It was
discovered about 10 years ago in Canada by the Ministry of the
Environment that there were some problems with it. Now there is
an alternative.
I do not blame the vested interests that keep promoting these
things, but the fact is that it has taken a long time for reality to set
in and for life to take its course, as it should.
I would like to go back a little in terms of the history of fuel
additives. In about 1928 it was discovered that tetra-ethyl lead
added to gasoline would enhance the octane and provide some
upper cylinder lubrication to engines. It was called the anti-knock
compound and was produced by the Ethyl Corporation. At the same
time another body of equally distinguished scientists and chemists
promoted the idea of ethanol in gasolines. As a matter of fact,
Henry Ford had been a strong advocate of ethanol. His first Model
T ran on pure ethanol.
The debate raged through the 1930s and finally lead won out
over ethanol. It is an interesting story. According to the information
I have, the Du Pont Corporation owned and controlled the Ethyl
Corporation of America and it also held 24 per cent of General
Motors' stock. Consequently, General Motors became a promoter
of lead. In 1929 Ford stopped putting extra jets on carburettors so
that ethanol could be burned. That is not the only story like that in
history.
When I was a young person spraying the apple trees at our home
farm, I used arsenical to kill grubs and worms. It was discovered
during my early teenage years that arsenic really was a heavy metal
and it was not very nice to spray on trees and on the ground.
Finally, by the time I got to agricultural college a solution had been
found to the problem-mercurial. Mercurials were going to be the
be-all and end-all. It was not for many years, too many for me to
admit to, that industry realized that products used in these areas
have to be biodegradable, able to return to the soil from whence
they originate. The same realization is slowly coming with our fuel
additives.
So we went to lead. It was discovered that lead really was not
what we wanted to be spewing around into the environment in ever
increasing quantities. When government decided to take lead out, a
substitute was found, which was going to be the miracle
replacement for lead. It was another heavy metal, methyl
manganese. There are a lot of $10 words following that one that I
am not prepared to repeat.
14626
(1625 )
For almost a generation we have realized that there are some
difficulties. The people who support one side of the case and the
other side of the case make their stories, but we know now that
there is a better substitute. There is a substitute.
My friend from Athabasca felt that one of the motivations of the
government was because the product ethanol could be
manufactured in Canada. That has not been a motivation of the
government. It is one of my motivations, because I believe that a
Canadian ethanol industry has potential to be one of the great
things for Canadian agriculture.
Since the government did its little arrangement about a year ago,
about $300 million has been committed in Ontario alone for
ethanol development. If ethanol were to replace MMT at the rate of
10 per cent in Canada, it would take approximately 10 investments
of the size that are taking place in Ontario right now in order to fill
that need. One can see that there is great potential.
The cost of ethanol has been raised, and it is a very legitimate
argument. What about the cost? The cost of grain is increasing at
the present time, and of course grain is a cyclical thing.
The answer to that is twofold. One is that the cost of grain is not
the only factor in determining the cost of ethanol production. There
are by-products. If we are making ethanol from wheat, gluten and
some of these other things are important products and they are
important in the economics of the ethanol industry. If we are
making it from corn, corn oil, distillers grains, distillers solubles
and so on, they are also very important by-products and they are
quite meaningful when we are calculating the cost.
The other part of the cost equation is not just eight cents, which
was the excise tax on ethanol. The cost of any fuel is not just the
direct cost. The cost of a shovelful of coal is not whether you are
going to pay 30 cents or a dollar for that shovelful of coal. It has to
be looked upon as the whole cost. What is the cost of the impact on
the environment? There is a dollar attachment to those things now.
Things can be costed. I think I once saw the word monetized. When
you have emissions into the environment, they carry with them a
real cost, a real impact cost.
When we talk about substituting ethanol in gasoline for MMT,
the actual cost of the ethanol itself is not the true cost. The injection
of MMT and the cost of MMT is not the true cost. The whole
costing is what is really important here.
If we have a product like ethanol that is going to result in certain
reductions in emissions, which are positive, I think of carbon
monoxide and I think of carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon
monoxide is touted to be reduced by about 20 per cent or 25 per
cent and carbon dioxide by approximately 15 per cent.
Then we get to the cost of nitrous oxide, which tends to offset
that to a certain extent. But I beg you to look at the figures when
you are looking at the emissions, because nitrous oxide is the
smallest of all the emissions. It is very tiny. If you were to increase
the nitrous oxide emissions by 150 per cent, you are still looking at
150 per cent of zip. However, it is the only emission that increases
in this whole scenario.
A comment was made about looking for one type of gasoline. I
am not sure how that is evaluated. There are about four types of
gasoline on the market right now. Most of them are based on
octane. One of them is based on whether or not there is an ethanol
additive which is presently increasing in interest and usage. About
two years ago there were 50 outlets selling gasoline containing an
ethanol additive. Right now there are 500 and the prognosis is that
there will be 5,000 within the next two years.
