CONTENTS
Friday, October 11, 1996
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading; and of the amendment 5407
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5413
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5416
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5417
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5418
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5418
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5418
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5418
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5419
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5420
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5421
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5422
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5423
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5423
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5424
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5425
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5427
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 5427
Motion moved and agreed to 5428
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 5428
Division on amendment deferred 5431
Bill C-6. Report stage 5431
Motion for concurrence 5431
Motion for third reading 5431
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5443
5407
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 11, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 10, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the third time and passed; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
honoured to speak on a bill that I am confident will benefit every
Canadian from coast to coast. I am especially honoured to speak on
the bill as it directly affects my riding of Kent in Ontario. Next
Friday will be the ground breaking day for a world class ethanol
plant in Chatham, Ontario.
Alternative fuels are the wave of the future using corn as the base
product. Ethanol is an environmentally friendly, cost efficient and
job producing substance. It is my hope and belief that some day
every vehicle in Canada will run on alternative fuels.
Speaking of the ethanol plant in Chatham, I would like to give a
little history of how it came to be. Approximately four years ago I
was approached by Doug MacKenzie of Commercial Alcohols to
try and promote this to the federal government and get its backing.
Over the years we had a very busy time. We met with every
minister and every potential minister at that time to try and sell this
project for the county of Kent. Every Wednesday morning at
caucus we would present different proposals to all the ministers.
Every Wednesday morning it seemed as if I was approaching them
with a summons. I showed up every Wednesday with an envelope
for every minister which had information and articles on ethanol
and how it would benefit the Canadian population.
(1005)
There are 21 municipalities in Kent, not the riding of Kent but in
the county of Kent, of which I had the fortune of being a past
warden. All 21 municipalities sent in their support not only once
but twice to every member of Parliament.
I remember one cold day in January, in fact I think it was the
coldest day we had that year, the administrator of the city of
Chatham and the administrator of the county arrived here to meet
with the finance department. They were in their raincoats as they
were used to the weather in southwestern Ontario which we refer to
as the banana belt of Canada. We walked to the minister's office
which is approximately five blocks from here and both gentlemen
were completely frozen. They were not used to the weather in
Ottawa. The administrators met twice in Ottawa with the finance
department and the minister.
Over the year we had thousands of petitions from the riding of
Kent supporting an ethanol plant in Chatham. Really they were not
asking for money; what they were asking for was a tax deferment.
Since alcohol is not taxed in Canada they wanted to make sure that
it stayed off to give the company a kick off start.
This company is a $153 million project. On next Friday October
18 will be the kick off party to starting to build this project. The
ridings of Kent, Essex-Kent and Lambton-Middlesex, the corn
belt of Canada, will supply this company. It is another way of
people in agriculture being able to utilize their produce. Any
commodity that helps agriculture is to the benefit of all.
There will be approximately 90 to 100 jobs within the company
and a spinoff of approximately 400 jobs. People who work in
agriculture, truckers, labourers and shippers will all be involved
with this plant in Chatham. It is not only a benefit to the
environment, it is a benefit to the economy.
Over those years we tried every way possible to get the ministers
and the members of this party and the other parties to agree to
having this tax deferral. I must mention a chap who worked for me
by the name of Emery Huszka. Emery drove down to his hometown
of Bothwell filled a pickup with a load of corn and drove all the
5408
way back to Ottawa. One weekend he and his wife wrapped ears of
corn and our proposal with a ribbon. I must compliment Emery and
his wife Julie for all the work they did in such a novel way to get
attention. All the offices received an ear of corn with our proposal
wrapped by ribbon.
I must thank the member for Halton-Peel and the member for
Lambton-Middlesex who co-chaired the ethanol program for the
environment here under the former minister, the hon. member for
Hamilton East. They worked night and day to get this project off
the ground.
(1010)
I would like to thank all the members of Parliament who
supported this. It was almost unanimous. I believe there was only
one member who fought me on it, the member for
Sarnia-Lambton. I do not blame the member for
Sarnia-Lambton one iota. We are very close friends. But living in
the chemical valley of Canada he has to stand up for the people who
support him.
There were debates in Windsor. I debated along with Robert
Wheeler from the city of Chatham who is the head of economic
development against the member for Sarnia-Lambton and Ray
Curran, the chair of the Lambton industrial society. Our debate was
on the pros and cons of ethanol versus MMT. Later Doug
MacKenzie and I debated in the city of London against the
chemical companies themselves which were there to debate why
they felt MMT should not be banned and why we should not go
ahead with ethanol.
It was a very busy year and a half. My staff worked night and
day. But had it not been for the ministers of our government and the
members not only of the government but of the opposition who
gave their support, we would never have attained our goals.
Let me now address another important issue. As more and more
cars make their way onto our city streets and highways, we face a
major environmental problem. Every year the 14 million cars on
Canada's roads release about four tonnes of pollutants into the air.
Not only do excessive emissions infect the air we breathe but they
also pollute our water systems and environment. This is a massive
problem that is only getting worse.
I have personal evidence that ethanol is very beneficial as I have
used ethanol in my car for some 20 years or more. I drove one car
for over 450,000 kilometres without any trouble with its catalytic
converter or motor. Ethanol certainly benefits with a cleaner
running motor. I still use ethanol today after 20 years. I always pick
a gas station that sells ethanol.
I congratulate both the ministers of environment and agriculture
for taking hold of this problem, for tightening emissions
regulations, for improving fuel compositions and for encouraging
Canadians to make careful and environmentally sound
transportation choices.
As I mentioned earlier, I come from a rural area. It is the corn
capital of Canada. We do not have public transportation. My
community relies almost exclusively on automobiles for travel. We
do not have bus service or trains in our area so all individuals must
use their own transportation.
With the economy the way it is, husbands and wives work,
children work. They all have cars and they are all polluting our
environment. I am certain this is the case all over Canada. If we
accept that people are not going to give up their cars, then we have
to accept a cleaner, cheaper and better fuel product. MMT is the
exact opposite.
MMT is the gasoline additive that increases octane. It is not
essential to the operation of a car and many experts, including
automobile manufacturers, say that it causes significant problems
with pollution control components. That is why, relating to the car I
have, the catalytic converter is the same as the day I bought the car
new.
(1015)
Cars today are very sophisticated with onboard diagnostic
systems. These onboard systems are used to help drivers maintain
their car's pollution control systems. I understand that if one had to
be replaced it would cost approximately $1,000 with labour.
Studies have shown that MMT corrupts these systems.
The decision to ban MMT was made after serious consideration.
Along with many of my colleagues and the Ministers of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Environment, I have spent over
two years consulting automobile manufacturers, oil companies and
environmental groups. We are certain that banning this nasty
American fuel additive, and it is not a Canadian additive as it is
made in the southern United States, will improve the health and
safety standards for all Canadians.
Banning MMT also makes sense when we are already producing
better alternative fuels such as ethanol. There are several ethanol
plants in Canada. The one in Chatham is not the original as there
are several out west and down east.
When ethanol is made I talk of corn but ethanol can be made out
of anything: wood, straw, beans. It can be made out of any product
that is grown and is renewable.
As I mentioned before, ethanol is a cheaper and cleaner
alternative fuel. Banning MMT makes way for corn growers across
the country to contribute to the new exciting industry of alternative
fuels. I am confident that this bill will benefit all Canadians by
improving their health and their environment.
There are questions why Bill C-29 is important. Bill C-29
represents a prudent approach to ensuring that Canadian consumers
and the environment are protected in view of uncertainties
regarding the long term effect of MMT on advanced emission
control
5409
technologies such as the onboard diagnostics that are now only
emerging in the motor vehicle fleet on a widespread basis.
Why is it important to have OBD systems in Canadian vehicles?
OBD systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution
control systems, in particular the catalyst, and alert the driver to a
malfunction. This could prevent cases of increasing tailpipe
emissions, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, which impact on
local air quality, as well as carbon dioxide, the principal contributor
to climate change.
Properly functioning OBD systems are in essence an inspection
and maintenance tool in the vehicle. Inspection and maintenance
programs require vehicles to be emissions tested on a periodic
basis. I feel the environment committees and ministries will be
doing more of this to improve our society. Successful
implementation of properly functioning OBD systems will permit
all Canadians to benefit from such an emissions reduction strategy.
For example, an assessment of the emissions benefit attributed
to the air care inspection and maintenance program in the
Vancouver area, conducted on an annual basis, shows that
hydrocarbon emissions have been reduced by 20 per cent, carbon
monoxide emissions by 24 per cent, nitrogen oxide emissions by
2.7 per cent and fuel consumption by 5 per cent from the tested
fleet.
What are automakers going to do if MMT remains in Canadian
fuels? The automakers have indicated that if MMT remains in
Canadian gasoline they would take action ranging from
disconnecting OBD sensors to removal of the OBD system and
decreased warranty provisions for consumers. General Motors of
Canada has already advised the government that it has disabled
certain functions of the OBD system on 1996 model years.
(1020)
As I mentioned, by using ethanol these motors can run almost
indefinitely. In our positions as members of Parliament we travel
many miles in a year. Unfortunately, I must keep a car for a long
time because I am not in a position to trade it too often. I put an
immense amount of mileage on a vehicle.
How is this action to eliminate MMT from Canadian fuel
consistent with what is happening in U.S. fuel? The current
Canadian situation is not consistent with the U.S. MMT is
permitted up to twice the level in Canada today compared with the
level now allowed in conventional U.S. gasoline. When we test
gasoline for purities we use American gasoline to check mileage
and emissions here in Canada. I think this is wrong. We should be
using our own fuel to test.
However, there remains considerable uncertainty about the
widespread acceptance and the use of MMT in the U.S. First, there
already exists a patchwork of fuels, that is, some that use MMT
and some that are MMT-free in the North American market.
MMT is still not allowed in reformulated gasoline in the U.S.
which is required in areas that suffer from extreme air pollution.
Air pollution is starting to build up in the city of Toronto. Second,
the Environmental Protection Agency supported by the
Environmental Defence Fund has expressed serious concerns about
the lack of data related to the use of MMT in gasoline and
consequently has advocated a cautious approach with respect to the
use of this additive.
Third, many of the larger petroleum companies in the U.S. have
indicated that they do not intend to use MMT. In Canada right now
certain service stations use only an ethanol blend. In Chatham three
different companies use an ethanol blend.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment task
force report on cleaner vehicles and fuels recognized that fuels and
emissions control technology should be treated as an integrated
system to reduce motor vehicle emissions. The ministers have
further agreed to require that cleaner fuels be mandated for use in
all Canadian motor vehicles. The MMT initiative is fully consistent
with that approach.
I would like to thank all members of Parliament both on the
government and opposition sides who supported the ethanol plant
for the city of Chatham in the county of Kent. Without your help
and the help of the minister it would never have been realized for
our area. Chatham is still in a recession and this company will
certainly benefit the area. For all the people in the riding of Kent
and the county of Kent I wish to thank everyone for the efforts that
helped to implement this project. I also wish to thank the
Government of Canada for supporting this ethanol plant.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for his speech, but I think it reflects,
to some extent, the pressure exercised by lobbies and felt in this
House since the bill was first tabled.
I heard a lot about the ethanol plant, which is located in Ontario.
The hon. member is from that region, and I do not blame him for
his position, however, I would like to go back to some important
facts.
First, we asked the auto lobby and Ethyl corporation to submit
studies.
(1025)
Ethyl Corporation provided independent studies confirming that
MMT is not harmful to health, and that it is not harmful to
automobiles either. We asked auto dealers to do the same, but were
told: ``No, these are confidential studies. We cannot release them.
It would be dangerous from a competition point of view''.
5410
The point is that six provinces out of ten oppose this bill. Once
again, the federal government is getting involved in a field of
provincial jurisdiction. It will even prohibit the interprovincial
trade of manganese. This is another reason why we will vote
against the bill.
In our amendment, we simply asked that the bill be read the third
time six months from now. Again, we cannot be opposed to virtue.
We ask that independent studies be done, so as to check the version
of both sides and see if MMT is indeed dangerous and harmful, as
claimed by some Mps and others, even though no conclusive
studies support such claims.
All we have is a 1994 study from the health department itself,
which concludes there is no evidence that manganese is dangerous
or harmful to health.
There is another important point: manganese was just
reintroduced into the U.S. market. The government talks about the
North American market, but it wants to pass a bill to prohibit this
product at home.
The result is that this government is now being sued by Ethyl
corporation, to the tune of $201 million, in U.S. dollars, for
presumably violating certain NAFTA provisions. Mr. Speaker, I do
not know if you have $201 million to invest in this bill, but I feel
that, before making a decision like this one, we should do some
thinking.
In conclusion, we know that an ethanol plant was built. We have
nothing against ethanol, but who knows, maybe in five or ten years,
this product will be considered dangerous. After all, it is also an
additive. We are talking about additives. This may not be the best
solution to eliminate environmental problems caused by
greenhouse gases generated by automobiles.
Why not invest in a lasting technology such as the electric car? I
discussed this option the other day. To replace an additive with
another additive looks a lot like a response to big lobbies.
[English]
Mr. Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member
for her questions and her statements concerning MMT and the
studies that have been or have not been done over the years.
I have only been in the House of Commons approximately eight
years. The matter of ethanol production was brought up long before
I arrived. The feeling was that we should look into ethanol.
I believe hon. members have said that six provinces are not in
favour of banning MMT. There are ethanol plants out west, down
east, in Quebec. Those are the only plants I know of at the present
time, that is, in three different provinces.
I would imagine that Vancouver, and British Columbia in
general, would certainly be in support of ethanol over MMT. As far
as the safety of ethanol is concerned, whether it has been tested, all
I know is if someone can drink it, it cannot be that bad. One thing
about ethanol, if your car breaks down, while you are waiting for
help which takes a long time to arrive, you can sit there and drink
ethanol. You might not be in shape to drive the car afterward,
though.
Ethanol has been proven to be very safe. MMT, on the other
hand, has been banned in several states. I believe there are 16 states
in which there is an outright ban. For areas that have large car
populations such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal, Quebec,
Toronto, Vancouver it is to their benefit to be using ethanol instead
of MMT.
(1030)
There has been what we call evidence, although Ethyl said that it
is not evidence, coming from the United States. The United States
has studied this for the last 50 years. Ethanol is nothing new.
Ethanol has been produced in the United States for over 50 years.
In fact, when Henry Ford first came out with the Tin Lizzy, the
model-T, long before the hon. member was born, it burned ethanol
at that time. I have driven a model-T, but not new.
The evidence over the years in the United States has proven that
there are problems with MMT. It is not banning it just for the sake
of banning it. It is a very cheap additive. It is banning it because of
health reasons.
As far as the $201 million lawsuit, living on the border, I am
very familiar with Americans. They sue everyone for anything. It is
a good bluff.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, we are now at the next stage of
debate. Speakers will have a maximum of 10 minutes without
questions or comments.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening for a few days now to the famous debate on MMT and Bill
C-29. For the benefit of those who are still wondering what MMT
is after so many days of hearing about it in the House of Commons,
it is methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl.
I am surprised that Liberal members supporting the bill have not
each given the name of the product in full, so dangerous does it
appear to be, so chemical that anyone surveyed would oppose such
a product.
We know that it is a fuel additive, a manganese-based product
used to increase the octane rating in gasoline and improve engine
performance. It has been in use for a number of years.
Before preparing my speech, I reread the speech of the hon.
Minister of the Environment, who called for a ban on this additive
in gasoline. We heard about children with respiratory problems,
and city smog. It was a bit apocalyptic. It brought to mind certain
futuristic films with gloomy cities whose inhabitants are all
dressed in black, a bit like Batman films, where everything is dark
and dirty. Such was the image evoked by the minister.
5411
However, on giving it further thought and listening to the
speeches, we realize that many of our colleagues across the way
are talking about ethanol. We are wondering whether this is a
debate about MMT or about ethanol. We have questions. A closer
look at the situation reveals that there are two large lobbies, two
large organizations behind each of these products.
First, there is the automobile lobby, which is telling us that
MMT could damage the anti-pollution system. There was talk of
fouled spark plugs. There was also talk of devices to test new
motors. You know that there is a lot of computerization and
electronics, and they are claiming that the presence of MMT in
gasoline could cause this equipment to malfunction.
(1035)
According to the automobile manufacturers, the product presents
a hazard. But if the product is harmful, we would have liked to see
the Department of Health add it to its list of hazardous products. If
it had, we would not have had this debate. The Minister of Health
had the authority to do this.
The Department of Health looked into the matter in 1994 and
said there was no obvious hazard, and so the use of MMT as a gas
additive was not prohibited.
Then the following question arises: What are the arguments of
those in favour of continuing this practice? Those in favour are
mainly the oil companies. Here again, these are not necessarily
companies that are very reliable from the average citizen's point of
view, because the oil companies, like the automobile
manufacturers, pursue their own particular interests. They have a
vested interest in MMT as an additive. Let me explain: According
to the oil companies, production costs would go up if MMT were
ever to be replaced by another product.
Meanwhile, the oil companies have other arguments as well,
because they cannot just tell us it will cost us more and they will
have to sell their products at a higher price. They are also warning
us against replacing MMT with a specific product, ethanol, which
we will discuss later on.
There is also the issue of reducing the amount of nitrogen oxide.
