CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 25, 1996
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4663
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 4665
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4667
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4667
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4668
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4668
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4668
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4669
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4669
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4669
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4669
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4670
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4670
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4675
Motion for concurrence in 28th report 4676
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 4677
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4677
Motion for concurrence in 28th report 4679
(Transferred for debate.) 4679
Bill C-29. Motion for third reading. 4679
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4689
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and amendment 4696
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 75;Nays, 124 4696
Bill C-246 Motion for second reading 4697
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4697
4663
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 25, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for
Cumberland-Colchester.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
International Ploughing Match held this year in
Haldimand-Norfolk brought together the best the nation can offer
in the art of ploughing the land.
This year a friend of mine, Mr. Lloyd Vandusen, was the clear
winner in two categories of ploughing. Lloyd won championship
horse ploughman for Ontario and he scored the highest points of
the match in the horse competition.
Lloyd is the best ploughman in Canada and probably the best in
the world. I want to personally thank him for the leadership he has
shown in creating and maintaining a high interest in the art of
ploughing throughout this nation.
Congratulations Lloyd, you are truly the champion.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada pension plan is in a crisis.
CPP was originally intended to provide retirement pensions for
workers and aged survivors. Disability programs were under
provincial jurisdiction.
Since 1970 when the first federal disability cheque was issued,
amendments have increased benefits and made it easier to qualify.
Now some insurance companies tell clients to apply for CPP
disability before they collect any benefits from them. And
government payments are deducted before the company plan kicks
in. CPP disability is subsidizing private plans and jeopardizing the
pension of every working Canadian.
That is not all that is wrong. If your disability claim is turned
down by CPP, just appeal it to a tribunal. In more than
three-quarters of the cases the original decision is overturned.
Let us save CPP for its original purpose: providing retirement
security for our senior citizens. And let us properly address the
needs of the country's disabled.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the history of my riding has been marked by the Papineau
family, whose most illustrious member, Louis-Joseph Papineau,
died 125 years ago this year.
This great man and patriot, who owned the Petite-Nation
seigneury, occupies an important place in Quebec history, as his
main vocation was to defend the rights of Quebecers. To serve this
cause, he became a member of Parliament.
The town of Papineauville in my riding was named in honour of
his brother Denis-Benjamin Papineau.
Henri Bourassa, Louis-Joseph Papineau's grandson and the
founder of Le Devoir, was the first mayor of Papineauville, which
celebrates this year its 100th anniversary.
We are proud of this rich history. The people of Petite-Nation
have inherited these great figures' love for their region. Although
they died many years ago, Louis-Joseph Papineau, Denis-Benjamin
Papineau and Henri Bourassa are still present in the lives of the
people of the Petite-Nation region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the B.C. government's imaginative proposals to
improve the CPP, the Liberals' only response has been to absurdly
4664
accuse the B.C. government of playing into the hands of the
right-wingers at the Fraser Institute.
The Liberals can speak with authority on the Fraser Institute.
They have been singing from the Fraser Institute's hymn book ever
since coming to power in 1993: deficit cutting at whatever cost to
medicare, the CBC and the fabric of our communities; privatizing
and deregulating transportation at whatever cost to regions like
northern Manitoba; attacking inflation but tolerating
depression-like unemployment. It was all there on the Fraser
Institute's wish list and the Liberals have delivered.
The Liberals have not delivered on jobs, they have not delivered
on child care, on the CBC, on the GST, on medicare, on drug
patents, in short on anything that is important to the quality of life
for hard working Canadians.
If the Liberals who still have an ounce of attachment to their old
tradition of building rather than destroying institutions do not stand
up to the Fraser Institute interloper who poses as the finance
minister, the Liberals will erode-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the ministers of defence and foreign affairs and others
on Canada's leadership in the worldwide campaign to ban land
mines. I hope we continue to support the efforts of the Canadian
Red Cross and Mines Action Canada to develop an effective
international ban.