(1630)
The oil companies should not be the least bit concerned about
enhancing their product with ethanol versus MMT. The kind of raw
product they produce is a little different. The vapour pressure of the
two is different but that is really where it ends. In terms of a public
relations gesture they should be able able to say that they are
striving for a cleaner product. Here it is a cleaner product when
they used ethanol instead of MMT.
As I say, I do not blame the Ethyl Corporation for wanting to
protect its turf. One of the things I would say to a company like the
Ethyl Corporation is that there is a time when one has to put the
past by and move on into the future. If I were that corporation right
now I would be looking very hard at producing ethanol, ETBE or
whatever in order to get on into a more modern mode.
We cannot spend our whole lives trying to hang onto the past
forever and ever. The fact is too that some refineries have already
made the switch to ethanol. I do not know whether my friend from
Athabasca buys gasoline at Mohawk outlets, but the Mohawk
adopted this some time ago and promoted it in Ontario.
Sunoco is refining ethanol gasoline and does it because it
considers it to be good business. In Canada it should be considered
good business.
We are starting to use grain to produce ethanol and it is helping
agriculture. That will become a base line now. As science and
technology and research and development continue in the
production process the next natural move is into cellulosic waste,
sawdust, wood waste and so on. That technology is known now. It
is being done commercially in France but it is not competitive yet.
When it is competitive in Canada, it will be more competitive
probably than ethanol from grain. That is only a few years down the
road.
What we are dealing with here is simply the conflict between
moving on to something that is better and finally putting past us
something we have been hanging onto for nearly two decades.
According to what I know we are the only country left in the world
14627
that is using MMT. Even tiny Bulgaria considered using MMT and
turned it down for whatever reason. We have every reason to get on
with the modern age and let things move.
The automobile industry is supporting it for its own reasons.
Whether or not those studies are correct it is amazing that all the
studies the automobile companies did were independent unto
themselves and they all came to the same conclusion. That is very
interesting in terms of emission controls or the monitoring that
reads the emissions and indicates whether or not the emission
control system is working properly. Canadian citizens deserve to
have on their cars the most modern emission control systems as can
be manufactured and researched. I do not think we want to accept
second best in order to continue on the importation of this
manganese product in our gasoline.
(1635)
My humble submission is yes we should get on with the job,
allow the past to go by and get on with the future.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was an
interesting presentation.
I would certainly agree with the member's presentation if it was
a level playing field. If independent studies could show me reliably
that MMT is harmful to the environment and ethanol could be
produced in competition with MMT without government
subsidization and the industry could stand on its own, then I would
accept his argument as realistic. In that case we certainly should go
ahead, but exactly the opposite is true.
The fact is that the ethanol industry is not a viable industry in
today's technology. Some day it may be and good for it if it is.
Certainly the other side of the argument is that MMT has not been
proven to be harmful to the environment. The endless studies done
by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States have
stated that it is not harmful to the environment. In Canada the
Minister of Health states that it is not harmful to the health of
Canadians. In fact, by banning it we raise the levels of nitrous
oxide. By banning it through the extra refining processes that must
be done to obtain an equal octane rating in gasoline the refineries
have to substantially raise the emissions of CO2 and benzene.
The argument that it is a product of the past and we have to move
on because it is so harmful to the environment and we should spend
tax dollars to subsidize the ethanol industry is a false one. I ask the
member to respond to that.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, one of the member's colleagues brought
up the question of waiting until the United States made its final
decision and so on regarding the future of MMT. I should just point
out to him that in the United States the tax relief on ethanol
gasoline has doubled what it is in Canada. They gave it a leg up.
I should also point out to him that in the United States 39 cities
mandate the use of gasolines containing ethanol for environmental
reasons. This is because of what is called ground level ozone.
My colleague, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister, talked about
ground level ozone. Some people believe it is not a problem in
Canada and that it really does not exist. If we divide the ozone
emissions into the square footage of Canada it is not a problem. It
does not exist. However, if we take the area of metropolitan
Toronto, the Ottawa valley, Montreal, Vancouver or southwestern
Ontario it is a serious problem. It was a problem this last summer
with ozone warnings that stayed with us for a number of weeks.
The previous year I believe it stayed on for two weeks.
There are real reasons that we might want to give an industry a
leg up. In this case it is not subsidy but excise removal. We can
worry about the semantics of it but the fact is that the most
industrialized country in the world has seen fit to promote ethanol
this year. In 1995, 45 new ethanol plants are being built in the
United States. There is only one reason for that. They want ethanol
as an additive. In the United States right now 8 per cent of all
gasoline has an ethanol additive. That is pretty substantial when we
consider that the whole thing began very few years ago.
(1640)
An hon. member: They will be bringing back MMT.