It seems that the presence of MMT would reduce the production of
nitrogen oxide in the atmosphere. This is a positive factor, and the
oil companies have mentioned this. I already mentioned the cost
factor. The oil companies also quoted a study by the company that
produces MMT. There is, after all, a company that has an interest in
the production of MMT, Ethyl Corporation. It demonstrated on the
basis of its studies that the product as such was not harmful.
Considering these arguments, we are inclined to believe that the
bill aimed at prohibiting the use of MMT is not entirely on solid
ground.
Much has been made of the fact that in the United States, the use
of MMT as an additive was banned. However, there has been a
court ruling allowing certain larger oil companies to resume adding
MMT. So that argument is no longer valid.
There is another argument in favour of maintaining the use of
MMT as a gas additive, and that is NAFTA. As you know, we
signed NAFTA several years ago. The Liberal Party was opposed to
it. It was supposed to make very significant changes in the treaty,
but it was all much ado about nothing, because there were no major
changes. However, according to the NAFTA treaty, we would not
necessarily have the right to ban the use of MMT.
Earlier, there was a reference to a $200 million lawsuit, and one
hon. member opposite said, in responding to the hon. member for
Laurentides: ``They-the Americans-sue everyone for anything''.
But when you read the American newspapers, you realize that
people are being sued for enormous amounts of money. So I do not
think it is very reasonable to argue that it does not really matter if
we are sued, that we should not take it seriously, since it is just a
way for American lawyers to make a living.
There is another aspect we should not overlook, and it is that six
provinces in Canada are opposed to this ban. If it were only
Quebec, people could say that the Quebec separatists are at it again,
objecting to a federal measure because it interferes with provincial
jurisdictions, but here we have not one but six provinces. We could
also mention a letter from the Premier of Saskatchewan who is
opposed to banning MMT.
(1040)
We can see there are two lobbies in opposition here, the
automotive lobby and the petroleum industry. However, we as
legislators must reach a decision. We can see that the arguments for
removing MMT from gasoline have no scientific basis. We can see
that the arguments for continuing to introduce the
manganese-based additive to gasoline are readily defended.
There is another aspect which is becoming more and more
obvious, one on which my colleague from the party in power has
spoken at length just now: what would replace MMT, since
gasoline needs to have an additive in order to have the proper
octane level, would be ethanol. We note that there has been major
development in that industry in Ontario.
The other day, I heard our colleague for Lambton-Middlesex
speaking of the imminent opening of a $153 million plant in
Chatham, Ontario, which would provide an outlet for some of the
15 million bushels of corn produced in the Chatham region.
I am well aware that the product is being developed in Ontario,
that they want to replace MMT with ethanol, but I feel this should
be done openly. They ought to say: we have a Canadian product we
5412
want to develop, and it can be proven that it would replace MMT
advantageously. Then they convince the gasoline companies to
replace the MMT. There is no obligation for them to add MMT,
they could just as easily put in ethanol.
What we are doing now is doing the work of those who are trying
to develop the ethanol industry in Canada. We are trying to get
MMT taken out through binding legislation, which would leave
only one possible additive, ethanol, which just so happens to
benefit many ridings in Ontario.
This is why my party will be voting against the bill. There is no
proof that this is a dangerous product. It is not appropriate to vote
in favour of such a bill.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise briefly in the debate on the MMT legislation. I will
address some of the points raised by some of the opposition
members with regard to this issue.
The first issue is the impact of lobbying. All members must be
well aware of the activity of lobby groups from various sectors of
business and industry. Lobbyists to a great extent provide an
interesting service to members of Parliament in that they bring to
our attention their points of view and their interests with regard to
proposed legislation. We cannot forget there are lobbyists on both
sides of the question and probably on every position in between.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of
the Canadian automobile dealers association. I had a good chat
with their chairman, Mr. Douglas Leggat. We talked about a lot of
issues. The lobby is not a single issue group. It represents Canadian
automobile dealers association and not necessarily the
manufacturing sector.
The group has concerns besides banning MMT as an additive in
our fuels. Its representatives had concerns about the propriety of
banks getting into auto leasing. They had concerns about the GST
discrepancy, about whether GST had to be dealt with on their
trade-ins, whereas the small independents who apparently deal
with the vast majority of used car transactions do not get caught by
the GST situation. They are concerned with a broad spectrum of
issues.
(1045 )
The fact remains that it is not just the Canadian Automobile
Dealers Association. Throughout the debate we have heard that
virtually every automobile manufacturer has come out in support
of the banning of MMT.
MMT is a fuel additive which replaced lead in our gasoline. All
members know of the problems we faced when we phased out lead
because of the serious health consequences that could be caused
over a long period of time. As a result MMT, and I will not even try
to pronounce the full name, is a complex chemical additive and
replaces the additive lead which was necessary for the
configuration of the combustion engines.
A number of the Bloc members have said that they are not sure
that it is a dangerous substance. I sense that they are trying to say
that until we know it is dangerous, do not do anything. The first
thing I thought of when I heard that argument was, is it a good
policy to wait until after there is a problem to do something?
Maybe it is more prudent and responsible to deal with issues on a
preventative basis to make sure that we do not get ourselves into a
situation such as we had with lead additives or with
ureaformaldehyde insulation. Again, at the time it came out there
was a lot of interest. It was a new product recommended by
jurisdictional authorities. As everyone knows, serious problems
were revealed later.
On the point of not being sure, the issue is that we are not sure.
There are no definitive studies that show the significance of the
health impacts. There are some indications from some sectors.
There is some disagreement and this is the reason that a strong
central government is necessary because there is a disagreement
among the provinces.
Apparently six of the ten provinces have said they do not think
they want to support the banning of MMT. I am not sure of their
individual reasons. The fact remains that we are not meddling in
provincial jurisdictions. This is a health issue and an environmental
issue. The federal government has to be proactive in terms of the
protection of the health of Canadians and of Canada's environment.
There was some question about it having been reintroduced in
the United States. Even the materials that were provided to
members refute that as well. There are no major changes in the
position of the U.S. More questions have been raised than answers
given, quite frankly.
This piece of legislation calls for the banning of MMT. If we
need an additive and MMT is going to be banned, it will have to be
replaced by something. Major petroleum industry representatives
are looking at ethanol as the additive replacement. When I was with
United Co-operatives of Ontario, our petroleum division actually
had a test site in the production of ethanol. It could not keep enough
of it in stock for consumers who wanted it because of the
significant increase in the performance level of automobiles. That
was in the Guelph area. As I recall, this was a big breakthrough.
With regard to ethanol, another point that has been made by the
opposition is that it is an Ontario issue. That is not quite right
because there is an ethanol plant in Quebec and one out west. We
now have a new plant in Chatham.
5413
Our thanks go to the leadership of people such as the member
for Kent who spoke earlier who have been working for some time
to make sure that the facts get on the table. Judging from his
speech the member knows what he is talking about. He has been
a member of this House for eight years. He has done his work
and he has provided leadership within this House to make sure
that members know.
(1050)
In closing I want to reiterate that the purpose of the bill is
environmental health and protection. The most efficient way to
ensure environmental health and protection is through pollution
prevention. We have heard enough already about the impact on
catalytic converters and the need for dealing with emissions into
our environment.
Cars are the single largest polluter of our environment. This is
one constructive, positive and necessary step to make sure that
Canada has a cleaner environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
this opportunity to take part in today's debate on Bill C-29, an act
to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
The purpose of Bill C-29 is to ban manganese-based products,
including MMT, which are suspected by the government and the
automobile industry of damaging antipollution devices in cars,
although in Canada this substance has been added to most types of
unleaded gasolines since 1977. Therefore it follows that MMT is
harmful to the environment and to the health of Quebecers and
Canadians. However, this is not so.
When added in very small quantities, as it is in gasoline, MMT
has been shown not to be harmful either to the environment or to
health. Since the conclusions arrived at by Health Canada were not
the ones the government expected, it had no other choice but to
resort to a special piece of legislation to ban interprovincial trade in
and importation for a commercial purpose of certain
manganese-based substances, including MMT.
After the auditor general, is it now the turn of Health Canada
scientists to be the butt of Liberal wrath? One might wonder.
If the Canadian government wants to legislate in this area, it is
not on environmental grounds nor to protect the health of its
citizens, but as the result of pressure from various lobbies. If MMT
had been proven to be a health hazard, or harmful to the
environment and cars, its use would have been banned a long time
ago.
To better understand the whole controversy surrounding the use
or prohibition of MMT, it might help to mention again who the
stakeholders are in this issue.
First there is the Ethyl Corporation. Based in the United States, it
manufactures lubricating additives and engine performance
enhancing fuels. Moreover, it is the only exporter of MMT to
Canada. MMT is added to gasoline in Sarnia, Ontario.
Second, there is the American Environment Protection Agency.
For years it has been fighting Ethyl in court to maintain the ban on
MMT. On November 30, the EPA regulation was overruled by the
US court of appeal in the District of Columbia. The EPA announced
it did not intend to appeal the ruling.
Third, there are the car manufacturers. They are against any kind
of gasoline additives, including MMT. They are threatening to
increase car prices in Canada and limit the warranty coverage on
these cars if MMT is not banned. There is as yet no hard proof that
MMT actually harms automobile pollution control systems.
Last, there are the oil companies. They are in favour of MMT on
technical grounds. Processing MMT is less intensive, therefore oil
refinery smoke stacks release smaller quantities of pollutants into
the atmosphere.
(1055)
And finally, ethanol producers are probably opposed to MMT
because they believe ethanol would be an excellent alternative to
MMT. It is interesting to note that ethanol is produced mainly in
the riding of the former Minister of the Environment, the present
Deputy Prime Minister.
Therefore the whole issue of banning MMT is resulting in
considerable costs for the oil industry. These costs could amount to
$7 million in Quebec alone. Furthermore, oil companies could
spread a rumour of massive layoffs, or price increases for the
consumer, if MMT is not accepted.
We must not forget that Canada is facing a suit for $275 million
from Ethyl Corporation, based on the free movement of goods
policy included in NAFTA. Personally, I believe the Minister of the
Environment is taking a big risk, which could have unforeseeable
consequences, on top of all the problems this would cause for the
Canadian affiliate of Ethyl Corporation.
Last February, the international trade minister wrote to the
environment minister to remind him of that fact. But it seems the
environment minister decided to wait and see whether Ethyl or the
American government would initiate legal proceedings against the
federal government for breach of the free trade agreement.
Furthermore, as I mentioned before, banning MMT would
benefit the ethanol industry, which is well developed in Ontario and
the West, at the expense of the ethanol industry in Quebec which is
barely beginning.
I would like to explain the Bloc Quebecois' position. The Bloc is
open to the passing of a bill banning the utilisation and the
importation of MMT, provided it is proven that this product poses a
threat to the environment and people's health. The Bloc Quebe-
5414
cois even voted in favour of Bill C-29 to allow for a more thorough
study in order that light could be shed on the whole issue.
However, I must admit that debate and discussions brought to
light not the harmful effects of MMT, but the stubbornness and
partisanship of the present Minister of the Environment and of his
predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister. The Liberal government is
showing no respect for the international trade agreements it signed
and disregards the Canadian Constitution as far as provincial
jurisdictions are concerned.
When it tabled Bill C-29, the federal government declared it
wanted to regulate gasoline distribution essentially for three main
reasons, because MMT was hazardous to the health of Canadians
and Quebecers, because it could damage pollution control devices
and because we should harmonize our policies with the American
ones. Unfortunately those arguments are no longer valid. A recent
American ruling has shown that MMT has no harmful effects on
pollution control systems.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-29 and
that is why we shall vote against it.
The Speaker: I am sorry, but this must come to an end, is that
not so? We will now move on to members' statements.
_____________________________________________
5414
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Fire Prevention Week began October 6. This Saturday, October 12
is Fire Service Recognition Day. This is our chance to honour
Canada's 98,000 firefighters, full time and volunteer professionals
alike.
As a former volunteer firefighter with Lindsay Ops, I want to
emphasize how vital this service is to Canadians and ask you to
follow this year's Fire Prevention Week slogan: ``Let's hear it for
fire safety. Test your detectors''. Let us deliver the message on
behalf of firefighters across the country to remind people that a
fully operational smoke detector will save the lives of you and your
neighbour.
(1100 )
This Thanksgiving Day take time to check your detector. If you
need assistance, ask any firefighter. They care about your safety.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an association
providing services to senior citizens in my riding, Les Aîné(e)s de
Jonquière, recently received the Armand-Marquiset honourary
award at an international gerontology symposium held in Montreal.
This award recognizes the excellence of voluntary work
perpetuating the values promoted by Armand Marquiset, the
French founder of the movement Les Petits Frères des pauvres.
We often say no man is a prophet in his own country and, yet, the
organization Les Aîné(e)s of Jonquière is the exception. Its
remarkable work has long been recognized by the people in the
community it serves. Its reputation is now transcending our
borders.
I congratulate Les Aîné(e)s de Jonquière association for this
award, honours all of Quebec. We must encourage all the
associations that, like Les Aîné(e)s de Jonquière, are concerned
with easing and enriching the lives of our elderly people with all
the respect and recognition they deserve.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
credibility of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
becomes more and more questionable as each day passes. This is
no more evident than in the case of his failure to demand the
resignation of the Progressive Conservative second in command in
the Senate. This Tory senator refuses to answer a court subpoena in
Saskatchewan based on his parliamentary privilege. He is using an
archaic, irrelevant, obsolete section of the Constitution to avoid
appearing in court. This Tory senator's actions demean the integrity
of Parliament and all politicians.
What does the Progressive Conservative leader say for himself?
Zilch, zippo, notta, not a peep.
Hopefully this friendly reminder will motivate the Tory leader to
stand up for the people of Saskatchewan and demand that the
senator come out from behind his self-serving abuse of
parliamentary privilege. Anything short of that demand will exhibit
the Tory leader's contempt for parliamentarians, the democratic
process in Canada, but most especially concerned Canadian
citizens.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was sorry to hear that the tentative deal to harmonize the
GST with provincial sales taxes in three Atlantic provinces appears
to be back on track with the so-called Nova Scotia compromise on
book sales.
It is obvious from this deal that harmonization negatively affects
the province's right to make tax policy sympathetic to local
5415
economies. Under the deal in Nova Scotia books will continue to be
taxed by the federal government, which does not seem to
understand the growing evidence that the GST harmonization will
not benefit consumers, workers or regional economies.
New Democrats across Canada led by Nova Scotia's Alexa
McDonough say that the current harmonization proposal is the
wrong direction for tax reform since it shifts taxes away from
business and corporations and applies them to the poor, middle
class and working families.
Harmonization including the Nova Scotia compromise remains
unfair and ineffective.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 2, 1996 hundreds of guests attended a special
dinner honouring Mr. R. W. Ganong's 90th birthday celebration.
Mr. Ganong of the famous Ganong Bros. Limited chocolate
company of St. Stephen, New Brunswick has a long history in the
Canadian confectionery industry, beginning with the Ganong firm
in 1927 where he acted as superintendent for 17 years, general
manager for 11 years, president for 20 years, chairman of the board
for 17 years and since 1994 has acted as chairman emeritus.
In addition to R. W. Ganong's successful career, he served his
community, province and our country to the best of his capacity. He
was honoured as the first Candy Man, a distinction awarded by the
Canadian confectionery industry in June of 1976. In 1982 the
University of New Brunswick, Saint John campus, presented Mr.
Ganong with an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and in 1989 R. W.
Ganong was presented with the Order of Canada.
Congratulations to Mr. R. W. Ganong, 90 years young on
October 2, 1996.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians share the same values. They are peaceful, generous and
united. We are also proud of our cultural diversity and we promote
bilingualism from coast to coast.
Thus, the Toronto school board is proposing mandatory French
courses to all students, these courses being required by the
Department of Education and Training.
(1105)
Together, public and catholic boards in Toronto have 14 French
schools. In fact, French is thriving in Toronto. Many students in my
riding even have the opportunity to learn three languages
simultaneously.
Obviously, our linguistic duality is dynamic and constitutes an
unquestionable asset for Canadians in the global economy.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week is
Mental Illness Awareness Week. One out of five Canadians is
affected by mental illness at sometime in their lives. It is time to
destigmatize mental illness.
I salute the Canadian Psychiatric Association, its partners and
the volunteers in this year's campaign of teamwork in service
delivery. I support medical research and urge every Canadian to do
so.
Last week in my riding a functional magnetic resonance imaging
research facility opened. It is the first of its kind outside the United
States. This facility will map brain activity at the cellular level and
will contribute to the vital medical research being carried out at the
institute. We will gain a greater understanding of Alzheimer's,
schizophrenia, vision and other brain related disorders and issues.
To those who continue to work tirelessly on the institute's
discovery fund campaign, I offer my thanks and congratulations. I
am confident that staff, researchers and the benefactors of this
institute will add to their list of accomplishments. Their research
will benefit the world and all Canadians. Bravo.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois would like to commend Canadian economist William
Vickrey who, along with James Mirrlees, from Great Britain,
received the 1996 Nobel Economy Prize.
William Vickrey, born in 1914, is a key figure in contemporary
economics. In the last 45 years, he has published several books and
some 140 scientific articles in many renowned journals.
The Nobel Prize was awarded to these two researchers for their
contribution to the economic theory of incentives under
asymmetric information. Professor Vickrey carried out significant
studies
5416
on the taxation level taxpayers can bear to finance government
expenditures without these taxes having a negative impact on
employment and tax revenues.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to congratulate Professor
Vickrey for receiving this award. Such an honour reflects on all
Quebecers and all Canadians; so, it is in their names that we want
to pay tribute to Professor Vickrey today.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since coming to this House three years ago, I have seen
some notable changes. Liberals have taken shaky, tentative steps in
trying to implement Reform policies.