I also urge the government and the armed forces to support
de-mining around the world. We should make particular efforts to
develop effective techniques and technologies to remove the
millions of land mines which kill and maim people around the
world every day.
Expertise on these matters is available in Canada. Land mines,
like gas and biological weapons, are inhuman and unacceptable in
the modern world.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to
applaud the accomplishments of two fastball teams from my riding
of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. This summer
the Napanee Midget and Junior Express each displaced over 30
teams to win provincial elimination competitions and to earn
places in the Canadian championship playoffs.
I am also very proud today to recognize coaches and all the
volunteers in this organization who provided youth with the
opportunity to develop skills and a winning attitude.
The Napanee Midget Express travelled to Prince Albert,
Saskatchewan where they achieved silver medal standing. The
Napanee Junior Express came home from their national playoffs in
St. John's, Newfoundland with gold.
During the midget eliminations which were held in my riding I
commented that while winning is wonderful, the real joy resides in
playing the game. Well, winning is sweet too.
I believe that only once before have two of the winning Canadian
championship teams come from the same town. Look what can be
done when dedicated volunteers and energetic youth combine their
talents. Please join me in extending well deserved congratulations.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Port Williams Elementary School in my riding of
Annapolis Valley-Hants was recently named one of the country's
five greatest schools by
Today's Parent magazine.
This recognition is indeed a great accomplishment. Clearly it is
proof that our public education system is a model of excellence. In
communities all across this country our public schools are staffed
by dedicated professionals and volunteers truly working to make a
positive difference in the lives of our young people.
I would ask all members of this House to join me in
congratulating Port Williams Elementary School principal Sandi
Carmichael, all of her staff, the community, the volunteers and of
course the students who help make this school so special. They are
truly deserving of this national recognition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the UN carried out a mid-term review of its new agenda for
Africa. This five-year program is aimed at helping the 47 nations
on that disaster-stricken continent, including the 35 poorest
countries in the world. Canada maintained only a discreet presence
at this rather important meeting to deal with the pressing poverty
problem.
Eliminating world poverty is one of the priorities of Canada's
foreign policy. Despite this and although Canada has always
favoured international forums, the government did not see fit to
4665
send a ministerial representative to this meeting to debate these
vital issues.
It just so happens that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in New
York this week for the opening of the 51st session of the UN
General Assembly. In light of the major differences between the
two Canadian delegations, we question the government's real
commitment to a priority it set itself. We hope this is only an honest
mistake and not a decision to turn away from Africa and even from
the UN.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many
Canadians are concerned that we are being culturally and
economically Americanized. Why is this? Could it be because
there are fewer obstacles to doing business with the United States
than with other Canadian provinces?
This government has talked a lot about its commitment to
removing internal trade barriers. That is good. However, its actions
have been weak and ineffective. This government's complacency
has led to recent conflicts between provinces. New Brunswick and
B.C. are fighting over job poachers, Ontario and Quebec over
construction jobs, and Quebec and Newfoundland over Churchill
Falls.
These disputes which could have been settled with a strong
agreement on internal trade are instead pitting province against
province and harming national unity.
This government's ineffectiveness in removing internal trade
barriers is eroding our national identity and is tearing our country
apart.
* * *
(1410 )
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to correct a false impression that was left in the minds of
Canadians as a result of an article that appeared in a national
newspaper on July 23. The article implied that the government is
spending more on the Francophone Games of 1997 than we spent
on the Olympics in Atlanta. This is false.
In fact Sports Canada provided $615,000 to send our team to
Atlanta, but it also provides $20 million annually toward the
athletes' preparation programs and more than $7 million in direct
assistance to our carded athletes.
Since 1992 the government has spent almost $115 million aimed
at Olympic sports organizations and their athletes. That is over 40
times the amount we are spending on the Francophone Games.