Mr. Reed: We do not know whether or not the U.S. is going to
bring back MMT but the fact is that ethanol is a superior product
notwithstanding the fact that it will be manufactured in Canada in
quantity. I do not think Canadian farmers would dismiss that out of
hand and say that it will not help them if MMT remains. They want
ethanol gasoline. In southwestern Ontario farmers are clamouring
for ethanol gasoline from dealers who do not normally handle them
at all.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member says, there is nothing wrong with giving an industry a
leg up. That strikes at the heart of the bill. This bill has nothing to
do with the environment; it is really an industry issue.
If the government wants to ban MMT just because it wants to
ban it, then why does it not say so? If the object is to do that, then
go ahead and do it. What annoys many of us is that this is being
done under the pretence of an environmental clean up. That is the
excuse which has been given. All that we can do is ban the
cross-border traffic of MMT because there is no health reason to
ban it. I wish the government would be honest and say that it
decided to do it because it wants to do it. At least that would be
honest if not prudent.
14628
As an example, why is it that Ford and GM in their 1996 models
make no mention at all about MMT or the effect it has on the
onboard computers?
This has nothing to do with the environment. This has to do with
a decision of the government to ban it for reasons known mostly to
the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not a health issue. It is not an
arsenic issue, the example which was used earlier. This is a
decision of the government to do it for reasons other than the
environment. It is really an industry issue. If the government wants
to promote ethanol, as the hon. member mentioned, then the
Minister of Industry could do that. I do not know why the Minister
of the Environment is picking on this issue when it is not an
environmental or health issue.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, the argument that it is an economic or an
industry issue is mine. It is one I have put to the House. I have put it
to the House proudly because I believe that a crossover into ethanol
will be a leg up for agriculture and the economy of the country.
The decision of the Minister of the Environment was based first
on evidence of what was happening in the United States. Why
would the EPA mandate gasoline containing ethanol in 39 cities?
There is quite a wealth of evidence coming down to demonstrate
that in the United States at least it was believed there was a
problem. This country was faced with this conundrum long before
the current government took office.
There is some counter evidence, which might or might not prove
valid, but where do we stop the study process? Everything could
stand more study. I do believe that a great deal of independent
study has been done, so I do not know what independent study
would be acceptable to my hon. friend.
An hon. member: But you will not do one.
Mr. Reed: No, and you know why.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I was made aware
earlier by the hon. member for Halton-Peel that he is some
distance from the Chair, but I am at the same equal distance and I
would not want to be forgotten. I would urge all members to direct
their interventions through the Chair.
Mr. Reed: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. There is a terrible
temptation to get carried away at this end of the House. I am going
to have to get stronger glasses to see you.
(1645 )
I hope I have answered the question as well as I can. The
evidence was that this was a legitimate cause for concern. It has
been aided by the automobile companies, that admittedly will not
reveal their sources because of commercial confidentiality.
Apparently the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister was
leaked. However, it gave us the opportunity to say: Here is the
evidence as we know it and in the name of cleaner air we should
act on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before we resume debate I
would like to make the House aware that five hours have lapsed
from the beginning of second reading. We will now go to the next
stage of debate in which there will be straight 10-minute
interventions without questions or comments.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure my colleagues will be very sad to know that I only have 10
minutes, but I will try to confine my remarks to that period of time.
I know that many Canadians watch the debates in the House of
Commons, odd as it may seem, and I would like to remind them
that we are now debating Bill C-94. The name of the bill is an act to
regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese-based products. That
might not seem like a very gripping title. It sounds quite innocuous,
quite routine and regulatory. However, the bill raises issues of
which Canadians ought to be made aware and we on this side of the
House are doing our best to raise those issues and to bring them out
in the public debate.
The manganese product in question, which is the subject
substance of the bill, is called MMT. MMT is short for some long
scientific name which probably none of us can pronounce or would
want to. It is really an octane enhancer for unleaded gasoline. We
all know that most of our vehicles use unleaded gasoline. We want
to get the maximum mileage because it saves us a few nickels here
and there. Therefore all Canadians should be quite interested in
anything which enhances the octane of gasoline and MMT does
that.
However, the Minister of the Environment now wants to prevent
this product from being imported into Canada and does not want it
to be traded as a common product across interprovincial borders. It
is very interesting the way this dreaded product is being handled. It
raises the question: Is this sudden concern on the part of the
environment minister about MMT, this octane enhancer, because
MMT is unsafe or dangerous? If it is, we certainly want to know.
We do not want it floating around in the air and soaking into our
fingers when we gas up our cars.
The fact of the matter is that MMT is not dangerous. The
minister is not going to ban the product outright. It is not even
going to be labelled as unsafe. One wonders why the environment
minister, since the product is not going to be banned as unsafe or
labelled as unsafe, is mixing into this. It is very strange.
Surely if the product has been determined to be unsafe or if it
causes injury, then it should not be readily available to the public.
If that is the case, then why is the product not being banned?