The biggest contrast between a Reformer and a Liberal is their
vision for the future of Canada. It is appropriate during family
week to point out that Reform is the family friendly party because
of its concern for children. Reform's fiscal policies are designed to
lessen the debt and tax burden on our young people and to give
them better jobs and more opportunities.
The Liberal-Tory policies have instead forced our children to pay
for government excesses that occurred before they were even born.
Overtaxation forces both parents to work outside the home. A weak
Young Offenders Act and targeting law-abiding citizens rather than
criminals are the Liberal's legacy.
However, the area where the most contrast exists is the Liberal
vision for the future, which redefines families. Social engineering
does not work. Liberals obviously are not learning their lessons by
attending Reform school, so implementation of the Reform vision
will have to be left to a Reform government.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October is Women's History Month. As the member of
Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River, I would like to take a
moment to speak in appreciation of all of the women of
Dauphin-Swan River who make our constituency a wonderful
place to live in.
Women's History Month was created by the Government of
Canada to encourage the awareness of women's contributions to
Canadian society. This year's theme is women and the arts. In
Dauphin-Swan River we have many women who have made
valuable contributions to our arts community through the years.
Right now a group called Friends of the Dauphin Allied Arts
Council has the work of 17 local women artists displayed in the
Dauphin shopping mall. The works, stained glass, ceramics, water
colours and wood carvings, are featured to celebrate this year's
Women's History Month.
(1110 )
I applaud the Government of Canada for supporting a valuable
and worthwhile initiative like Women's History Month.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past summer as I travelled through my
riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe I had the
opportunity to meet with 26 town councils and hundreds of
constituents.
The question that was most frequently asked of me was: ``What
has the Liberal government done for me?'' This was my answer:
``If I had told you back in the summer of 1993 that in three years
our government would achieve the following you probably would
not have believed me''. The deficit is down from $42.5 billion in
1993 to $17 billion by the end of 1997, a 60 per cent decrease.
Exports are up by over 30 per cent. The prime rate is down to 5.5
per cent. Mortgage rates are down by 4 per cent. On a $100,000
mortgage that gives homeowners an extra $3,000 a year in their
pockets, and that is without a tax cut.
This is how far we have come and I strongly believe that we
should continue moving in this direction.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in an open letter published earlier this week in the daily
Le
Devoir, Bernard Landry reacts to an article written by Claude
Picher about the likelihood of an independent Quebec entering
NAFTA.
True to the PQ theory, Bernard Landry let himself be persuaded
that an independent Quebec would have no trouble being accepted
within NAFTA. The consensus among international experts is that
an independent Quebec would not automatically be part of NAFTA.
The United States would certainly not miss such an opportunity.
Instead of losing his time in futile and hypothetical discussions,
Mr. Landry should focus on abolishing barriers to interprovincial
trade. After all, are the other Canadian provinces not among the
major trade partners of Quebec?
5417
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have learned recently that a peace agreement could soon put an end
to the horrible civil war that has been tearing Guatemala apart for
35 years.
It seems that the peace process officially undertaken in 1991 will
soon come to a successful conclusion. The Bloc Quebecois salutes
the tenacity and the dedication of the Guatemalan people, of
Rigoberta Menchu, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and strong
defender of the rights of the native majority, as well as the efforts
of all supporters of democracy and the good work of United
Nations mediators. These mediators helped find a lasting solution
to a brutal armed conflict that has claimed more than 100,000 lives
and forced one million Guatemalans into exile.
With the conclusion of this agreement for peace, security and
justice between guerillas and the government, we can now hope for
lasting peace and a true democracy in that country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have spent a lot of time in the bush and, with this being
National Family Week, I have to say that animals in the forest treat
their young better than we do.
Families are the building blocks of society. But what has this
Liberal government done to protect them? Regarding finances,
since the Liberals came to power the average annual family income
has dropped by about $3,000. The old line parties structured
income tax so that families in which one parent stays at home to
care for children pay many thousands of dollars more in taxes than
families that pay someone else to look after their youngsters.
Regarding safety, the Liberals still put the rights of criminals
ahead of society's right for safety. After all, it is the children who
are the main victims of young offenders. And kids themselves want
the Young Offenders Act made a lot tougher. In many cities today
kids dare not wear a favourite T-shirt or sports cap to school for
fear they will be mugged or it will be stolen.
It is past time the Liberals acted to support kids and the
traditional family.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week Canada is celebrating National Family Week to renew our
commitment to strong, healthy and happy families.
The family is the basic unit of humanity, without which society
as we know it would cease to exist. Family means children, the
guardians of our future. Family means unselfishly putting the
interests of our children ahead of our own, and family means
providing care, support and love to each other for life.
Strong families are less likely to depend on social assistance,
less likely to have children living in poverty, less likely to become
chronic users of health care and less likely to run afoul of the laws
of Canada.
(1115)
In brief, strong families mean a strong country. If the family is
strong, the deficit would be gone and children would have the first
call on the resources of the nation.
In this National Family Week my prayer is that all families find
the fortitude they need to stay strong, healthy and happy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois does not want hear about a ten-year
moratorium on sovereignty and he does not intend to give the Parti
Quebecois full responsibility for the sovereignist project.
On this subject he said, and I quote: ``The Parti Quebecois does
not own sovereignty. The sovereignist project is a shared
responsibility and that is exactly why there are partners [. . .]Should
there be a ten-year moratorium on sovereignty, it would make a
notable difference: I would no longer be a partner in that project''.
It becomes increasingly clear that the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois belongs to the more radical wing of the separatist
movement. For him, the separation of Quebec is the only thing that
counts.
Lucien Bouchard really should stay away from this undesirable
ally, who could hamper his efforts towards the reunification of
Quebec.
_____________________________________________
5417
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last March, the Minister of Canadian Heritage asked the CRTC
to review the licences of Power Music Choice and DMX, because
these audio programming businesses were not complying with the
Canadian and French language content rules in broadcasting. Last
5418
August, the CRTC maintained its decision and renewed Power's
and DMX's licences even though these businesses had not changed
their programming one bit.
Does the minister recognize that the conditions that prompted
her to return DMX's licence to the CRTC still prevail and that
DMX still has a major problem in terms of the Canadian and
French language content requirements?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both licensees the hon.
member is referring to have agreed to comply with Canadian
content requirements. They are also committed to increasing
Canadian content by 25 per cent.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that may have been the case for Power, which, in any case,
decided to put its licence on ice. But such is not the case for DMX,
which was authorized by the CRTC to carry 17 U.S. channels out of
a 110-channel pool.
How can the minister claim there is no problem, since otherwise,
the U.S. Trade Secretary would stop writing to his Canadian
counterpart, the Minister for International Trade. There is indeed a
problem.
On September 27, in this House, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage made a commitment to protect Canadian broadcasting
interests. Can the minister confirm today that she is staying on
course and that protecting the cultural interests of Canada and
Quebec remains her priority?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the U.S. government is exerting enormous pressure on the
Canadian government to make concessions in the DMX matter.
The Americans' goal is clear: getting rid of the cultural exemption
clause in NAFTA.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage admit today in this
House that, if her government makes concessions in the DMX
matter, it will be easy for the U.S. to circumvent the cultural
exemption clause in NAFTA?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact
that, after we decided to return the licence applications filed by
Power, DMX, Galaxy and Allegro, both Power and DMX agreed to
increase Canadian content by 25 per cent and made a commitment
to comply with the French language content requirements set out in
the existing legislation.
(1120)
That is why we have protected Canadian culture and will protect
Canadian culture. One thing is clear: a 25 per cent increase in
Canadian content cannot be called a loss.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to
our knowledge, only Allegro, Galaxie and Power Music Choice
have written to the CRTC to refuse to use the license clause
allowing for assembly. DMX never wrote to the CRTC to say that it
would not use this clause.
In this context, Allegro and Galaxie are Canadian audio services
companies whose programming will be done entirely in Canada.
The content of their broadcast will be 30 per cent Canadian and 25
per cent French, in accordance with the rules on Canadian content
in the broadcasting sector.
Does the minister recognize that Galaxie and Allegro will be the
victims of unfair competition by DMX Music, and that DMX will
import unauthorized American channels and, more importantly,
will be subject to licensing requirements clearly less rigorous as
regards Canadian and French content?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, instead of relying on the
Globe and Mail, the hon. member should have waited for my
department's press release to get the facts. These facts are as
follows: DMX and Power Corporation have both agreed to the
same conditions.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister will have to make a decision in the case of DMX and
as regards the licenses obtained from the CRTC. Does the minister
recognize that, if she is prepared to protect Canadian content and
the interests of the Canadian and Quebec cultures, she has the
power, under the CRTC act, to cancel DMX's license?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Power Corporation and
DMX agreed to increase their Canadian content by 25 per cent,
following cabinet interventions and decisions-
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): That is not true.
Mrs. Copps: The hon. member says it is not true in the case of
DMX. I have a written commitment from DMX. This is why I
suggest to the hon. member that he should wait for the cabinet
decision, instead of getting his information from the Globe and
Mail. He will see, in writing, that the commitment made by DMX
is the same as that made by Power Corporation.
5419
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on July 27
the Minister of Natural Resources wrote the following regarding
the route of the Sable Island gas pipeline: ``The Government of
Canada has no intention of interfering with the regulatory process
in favour of one project over another and ultimately market forces
will decide which project will succeed''.
We note that earlier, on June 7, after a meeting with the premier
of Quebec, the Prime Minister had stated: ``We will work toward
supporting the Quebec proposal''. Interestingly, yesterday the
Prime Minister said he wanted to see the gas pipeline go through
Quebec.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is it she
who speaks for the government when saying that the free market
will dictate the route of the pipeline, or is it the Prime Minister who
says the pipeline must go to Quebec?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the project will require
the approval of the National Energy Board on matters of need,
financial integrity, of routing and environment and other public
interest considerations.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was
well read.
(1125 )
The Prime Minister's comments on this issue, both on June 7 and
on October 10 have basically compromised the object-
Mr. Volpe: Come on, Jim. Let's see if you can come up with
something.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Abbott: The parliamentary secretary and I are going to have
a reading contest today.
Obviously, the Prime Minister has learned nothing from the
national energy program. I do not have to read about that. The
Liberals will remember. That was the program which caused tens
of thousands of Albertans to go into personal bankruptcy over the
ill-thought out Liberal national energy program. They are doing it
again.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to influence the National
Energy Board by exerting political pressure to re-route this pipeline
through Quebec?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, additionally more of
the projects will need the approval of the marketplace.
For projects to proceed, they will also need the support of the
customers to guarantee the economic feasibility of the pipeline
project. Every project will receive the same regulatory treatment
from the federal regulatory agencies. The principles of fairness,
equity and efficiency will be applied to all proposals.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
reading contest is becoming fun. On one hand, I have a question, on
the other hand, she has an answer to a question that I have not
asked. We will have to get on to the same page.
The author of the report on the Sable pipeline route stated that
the building of the Sable gas pipeline to the U.S. through Nova
Scotia and southern New Brunswick makes the most sense. This
proposal is 100 per cent private sector funded. Gaz Metropolitan,
on the other hand, is proposing that customers of TransCanada
PipeLines subsidize the cost of the Prime Minister's Sable
Island-Quebec diversion by a 3 per cent increase in price. This is a
3 per cent tax increase on heating the homes of Canadian families,
any way you slice it.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources unequivocally renounce
this 3 per cent tax increase on heating Canadian homes?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, all
the projects are going to require the approval of the National
Energy Board.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday, the Minister of Finance confirmed that he
would stick with the policy he began three years ago. While
admitting that he found the job situation worrisome, he went on in
the same breath to tell us that no additional measure would be
necessary to stimulate job creation.
This morning, the wonderful results of the minister's policy
were announced. Statistics Canada confirmed that not only is the
job situation worrisome, as the minister said, but that it is a
veritable disaster, with the unemployment rate on the increase. And
we have him to thank for it.
I put the following question to him: Will the minister come to his
senses and admit that his government is on the wrong track with its
job creation policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that the figures we saw this morning are very
disappointing. However, sight must not be lost of the fact that the
monthly figures are very volatile. We saw this last June and we saw
it again this morning. But we also saw that we created 82,000 jobs
in Canada last month, twice the number of jobs that unfortunately
disappeared today.
5420
This indicates very clearly, and I am certain that the member
across the way will agree with me, that this is a very complex
problem. We can see this in the discussions at the Quebec summit.
It is a problem that will only be solved by expanding our export
markets, and providing better manpower training. There is no
magic formula. We are working very hard on this. Furthermore, the
trend this year is positive; to date, 55,000 new jobs have been
created in the private sector.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the minister that the situation is complex, but
something must be done. We are 870,000 jobs short of what we had
before the recession, and the minister sits back and does nothing
but spout lofty speeches about job creation.
(1130)
I formally ask the minister, on behalf of unemployed workers in
Canada, whether he is immediately going to implement a real
measure to stimulate employment, in the form of a substantial
reduction in employers' and employees' rates of contribution to the
unemployment insurance fund. Not the measly 5 cents he told us
about yesterday, but a substantial reduction, like the Bloc
Quebecois has been asking him for since we first came to this
House, and like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce asked him for
last week, a full 60 cents less.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have already indicated that it is certainly a priority for the
government to reduce unemployment insurance premiums.
Furthermore, we have suited action to word in the past. I must point
out that, last year, the decrease in unemployment insurance
contributions was, with one exception, the largest decrease since
the creation of the unemployment insurance program: $1.8 million.
Second, I told the member that unemployment insurance is not
the only drain on payrolls. There are also provincial deductions for
health benefits and the CSST. With your permission, I would like to
tell you, just to show that there is no magic solution, what the
president of the Association des manufacturiers exportateurs du
Québec had to say this morning. A survey of its members
concerning the decrease in payroll taxes revealed that only 4 per
cent of them replied that this measure will lead directly to the
creation of jobs.
At the same time, Mr. Ponton said that lowering payroll taxes
does not necessarily result in the creation of jobs. This is simply to
say that there is no magic solution. Yes, premiums must be
lowered, but there is no magic formula.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Here we go again. The last time the Liberal government told
Canadians that oil and gas should be to their benefit the natural
resources of the west were pillaged and plundered. Now the Prime
Minister is trying to sell this same story to the people of Nova
Scotia.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is very succinct.
Why is the government caving in to the demands of a separatist
government in Quebec instead of defending the rights of loyal
people and a loyal government in Nova Scotia?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by
the hon. member are a disgrace.
The Prime Minister has stated clearly throughout this process
that he intends to respect the commercial viability of any
agreement that might be signed. Frankly, I think the intention of the
Reform Party to try to create another incident to cut Quebec away
from Canada is disgraceful.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think that if this
Deputy Prime Minister and this government were to pay attention
they would realize that the people at the extreme ends of this
country are dissatisfied with the way Ottawa is mismanaging our
affairs. That is the message.
There is a very basic principle at stake here and that is the
independence of the National Energy Board. Twice the Prime
Minister has publicly made statements using his position as Prime
Minister to pressure this board. I would think his own invisible
guidelines would have rules against that.
Why is the government meddling in the affairs of the
independent National Energy Board?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member will go
back to the response of the Prime Minister to a question of a
student at an open meeting in Nova Scotia, he said that what is in
the best interest of Canada is obviously to have linkages in Canada
when it is commercially viable. That is exactly the position that he
took in the House of Commons and exactly the position that he
took in response to questions from the Reform Party.
Frankly the attempt of the extremists which the member speaks
about, the extremists in the Reform Party who want to create a fight
with Quebec on every single issue, do not care about building a
nation. What they care about is building obstacles to try and tear
this country apart. That is not what this Prime Minister and this
Liberal government is all about.
5421
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Youth unemployment has reached unacceptable levels. The
statistics confirmed once again this morning that young people are
among those most severely affected by job losses. Their official
unemployment rate has increased again and is now at 16.6 per cent.
More than 400,000 young people are out of work, and we know that
out there the situation is actually even worse. However, we know
that the Department of Human Resources Development still has
$45 million left of the $105 million announced this spring to help
develop jobs for youth.
I would appreciate a clear answer to the following question: Can
the minister guarantee that the as yet unused amount of $45 million
will be spent by the end of the year, in a serious effort to help young
people return to the labour market?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to confirm to the
hon. member that I will give him a clear reply. The amounts
announced in the last budget for youth employment totalled $315
million, to be spent in the next few years.
The unemployment situation among young people is
unacceptable, and we are keenly aware of this. This fall we intend
to announce a youth initiative. But we are trying to be a responsible
government; just because the money is there does not mean we are
going to waste it. We will have a youth initiative, to be announced
this fall.
I intend to discuss this in cabinet during the next few weeks. I
can inform you that this initiative will be used to create durable
jobs for young people. We want to give them the kind of experience
that will help them become better integrated in the labour market.
Young people need experience, and we need their enthusiasm, and
we intend to do something about this in the weeks to come.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when will the minister have some concrete
announcements for young people, and when will young people be
able to report to their local employment centres to get the practical
help they need to re-enter the labour market? That is my question.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last summer we doubled the
amount of money available for youth employment, and we were
delighted with the results.