The upcoming games in Madagascar are also an opportunity for
our athletes to start preparing for the next Olympics. That is what
happened in 1994 in Paris where Bruny Surin won the gold medal
in the 100 metres and Donovan Bailey won the silver.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
afternoon the staff of Green Gables House in Prince Edward Island
National Park will be presented with a certificate of merit by the
Commissioner of Official Languages on behalf of the Government
of Canada.
The managers of this regional office of the Department of
Canadian Heritage continue to meet the objectives of the Official
Languages Act by striving at all times to maintain adequate
bilingual staff. This summer the two regular and 14 seasonal
employees hired were all bilingual.
Congratulations to the Prince Edward Island National Park staff
for the excellent service they provide to visitors and islanders alike
in both official languages.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
separatists seem determined to do away with Montreal and its
people, whom they hold responsible for the successive referendum
reverses they have suffered.
Besides appointing the token minister responsible for Montreal
and making vague commitments to work toward national
reconciliation, the Parti Quebecois has not done a thing for
Montreal. It is standing by as the city slowly but inexorably loses
its investors, its jobs and its brains.
As if to speed up Montreal's collapse, Quebec separatists have
decided to unilaterally re-open the language debate to please a
handful of radical militants.
In terms of a strategy for Montreal's recovery, we have seen
better, we have never seen worse. The Parti Quebecois and its
separatist allies are deluding themselves and other Quebecers with
this idea that Montreal has to be weakened for their plan to achieve
independence to succeed.
* * *
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we can
understand that, in parliaments, all kinds of views are exchanged
and differences in ideas might result in opposing, questionable
views being expressed, which may even cause controversy. But we
cannot and must not let an elected representative make remarks
4666
aimed at unfairly and wrongfully discrediting another elected
representative.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard tried to
link the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to Raymond Villeneuve, an
extremist whose revolting remarks have been unanimously
condemned.
How can any connection be made in this Parliament between the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Mr. Villeneuve, when the hon.
member for Roberval was the first political leader to dissociate
himself from and condemn these remarks, saying that they did not
reflect the views of any member of the sovereignist movement in
Quebec.
It is inadmissible for a member of this Parliament to impute
motives when they are totally contrary to the facts.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the disabled vessel
Alexis le Trotteur declared an
emergency in 100 kilometre plus winds and two storey waves off
the coast of Nova Scotia. First a Hercules and then an Aurora
maritime patrol aircraft arrived but high winds and rough seas
prevented rescue. Even a nearby container ship was unable to
respond.
When the Canadian forces search and rescue helicopter arrived,
the size of the Alexis and the rough seas forced them to abandon
their usual procedure. A crewman jumped into the huge waves and
swam with a lifeline to hoist four men and women, one at a time, to
safety. This 40-minute dangerous rescue left the Labrador at
critical fuel levels so they flew to St. Pierre and Miquelon.
This is yet another example of exemplary performance and
heroism by a Canadian forces search and rescue team. Their
dedicated teamwork, training and bravery made possible their
success. Despite ancient and severely limited equipment, their
professionalism shone through.
(1415 )
Canadian forces search and rescue units deserve our recognition
and praise, but even more they need new tools to help them do their
job.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the list of individuals and organizations condemning
the separatist threat as a major cause of Quebec's economic
instability is getting longer.
Yesterday, it was the mayor of Montreal, Pierre Bourque, who
raised the issue of economic uncertainty generated by the
sovereignist threat. The mayor said: ``It goes without saying that
we need stability. We need confidence. The economy is largely
based on a climate of confidence''.
Montreal, which is still referred to as Quebec's economic
engine, can no longer put up with the adverse socio-economic
impact of the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois' separatist obsession.
Montreal and the province of Quebec need political stability, but as
long as the separatist threat hangs over Quebec, no socio-economic
summit and no minister from Montreal will be able to put a stop to
this sad decline.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on June 28, 1991 Canada mourned the loss of a
courageous young man from Port Coquitlam: Terry Fox.
Although Terry's cancer prevented him from finishing his
marathon of hope, the legacy of hope he left is one that is carried in
the hearts of all who participated in the Terry Fox run this year in
Canada and around the world. They have taken up his quest for a
cure for cancer.