14629
Under this bill, MMT can still be manufactured in Canada. In
fact, a manufacturer could potentially set up a plant to produce
MMT in every province of the country and not be breaking the
law, since Bill C-94 merely prohibits the interprovincial trade or
the importation of the substance.
The obvious question to be asked is: Why this bill at all? My
hon. friend opposite just spent a great deal of time talking about
ethane. Maybe the conclusion we should draw is that MMT is being
banned so that somehow ethane producers can have a bit of an
advantage and not so much competition from MMT. I do not know.
We are not being given any answers to those speculations.
However, the question is really puzzling because the substance has
not proven to cause any harm to Canadians at all.
We have an environment minister who certainly should be
concerned about environmental pollutants, environmental
hazardous substances, and yet there is no hazard here. Nothing has
been shown to cause any harm to us. This has been demonstrated
not just by American studies, which I suppose we could dismiss,
but a 1994 study by Health Canada found that MMT is not harmful
to Canadians.
(1650)
What is really happening here? We suggest that the Minister of
the Environment has dragged the government into a dispute
between manufacturers of MMT and the automobile manufacturers
in the United States. These manufacturers have plants and provide
jobs in Canada. Some of those jobs are fairly close to Ottawa.
As we have heard, there are some suggestions that MMT in
unleaded gasoline causes the onboard diagnostic systems in our
modern computer chip driven cars to malfunction. Automobile
manufacturers, therefore, want MMT banned. They are not being
very specific about the data on which they base these allegations. In
fact, they are holding it quite close to the vest. Some has been
leaked. Therefore, because of a few allegations and suggestions
and some leaked data we are now rising to the occasion and making
sure that our onboard diagnostic systems are protected. I would
suggest that is not really a function of a highly paid environment
minister.
The evidence is sketchy. It is inconclusive. The manufacturers of
MMT have produced evidence that shows that their product is not
harmful and does not cause the problems in question. Not only does
it not harm the environment, does not harm Canadians, it does not
even harm our cars, our onboard diagnostic systems.
However that evidence is not good enough. The car
manufacturers are saying: ``We have a big problem''. The two
parties talked and one side said: ``You are causing a problem'' and
the other side is saying: ``No, this product does not cause a
problem. We will have scientific studies done by experts that we
both respect, who have credentials that we can both accept and we
will get to the bottom of this''.
In spite of that very sensible suggestion, before it could be
carried out, before the independent expert advice could be sought,
the minister jumps in and says: ``I am going to come down on the
side of the automobile manufacturers and I am going to decide that
MMT should be banned'', for reasons which do not seem to be very
specific and certainly are not very persuasive. We object to this.
We agree with the submissions that have been made from the
other side that Canadians are tired of problems being studied to
death. However let us look at the situation. Has this been studied to
death? We have had very sketchy and unspecified evidence on the
part of the automobile manufacturers. We have heard allegations
from the industry people who are producing MMT. We have no
independent reports except Health Canada saying that there is no
danger or harm from the substance. That is not studying the subject
to death. This bill has been put in place willy-nilly without proper
thought or evidence, without any proper reason. We object to that.
We do not think that is how a government should run things. We do
not think that is how decisions should be made and we certainly do
not think this is an area in which the environment minister should
be involved.
In fact, a ruling in the United States in June concluded that the
tests on the impact of MMT that had been done were inconclusive.
Presumably the Americans do have some experts worth listening
to. Therefore, the ruling was that the substance ought not to be
banned. Others have alluded to the fact that this will very likely
result in having MMT again approved for use in unleaded gasoline
in the United States as an octane enhancer.
The end result of all this is that the Minister of the Environment
is taking unwarranted action on an issue that should have been,
would have been and could have been settled by the concerned
parties themselves.
There is a lot of concern about the impact of this legislation.
There is a lot riding on the bill in both of these sectors, the
manufacturers of both the vehicles and MMT.
(1655 )
The provinces have also demonstrated that they have a real
concern about this. Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia have all expressed concerns that any replacement of MMT
might actually impair the air quality in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose a motion. I move:
That Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances be not now read a
14630
second time, but the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter
thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is in order.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to speak to the amendment of the member for Calgary
North.
One of the things about this House that concerns me is how many
of us become experts in certain fields in which we do not know
anything.
Members of the Reform Party have said that they want to cut
taxes, they want to cut the deficit and this kind of stuff. Here they
are asking us to go to the National Research Council, hire a group
of scientists to work for the Ethyl Corporation and do all the work
that corporation is supposed to do. We have all these automotive
manufacturers, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Saab, Lada, Jaguar,
Land Rover, Mercedes Benz. The list goes on and on.
I will speak about how a car actually functions. We are talking
about an octane enhancer. The octane rating is a unit of
measurement established by the automotive industry to determine
the action of variable fuels. In the laboratory is an engine with a
variable compression ratio and various substances, gasoline,
stoichiometric and some of these additives are added. At the point
where it knocks-at 100 per cent it does not knock-the enhancers
put into the gasoline are reduced.