I will go to cabinet with a comprehensive youth initiative, which
will include funding not only from the Department of Human
Resources Development, but more, because I know that the
Minister responsible for CIDA and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
are ready to do their share. Young people will have a better hope of
entering our labour market in a variety of areas. The Minister of
Industry, who is a great fan of our young people, will urge them to
join the technology sector.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
unemployment news is out today and it is bad: 86,000 full time jobs
disappeared last month. Let there be no doubt the Liberal policy of
jobs, jobs, jobs is in the tank.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can this
minister say on Wednesday that the future of Canada is fine, but on
Friday it is clear that the future of working families is on the line?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member had been there, he would have noticed a very
heavy emphasis being placed on the absolute necessity of focusing
on job creation and on the re-establishment of a whole series of
programs which the government has brought in on trade and youth
employment, as the minister of human resources has just set out.
The basic difference that occurred at that meeting on Wednesday
was that we said the deficit reduction was not as the Reform Party
would postulate as an end in itself but it was simply a means to
greater job creation and that the reduction in interest rates has led
to more investment and will lead to more job creation.
The hon. member knows there is a lag time. A year ago interest
rates were at 8.5 per cent and are now at 3.5 per cent. There is not
an economist across the country who does not say that is the single
most important foundation for future jobs.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, rosy
predictions and forecasts do not put a turkey on the table this
weekend and that is what Canadians want. Canadians have
mortgages to pay. They have rent to pay. They have car loans to
pay. They have student loans to pay. They have families to feed.
(1140)
On Wednesday the Minister of Finance said that if you are
sinking below a mountain of debt you will feel better because the
5422
rates are lower. When people lose their jobs they are devastated and
this government does not seem to care.
Will the Minister of Finance give Canadians the tax cut they
need now so they can save their jobs now and create more jobs
now? That requires no bureaucracy, no administration, and that can
be in place this weekend.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
had the hon. member been there and had he listened, he would
know what was said. When somebody buys a new car today it costs
$500 less in interest. That puts money in his pocket. When he has to
renew his mortgage it puts $3,000 more in his pocket. That helps
the economy.
We keep going back to this new found interest of the Reform
Party in job creation. On September 18, 1993 in Penticton, British
Columbia the Reform Party leader said that it would take up to
three years before any job creation would occur under his party's
economic plan. He went on to say that his zero in three plan would
actually cost more jobs in the interim.
If his plan had been followed there would be negative job
creation in Canada. Under the Liberals there have been over
600,000 new jobs created. We are ahead of them by a lot.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Since CN has announced it plans to sell or abandon the line
between Chandler and Gaspé, no buyer has been found, and this
line may disappear altogether. On October 4, the minister told this
House that his department was looking into the matter and that the
government had not made a decision yet.
Can the minister tell us today whether this decision has now been
made and what the government's involvement, if any, will be?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that when we have
information to report I will give it to him.
Many of the decisions that are involved in transport issues are
complex because we are not dealing with a single mode of
transportation but with the impact of one mode against another.
When I have the information I will provide it to him.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
always get partial answers. We are told that no decision has been
made, and that it will come eventually. In the meantime, people in
the Gaspé peninsula are still waiting.
Last summer, when she visited the eastern part of Quebec, the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggested on behalf of her
government that a transition fund be provided, the same way it has
been for ports and wharfs, in order to maintain the Chandler-Gaspé
line.
When is the minister going to follow up on his colleague's
suggestion?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should correct the impression given in
the House that somehow or another these transportation links have
been abandoned. They have not.
Naturally we are working to create the type of future system
which is competitive, which allows the people of the area a better
chance to improve their economy. With the assistance of my friend
the hon. minister of immigration and others in this government, we
will make sure we have a transportation system that is viable for
people in the future, which is not a drain on the economy, which
allows them to take advantage of every opportunity they may have
for job creation and economic development.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Transport.
Canada ranks fifth among developed countries in road safety.
There are some rather troubling statistics. In 1995, 3,300 people
died. Another 250,000 suffered injuries. Forty-five per cent of
those who died were driving while drunk.
How will the minister's recently announced road safety strategy
achieve the goal of making Canada's roads the safest in the world?
(1145 )
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his interest in this
extremely important subject. I note the task he has set for us, of
being the best in the world in this regard.
I am pleased to report that I met with my provincial colleagues in
Charlottetown over the last three days and we now have a new
program, Road Safety Vision 2001, which we will implement. The
key to the success of the initiative is that we will crack down on
impaired driving and high risk drivers. We will work to increase
seatbelt use which is now just above 90 per cent. We wish to
increase that to over 95 per cent by the year 2001.
5423
I should add that this is an extremely serious matter. If we think
back 30 years and use the figures the hon. member has given us,
we will realize that the deaths on Canadian roads in the past 30
years are equivalent to the whole population of one of our
provinces, the province I was in yesterday, Prince Edward Island.
We have to do something about that type of number.
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is Family Week and this government is still taxing
reading, learning and the future of Canadians, in spite of the Prime
Minister's promise to remove the GST on books and in spite of the
government's own statistics which state literacy is important.
Society rewards individuals who are proficient and penalize those
who are not in terms of employment opportunities and job success.
Given this government's own findings and the promise by the
Prime Minister, how can the Minister of Finance continue to
rationalize the GST on reading materials?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will have noticed that in the discussions we are
having with Atlantic Canada, the government has made it very
clear that there need not be any increase in the tax on books.
What remains to be determined is what is the best way to
promote literacy, what is the best way to promote greater
education. If the hon. member will look at what we did in the last
budget, the increase in the education credits, the increase in the
credits available to allow single mothers to go back to school and
take care of their children at the same time, she will notice that this
government puts great store in increased education and literacy.
What the government is really seeking is the best method to
accomplish it with very scarce financial resources.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I must remind the minister that the GST is still going to be
on the books. The provinces may bite the bullet themselves and
take the 8 per cent rebate, but the GST will still be on books and
this government promised to remove it. If mothers have to buy a
science or medical book which may cost $100 and they are paying
an additional 15 per cent, that is just too much money.
I say again the statistics find that an unemployed person is three
times more likely to be at the lowest reading level than someone
who is employed. I again ask the Minister of Finance to please
address this question: When will the government help families,
help those mothers at home, keep its election promise and remove
the GST on books?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows full well, there are books and there are
books. As the Minister of Industry has just said, is the member
recommending that we basically take the tax off smut? Is it not
worthwhile in this particular society to make sure that in fact we
focus that money on learning materials? Is it not worthwhile that
we enable the mothers the hon. member referred to, to be able to
have decent care at home for their children so that they can go out
and increase their capacity to learn?
This government essentially has a restricted budget as indeed the
Reform Party I think understands. What we really want to do is to
target those moneys where we are going to get the maximum
impact. That is what we are in the process of doing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
We read in this morning's Le Devoir that the Minister of
Transport is using a new diversionary tactic in an attempt to
reassure his Liberal colleagues about his favouritism for Canadian
Airlines. As the article says, the minister's arguments do not bear
close scrutiny. The minister does not mention that he is limiting Air
Canada's access to Canadian's traditional market, while he is
throwing Air Canada's traditional markets wide open to Canadian.
(1150)
Rather than referring to the policy of the former government, can
the minister explain his own double standard policy to us, one
which has Air Canada losing Prague after 365 days, while
Canadian has nearly two years to provide service to India, the
Philippines and Malaysia?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this opportunity to speak on
the government's policy on Canadian air carriers. We want
travellers to be able to choose between the two carriers, and others
in Canada, and we want the Canadian airline industry itself to be
strong.
Our policy will support that objective. Our policy on air
transportation is focussed on how to make the pie bigger, not just
on dividing it up. That is what differentiates us from the Bloc. They
just want to divide it up into smaller portions, while we want to
make the whole pie bigger.
For example, in the past 14 to 16 months, Air Canada has created
a thousand other jobs for its transborder services. Canadian has
done the same thing, with 700 new jobs. Bombardier has just got a
5424
billion dollar jet order. What we are trying to do then, is to make
the pie bigger, not divide it into smaller portions.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, the minister's actions speak louder than his
words. If the 365 day policy is as rigid as the minister claims it is,
how can he justify waiting more than 412 days before imposing his
rule and withdrawing the Prague route from Air Canada, on the
very day Air Canada was setting the date for service to Prague?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the use it or lose it policy of the government, established
by this government was that if an airline did not pick up the route
and use it within the required period of time, which is one year, it
would be offered to another airline. We do not wait until the exact
second of 365 days and then say that it is over. If there was no other
airline that wanted to come in, we would probably let the thing
slide. But the principle of use it or lose it remains our policy.
Under this policy Air Canada has acquired a substantial number
of new routes. It has the majority of the routes which Canadian
airlines overall have established with the United States since open
skies. It has 60 per cent of the international routes and 70 per cent
of the travellers internationally to or from Canada.
If that is mistreatment of Air Canada, and in addition Air Canada
has been given rights to markets it never had before, such as Japan
and Hong Kong, and if that is mistreatment of Air Canada, I would
like to know what the hon. member is suggesting.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during this
family week the most poignant letters I have received have been
from families of AIDS sufferers worrying about health research
funding. I also got letters from those with schizophrenic family
members who are worried about health research funding. The
Liberal solution is to bend to the loudest lobby group. Reform
however has a better solution: clear, concise, precise guidelines for
apportioning that medical research funding.
Will the Liberals adopt clear, precise, specific guidelines for the
apportioning of medical research funding?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we already have a very clear funding
allocation formula.
I remind the member for Macleod and other members of the
House that currently the Government of Canada allocates some
$40.7 million per year for AIDS research and treatment. Of this,
$17 million is allocated for research and epidemiological
monitoring. That includes $5.5 million annually administered
through the national health research development program; $1.5
million annually in national welfare grants research; an average of
$3 million annually for infrastructure in the Canadian HIV trials
network. The remainder of that amount, approximately $8 million,
is with the health protection branch. Further, the Medical Research
Council contributes a further $2 million for AIDS research. I think
that is pretty clear.
(1155 )
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary makes my point. Here we have the loudest
lobby group with a huge amount of funding and the schizophrenic
society literally with nothing. In fact, a triathlete just this last year
had to ride across the country to raise the profile of schizophrenia
for funding. Researchers are actually out lobbying for funding.
All we ask, and here is the specific question, will this
government adopt specific, clear, fair guidelines so that all diseases
will be able to get their fair share of funding, not just some disease
with a loud lobby group?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have an enormous amount of respect
for the member opposite so I am a little confused as to why he
would ask this House to mix messages regarding one disease and
put it in opposition to another. If people are suffering from
diseases, then we treat them individually. We do not try to
politicize one in opposition to the other.
As the hon. member well knows, Health Canada is adopting a
population health approach to treating diseases. I think he would be
more than pleased to see that under that approach the funding for
all diseases will be carefully allocated. There is no one sector of
society that should be mistreated simply because of one's political
views on the issue.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
While most Canadians are pleased to see low interest rates, some
seniors have expressed concern about preserving their investment
income. Many seniors rely on Canada savings bonds. What can
they expect from this year's launch of Canada savings bonds?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
a matter of fact, and as the hon. member who has followed this full
well knows what they can look forward to is a much improved
financial instrument.
The Canada savings bond, as I am sure all members in this
House know, and I am sure they are all buyers, is a very safe and
secure investment for Canadians.
5425
This year the government is pleased to announce under the new
agency that we are introducing a 10-year guaranteed period for
those Canadians who are holding a compound CSB. That is to say
while the rate in the first year will be 3 per cent, it will rise at
a minimum level each and every year to 8.75 per cent over the
course of the next nine years.
This is very competitive. Considering that it is cashable at any
time, I would recommend to all Canadians and to all members in
this House that they rush out tomorrow and buy Canada savings
bonds.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
This being family week, little Cindy-Lou Martin who is a nine
year old in grade 3 at Oakridge elementary school wrote to me and
asked: ``Will you ask the Minister of Finance why I have to pay
GST on the Bible I need for my Sunday school classes?''
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is nobody who would like to see us take the tax off books
more than I would. Perhaps there is one other person.
The hon. member will understand that a common base is very
important in the application of a tax such as this because it enables
us to have substantially lower administrative costs.
The hon. member also knows that there are exemptions on taxes
such as this available to certain organizations. He also knows that
the tax is not in fact the full 7 per cent, depending upon the
institution that is buying the book. Certain institutions have
reduced rates.
I understand the tenor of the member's question. I wish I could
answer it more positively and perhaps if the country gets into better
financial shape I will be able to.
* * *
(1200)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
On June 12, in responding to a question of mine, the Minister of
Transport refused to impose a moratorium on the closure of the
track maintenance equipment repair and overhaul shop at Joffre
station, in Charny, claiming that there was no increased risk from a
safety point of view. Since then, evidence has shown that these
risks have increased 50 per cent.
Before the Joffre shop closes on October 30, will the minister act
responsibly and impose a moratorium on this closure, so that a
study to estimate the risks involved can be carried out?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I constantly get questions from the other side of the House
claiming, quite inaccurately, that there are increases in risk in the
railway system in the province of Quebec.
There are from time to time minor variations among all
provinces but essentially when we look at accidents in the various
categories in which they are analyzed, there has been a slight
increase in some of the derailments but not at all untoward and
certainly not out of the ordinary with respect to the normal
variation statistics.
I find the question very puzzling. The changes have been made
and efficiencies have occurred. However, we cannot continue to
maintain exactly the previous systems and then expect to get
improvements in the future. We have to be willing to make changes
to the system that the railways use and in the future we can expect
improvements. We cannot have it both ways, as the hon. member
seems to think.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
the purchase of Purolator Courier, Canada Post has become the
largest player in the Canadian courier industry, and allegations of
cross-subsidization, overly aggressive business practices and
unfair competition in the marketplace are cited throughout the
Radwanski report on Canada Post.
The Radwanski report recommends that Canada Post sell
Purolator Courier and get out of the courier business altogether. Yet
the minister responsible refuses to follow this recommendation.
Why is the minister refusing to take Canada Post out of the
courier business?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I want to
tell this House that the Radwanski report has been taken very
seriously.
An hon. member: That is a fishy story.
Mr. Mifflin: For those members who are laughing, a
recommendation was made that the moratorium on rural post
offices be continued, and that has been continued.
A recommendation was made regarding the increase in fees for
postage for all Canadians. That has not been followed. I am pleased
to announce again, as my hon. colleague did, that there will be no
increases for mail.
5426
There were other recommendations made in this excellent report
that are still being studied.
In response to the hon. member's question, no decision will be
made on that until there is financial consultation. However, I have
to tell him that at this time there is no intention to get out of the
courier service because it is a great service to Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
Yesterday there was a serious issue of racism involving 30
students at Coal Harbour District High School where a robbery is
alleged to have evolved into a racially motivated brawl.
Is the secretary aware of the incident and what will she do within
federal jurisdiction to redress these racial tensions?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the member
asked this question because that is the precise thing that we must
continue to monitor in programs of multiculturalism.
Although we do not have the racial tensions that go on in the
United States, there are the same tensions in this country. They are
low key but they are there. Our programs address the issue. We
work with the Canadian Teacher's Federation, the chiefs of police,
many community groups and with the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities to educate and keep a lid on this and a watching
brief on it to assure that we who live in this country promote social
harmony and deal with the issue of racism head on.
_____________________________________________
5426
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1205)
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section
36(8), I have the honour of tabling the government's response to 38
petitions.
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some
consultation with the other parties. I hope you will find unanimous
consent to move the following motion in recognition of family
week.
I move:
That this House recognize the family as the building block of society and that the
protection and enhancement of the interests of the family be promoted through
legislative and administrative actions of the government.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do we get
an opportunity to debate the motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion has been
adopted.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions to the House, the first on taxation of the family which
comes from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
choose to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition, concerning labelling of alcoholic beverages,
comes from Vanderhoof, B.C.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome
and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable
by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present just over
4,000 petitioners from across Canada, the majority from
Burlington, Hamilton, Windsor, Calgary and the great community
of Lac-la-Biche, Alberta.
They point out that corporate contributions to public revenues in
Canada are already the lowest among the seven major economies,
the G-7 countries. They also point out that the share of federal
5427
revenue has risen to 60 per cent from ordinary Canadians while
corporations have been reduced to less than 10 per cent.
They make a whole number of other points, but the general
thrust is that they are asking the Government of Canada to
undertake a fair comprehensive tax reform program so that
personal consumers do not suffer even more from financial
insecurity and unfair costs at this critical time.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the
government House leader when I can expect answers to my two
questions, Q-4 and Q-52.
I have asked this question previously and have not received an
answer as to when the answer is forthcoming. Q-4 has been
outstanding now for 227 days and Q-52 for 149 days.
(1210 )
Because I am being refused this information I am prevented as
an MP from doing my job properly. If the government does not
provide me or other MPs with the information within a reasonable
length of time, we as MPs in opposition cannot properly debate and
critique government legislation.
I do not know why the government is reluctant to release this
information. It should have this information available before it
introduces some of the relevant legislation in this House.
When can I get an answer to this? This is of great concern to me.
It is incumbent on the government to produce this information.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has asked
very complex and detailed questions. As I understand it, the
questions are being processed and will be here in due time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5427
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the member for
Lévis, I have the good fortune of having in my riding an extremely
important business: the Ultramar refinery.
I would like to familiarize this House with the views of its
executives. I do not feel impertinent in the least; in the past two
days, what have we in this House heard from Liberal members,
especially those from Ontario? We have heard them defend
Ontario's interests with respect to ethanol.