The spirit of Port Moody-Coquitlam was evident again last
Sunday as 5,700 local residents participated in the 16th annual
Terry Fox hometown run. This year over $9 million will likely be
raised by an estimated 600,000 Canadians at 4,200 run sites,
including 2,600 school events. Thanks to the 1,700 volunteers who
were also involved.
Shortly before his death Terry said: ``You don't have to do like I
did-before you take the time to find out what kind of stuff you're
really made of. You can start now''.
In tribute to this man and the potential in every Canadian and
every member of the House, I challenge us all to get involved in a
fight to find a cure for cancer.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
threatening comments made by convicted criminal Raymond
Villeneuve particularly against the Jewish community on the eve of
their holiest day, Yom Kippur, was an act of hatred and
anti-Semitism that cannot be tolerated.
The Montreal police investigation is a welcome first step in this
finger pointing vilification of a targeted community group. But this
action is not enough.
4667
Where is the voice of the premier of all Quebecers? Where is
the voice of denunciation even if this is a marginal group?
For as history has sadly shown us, when political discourse turns
to invective, tragedy follows. I believe Villeneuve should be
prosecuted under Canada's anti-hate legislation.
[Translation]
And by pointing a finger at the cultural communities,
particularly the Jewish community, this former FLQ terrorist is
obviously inciting people to violence, and showing a total lack of
respect toward all Quebecers.
[English]
I call on Premier Bouchard to continue to denounce extremists
like Villeneuve, Bourgeault and other subversives in the separatist
movement and to put an end to exclusion and hate mongering.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I wish to draw your attention to
the presence in our gallery of a parliamentary delegation from
Quebec's National Assembly, headed by Speaker Jean-Pierre
Charbonneau.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4667
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a few months ago the federal government was backing
lawyer Guy Bertrand in his bid to have the last Quebec referendum
declared illegal by the courts. At the time, the federal government
justified its action by saying that the government of Quebec was
also taking an active interest in the Bertrand litigation.
(1420)
Now we learn that the federal government is preparing to go it
alone from here on and ask the Supreme Court to rule on what the
government calls the legal issues surrounding Quebec's possible
secession. In other words, the government is deciding to take up the
crusade begun by Guy Bertrand.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, by taking the issue of
Quebec's sovereignty to the Supreme court, the federal government
is implicitly admitting that it has lost the political battle and is now
trying to set up legal obstacles to prevent the people of Quebec
from making their own decisions about their future? In a way, the
government is trying to get the judges to do its work.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has not officially taken any such decision.
When we are ready, we will so inform the House.
A ruling by the Quebec Superior Court raised some very
important questions to do with Canadian constitutional law as well
as with international law.
Even the Leader of the Opposition said in an interview that the
international law aspect should one day be clarified, and obviously
one day it will be.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government's whole approach consists in asking the
judges of the Supreme Court for a ruling on a Constitution.
So how can the Prime Minister invoke a Constitution that is
silent on the rules for entering and leaving confederation, a
Constitution that has no political legitimacy in Quebec, because it
was imposed-he should know something about that, it was his
doing-it was imposed and has never been agreed to or signed by
any premier, either federalist or sovereigntist?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Canadian
Constitution dates from 1867 and that it was a law of the British
Parliament. So, even back then, parliamentarians were unable to
vote.
It has only been since 1982 when we patriated the Constitution,
so that Canadians would finally have a Canadian Constitution, that
we could change Canada's Constitution to reflect the wishes of the
people of Canada. I know that the members of the Bloc Quebecois
would have preferred to see us remain a colony of Great Britain,
legally speaking.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, one thing is certain in Quebec and that is that since 1982
nobody has wanted his Constitution, that is clear.
We know that the federal cabinet is divided on the question of
whether or not to refer this matter to the Supreme Court and I can
understand, because I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us and
the members of his cabinet an explanation, and perhaps then he will
be able to bring about unity.