Why do they do this? They want the combustion process to be
predictable. Mr. Speaker, if you have ever driven a car and turned
the ignition off and the engine still was running this is called
after-runner or dieseling. What you have got is the gasoline
reaching so high a compression ratio that it explodes by itself. We
do not want that happening in our cars. We want to trigger it when
we turn the ignition on, getting a spark from the sparkplug. When
we turn the ignition switch off we want the spark to stop and the
engine to shut off.
What happens in a modern car with all this onboard diagnostic
equipment? Starting with a PCV valve, exhaust gas recirculation,
the use of a catalytic converter, a sophisticated combustion
chamber design and raising the temperature of the engine by using
higher thermostats is a sophisticated modern engine where we are
trying get a stoichiometric mixture of 14 pounds of air to 1 pound
of gasoline.
(1700)
We want that condition all the time. We want a good spray in the
combustion chamber. We want a certain amount of turbulence and
we want the predictability so that when that gasoline explodes at a
certain point in the cycle, when the piston is travelling down a
particular angle, the maximum pressure is built up.
This is done by antiknock. For instance, if one went to a modern
car, took a hammer and hammered on it, if the timing light is used
the spark will retard when that happens.
These cars are very sensitive. The bottom line is that they have
these onboard diagnostic pieces of equipment. The onboard
diagnostic piece of equipment is a way of refining the entire
combustion process from start to finish making sure the
contaminants that come out in the air do not pollute the
atmosphere.
That is what the Minister of the Environment is trying to do. The
Minister of the Environment has said if there were no onboard
diagnostics on cars in Canada but available in the United States,
Canadians would get a inferior product to their counterparts in the
United States. We would be actually manufacturing the cars in
Canada and exporting them to the States while we are using cars
with obsolete technology.
Study after study by the automotive manufacturers has said
MMT interferes with diagnostic onboard pieces of equipment and
causes them to foul up. It causes them to trigger warning lights. It
causes them to take the car under warranty which in turn would
cost more money for the car.
These cars are supposed to go well over 100,000 kilometres
without these parts being replaced or without some major clogging
up of the complicated three way catalytic converter.
What has the Government of Canada done? The Minister of the
Environment went to the manufacturers and went to the Ethyl
Corporation and said solve the problem and they could not solve
the problem.
If the Ethyl Corporation feels so strongly that its product is so
good, let it take the risk. Do not ask us to go to our National
Research Council and use our researchers to prove its product is
good or bad. Put it in sample cars and prove it. The idea that there is
a court case in the United States is a sham because the Americans
have not been using MMT for 17 years.
There is still a ban. It is not legal to buy MMT in the States and
the Environmental Protection Agency has said it has to go through
that series of tests which are so important to environmental
protection. It has to go through that thumb print required by any
fuel additives that have certain restrictions which have to be met.
Hydrocarbon emissions, nitric oxide emissions and all these
things are calibrated through an acceptable level which cars have to
go through in order to make sure they pass the test.
We have an automotive industry of which we use 10 per cent and
17 per cent is exported. It is important to get into the new model
year. The minister had to act and she acted.
14631
I do not see why any of my colleagues being lobbied by the
Ethyl Corporation are trying to tell the government side that we
should be spending any more money.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a privilege to speak to the proposal of my colleague to refer
this Bill C-94 to the Standing Committee on Industry to examine it
further.
During today's debate we have fairly firmly established that the
decision on the government's behalf to ban MMT is not an
environmental decision at all but a decision made by one of the
most political of our ministers, the Minister of the Environment.
It is interesting that years ago she made news by jumping over a
table to confront a Conservative cabinet minister. Perhaps she feels
she has not been in the news enough lately so she is tabling Bill
C-94 to attempt to show that she is doing something about the
environment. Obviously it is a purely political bill.
Bill C-94 is a bill which would ban the importation and
interprovincial trade of MMT. It is interesting the Liberals have no
reason to ban MMT on environmental reasons. This is why they
cannot ban it. They can simply prohibit interprovincial trade of it,
which of course has the same effect.
It is a shame they do not come out and say as a policy of the
government under industrial diversification or whatever that they
want to claim they are going to ban it. This would be the honest
thing to say. It is not based on the environmental criteria.
(1705)
Again it was interesting today when the environment minister
quoted extensively from all the reports she has seen, none of which
she will table in the House of Commons. They are all classified or
secret or whatever.
If she would agree to an independent study or table the study so
that everybody could have a look perhaps we could believe the
purity of her motives. As it is now, because she will not table it,
because she will not have an independent study, it raises the
question of the sincerity of the minister on the environmental
impact of it, especially in light of some of the other studies on what
the EPA has said that MMT does not cause or contribute to the
failure of vehicles to meet applicable emissions standards required
by the U.S. clean air act.