In this debate, the government wants to ban the use of MMT as a
fuel additive. I would like us to address this issue, but the
amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for
Laurentides, would defer debate for six months so that a scientific
study can be carried out to prove that this product is indeed
harmful. This is something that has never been clearly
demonstrated.
I am referring to the arguments raised by Ultramar, which is a
member of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. I would like
to put forward some arguments, since they must be heard in this
House.
According to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the
Ultramar refinery, car manufacturers have never proved clearly and
factually that MMT can adversely affect the operation of catalytic
converters.
Health Canada formally stated in public and in writing that there
was not a shred of evidence that MMT threatened the health of
Canadians. This is not insignificant. This statement was made by
Health Canada, the federal department of health.
Another argument is that adding MMT to gasoline helps reduce
toxic emissions. As we know, since 1976, this much safer additive
has been used instead of lead, because something must be added to
gasoline. Furthermore, the other elements in gasoline are known to
be somewhat toxic. So why MMT? To reduce the impact of toxic
emissions.
Another argument is that two federal ministers, the Minister of
Natural Resources and the Minister for International Trade, have
expressed reservations in this regard. According to the Minister for
International Trade, this bill might violate the NAFTA agreement
signed with the U.S. This is not insignificant as we could then be
hit by a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
(1215)
Bill C-29 banning the importation and interprovincial trade of
MMT violates NAFTA, a point of view shared also by Gordon
Ritchie, the former Canadian negotiator for NAFTA-far from
being a nobody, this is the former Canadian negotiator-and for the
interprovincial trade agreement.
Another argument we heard is that car manufacturers rejected
the proposal of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute to have
an independent organization investigate and report on the issue.
5428
They formally committed to act on the conclusions of such an
independent study. They really do want an independent study.
The last argument is that banning MMT threatens the
competitiveness of the Quebec refinery industry and that would not
be in the best interests of Canadian and Quebec consumers. This
also is important. As we well know, the government never told us
about the costs. They are not mentioned here either, but we know
that it adds up to several hundreds of millions of dollars, a
significant amount in these hard times.
As a member of the Bloc Quebecois committed to protecting the
best interests of Quebec at all times, I want to remind the hon.
members of this House that the Quebec National Assembly
unanimously approved the following resolution: ``That the national
assembly request the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning
the gasoline additive MMT as long as environmental studies have
not been conducted in a conclusive manner''.
If Quebec was the only one to make this request, it might not be
enough, but at a energy ministers' conference, at least six provinces
expressed the same view. Provincial ministers are not alone, the
Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, send a letter to Mr.
Chrétien on September 16, asking him the exact same thing. We
know that, in 1982, during the Constitutional debate, Mr.
Romanow was a very close friend of Mr. Chrétien, who should now
listen to him.
I will point out that the Minister of International Trade also
wrote, on February 23, stating that he had problems with this bill,
and yet the current Minister of the Environment is forging ahead.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I looked
more particularly at this aspect. I read the report of a study
conducted in 1989 for Health Canada by the University of
Montreal. It said: ``It is difficult to assess the effects linked to the
environmental exposure to Mn-manganese-coming from MMT
due to the incomplete nature of toxicological data on long term
exposure to small concentrations. Although the emission of Mn
coming from MMT can be associated mainly with the inhalation of
manganese oxide, a complete assessment of multiple exposure to
manganese must take into account all means of absorption,
including the oral route. Food accounts for over 90 per cent of all
manganese absorbed by humans''. We routinely eat manganese and
all of a sudden the government is concerned about what can be
found in car exhaust.
And this is not all: ``With regard to drinking water, although its
manganese contribution is less than 3 per cent of that of food, its
assessment is critical to an overall evaluation of total exposure''.
Tests were conducted on animals, and the study points out that as
far as they know, in humans, only one case of poisoning due to
manganese in rain water is known. This case, involving very high
concentrations of Mn, happened in Japan in 1941. The only known
case was caused by water, not by an airborne pollutant. The only
case was found in Japan in 1941.
(1220)
This should lead government members to think it over and to
track down other cases. I will not imitate Reform members who
had horrible stories to tell. If they had any today, they could tell us
about them, but only one case is known throughout the whole
world, and it happened in Japan, back in 1941. The United States
apparently had the same problem, the very same doubts, and we all
know how they solved it recently. The issue was appealed and
people who, like the present Liberal Party, tried to demonstrate the
risk of MMT failed.
There is now an interest here in ethanol. We do not question its
value, its importance, but we feel that, under the circumstances, a
six month postponement would allow the government to establish
its position more strongly, especially, as I said at the beginning,
since the proposed amendment will lead to expenses of hundreds of
millions of dollars for taxpayers.
_____________________________________________
5428
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
you were to ask for it, I believe you would find unanimous consent
for the following motion:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and relative to its study concerning rural
economic development, that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be
authorized to travel to western Canada during the week of October 27 to November
1, and to eastern Canada during the week of November 3 to November 9, and that
the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
5428
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the
amendment.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this closing debate on the bill
dealing with manganese-based additives.
5429
It is important to clearly understand the objectives of this bill.
Manganese is one of the elements found in MMT, which is added
to gasoline. The bill seeks to ensure that manganese can no longer
be added to gasoline.
When we hear names of chemical products like this one, our
initial reaction is often that we must absolutely eliminate all
dangerous elements. In this particular case, the government
originally had three arguments to support its bill.
First, it claimed that MMT was a threat to health. However, this
argument was rebutted by Health Canada and is no longer valid.
Second, the government said manganese was also harmful to the
anti-pollution systems in automobiles. This claim is no longer valid
either, since it was contradicted by the ruling of a U.S. court.
Indeed, the same issue surfaced in the United States and, following
a court ruling, it was realized there was no evidence supporting the
claim that manganese was dangerous.
The third claim, which is the really trickiest one, is that the bill
to prohibit manganese would help harmonize our policies with
those of the Americans. In fact, it will have precisely the opposite
effect.
The manganese currently found in gasoline is produced by Ethyl,
a U.S.-based corporation which, following the introduction of this
bill, instituted proceedings against the Government of Canada,
something which could end up costing close to $300 million to the
Canadian government, under specific NAFTA provisions. As you
know, NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement that
binds Canada, the United States and Mexico.
So, the Government of Canada knows that, by passing this bill, it
will put itself in a difficult position, given this court action, which
is definitely not frivolous in nature. This is an action being brought
under NAFTA sections 1110, 1106 and 1102 and, moreover,
supported by a letter from this Liberal government's international
trade minister to the environment minister advising that it would be
better not to follow through with this legislation because the action
against us is very risky. Odds are that we lose in the end.
(1225)
It is obvious that if Parliament does pass this bill, that would
amount to deciding to invest that sum of money and this would lead
to expenditures that could have been avoided. These are mistakes
the government should not make.
I do not think that we are in a position to pour $300 million down
the drain, saying odds are that we will lose but that we are going
ahead, nevertheless. Why? Why, when the argument that this
threatens health has been refuted by Health Canada, when the
argument about the antipollution systems has been dismissed by an
U.S. court ruling on the issue, and when it has been established that
there is no danger for pollution control equipment.
Instead, we will have a legislation which will aggravate the
relationships between Canada and the United States. Why then is
the government still going ahead with this legislation?
The answer is an old answer in Canada, it has been there for a
very long time. This government has a strong majority from
Ontario, and its aim is to foster the economic development of that
province at the expense of the six other provincial governments,
including Quebec National Assembly, which has unanimously
called for the postponement of this bill.
The ministers involved, the Deputy Prime Minister and the
present environment minister, are all from Ontario, and they have
decided, come hell or high water, to have the government endorse
that view even if it is not a good bill for all Canadians. It is a bad
bill, because it is going to poison relations between Canada and the
United States.
In the context of NAFTA, when countries have to negotiate,
there is always give and take. When our case is not good, as with
this bill on MMT, we have to give the Americans something in
exchange.
Proceedings could be initiated against us, and we would perhaps
have something to pay if the American company maintains that
Canada is in breach of NAFTA. We will have to pay that money and
give something in exchange to the Americans. What will be the
target of these concessions? Will it be like in the softwood issue?
Will we lose as much in another area? All in all, the present
government is not acting responsibly in pushing this bill through.
All the arguments have been presented. They have been repeated
in the House, and they have been made by the six provinces that
condemn this bill. Unfortunately, there is a huge representation of
Liberals from Ontario, who ensure that the interests of the province
take precedence over the interests of the whole country. That also
creates environmental concerns.
It is important to realize that banning manganese would increase
the emissions of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere by 5 to 20 per
cent. This is being avoided thanks to the presence of manganese in
MMT, but if we ban this substance, there will be a significant
increase.
There is something else that defies all logic; this bill will create a
lot of problems throughout the years. The government has decided
to go ahead with this bill even if there is no health hazard, even if it
does not improve anti-pollution systems, even if it could cause
trouble with the United States, even if it could cause environmental
problems, because the Ontario Liberal majority has managed to
impose their position on their caucus.
5430
In conclusion, we have before us a bill which, at first glance,
did not seem to create any problems, but upon closer examination,
we have come to realize that the Government of Canada, the
Parliament of Canada, would, by passing this bill, make a decision
that would undermine the Canadian economy and cost taxpayers
a lot of money.
The next time the people will be asked to tighten their belts for
cuts in UI benefits, we will have yet another example of $100
million, $150 million, $200 million, $300 million, we do not know
how much for sure, spent on legal opinions. We have received
opinions that clearly indicated Canada's position is not very
tenable under NAFTA.
For all these reasons, I will again urge the members of this
House to vote against this bill, because it is not in the best interests
of all Canadians.
(1230)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
rise in debate on what I feel is a very important topic. I would like
to add a few words of insight to this particular issue.
This debate illustrates, among other things, what is wrong with
this Parliament and the process. We end up with certain lobby
groups making strong presentations to those people who are in the
decision making loop of the government. We stand here in the
House and debate these issues. I know that members on both sides
have entered into the debate, but those on this side of the House
who have tried to appeal for an independent scientific inquiry are
really not getting anywhere. We can keep debating and putting
words on the record, but they will not be heard because those who
are making the decisions are not hearing the words of the debate.
They are not paying attention and probably will not respond to the
reasoned arguments.
I would also like to use this opportunity to appeal once again to
the members of the governing party, the Liberals, to simply vote
the way they believe they ought to vote on this. Perhaps on this
issue they should reject the party discipline to which they always
bow down. It seems reasonable to me that what we ought to do in
this instance is to have some truly independent scientific studies
done and find the results of those.
Right now, the messages we are hearing from the opposing lobby
groups are not defensible on either side; that is, both of the sides
are presenting data but it is very biased because it comes from
those who have a large and vested interest in it.
What we need is an independent study from someone who has no
vested interest in the outcome at all to decide whether or not the use
of MMT in fuels is dangerous to health and damaging to vehicles.
I want to relate a story because of my own experience. I happen
to be one who works with people all the time. In my previous life I
was an instructor working with fellow instructors and students. My
recreation on Saturday included putting on my work clothes and
doing my own mechanical work. Over the years I always did my
own vehicle servicing: oil changes, lube jobs, and some minor and
sometimes major mechanical work. I used to love getting out my
tools on Saturday and doing mechanical work.
I need to tell members that two days after the vote on the
Charlottetown accord, a day I will never forget, I was in my
vehicle, a miniature car, and was in a bone-crunching accident.
Fortunately all the factors came out right and I was not seriously
injured. However, my mini vehicle was totalled. I guess I could use
the name because I am not going to say anything bad about it. I am
very grateful that it collapsed in the front and in the rear and
because I was in the middle, as snug as a bug in the rug, I was
unharmed.
Just in case anyone thinks I am a dangerous driver, I was stopped
at stop light in a line of vehicles and the person behind me hit my
car at some 70 kilometres an hour and jammed my car into the
vehicles in front of me. I was just sitting in the line and totally
innocent of the accident. However, I was saved because of various
factors which I will not go into.
However, as a result of that accident I went to purchase a
replacement vehicle. I bought a small vehicle again because of
their economy and low fuel usage. I always argued that if I put a
small amount of fuel into the tank because the vehicle is very fuel
efficient, then I produce less polluting elements into the
atmosphere and thus I am doing my part as a citizen.
(1235)
I purchased that vehicle new in the fall of 1992. I drove it for a
long time. It was an excellent vehicle. I only changed the oil, added
gasoline and occasionally washed it. I had 75,000 kilometres on
that car without ever having touched the motor.
Just as a matter of course I thought that I should change the spark
plugs in the vehicle. I never had a vehicle that went that long
without changing the spark plugs. I purchased a new set of spark
plugs and on a Saturday morning I pulled out the old ones and I was
going to replace them. After 75,000 kilometres of travel on that
vehicle those spark plugs looked like new. I merely scraped them a
little, regapped them and put them back into the motor and ran
them until 100,000 kilometres at which time I did change them just
because it was time. Even then they were not fouled.
That is a single example, but logically speaking that example is
sufficient. If someone makes the declaration that the presence of
MMT fouls up spark plugs, then for spark plugs to remained
unfouled would be an exceptional instance. We have MMT in our
fuel right now. In the Edmonton area we have had it for years. I
have used that additive and this has been my experience. I know of
no one who has complained of fouled up spark plugs.
Consequently, I can only argue logically that if a statement is made
it is sufficient to show but one counter example to refute the
argument.
5431
As a result of this and because of personal experience, I have
very serious questions about the validity of the so-called scientific
studies which say that spark plugs will foul. I have seen the
pictures. I have seen the same presentations where it is claimed that
after 20,000 kilometres the plugs are so fouled up that they no long
function. That is certainly the opposite of my experience.
I appeal to members of the government. We are merely bowing
to lobby and pressure groups. That is not the correct way to make
decision. Decisions ought to be made on clearly demonstrable,
independently provable scientific evidence. We need to get those
with a vested interest out of it, even though they are certainly
entitled to present their studies and conclusions. We need to make
our decisions based on independent scientific studies. I call for
that.
It is most important that this bill be defeated at this time until
there is actual reliable evidence received. At that time the decision
can be made wisely, not just on emotional reactions based on which
lobby group speaks the loudest. That is my submission to this
debate. I think it is an important one. I appeal to members to hear
what I have said and pass it along to the decision-makers who will
soon be calling on members to stand and vote on call.
I am speaking collectively here. Why not make our decisions
logically instead of simply obeying, on command, what we are told
to do.
(1240 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the recorded division stands deferred to Monday, October 21,
1996, at the usual adjournment time.
* * *
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to
amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining
Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read
the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Mifflin (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
address Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and
the Yukon Placer Mining Act. I am pleased to speak in support of
this legislation.
With this legislation we have a rare window of opportunity to
establish environmental conditions in which mining in Yukon can
take place. I urge hon. member to take advantage of this
opportunity to support the bill currently before the House.
Bill C-6 is a compromise, a made in Yukon solution to a unique
Yukon situation. I would like to take a few minutes of the House's
time to explain how this legislation came about and to highlight the
extensive consultations that have resulted in a consensus to proceed
at this time.
I am sure hon. members of the aboriginal affairs and northern
development standing committee would agree that consensus is the
key word. They heard from many witnesses about the compromises
that were reached in this bill. Witnesses included the Yukon Mining
Advisory Committee, known as Y-MAC; the Yukon Chamber of
Commerce; the mayor of the village of Mayo; the Yukon Placer
Miners Association; and the Yukon Chamber of Mines.
This bill is not being imposed on an unsuspecting public or
industry. There is clearly a recognized need for the environmental
5432
regulation of mining in Yukon, both to ensure protection of the
environment and to provide certainty for industry.
Yukon is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not currently
have land use regulations that apply to mining claims, although the
environmental record of the territory's mining industry is good.
(1245 )
Some of the problems we have today could have been avoided
with proper regulation.
[Translation]
The YMAC Committee, a group created in 1990 to bring the
stakeholders together, was asked to develop an acceptable
environmentally friendly system. I would like to join the minister
in congratulating the YMAC for its good work. Bill C-6 is the
direct result of this committee's work and of the determination of
its members to find compromises that would benefit the Yukon
economy and environment.
Without their dedication, we would not have reached a global
agreement on the way to proceed. And, without such a significant
agreement, it would have been extremely difficult if not utterly
impossible to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon
Placer Mining Act.
We must also recognize the contribution of the Yukon First
Nations to reaching a consensus. The Yukon First Nations are not
against development; in fact, they often support it, because they
recognize that resource development projects can benefit their
members.
However, the First Nations are also deeply attached to the
environment. By taking part in the works of the YMAC, the Yukon
First Nations Council made sure that native concerns were
considered.
Finally, the representatives of the federal and territorial
governments who sat on the YMAC Committee contributed to
ensuring a balance between the interests at stake and a land use
system that will support mining exploration and development
without threatening the environment.
Bill C-6 was the result of a report prepared in April 1992 by the
YMAC. The underlying object of this report was, and I quote, ``to
ensure the development of a healthy, durable and competitive
mining industry, whose operations support the fundamental social,
economic and environmental values of the Yukon''.
[English]
When the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
received cabinet approval to draft Bill C-6, special arrangements
were made to consult with YMAC throughout the drafting of the
bill and the accompanying regulations. Such arrangements are
extremely unusual, however, without them it would not have been
possible to reach the general consensus on this legislation.