How can the Prime Minister explain that Canada's justice
minister has flatly contradicted himself twice in this matter, first in
September 1995, when he declared that, in his view, this was not a
legal question but a political one, and for the second time in May
1996 when he said that he was intervening in the Bertrand case only
because the government of Quebec was doing so, and that
otherwise he would not? By becoming involved now, the Minister
of Justice will have contradicted himself twice since his initial
statement.
4668
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the time, the minister said that, if the government of
Quebec did not intervene, we would perhaps not have to intervene.
But the provincial government did intervene and the ruling was
not favourable to the provincial government.
I imagine that if the ruling had been favourable to the
government of Quebec, it would not have withdrawn from the case.
* * *
(1425)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to say
the least, some clarifications of the lengthy responses we have just
been given by the government are in order.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Does the government
intend to go ahead before the Supreme Court to ask its judges for a
ruling on the federal government's power over the wording of the
referendum question, the percentage required in a referendum, and
the use of the power of disallowance?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has already
said, we have not yet decided, but will do so in the next few days.
As I said last week, it is our intention to respect the commitment
we made in the Throne Speech, which is that next time, should
there be a third referendum on the same subject, the question needs
to be clear, the consequences need to be well known, and all
Canadians need to be involved.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the Minister of Justice tell us whether the federal government will
seek to obtain a favourable decision from the Supreme Court as to
the possibility of holding its own Canada-wide referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity in the
next few days to announce our intention, and I would just like to
state that all of our options are still open. In the days to come, I will
have the opportunity to clarify our position.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Brigadier-General James Cox, the army's new command
inspector, is doing something that the Liberal government refuses
to do. He acknowledges that there is a morale crisis in the armed
forces and it has everything to do with leadership.
General Cox says he has a team of soldiers ready to stare people
in the face, ask all the hard questions and expect honest answers.
Let me ask the Prime Minister one of those hard questions. Does
he now acknowledge the morale crisis in the Canadian Armed
Forces and that it has everything to do, not with reorganization or
downsizing, but with the leadership vacuum at the top of that
department?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stated yesterday that we have confidence in the
leadership of the armed forces at this time. This period of
reductions is a difficult time for the armed forces. The fact that
there is a public inquiry which will analyse all the operations of
national defence, something which has never happened before, is
delicate and complicated for everybody.
I urge members of Parliament to let the commission look into all
matters and report to the people of Canada. After that we will make
the proper decisions. At this time General Boyle, the minister of
defence, General Baril and all the others are working to make sure
that the armed forces are ready for the tasks they have to do today,
tomorrow, next week and next year.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, fortunately for the rank and file people in the Canadian
Armed Forces, Generals Cox and Baril are not going to put politics
before the morale.
According to General Cox our soldiers are worried about a
lingering cloud that follows them around because of the actions of
a few. They want the cloud to pass. The only person who can make
that cloud go away, especially the cloud at the top, is the Prime
Minister.
Will the Prime Minister get rid of the cloud that is hanging over
our soldiers by appointing a new chief of the defence staff and a
new Minister of National Defence.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my answer is no. I am not about to cancel the inquiry
either.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, he digs himself in deeper and deeper.
Brigadier General Cox said: ``We may still have a couple of
warts out there that are still hiding and I have to go out there and
uncover them''. The two biggest blemishes on the reputation of the
Canadian Armed Forces are the defence minister and General
Boyle.
(1430 )
These generals cannot do it alone. The plumbers and carpenters
cannot be expected to rebuild the entire house. At some point, the
chief architect of this whole mess has to be held accountable.
4669
Will the Prime Minister hold General Boyle and the defence
minister accountable for damaging the morale and reputation of
the Canadian Armed Forces or will he pass the buck to General
Cox and General Baril?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to all these questions. I urge the leader of
the third party, if he has any respect and he wants the army to have
good morale, to try to find something else to talk about.