The clean air act is much more stringent than our own. It is
unfortunate that she has used this as a political statement of some
sort. It is really to her detriment that she continues to push this idea
instead of referring it to the committee on industry where it could
be properly studied so we could get some scientific reason why
MMT is good or bad.
On November 30, 1993 the EPA determined MMT does not
cause or contribute to the failure of emission control systems in
automobiles and the courts on April 14, 1995 ordered the EPA to
grant a temporary waiver of its ban on MMT to a private company
that wants to market it again. The EPA, which I do not think is
anybody's lapdog, has said it has no reason to prohibit MMT and
will allow it again into the United States.
The United States is almost at the point where it will once again
allow MMT in unleaded gasoline at the very time when Canada is
trying to ban it.
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute said its industries
will not remove MMT unless there is conclusive proof the additive
is harmful to the environment, which was one argument, or that it
causes the onboard diagnostic computers to malfunction.
It is willing to move on that if the proof in either of those
departments is forthcoming, but there is no such proof. The
opposite is true. In December 1994 Health Canada published a
study which said there is no health risk from MMT, and therefore
the minister cannot ban it. All she can do is try to stop it from being
transported.
In order to enhance the octane in gasoline refineries will have to
substitute something else. What will that be? We have heard some
arguments on both sides and one of the things could be an
unpronounceable chemical additive called MTBE which will cost
refineries some $50 million to change over to and will cost an extra
$25 million every year to make the switch, not an insignificant
drop in the bucket.
The higher prices will be passed on to the consumers at the
pumps. The Minister of the Environment should also have included
in her portfolio the minister of gas, not only for the political nature
of her remarks but also for her notable contribution to the higher
gasoline prices if this bill continues.
Even more ironically the new substance which will replace
MMT is also known to cause increased pollution even while the
substance she is banning has been determined to be safe by Health
Canada. Her own officials say banning MMT will increase nitrogen
oxide emissions by a full 20 per cent. Nitrogen oxide is the stuff
that increases ground level ozone which makes the lives of people
with lung problems a little harder to bear.
The Minister of the Environment, who also could be called the
minister of gas, could be the minister of lung problems. Not only
does it point out her normal tendency to rash comment but it also
highlights her contribution to worsening an already serious air
pollution problem in Canada.
If the banning of MMT hurts people and the environment, and if
the American EPA says an MMT does not hurt automobile
emission systems, what could be the real motivation behind the
minister's introducing such a bill?
The obvious reason is purely political. Is it the lobbying efforts
of the powerful automobile companies? Is it a weak minister who,
when she is confronted by a powerful group in central Canada,
14632
buckles even though there is no evidence from her own department
that this is causing serious harm.
(1710 )
The minister should remember she is a national minister who is
supposed to look out for the entire country and that all parts of
Canada will be affected by her decisions.
We all know the producing fineries are located mostly in western
Canada and therefore western Canada will bear most of the costs.
The big car manufacturers located near the minister's riding will
not have to spend any more time or money trying to figure out what
is wrong with their faulty on board computers. They will not have
to justify their opposition to MMT on scientific or technical
grounds but merely lobby really hard and hope the minister
supports them, which apparently she does.
I wonder what the Minister of Natural Resources thinks about
the bill. I mentioned earlier today on a different subject that I have
been quick to applaud the Minister of Natural Resources when she
has stood up for industry and when she has made decisions based
on sound, scientific evidence. However, I wonder where she is on
this matter. I would dearly like to ask her whether she agrees with
the intent of this bill and whether she is willing to sell out the
industry she represents so the minister of gas and lung problems
can protect her own political turf. Is the minister really fighting for
her industry at the cabinet table or is she losing out to the political
heavyweights sitting across the cabinet table?
I am waiting for the Minister of Natural Resources to announce
her own feelings about this bill. I want her to come out and say why
on a scientific basis she thinks MMT should be banned. I would
also like her to come out forcefully and either support or argue with
the Minister of the Environment on those issues.
I hope the Minister of Natural Resources does want to represent
all of the producers in this country, not just the automobile
producers, but the people in the resource industries who are asking,
as is the minister of the environment in, for proof as to why MMT
should be banned.
The media release I have is from a respected international
brokerage firm, the Solomon Brothers, with strong research
capabilities in this sector. Talking about the EPA rulings in the
United States:
We continue to strongly believe that the rule of law will prevail in this case
and not some half baked EPA policy stance. In other words, MMT will get a full
green light by year end.
The firm used the term half baked. We could use the same term
to refer to Bill C-94. It is a half baked political attempt to appease
some groups of people, although I am not sure who. The
environment minister seems ready and willing to turn her back on
her own portfolio which is to protect the environment for all
Canadians on a technical and scientific basis.