Beginning in early 1994, YMAC initiated a series of meetings to
discuss drafts of the proposed legislation and regulations. The
committee met as a group more than 10 times during 1994 and
1995 specifically to discuss this issue. Also over the past years,
these legislative proposals have been reviewed and discussed at
such mining industry forums as the Geoscience Forum in
Whitehorse, the Cordilleran Roundup in Vancouver, the
Prospectors and Developers Convention in Toronto and the Gold
Show in Dawson.
In July 1995 with the endorsement of this government, YMAC
took its consultation to another level by mailing out a summary of
the legislative proposals and regulations to more than 600
individuals, organizations and companies. Public information
sessions were subsequently held in four Yukon communities:
Dawson City, Mayo, Watson Lake and Whitehorse.
[Translation]
Close to 150 people attended the hearings announced in the
newspapers, on the radio and on posters in the offices of the mining
companies and other public buildings. The committee as well as
the federal government and the government of the Yukon also
received a certain number of written comments on the proposed
statute.
We especially tried to get the First Nations to participate, at the
grass roots level, in the consultation process.
(1250)
In addition to being represented on the YMAC, the 14 First
Nations of the Yukon received a summary of the bill and the related
regulations before public information meetings were held in July
1995.
The hon. members of the House should know that the minister
initiated discussions on an even broader range of issues regarding
First Nations during the consultations conducted by his department
on the regulations on the use of mining property, which is being
developed.
In October 1995, two dozen First Nations groups and
organizations received a copy of the summary of the bill and the
proposed regulations with a request for comments.
[English]
Officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development have contacted these groups directly to arrange
meetings to discuss the proposals and receive feedback. At least
one meeting has been held with representatives from each Yukon
First Nation. The minister is very interested in hearing aboriginal
people's views on the proposed regulations, in particular whether
the First Nations want their own legislation or this act to apply to
their settlement lands.
Once the draft regulations are finalized, the government will
follow the normal process of publishing them in the Canada
5433
Gazette at least 60 days prior to their proclamation. This will
provide a further opportunity for public input into the mining land
use regime.
Also, in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders,
separate regulations are now being developed for hard rock
production and mine site reclamation. These will be brought into
effect after the land use regulations are promulgated, which is
expected to occur at the same time or shortly after Bill C-6 is
proclaimed.
Based on the wide ranging and extensive consultation that has
been undertaken, we have before us a bill which reflects a broad
consensus of the key stakeholders connected to the Yukon mining
industry. Although there are some issues on which YMAC could
not reach an agreement, all stakeholders have demonstrated
flexibility and a willingness to compromise. Hon. members should
be aware that Bill C-6 is very much in keeping with the YMAC
report of April 1992.
As recommended by the committee, the government is
proposing to establish a multi-tiered classification system for land
use operations. The government has also accepted the committee's
recommendation for a completely separate set of regulations from
the territorial land use regulations so as to better reflect the unique
operating requirements of the mining industry in Yukon.
[Translation]
Another characteristic of the proposed program is the short
delays given the government to make decisions concerning mining
activity applications. This is in accordance with a committee
recommendation taking into account the short placer exploration
and development season in Yukon.
The bill also proposes a well defined responsibility and
accountability framework. The chief of placer land use will
administer the regulations and will make decisions concerning
most of the projects. The only exception will be for projects
concerning hard rock, which will require a permit issued by the
minister. The decisions of the chief of placer land use will be
subject to appeals to the minister.
Inspectors will have clear, reasonable and effective powers
allowing them to give regulatory approvals. They will have the
power to enter any mining site or building, except dwelling places.
(1255)
They will also have the power to take samples and to examine
books, records or documents and make copies thereof.
The inspectors will also have the power to order the cessation or
modification of any activity, when it results or may result in danger
to persons or the environment. The inspectors' orders will be
subject to an appeal to the chief of placer land use.
Hon. members will be pleased to learn that this bill should not
increase costs for operators using approved mining practices that
are safe and respectful of the environment. In fact, the additional
administrative costs that could result from the regime will be only
minimal.
Bill C-6 also provides for mechanisms to ensure maximum
harmonization and co-ordination with other statutes, such as the
Yukon Waters Act and the Territorial Lands Act. Hon. members are
aware that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act contains
provisions for co-ordinating the efforts of all federal bodies taking
part in an environmental screening and assessment. This would
have the effect of further reducing duplication and overlap in the
administration of the regime.
[English]
The mining industry has a long and proud history in Yukon, a
history of contributing to economic development, income
generation and job creation. By putting in place environmental
regulations that have already been accepted in the rest of Canada,
this legislation will ensure that the industry can continue to make
these vital contributions for many years to come.
Bill C-6 is the latest in a series of initiatives undertaken by this
government to ensure the viability of the mining industry and
economic growth and security in Yukon. In February 1995 the
Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, the Yukon First
Nations Self-Government Act and the Yukon Surface Rights Board
Act were proclaimed.
These acts were required to implement the Council for Yukon
Indians umbrella final agreement and the four Yukon First Nations
final agreements that have been negotiated to date. These acts
establish certainty of land ownership and rights so the resource
development can go forward. Decades of uncertainty concerning
land title and rights will continue to disappear as each one of the
outstanding claims is resolved.
Bill C-6 will add to the legal certainty that has been put in place
through the land claims settlement process. These amendments are
consistent with the umbrella final agreement and will compel
decision makers to ensure that projects are properly reviewed and
assessed and that mitigative measures are in place.
The development assessment process, DAP, legislation which
we intend to introduce to the House in 1997 is now being developed
in consultation with Yukon First Nations. Bill C-6 which fills a gap
in the regulatory system will facilitate the objectives of the
development assessment process.
[Translation]
Already, we are seeing the positive results of the land claims
settlement process. The signing of definitive agreements has raised
new interest in the Yukon's mineral resources. Some 13,000 mining
claims were staked in 1995, raising the number of duly registered
5434
claims in the area to over 55,000. The amount spent on exploration
should exceed $40 million this year, and spending on development
could exceed $60 million, a high for the decade.
(1300)
At least five companies have expressed their firm intention to
open, re-open or expand mining sites in the Yukon in the next two
years. Several others have indicated that they would be interested
in operations if they would come up with the necessary capital and
if feasibility studies are favourable.
The introduction of the amendments in Bill-C-6 will allow us,
where necessary, to put these proposals for mining sites through a
complete environmental screening, and to ensure that these sites
are operated using safe environmental practices, in accordance
with the regulations for the sound and effective use of mineral
lands. In the long term, this should be in the best interests of the
industry, of all Yukoners and of all Canadians.
Given the opposing points of view on mining and the
environment, it is quite remarkable that we have achieved such a
degree of consensus and reached such a compromise, as evidenced
by Bill C-6. We must not miss this opportunity to regulate the
development of mineral lands in the Yukon and I urge hon.
members in this House to vote in favour of this bill.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning the extraordinary
participation by a variety of organizations during the hearings of
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on the Act to amend
the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Through their testimony and their involvement in the
consultation process, they defended their interests against the
government and thus the merits of this legislation.
I am referring to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the Council of
Yukon First Nations, the Government of the Yukon, the Klondike
Placer Miners, the North Slope Wildlife Management Advisory
Council, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the village of
Mayo, Wesmin Resources Limited, the Yukon Chamber of Mines,
the Yukon Conservation Society, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife
Management Board, the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee, the
Yukon Prospectors Association, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce,
the Yukon Outfitters Association, and finally the Teelit Gwich'in
Council.
That made a rather long list, but I needed to demonstrate that Bill
C-6 is a general reflection of the concerns expressed in committee.
Of course, some wanted more, some, less. The bill we have before
us now in third reading is characterized by a series of technical
details on the environment and natural resources. It brings mining
operations in line with today's concerns.
What is more, it confers upon the Yukon territorial government
and the First Nations the responsibility for proper resource
management, and for implementing standards in keeping with their
lifestyle and with respect the environment.
As you are aware, this is not a bill that dropped out of the blue, or
just appeared overnight. We took the trouble to find out what type
of consultations had gone before. In 1990, an advisory committee
on the Yukon mining industry was set up, and we in the standing
committee recently heard comments from people in the north, as
well as from some fifteen different organizations.
(1305)
No one in this House will be able to accuse us of saying: ``This is
the way it is going to be''. Not only does this bill amend legislation,
which dates back to 1906, in the case of placer mining, and to 1924,
in the case of quartz mining, but it also provides the Yukon
Territory with new regulatory powers.
Perhaps we should know more about this territory, which seems
so far away.
The name Yukon was used for the first time in 1846 by a
Hudson's Bay Company trader, John Bell, from the Indian word
Yuchoo which means ``the biggest river''. The Yukon river is the
fifth longest river in North America.
The first European visitors in modern times were Russian
explorers, who sailed up and down the coast in the 18th century and
traded with the Indians. The Hudson's Bay Company penetrated
into the interior in the 1840s. With the discovery of gold near
Dawson City in 1896, the Klondike became one of the most
populated regions in the Canadian Northwest. The sudden
population explosion during the gold rush led the federal
government to give the Yukon more political power. In 1898, the
Yukon was officially constituted to ensure Canadian jurisdiction.
The Yukon Act provided for the appointment of a commissioner
and the creation of an elected legislative assembly.
As a territory, Yukon does not have provincial status, although it
did acquire a similar form of government in 1979. This means the
Canadian government maintains its authority over bodies of water,
land, forests and non-renewable resources.
How could someone be against a bill which reduces the
paternalistic authority of the federal government and provides for a
partial decentralisation and environmental standards which, by the
way, were almost or totally non existent before.
5435
How could we disagree, knowing that the Act to amend the
Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act is
the result of a long negotiation and consultation process?
Our only comment is that this act will have to be reviewed in a
few years from now in order to adjust its environmental standards
to those of other provinces, such as Quebec and Ontario. However,
we are fully confident that the Government of the Yukon and the
native communities are capable of establishing their own standards
according to their needs.
The present population of the Yukon is close to 28,000, of which
23 per cent are natives and 60 per cent live in Whitehorse.
Mining, which accounts for 30 per cent of the Yukon's economic
activity, is by far its main industry. Tourism, which offers an
opportunity to live in a wild area with a unique and relatively intact
environment, is an equally important source of jobs and services.
Fur trade is practised by about 3 per cent of the population, mainly
native people. Dawson City also has a small fishing industry,
exporting salmon and selling other species of fish to local
consumers.
In short, the consensus, or should I rather say the compromise,
proposed by the Act to Amend the Yukon Quarts Mining Act and
the Yukon Placer Mining Act will allow the territory greater
autonomy in the management of its resources.
The Bill under consideration is rather like a collective
agreement, in the sense that if a new amendment or a new change to
this bill was to be approved, another group would ask for more or
would totally disagree with it.
(1310)
This is why we support the implementation of this bill in its form
at second reading. I have been talking to you all this time about Bill
C-6 without having explained what it is about. I am sure a brief
summary of the different parts of this bill will benefit the
honourable Mps here in this House and the audience.
The Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon
Placer Mining Act, Bill C-6, is the result of representations made
by the Government of the Yukon in order to find a solution to the
environmental problems generated by mining activities.
The Yukon government wanted this solution to be developed and
implemented by the Yukon community. This new bill now provides
for environmental protection since, in addition to the requirements
applicable to licenses and to levels of activity, it will also be
subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
By the way, it should be understood that, in the past,
environmental concerns came far behind economic concerns. At
the time, gold mining was almost a cottage industry. People would
enter the streams, shake their sieves, collect a nugget and throw the
gravel over their shoulders.
The countryside there is extraordinary. As you know, it is the
land of the midnight sun. However, when you look down you also
see a lunar landscape around the Midnight Dome. It was caused by
reckless development. Piles of earth were left there and completely
spoil the scenery. It is easy to see that, at the time, the environment
was not at all a concern, unlike today.
The bill before us seeks to promote a behaviour that is more
respectful of nature than in those days. At the time, people were
just not concerned about the environment. They were concerned
about finding gold. The land was so vast and so sparsely populated
that people did not care. Today, we have to care. But we would
certainly say that on the whole, this piece of legislation is a
worthwhile effort. There is a system to approve various classes.
I mentioned that there was no environmental protection, but
there are indeed now various classes which will require some
approval and help discipline the operation as such for a better
protection of the environment.
Thus, class I activities require no preliminary approval but must
comply with existing regulation. So the principle is the following:
when you go from class I to class II, the regulations get a little
stricter. Also, class II activities require prior notification being
given to a federal authority.
As for class III activities, they require the advance submission
and approval of an operating plan. So, as you can see, the bigger the
operations are, the stricter the regulations become.
Class IV is certainly the more stringent because not only is an
operating plan required to be presented and approved, but it must
be subjected to public consultations. For those who are less
environment-orientated and more economy-orientated, this has
become something of a pain, because it only takes a couple of
people opposed to the project to jeopardize it.
In class IV, we will certainly be dealing with large scale projects
requiring public consultations, therefore a lot more preparation on
the part of those who want to develop the resources, to provide
environmental data to the groups and individuals who will
scrutinize class IV projects.
(1315)
According to the minister, the regulations under the proposed
legislation define various levels of activity. The result of
compromises in committee, and the subject of many observations,
these levels relate to the size of mining exploration projects, in
terms of how many people will be in a camp, how many square
meters of trenches will be dug, how many square meters of top soil
will be removed, how many kilometres of road will be built, how
heavy
5436
vehicles will be and how many kilometres will they cover, how
many litres of fuel will be stockpiled, etc.
For example, a camp for five individuals for 150 person-days
could be in class I and one for the same number of people but for
more than 150 person-days could fall into class II, III or IV. The
digging or the ditches could not exceed 400 cubic metres per claim
per year in class I, whereas the number of cubic metres could reach
1,000 in class II, 5,000 in class III and more than 5,000 in class IV.
All terrain vehicles would be allowed depending on the period of
the year, the weight of the vehicle and the distance to be covered.
During summertime, only low ground pressure vehicles would be
in class I, a 30-tonne vehicle covering a maximum distance of 15
kilometres could be in class II and if the distances were to exceed
15 or 40 kilometres, the project would then fall into classes III or
IV respectively. No road construction would be allowed in class I
and the class would depend on the number of kilometres of road or
trail built.
If all activities in a project qualify for class I except one, for
example a fuel stockpile of 30,000 litres, then the project will be
put in class II.
The proposed legislation will require all applicants to supply a
security that could equal the approximate cost of redressing all
adverse environmental effects. It also provides for the modification
and transfer of operating plans and licenses.
It establishes an application and inspection system for the
provisions of the legislation itself and of the related regulations,
and it defines offences and penalties.
Naturally, the legislation grants powers to make regulations for
its enforcement. The regulations on the utilisation of mineral lands
for quartz mining and placer mining will take effect whenever the
proposed legislation is passed or shortly thereafter. Regulations on
the reclamation of quartz mine sites that are already in operation
under the Quartz Mining Act will be made at a later date.
Regulations development is in consultation with interested parties.
In a different connection, officials did everything in their power
to reassure us by saying: ``Indeed, what we are looking at in terms
of the environment, categories and operations, is not in
contradiction with what has already been granted to Yukon's first
nations in connection with self-government or land claims''.
So, we must say this act is the result of a great compromise
among highly varied groups, from environmentalists to mine
operators. Furthermore, we can also say we did our utmost in the
consultation process so that native bands had their say.
The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern
Development set up teleconferences in Whitehorse, Ottawa and so
on.
Speaking of consultation, I would like to define for the
government what consultation really is, something it often
confuses with what may be called the ``lobby power''.
Indeed, consultation is really effective when, first of all, the
people affected by this bill also have equal opportunity to express
their opinions and defend their rights.
(1320)
Second, when the government does not put the people before a
fait accompli and tell them at the last minute: ``You can always
talk, but it will not change much''. Lastly, when the government
clearly indicates what it intends to do as a legislator and provides
all the appropriate information to the public so that the people can
make up their own minds about the bill.
Before supporting this bill, we checked if every individual and
every organization who wanted to give evidence had the
opportunity to do so. In fact, I gave you the list earlier on. Also, we
support Bill C-6 because the situation in the Yukon is quite urgent.
Estimates for 1995 show that mineral production in the Yukon
generated $185 million, an increase of around 115 per cent over
1994. Production from more than 200 placer deposits increased in
value by 38.2 per cent to reach some $78 million.
According to the Yukon Chamber of Mines, exploration
expenses in the Yukon came to a little under $40 million in 1995,
almost double the $21 million reported in 1994. Expenses for
development purposes rose from $11 million in 1994 to $57
million in 1995, reflecting the development of new gold mines in
Brewery Creek and Nansen Mount. For a fourth consecutive year,
exploration and development expenses have gone up in the Yukon.
Six other mining projects are currently the subject of
environmental impact studies. If the results are positive,
development on these projects should start in 1996 or 1997.
Upset because the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee was
taking too long to make environmental changes to the Yukon
Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, the
environmental community challenged the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development's environmental assessment
and licensing process. In December, the courts ruled in favour of
the department.
This is a matter of urgency for the environment. Area wildlife,
which is important not only to the aboriginal people but also to
hunters, tourists and the population at large, includes moose,
caribou, mountain goats, bighorns, bears and other furbearers. The
5437
passing of Bill C-6 is essential to the conservation of these
resources.