It is very easy for me to answer. I said that I have full confidence
in the Minister of National Defence. Why? Because the previous
administration had seven ministers in nine years. That was the
cause of the drop in the morale of the armed forces.
I am committed to giving them stable leadership. That is why the
Minister of National Defence will remain the Minister of National
Defence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us without
blinking an eye that francophones in western Canada would be
better served by a one hour national newscast than by four 30
minute regional bulletins. What she was saying was that an hour is
more than 120 minutes.
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Does the minister apply this kind of arithmetic to Radio-Canada's
radio stations in Vancouver, which will experience cuts totalling 45
per cent, in Regina and Edmonton, with 50 per cent, and finally in
Windsor, Ontario, with 60 per cent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that these cuts
will create problems in all regions in Canada.
Management at Radio-Canada in Montreal worked on this with
the president and the board of directors and has decided how far
these cuts should go. I know it will be difficult. I never denied that.
Today we hope francophones in western Canada can have an
around-the-clock service through RDI, which is in fact happening
now.
It is also true that cuts hurt everyone. However, if we consider
Radio-Canada's total budget, after these cuts it would still be $300
million, which is $100 million more than TVA, for instance.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is clear the minister remains insensitive to the needs of
francophones outside Quebec and needs of Acadians.
By imposing new cuts at Radio-Canada, which will have the
effect of restricting local broadcasting in French to a few hours a
day, would the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree that this is very
similar to what was done by the Government of Ontario in 1912,
when it passed Regulation 17, which restricted French to one hour a
day?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are the crocodile
tears of an opposition that referred to francophones outside Quebec
as paraplegics in wheelchairs and said that, after a referendum,
they would disappear just like that.
I would like to draw your attention to what was said by someone
who ought to know what he is talking about, and who said, in
referring to francophones outside Quebec, and I quote: ``The
Government of Quebec does not do enough, the Péquistes do not do
enough. The federal government has certainly done more than
Quebec, and I am prepared to acknowledge that''. These comments
were made by Lucien Bouchard on April 13, 1994.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he does not have a
problem if he does not fire a minister. That is ostrich logic and I
would like to tell the Prime Minister he has a problem here.
The defence minister has been demonstrating a lack of
leadership and abusing his budget for months now. Yesterday we
learned of a new contract issued to Mr. Stephanos Karabekos.
Today we learn he rewarded his Liberal buddy, Joe Thornley, with
an untendered contract for $50,000.
(1435)
Does the Prime Minister endorse the defence minister's sleazy,
pork barrel politics as a way to restore morale in the Canadian
Armed Forces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all that is within the budget of the Minister of National
Defence and within the guidelines of Treasury Board.
Every department uses people from outside to help sometimes.
Members of Parliament have a budget to use people from outside
and it is within the guidelines of the House of Commons and
Treasury Board.
This hiring is exactly in that category, the right to hire people
within the budget of the minister and the budget as a member of
Parliament.
4670
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, if those are the guidelines, Canadians are saying
change the guidelines.
The defence minister has been too busy paying off Liberal
friends to worry about morale in the forces. He has been using his
budget as a slush fund to keep Liberal buddies rolling in dough. Not
only that, the only reason he gave the untendered contract was
because the defence minister's former press secretary told him to.
What kind of example does the Prime Minister think this sets for
rank and file people in the military when their boss is filling the
pockets of Liberal pals?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister had a requirement for some assistance in
handling some communications issues and a contract was
processed by the Department of National Defence in accordance
with Treasury Board policies.
The company in question was determined to have the unique
qualifications required to do the work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Quebec cable companies are unanimous in condemning a bill
passed by this House, whose main consequence would be to
prevent, for all practical purposes, new French-language specialty
channels from being introduced in Quebec and Canada.