How ironic that even while the U.S. is moving forward on this
issue Canada is furiously back pedalling. I encourage the Minister
of the Environment to back pedal in one more way and do what she
knows is the right thing and refer this bill to the committee of
industry where it can have a detailed study and hearings on it to
bring it to a proper scientific conclusion.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-94, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese-based substances, and in particular
to the motion now before this House to adjourn the debate as
proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.
I feel it is important not to delay the debate under way. We
cannot keep putting off indefinitely environment issues. Matters as
important to our future as the environment cannot be postponed
endlessly. But before talking about the proposal to adjourn the
debate on this crucial matter, I would like to say a few words about
some general environmental issues that deserve our attention.
This morning, we debated in this House a bill to amend the
Auditor General Act, which provides for the appointment of a
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
reporting to the auditor general and requires departments to
develop environmental strategies to be laid before the House.
(1715)
Environmental matters are always a little less tangible than
issues such as finance, revenue or day-to-day management. I used
to sit on the public accounts committee and the auditor general
often came to explain or question the regular management of
various government departments. Regarding the environment,
however, I think it is important for the government to be concerned
about the environment, about the future of all Quebecers and
Canadians.
Environmental issues transcend borders. Some examples come
to mind. In my riding, we have one, in fact two international lakes,
namely Lake Memphremagog and Lake Champlain, about which
we are having environmental difficulties with our American
neighbours.
It makes us realize that not all problems are resolved with
borders. Agreements must be reached with neighbouring states.
14633
Over the summer, I participated in discussions with our neighbours
in Vermont and people in Washington to try to resolve an
environmental problem affecting Lake Champlain. I think it is
important for neighbours to make an effort to understand one
another and ensure that future generations on both sides of the
border, in Canada as well as in the U.S., can agree in future.
In that sense, I do not see the use of having borders sprouting up
all over the place in terms of the environment. With NAFTA, with
the World Trade Organization, we are now in an open economy and
the same should hold true for the environment.
As far as this bill is concerned, I think we should move on this,
and not in six months time. There have been enough studies. I think
that the government should go ahead with this bill.
I mentioned earlier how important the environment is to this
country. I would like to share with you more of what I have learned
during the summer. We witnessed this wonderful co-operation
between the federal, provincial and municipal governments across
the country. I am referring to the infrastructure program which had
an impact on the environment in Quebec. Some communities got
funding from the infrastructure program to build a water treatment
plant. The program helped promote environmental projects in
several sectors.
I want to go back to the importance of the decisions which have
to be made today, not tomorrow, to preserve our future. As you
know, when a decision is made concerning the environment, it
costs money. However, it may be better to pay today than to be
blamed by future generations for not having acted quickly enough
regarding the environment.
This is important for our safety. There is the ozone depletion, as
well as all the problems with our lakes and rivers, pollution
problems. We have to act immediately and this is what the
government intends to do. It wants to take immediate action, so
that our future generations can live safely.
We must also look at the impact on the industry sector. By acting
now, the government prompts the industry to develop, produce and
export new technologies and products. The environment is a
promising sector for our engineering firms, our industries, our
producers, our exporters, and everyone else. For that reason, we
should not let the debate go on and on. We should look at this bill
right now.
Earlier, I alluded to the debate that took place this morning
regarding the auditor general, the new commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development.
(1720)
I think that this act, which seeks to regulate interprovincial trade
in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese-based substances, shows that this government is a good
government. This is a good government's program. It is a program
which makes people realize that environmental safety is
important. It is important to all Canadians today and it is also
important for future generations. Such an initiative does solve the
real issues, even though it may not do much for hypothetical
questions such as where will the border be located, etc. We are
together in this country and we work together to find solutions to
the real issues that confront Canadians. This is what is important.
There has been co-operation on environmental matters between
the Canadian government and the provinces. To mention only two
instances, under the previous Quebec government, the Liberal
government, the environment minister at the time, Pierre Paradis,
and the present Minister of Environment of Canada, Ms. Copps,
signed a number of agreements. The plan for the St. Lawrence, for
instance, referred to as Vision 2000, and the agreement between the
Government of Quebec and the government in Ottawa on the St.
Lawrence. But the St. Lawrence starts in the Great Lakes.
Everything is inter-related. So these agreements are extremely
beneficial for Quebec and for Canada, for present and future
generations. It is important to have this co-operation between the
federal government and the provincial governments.
Ten months later we had a second agreement, an agreement with
the pulp and paper mills, an agreement signed by the Government
of Quebec and Ottawa. Incredible. We have not had many
environmental agreements since the separatist government came to
power, but we have had an agreement between Quebec and Ottawa
on environmental matters. This bill, sponsored by the Minister of
the Environment, makes me proud to be a Canadian, to be a
member of a generous and sharing society, a society that is open
and secure.