Finally, I wish to reiterate my support and the support of the Bloc
Quebecois for Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining
Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, which, I remind the House,
reflects a broad consensus among the various stakeholders. This is
why I propose that this bill be adopted as is by the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I note the hon. member for
Okanagan-Shuswap is seeking the floor. I will make a suggestion
to the member and to the House. Almost every time, members are
reluctant to speak when there are only a few minutes left in the
debate. I will leave it to the member if he wishes to speak for the
remainder of the five minutes before we go to private members'
hour or, if he wishes, I can ask the House if there is unanimous
consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. and to go to private members'
hour.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5437
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
That in the opinion of this House, seniors play a vital role in our country, and
therefore the government should direct that the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs proceed with the drafting of a Seniors' Bill of Rights, aimed at
acknowledging the rights of seniors to live full and protected lives in Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to speak to my
Motion No. 265 which calls on the standing committee on justice to
draft a seniors' bill of rights.
While I am disappointed that this is not a votable motion, I
remain optimistic that this effort will raise awareness of seniors
issues in Guelph-Wellington all across Canada.
In a recent Ottawa Sun article, reporter Jacki Leroux posed as a
senior. She offered this observation about the experience: ``Perhaps
most annoying were the assumptions that were made about my
mind. Whether it was buying something in a store, giving
directions to a cab driver, ordering lunch or using a bank machine,
the message from most people was clear. All people with grey hair
must have Alzheimers''. Those comments are frightening.
I hope the discussion that begins today with this motion helps to
eliminate those assumptions and reminds each and every Canadian
that seniors play an active role in our society and deserve our
support and our appreciation.
We are all aware that our population is aging. In Ontario, for
example, it is expected that there will be a 55 per cent increase in
the senior population in the next 15 years. That includes a 132 per
cent increase in the 85 and up age group. An obvious question
comes to mind. Are we prepared for an aging population?
However, I think there is something even more profound. How we
treat our seniors today will be the road map for how they are treated
tomorrow. Ignoring issues that are important to our seniors will not
make them go away. Instead, as our population ages those issues
will become more intense.
In preparation for this debate I asked my constituents and other
Canadians to provide their suggestions, their insights and concerns
regarding seniors' issues to me. Not surprisingly, personal finance
and health were the two biggest concerns. This corresponds with a
survey published in Today's Seniors in June of this year. Cuts to
health care, the future of the Canada pension plan, concerns
regarding increased costs of prescription drugs and the future of
public pensions were discussed most often.
But many seniors face concerns that go beyond discussions of
public policy. They face problems every day. Rita Lovelock wrote
to me a few weeks ago: ``I live in a house and think about everyday
bills, hydro, gas, cable, telephone, the daily newspaper. My
husband worked long hours for low wages. We never received any
government handouts. We raised our six children to be upright
citizens. Why make things so tough for the people who helped
build this country?'' That is the question that needs our response.
Guelph-Wellington is fortunate to have many volunteers and
agencies which help make it the best community in Canada. From
individuals like David Ing who manages Norfolk Manor, to John
O'Connor, president of Senior Peer Advisory Group, to Carrie
Fisk, editor of the newsletter published by the Evergreen Seniors
Centre, we are truly fortunate for the many people dedicated to
making the lives of our seniors richer and more fulfilled.
They are joined by St. Joseph's Hospital, Eden House facility,
the Guelph-Wellington Seniors Association and many others who
assist seniors in living in today's society. All of these organizations
and the countless volunteers cannot do it alone. We must work to
improve attitudes and stereotypes and protect those most in need.
I am grateful to a number of national and provincial
organizations which have offered their support for this initiative.
The Canadian Association of Retired Persons has offered these
suggestions for a seniors' bill of rights. A general statement
guaranteeing the rights of liberties of seniors against
discrimination based on their age. A guarantee to the right of a safe
and secure old age. A guarantee of public pensions for seniors. A
guarantee of equal access to health care and social services
regardless of income or geographical residency. Freedom from
elder abuse in all of its
5438
forms including physical, financial, economic, psychological,
emotional and social, including neglect. CARP has called this a
starting point and I am grateful for their suggestions.
I want to share with this House the suggestions offered by the
Prince Edward Island Seniors Federation: The right to be treated as
important human beings with unique feelings, ideas and desires.
The right to a sense of security and belonging derived from a loving
safe environment. The right to a continuing relationship with their
children, grandchildren and other family members. The right to
live and be content in an atmosphere free of abuse, neglect and
exploitation. The right to have a relaxed secure relationship with all
family members and to not be placed in a manipulative
atmosphere. The right to participate in their own destiny. The right
to good and appropriate health care. The right to comfortable,
affordable and secure housing. The right to clean air and a clean
environment. The right to dignity in life and in death. The right to
religious freedom. The right to freedom from violence.
Finally, there are the observations from Seniors Power in
Regina, Saskatchewan: The right to be heard on all matters of
general public interest. The right to have freedom from want in old
age, to live independently as one chooses. The right to a fair share
of the community's recreational, educational and medical
resources. The right to obtain decent housing suited to the needs of
later years. The right to live and to die with dignity. The right to be
able to access all knowledge available on how to improve the later
years of life.
Some have argued that a seniors bill of rights is not necessary.
Some people believe that seniors enjoy all the rights guaranteed to
all Canadians. Ray Snowdon of Guelph wrote to me: ``I doubt
whether there are many seniors who want special interest. We are
being systematically robbed of the benefits we worked, paid and
fought for, and only ask for what was promised''.
I cannot argue with Mr. Snowdon and others who have told me
that seniors enjoy the rights and privileges of all Canadians.
However, I must ask these fundamental questions: What good are
rights if they are ignored by others around you? If Jacki Leroux is
right about the observations she experienced while posing as a
senior, what good are privileges when they are forgotten by
members of society because a person is judged by their age and not
their ability?
Jo Zettle, a constituent, wrote to me and reminded me that
seniors should not be treated as second class citizens because of
their age. She said: ``Many seniors love to talk about the past but
they are also very now people''.
It is true that there are a good number of seniors that have
worked hard to enjoy their retirement. They have the ability to
travel and while they are concerned about provincial cutbacks to
the number of days that they can remain abroad, they are free from
many of the concerns facing other seniors. They are concerned
about property taxes, increases in the cost of living and crime.
There are also many seniors living in difficult and sometimes in
dangerous situations. Many of these seniors worked hard also but
could not enjoy company pension plans or worked with little
income or benefits. Many come from families where the woman
stayed home to care for the children and therefore benefited from
only one income.
From Guelph, Cal Christie wrote: ``Older people have a feeling
of vulnerability. Since most senior people are no longer able to earn
their income through work, they need protection against wild
swings in factors that have an effect on their income, such things as
low interest rates on investment certificates, sharp rises in property
tax on their dwelling places, legislation that claws back their
pension and or removes health care benefits''.
This sense of vulnerability was echoed by Mrs. Jean Marshall
also from Guelph who wrote: ``When people are old and ill and less
able to deal with illness, it is sad that it is more difficult to get the
care needed''. She also wrote: ``There is a growing fear among
older people regarding safety''.
(1335)
Many people who wrote to me or spoke with me on this idea also
suggested the idea of a list of responsibilities and obligations that
should be included along with a bill of rights. These
responsibilities include: preparation for retirement; reporting of
any abuse; and maintaining relationships with family and with
friends. Those who suggested these are concerned that with rights
also come obligations. This is an interesting argument, and one that
deserves our attention as well.
As elected representatives, we are responsible to the people of
our community. Most important, we have an obligation to those
who need our help the most.
Governments across Canada are currently debating the division
of powers, levels of responsibility, savings in administration and
cuts to programs and services. There is probably no group more
supportive of deficit reduction efforts than seniors. However, in
discussing the future of public policy, we must always remember
that the decisions we make here and those made in provincial
legislatures and in town and city councils affect first and foremost,
people. Often it is those most in need, those less able to speak for
themselves who are affected the most and are hurt the greatest.
We must remember that seniors remain a group which is often
affected by changes in social policies. We must always keep in
mind those who need us the most. As A.A. McIntosh of Guelph
wrote: ``We do not want any elaborate window dressing, just the
basics''.
5439
I often talk here in the House and elsewhere about how all of
us in this great country are connected. Lower interest rates are
welcomed by the young couple buying their first house. They are
good news for the car dealer in Guelph-Wellington. They help
our economy. But for those seniors who live on investment
income, lower interest rates mean doing less with less. That does
not mean we should raise interest rates, but it is a reminder that
what benefits some of us hurts others.
Cuts to health care may make the system more efficient. They
may end duplication and waste, but this probably means longer
waits for seniors who because of their age require more medical
attention than they did when they were younger.
We need to remember that all of our decisions as public policy
leaders have implications. We cannot forget that our seniors are
often most affected by even the smallest change. We owe it to them
to be ever watchful, that not even one segment of society is
forgotten while we do what we are here to do: balance the budget
while never forgetting the human element.
As I said earlier, I am grateful to the hundreds of constituents
and other Canadians who have offered advice and suggestions. Not
all comments were supportive of this initiative. However all
brought home the need to encourage, respect and protect Canada's
seniors.
There were many heart warming comments. Elma Loeb from
Bradford, Ontario shared with me this comment she read from a
70-year old Canadian woman in 1980: ``Being old means shopping
at the discount table for the mouldy fruits and vegetables wrapped
in cellophane''. Mrs. Ivan Morphy from Pembroke, Ontario stated:
``Any Canadian citizen has earned the right in their senior years to
live in peace and safety and be protected from violence''. Her
husband added: ``The cost of living is the cost of keeping you from
dying''.
The main themes that have arisen from this consultation are
fairness, understanding and dignity. We know the Prime Minister
often referred to the dignity of work during the last campaign. We
know when an individual earns a salary and provides for his or
herself and their family, there is a satisfaction which is difficult to
describe.
So too when a person reaches their senior years, these should be
enjoyed because they have been earned. The very least that society
can provide is respect, freedom from abuse and concern. The very
most we can do is to ensure that the senior years are spent with the
dignity that is deserved for the individuals who have contributed to
help make this the very best country in the world. Many seniors just
want the basics. Vic Galliford of Guelph offered the simple
comment of ``the right to food, health, housing and dignity''.
(1340)
The reason for this bill of rights is not complicated. Many
seniors face poverty, violence, fear and lack of financial resources.
I hope this discussion raises awareness to these concerns. Most
important, I hope we can also raise sensitivities. Many Canadians
lack concern because they do not understand the issues which face
many of our seniors. Government cannot and should not do it
alone.
In this House on October 25, 1951, almost 45 years ago, the Hon.
Paul Martin Senior spoke these words which I hope summarize
what we are attempting to do with this bill of rights: ``This measure
marks our resolute determination to give new meaning and value to
cherished concepts and to press forward toward our ideals of social
betterment''. He went on to say: ``Our objective is to build for our
people a secure and free way of life, which will enable them to live
with their neighbours in peace and enjoy the fruits of their own
industry''. Mr. Martin was speaking to a motion which would give
Canadians reaching age 70 a pension of $40 a month.
Since those words were spoken, we have faced the challenge of
debt and deficit reduction. This has caused us to also challenge
some of the principles of universality but not of protection.
However, I am proud that our new seniors benefit provides support
and protection for those most in need. As Mr. Martin said about the
old age security in 1951, I believe that our seniors benefit is
``manifested in the formulation of legislation responsibly
conceived and designed to meet the social needs of the times in
which we live''.
John O'Connor of the Senior Peer Advisory Service in Guelph is
quoted in the Guelph Mercury as saying about this initiative: ``We
would like to be recognized as vital human beings at an age when
we can give back to society the things society has given to us''.
And at the very least, he says that the opportunity to talk about
seniors is good.
I believe that a seniors bill of rights should be enacted by
Parliament if only to remind us that seniors have rights and
obligations. I cared for my parents as they grew older and I now
understand how much life changes for people who can no longer
look after themselves. It is our obligation as leaders in Canada to
look after those who need our help. Seniors need our care and
protection. They need our help to live their lives with dignity,
respect and peace.
Some day we will look back to see what we could have done to
make our situations better. It has been said that a society is judged
by the way it treats the most vulnerable of its citizens. It is what the
Liberal Party stands for. Let us work together for those who need
our help now, and for us, and for our children who will need our
help in the future. For some day we will be them.
5440
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to support Motion M-265 standing in
the name of my colleague for Guelph-Wellington, which reads as
follows:
That in the opinion of this House, seniors play a vital role in our country, and
therefore the government should direct that the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs proceed with the drafting of a Seniors' Bill of Rights, aimed at
acknowledging the rights of seniors to live full and protected lives in Canada.
Our society's dominant values focus primarily on productivity
and the importance of youth. Older people are, unfortunately, often
vulnerable. Solitude, isolation, financial insecurity, and various
types of dependency make them so. They are most certainly
entitled to lead full and protected lives. It is absolutely vital to do
away with prejudices about seniors.
(1345)
Although there is a broad range of programs and benefits for
seniors, there are many challenges which need to be overcome if
they are to enjoy those full lives.
Being a retired teacher myself, I have represented seniors'
organizations on a number of occasions, defending seniors and
protecting their rights. I have been particularly involved in working
to gain recognition for Grandparents Day.
Recently, I brought to the attention of this House that the United
Nations had designated October 1 as international senior citizens
day. In fact, the UN General Assembly has already drafted
principles specifically designed to help senior citizens live better
during the years they have gained.
These principles are as follows: independence, participation,
care, personal development and dignity. The United Nations
believes, for instance, that senior citizens should be able to live in a
secure environment which can be adapted to their personal
preference and their changing capabilities.
Furthermore, there is general agreement that senior citizens
should be able to live in their own homes as long as possible. As for
participation, it is desirable that senior citizens be able to join
movements or associations for senior citizens.
In Canada, there are many senior citizens associations, and their
opinions are important. They have at times influenced, and often
have the power to influence, controversial political decisions.
There are several associations for senior citizens in Quebec, and
I will name a few: l'Association québécoise de défense des droits
des retraités (AQDR), le Regroupement des personnes à la retraite
(CTM-FTQ), la Coalition des aînés du Québec, la Fédération de
l'Âge d'or du Québec (FADOQ), l'Association des retraités en
enseignement du Québec (AREQ), of which I am also a member.
These associations represent a host of senior citizens who stand
up for their rights while finding ways to improve their quality of
life.
I am always delighted to be a guest speaker at meetings of these
associations, because I support their desire for and their interest in
having an active and rewarding life.
Recently, at the beginning of September, I was invited to be the
guest speaker by a senior citizens group in the riding of Bourassa in
Montreal North. At this meeting, I quoted some excerpts from the
Pelletier report, Vers un nouvel équilibre des âges: Rapport du
groupe d'experts sur les personnes âgées, tabled at the end of 1991.
Here is excerpt: ``The most important part of any strategy and
action aimed at improving the well-being of senior citizens is that
they should have a chance to go on living in the manner to which
they have become accustomed during most of their lives, if that is
what they prefer''.
Obviously, making constant cuts in the social programs that
protect the most vulnerable, including senior citizens, is not the
way to achieve the objective of a full and rewarding life.
A seniors' bill of rights is valid as such, but it is not the only way
to improve their quality of life. All the criteria established by the
United Nations should be applied. These criteria will be discussed
later on.
Recently, the third international seminar of the Petits frères des
pauvres was held, organized jointly with the centre Berthiaume-Du
Tremblay and l'Association québécoise de gérontologie in
Montreal, under the theme: The courage to age.
Seniors found original ways of expressing themselves, using
short plays for inter-active theatre, workshops, discussion groups
and intervention groups. In this way they expressed their views on
aging and tried to find new ways of coping with old age.
(1350)
Another example shows how important it is to form associations
or committees. In Montreal, mayor Pierre Bourque used the
occasion of international seniors day to announce the setting up of
a seniors committee which will make sure that seniors are listened
to and respected and that they have a say in the way the affairs of
the city are managed.
He mentioned that Montreal has the highest percentage of
seniors in all of Quebec, and that the worst is yet to come, since the
average age in Quebec, which was 29 in 1981, is now 35.
Another criterion mentioned by the United Nations involves
health care. Seniors should have access to the kind of health care
which will help them maintain or recover optimum physical mental
5441
and emotional well-being, which in turn will prevent or delay the
onset of disease.
The other criterion mentioned by the United Nations deals with
personal growth. Seniors should be able to fully develop their
potential, and have access to the educational, cultural, spiritual,
and leisure resources society has to offer.
The last criterion is also very important. Seniors should be able
to live with dignity and be safe from exploitation, as well as
physical or psychological abuse. They should be treated fairly,
regardless of their age, sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, handicap
or other characteristics, and be appreciated regardless of their
contribution to the economy.
Through these criteria, we realize seniors have their place in the
world. However, for them to live full and protected lives, we must
change attitudes by not considering them as a burden anymore.
Canada also took a stand to protect them. For instance, in section
15, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids
discrimination based on age. Thus, the Supreme Court has already
indicated that some forms of discrimination may be justified by
higher considerations. The government also abolished mandatory
retirement more than ten years ago.
However, the government seems to be casting some doubt on
this by imitating the American policy, whereby, for purposes of
security benefits, the age of retirement will go from 65 to 67 years
in 2024.
We must first eliminate prejudice against seniors by educating
the public in order to change negative attitudes on aging. Seniors
are not a burden on society but a great wealth. I have indicated the
main criteria underlying approaches taken by the United Nations
because seniors make a substantial contribution on a global scale.
I will continue to defend seniors' interests and endeavour to
always intervene so they can live full and safe lives throughout
Canada and in Quebec, as Motion M-265 provides.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate all seniors on their
contribution to our society.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Guelph-Wellington is very sincere in
putting forward this private member's bill. I know she has senior's
issues at heart and she wishes nothing but the best for them.
In recognizing me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to let you and
members know that I have been speaking on senior's issues since I
came to this House. In fact, I have spent the last three years talking
to more seniors probably than anyone else in the House. My time
has been mainly spent working for their rights.
As many members here know, I took up the cause of access of
grandparents, our seniors, to their grandchildren shortly after I was
sworn in as an MP. The issue had been the subject of private
members' bills in previous Parliaments. In fact, the member for
Nepean had a bill which basically made similar changes to the
Divorce Act as the one I proposed.
(1355)
My bill, having been chosen as votable, gave me the opportunity
to meet and talk with many of Canada's senior citizens from all
parts of Canada. I have often marvelled at the tenacity of this
group, our seniors, and their ability to organize in support of issues
of which they approve.
I have enjoyed every minute of my contacts with grandparents'
associations across the country. I have had many conversations
with them about seniors' issues and how they should be
approached. This is a segment of our society which is very
vulnerable: vulnerable to abuse, vulnerable to poverty and
vulnerable to poor health. These are the issues we should be
addressing. This vulnerability will be neither addressed nor
resolved by a bill of rights. The seniors of our country need to have
these issues addressed in a positive fashion by the government.
They need legislation and they need laws.
Quite frankly, after the way the members of the government
voted against a private member's bill which would put in place a
mechanism to allow easier access for grandparents to their
grandchildren, I have no faith in the government to address seniors'
issues. Liberal members opposite had the chance in the justice
committee just a few weeks ago to support the seniors of Canada by
voting in favour of a grandparents right of access to their
grandchildren. It was a special bill. They voted against each and
every clause and then they voted not to return it to the House of
Commons for third reading.
The member for Guelph-Wellington spoke of the right to food,
health, housing and dignity. A very major part of the equation is
missing: the right of access to one's family. I have visited a number
of care homes and hospitals. Each Christmas I go to the hospitals,
unannounced, no press or anything, and I visit the terminally ill.
What I notice most is the absence of family members.
If we in the House of Commons really care about our seniors and
if we really want to address their rights, a bill of rights is not the
way to do it. Make people more aware of how important it is for
seniors to have family members visit them when they are sick and
dying. Let members of the House realize and support how
important it is that they see their grandchildren before they die.
The government had a chance to help seniors and its members
took the opportunity to heap more abuse on our seniors, on our
grandparents, by defeating that bill. All the bill asked for was the
5442
right to go to the courts to ask to see their grandchildren. What a
terrible thing to have to ask for.
How dare members of the government propose a seniors' bill of
rights when in the committee rooms of this place they voted against
the legitimate aspirations of our seniors, of our grandparents.
What else have government members done for seniors? Have
they resolved the CPP problem so those collecting it now can look
forward to collecting it in the future? The answer is, of course, no.
Have they looked seriously at the problems of old age security
payments and the income supplement? The answer again is no.
There was a promise in the last budget that these issues would be
addressed, but only after the next election. What has been done
with health care for seniors? Again, the answer is nothing.
If the seniors of Canada needed a bill of rights it would only be
to protect them from the arrogance and the inaction of this Liberal
government.
What do our seniors need? What are the issues that we should be
addressing? In June 1993 the subcommittee on senior citizens'
health issues of the House standing committee on health and
welfare issued a report entitled ``Breaking the silence on the abuse
of older Canadians: Everyone's concern''. It starts with the phrase:
``Abuse thrives in secrecy''. If you can break the silence you can
often break the abuse. Let us try to break this silence.
This report breaks abuse down into four categories. Physical
abuse includes the wilful, direct infliction of physical pain or
injury, rough handling, shoving, slapping, pinching, hitting,
kicking, restriction of freedom of movement and sexual abuse.
(1400 )
Let us look at psychological abuse, which refers to socially
isolating, threatening, yelling at, infantizing or withholding
affection or denying privileges to a person. That happens often.
Financial or material exploitation is another abuse. It is involved
in the theft or conversion of money or objects of value belonging to
the senior by a relative or caretaker. How often do those pension
cheques go into the hands of some member of the family? Once a
month they come to visit the elder, pick up the pension cheque and
are gone. That is happening in Canada today all too often.
Neglect is another abuse. It involves failing to provide the
necessities of life including adequate heat, clothing, hygienic
conditions and the denial of social interaction. For those seniors
whom I see so much on their own, there is no social interaction
unless they are in a seniors' home where they can interact with each
other. That is the only opportunity.
I believe these categories of abuse can be addressed in many
varied ways. Financial abuse, which also means uncertainty of
income would be addressed through the Canada pension plan, old
age security and income supplement; real legislation to make real
laws, not a plaque to hang on the wall. That is not going to help
them at all in their old age and when they need money. Let us
ensure that the elderly of our country who need assistance from the
state get it. It is not any more complicated than that.
With regard to neglect, let us look at our health care system to
ensure that it meets the needs of our seniors. We must ensure that
inequities in the system do not appear and rob seniors of needed
care. We must look at prevention of illness rather than just treating
the sick. We must look at enhancing people's capacity to cope.
In this regard emphasis should be placed on treating our elderly
where they live, home care that takes place in surroundings that are
familiar to our seniors. We all know that when seniors leave their
own homes often they die much quicker.
We should also address the issues that confront those who
provide care to the elderly. We all can recite stories of families we
know who are stressed to the limit as they look after their own
children as well as aging parents. The demands on this type of
family situation are enormous. They must be addressed as part of
our health care issues.
We also should do more to educate all members of the public,
but especially seniors, that elder abuse is a crime. It should be
punished. Whether somebody is 20 years old or 80 years old, theft
is theft. We should tighten the rules by which powers of attorney
are obtained from seniors. We should make sure by passing laws to
make it more difficult to get a power of attorney. We should ensure
that their consent is given freely and legitimately.
Physical abuse or assault, or sexual assault is punishable under
the Criminal Code and should be treated as such. Psychological
abuses could be addressed by sections of the code on assault by
means of threats and intimidation. Neglect could be provided for
by the section imposing a duty to provide necessities of life to a
person under one's charge if that person is disabled by virtue of
age, illness or other cause.
The issues affecting our seniors are many and they are serious.
They will be solved by action, not by writing a bill of rights, not by
putting another piece of paper on the wall. Discrimination on the
basis of age is protected under the charter of rights and freedoms.
Action is needed on the fronts that I have listed, action which I am
afraid will not be forthcoming from this government, given its
track record to date.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the
motion M-265, the seniors' bill of rights.
5443
Since the origins of the baby boom, the number of prospective
seniors has been increasing. Our population is aging. As a country
we must face new concerns and new issues regarding the care and
the management of an increasing aging population.
In light of these new concerns, Canadians must seriously
consider the implications that a greatly increasing number of
seniors will have on our country. This concern is manageable so
long as proper planning and thought are initiated in order to protect
the quality of life of seniors in Canada as more baby boomers enter
the retirement age.
As a management tool or guideline my colleague, the
hon.member for Guelph-Wellington, has drafted motion M-265
detailing a seniors' bill of rights to acknowledge the rights of
seniors to live a full and proactive life. I congratulate the member
for Guelph-Wellington on this initiative and I assure her of my
support in order to move this initiative forward.
(1405)
Today seniors are concerned about health care, personal
finances, discrimination based on age and abuse. Many feel
overwhelmed with the new information technology and the fast
pace today's society maintains. However, seniors are a wealth of
information and knowledge, particularly due to the fact that most
of their insights are based on firsthand personal experience.
There must be a balance between the vigour, the enthusiasm and
the vitality of today's youth and the firsthand experience and
knowledge of our seniors. While our society expands and grows
through technology, it is still only as good as the knowledge, the
insight and the expertise of those operating it. An ideal community
would have a balance between the technical training of youth and
the knowledge and wisdom of our seniors.
The issues seniors face today will not be foreign to any of us at
some point in our lives. Whether we like it or not, we are all aging.
We can all look forward to seniorhood, in many cases in the not too
distant future.
When I think of seniors, a well known individual in my riding of
Carleton-Charlotte comes to mind. I often refer to him as my
fisheries historian. His name is Floyd Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins has
contributed a great deal to Carleton-Charlotte and to the fishing
industry through his experience and his expertise working in the
fishery.
Throughout his senior years he has continued to provide a vast
amount of helpful direction, input and wisdom, all based on
firsthand experience. From issues detailing fish stocks to species
behavioural patterns to the mentality behind a traditional fishery,
Mr. Hawkins' knowledge, based on firsthand experience, cannot be
matched.
Canadians must recognize the contributions seniors can make to
society on every level. Seniors must not be overlooked simply
because they have become older. They have too much to offer
Canada.
In conclusion, Motion M-265, the seniors' bill of rights, is a step
in the right direction. It is necessary to create awareness of the
needs of an aging population and for all of us to enjoy the
advantages of the knowledge and experience of our Canadian
seniors population.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to speak to this motion concerning the drafting a seniors'
bill of rights. You know, seniors represent three phases in our lives.
The first one is when they are our grandparents. The second one is
when they are our parents. And finally, if you and I are lucky, the
third one is when we ourselves become grandparents one day.
In my riding, there are people who work very hard. They have
reached a certain age, an honourable age, have retired and have
been working for all kinds of organizations ever since. For
example, in Granby, the Club du lundi is chaired by Marcel Maheu,
who is over 70 years old. He has also founded a group called
Civisme Granby, which tries, through various means, to bring
people to be more civil. Mr. Maheu has also been co-chairman of
the committee for the monument that was unveiled last week in
memory of Horace Boivin, former mayor of Granby who remained
the city's ambassador until he was 89.
(1410)
I would also like to mention Jeannot Tremblay-Bergeron, a
woman who for a number of years has served meals to people in
need in Granby. She is in her sixties and, everyday, with a group of
volunteers, she serves meals to the disadvantaged. There is also
Roger Charbonneau. If the Bloc Quebecois is doing well in my
riding, it is thanks to the chairman of the Bloc association, who will
turn 75 on his next birthday.
When I was first elected, a group of seniors came to see me.
They were led by Léonard Viens, chairman of the seniors
association in Granby. They wanted to build a centre where they
could get together. During the last election campaign, the Liberal
candidate had promised them a hefty grant.
Shortly after I was elected, these people came to my office and I
had to tell them that unfortunately there were no longer any grants
for this type of construction. They were not discouraged, although
perhaps a little disappointed. They rolled up their sleeves and they
built their centre. And it is a very fine centre. I had the pleasure of
attending the opening, and there were over 500 people present. All
this is to say that when senior citizens have the health and the
means, they have the time and they can achieve great things.
5444
The situation now is that there are over 500,000 older Canadians
living in poverty. Most of them are women. Some studies show
conclusively a link between poverty and health in old age.
Documentation submitted by seniors groups says, and I quote:
``We question the appropriateness of placing more restrictions on
seniors in the next federal budget, such as an old age security
clawback based on family income rather than on individual
income. This last proposal is an attack against senior women and
violates all principles of gender equality''.
We know there have been battles in the history of Quebec and
Canada. Women have asked for and even demanded equality and I
believe we would regress if we were to talk about family income
rather that individual income. Those women are among the poor in
our society.
Just because one has spent a life time raising children and
working very hard sometimes for not much money, that is no
reason to have to be poor as one grows older. We only have to think
of our parents and grand-parents, who worked very hard to raise
their family and may have lived in poverty all their life.
If the government wants to be consistent with the motion, it must
make sure that seniors in our society live with dignity till the end of
their days.
I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for
Argenteuil-Papineau, who is the seniors critic for the Bloc
Quebecois. He does a fantastic job and is forever making us, in the
Bloc Quebecois, aware of how important it is to take seniors into
account and to treat them well.
In the last budget and in the finance minister's proposals, it is
mentioned that, until the next election, pensions will be left alone.
(1415)
If we really believe in the distribution of wealth, I think we are
not giving enough to the have nots. These people have worked all
their lives, and have earned the right to some financial security.
Let me tell you about an incident that took place in my riding,
which I am sure you have seen in your riding too, Mr. Speaker. An
elderly woman came to my office. I would say she was 70 although
it is hard to know exactly. She had not filed an application to
receive increased benefits. She was there, sitting in front of me and
I was deeply touched. We often see cases like that in our offices
and, even though people think we are heartless, you will agree that
this is not the case. I was deeply moved when this lady showed me
her bank book and said: ``Look, this is all I have left''. She had
practically nothing left in her bank account. She had not received
her cheque.
Of course, we fixed the problem, but it took a few days, perhaps
even two weeks. This very poor woman-and there are many like
her in each of our ridings-was feeling insecure, which is a
frequent cause of illness.
We must simplify procedures and cut as much red tape as
possible so that when these people forget to fill out a form, for
example at the beginning of the year, they are not left out in the
cold.
As the hon. member who put forward the motion was saying, a
society is judged on how it treats its poorest and weakest members,
that is to say, its young people and its senior citizens. I think
starting out in life is an extraordinary thing. But, as a people, we in
Quebec are working hard to achieve this goal, and in Canada, too,
to allow these people to maintain their dignity.
I support the motion and I think there should be a seniors' bill of
rights. This government should be a little more generous with these
people so they can enjoy full lives in our society.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too want to state my firm support for
the intent of this motion, namely that we acknowledge the vital role
that seniors play in the life of our families, our communities and in
society.
It is important for us to keep in mind the government's
commitment in this area as well. The government has demonstrated
this commitment and maintains it to ensure that federal programs
and services both meet seniors' changing needs and are
co-ordinated across government.
First and foremost in this regard is the development of a national
framework on aging which will deal with the current and future
needs of seniors in an aging society. The national framework is
based on a vision statement and a set of principles to guide policy
development. The vision statement and principles were approved
by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for
seniors at a recent meeting in June.
At that same meeting, ministers responsible for seniors also
directed their officials to collaborate on several other issues of
immediate concern to seniors. These included the provision of
continuing care for seniors, support for caregivers of persons with
Alzheimer's disease, palliative care and the risks involved in the
inappropriate use of medication.
At the federal level we have established an interdepartmental
committee on seniors issues comprising 15 departments and six
agencies that serve seniors directly or for whom seniors are a major
client group. The committee meets to review policy directions
relating to seniors issues and to act as an early detection device for
emerging trends and pressures. It builds on some of the input that
members, like my colleague from Victoria-Haliburton who has
been anxious to intervene on this debate and who has ceded his
position to me, have been promoting in our caucus.
5445
(1420 )
We are also focusing our attention on seniors in situations of
risk, those who are already at risk and those who are likely to
become so through our New Horizons: Partners in Aging program.
Through this program, the federal government has supported many
community based projects which are attempting to address risk
situations related to care giving, abuse, neglect, isolation and
palliative care.
Improving the health outlook for Canadian seniors is also a key
priority for Health Canada. With regard to one of the fundamental
rights of seniors of all age groups, the right to quality health care, I
want to assure this House of the government's commitment to
maintaining the principles of the Canada Health Act and renewal of
the health care system so that it remains responsive to the health
needs of seniors.
For example, the federal government contributed $2.5 million to
the Canadian multi-centre osteoporosis study. This study will
provide better insight into the causes and prevention of this disease
which affects some 1.4 million Canadians over the age of 50.
In addition, the National Advisory Council on Aging reports
directly to the minister of health and responds to expressed
priorities and concerns related to aging and seniors by providing
policy advice based on research and consultations with seniors
across Canada.
I want to assure all members in the House that this government is
taking a proactive approach to addressing the priority concerns of
seniors. As our society continues to evolve, I hope we can
remember the increasingly important role that senior Canadians
play.
In closing, let me say that this government has moved to
acknowledge and underscore the vital role played by seniors in our
country. It is undertaking activity on a number of fronts to ensure
that government policy is sensitive to seniors issues.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for shortening his time
in order to allow me to speak on Motion No. 265 of the member for
Guelph-Wellington on the seniors bill of rights. This motion to
direct the justice committee to draft a seniors bill of rights is very
timely.
My riding of Victoria-Haliburton is very influenced by the
constant rise in the number of seniors, some very young seniors by
the way, who are retiring in beautiful rural ridings to enjoy the
tranquil settings, pristine lakes, nature trails and the many
advantages to living in rural Canada. The riding of
Victoria-Haliburton is experiencing a boom from the Toronto
area in the seniors market. The growing market is a knowledge
based group with much to offer the communities they retire in.
Bobcaygeon village situated on three islands between Sturgeon
Lake and Pigeon Lake with the busiest lock on the Trent canal
system and about 750 miles of inland fresh water is experiencing
the fastest growth in the seniors market in Ontario.
The residents of Bobcaygeon and area lead all other areas in
responding to my surveys of constituents. The advice they forward
to me and my colleagues is based on a very thorough understanding
of the issues of the day and a great understanding of history.
With this in mind, the seniors bill of rights would be very
welcome in my riding and other areas of similar nature, like
Guelph-Wellington.
The Canadian Association of Retired Persons sent suggestions.
We all agree with them.
I want to support the member for Guelph-Wellington in her
efforts to establish a seniors bill of rights and encourage all
members to lend their support.
Mr. Speaker, may you and all members and staff of the House of
Commons have a joyous Thanksgiving.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped from the Order Paper.
I also join in in wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving.
[Translation]
Happy Thanksgiving weekend to all of you.
It being 2.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
October 21, 1996, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and
24.
(The House adjourned at 2.27 p.m.)