We live in a system that is evolving. We should let it evolve. Let
there be new agreements and new ways of sharing. Let us also
ensure that Canada, which, according to a UN report, ranked first
on quality of life and, according to a report by the World Bank
published yesterday, is the second richest country in the world, let
us make sure that in the future, this country keeps up the good work
through its environmental programs, as we have done in the past
and will continue to do so.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion to
amend Bill C-94, an act to ban the importation of MMT.
My colleague, the member for Calgary North, proposes to
withdraw Bill C-94 from second reading and refer the matter to the
Standing Committee on Industry. I support this motion, because
when we look at the facts it will become very clear that the banning
of MMT is clearly an industry issue, not an environmental issue.
14634
This bill revolves around an industry dispute, a dispute between
the Canadian Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, the
MVMA, and the Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute, the
CPPI. It should be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
The environment minister has Bill C-94 on a fast track through
the House on environmental grounds, but there is no impartial
evidence to support this approach or the minister's supposed
environmental claims. That is the reason we are debating an
interprovincial ban on MMT, as opposed to environmental
concerns.
It concerns me that after a review of legislation proposed in Bill
C-94 and of the scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence
presented both in support of the bill and in opposition to it, I am
still left with one question: Why is this government proposing to
ban MMT?
In the last session I asked the House to lay out the facts that
support this proposed legislation. I am still waiting for those facts
to be presented, which leaves me asking the same questions and
drawing the same conclusions. The minister's decision to ban
MMT is purely political. The fact is that the minister's decision has
been influenced by the MVMA.
(1725)
The MVMA wants the minister to ban MMT because it claims
that MMT is responsible for problems with onboard diagnostic
systems. However, there is a problem with this claim. Automakers
are experiencing the same problems in the United States, where
MMT is not in current use. Given this fact, and without any
impartial evidence, it is difficult to understand how equipment
problems could be the result of MMT's presence in Canadian
gasoline. We have two different cases.
There are many things that do not make sense with this bill. For
example, it is difficult to understand why this government is
proposing to ban a substance when research has shown that
removing MMT will increase vehicle emissions that cause smog
and poor air quality by up to 20 per cent.
Over the last decade Canadians have worked hard to reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxide to meet international and domestic
commitments to improve air quality. While we have been
successful at freezing NOX emissions at 1987 levels, and we have
pledged to do so with the OECD, can we now afford to consider
increasing NOX emissions by 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes a year? This
is what will happen by removing MMT from gasoline.
The government has yet to provide any answers regarding what
will replace MMT in gasoline. MMT is the only fuel additive that
has been scientifically proven to reduce emissions of NOX.
Alternative fuels such as ethanol also benefit from addition of
MMT, so this will affect their performance as well. Without MMT
ethanol puts NOX into the atmosphere, but when MMT is added to
a 10 per cent solution of ethanol blend it reduces emissions of NOX
by 30 per cent.
In addition, the minister has failed to address what the health
impacts of banning MMT will be. Air pollution can be a threat to
public health and health costs. NOX is one of the leading
contributors to formation of urban smog. Scientific testing has
demonstrated that without MMT, emissions of NOX will increase
by 20 per cent over current levels. That means additional
production of NOX every year, which would be equivalent to
adding a million cars to our roads.
Despite the environmental and health evidence, the environment
minister still echoes the concerns of the MVMA that MMT in
Canadian gasoline is causing problems for the onboard diagnostic
systems in the new model American cars. The minister says she
wants to ban MMT so that consumers will not have to pay $3,000
or more for their automobiles next year. However, there is no
scientific evidence to support this claim. These claims were made
by the MVMA's counterpart in the United States, and the U.S. court
of appeals has determined they were totally unfounded. In addition,
automakers are having exactly the same problems with OBDs in
the U.S., and MMT is not currently used, so it cannot be the MMT
that is causing the problem.
The environment minister has also stated that if vehicle
manufacturers carry through on threats to remove OBD systems the
result would be a tenfold increase in vehicle emissions. The OBD
system does not reduce emissions. OBDs are monitoring systems,
which provide drivers with notification by a dashboard light of a
potential problem that could increase emissions. Removal or
disconnection of the onboard system would prevent the dashboard
malfunction light from illuminating, but it would not have the
direct result of increasing emissions.
It concerns me that the minister does not appear to understand
the function of these onboard systems, especially as she cited this
as one of the major reasons for banning MMT. The environment
minister also indicated that she has received studies from the
MVMA that illustrate that MMT is the cause of onboard failures. I
find this most interesting. If these studies exist, why has GM
recently announced that it plans to conduct tests in the U.S. to
determine the effects of MMT on the onboard systems?
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-83,
an act to act to amend the Auditor General Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to
14635
the taking of the deferred division at the second reading stage of
Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act.
Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 332)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-183
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-48
PAIRED MEMBERS
Blondin-Andrew
Dromisky
Duhamel
Fry
Jacob
Lalonde
Langlois
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Robillard
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly, this bill is referred to the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
14636
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you might find
unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we have unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.30 p.m. the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.).