What steps will the Minister of Canadian Heritage take so that
this bill never receives Royal assent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this
bill was to eliminate negative option billing, which is already
banned in Quebec. We are following in the footsteps of the Quebec
government, which has already banned this practice.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know which bill the minister is talking about, but
the bill that was passed Monday by this House is aimed at
preventing a new service from being introduced as soon as a
subscriber objects to it. It is not the same thing at all in Quebec.
The Liberal members who voted for this bill did so against the
advice of the minister and her government, who are aware of its
perverse effects. How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage
protect francophone culture, when she could not even make
backbenchers, especially those from Ontario, listen to reason on
this matter?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this
House agrees with the principle that negative option billing should
be banned, which was the main purpose of the bill. That is why we
followed in the footsteps of the Quebec government in banning this
practice. It is important that Parliament take a position on this.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Confederation the federal government is supposed to be the referee
of interprovincial trade. In the case of Churchill Falls, instead of
blowing the whistle on Hydro Quebec and giving it two minutes for
gouging, the Prime Minister is hiding out in the locker room.
Will the Prime Minister continue to abdicate his responsibility to
ensure fair trade or will he take action to protect the people of
Newfoundland?
(1440 )
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, what we are dealing
with is a contract between two parties and two governments in the
provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec. The federal government
is not a party to this contract.
I find it very strange that this party that comes into the House
every day defending provincial rights would ask the federal
government to interfere in a situation involving two provinces.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me remind the Prime Minister that the people of Alberta had a fair
deal to sell oil a market prices in the 1970s and a Liberal
government made it unfair by implementing the national energy
program.
Now in the case of Churchill Falls there is an unfair deal and the
government is refusing to take steps to make it fair even though it
has a responsibility to do so.
Even though the Prime Minister refuses to take action on
Churchill Falls, will he at least admit that this is not a fair deal?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I come back to the point that-
Some hon. members: Is it a fair deal?
Ms. McLellan: Do you want me to respond? The question of
fairness is not for the federal government. The question of fairness
is for the two parties that entered into the deal some 30 years ago.
I have taken heart today from the fact that my Quebec
counterpart, the minister of natural resources, Mr. Chevrette, has
indicated an openness and willingness to sit down with the
province of Newfoundland and talk about the possibility of
negotiation on future projects and the terms on which they might
go ahead. The premier of Quebec has indicated his openness to
discuss and
4671
negotiate the issue of open access transmission of electricity
through the province of Quebec.
I would suggest that the two parties should sit down and talk
about their differences and attempt to renegotiate the deal if that is
their wish.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the family trust scandal has raised many questions about
Revenue Canada's questionable interpretation of the Income Tax
Act.
On September 10, 1996, Choices, a coalition for social justice,
approached the Minister of Justice, requesting that he ask the
courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the decision made by
Revenue Canada on December 23, 1991.
Could the Minister of Justice tell this House whether he intends
to ask the courts to settle the family trust scandal?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellehumeur: All this squawking is making it extremely
difficult for me to speak, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: I ask members please to listen both to the question
and to the answer, as they are very important to us here in this
House and also to fellow citizens across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I have not even asked the question, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: Let us get back to the question.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Justice
tell us whether he intends to go to the courts to settle the family
trust scandal and check if Revenue Canada did indeed misinterpret
the Income Tax Act, as Choices and eight academic experts claim it
did?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble was so erroneous that
I was prepared to answer it. But I will go beyond that and answer
the question. Some hon. members said ``for a change'', which I
think is quite unfair.
It is important to remember that after the auditor general
delivered the report in question, this government referred the
matter to the Standing Committee on Finance which heard from a
number of legal experts, the vast majority of whom agreed with the
legal issue that was in question.
Second, it heard from justice officials that the course taken was
consistent with justice advice given over the years from whichever
government was in office. It also heard evidence from which it
concluded that the officials from revenue acted in good faith.
Against that background the committee formed its conclusion. I
believe that represents a thorough analysis of the issue and a
conclusion with which we should be entirely comfortable.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, by refusing to let the courts rule on the family trust
scandal, is the Minister of Justice not admitting in fact that the
decision made by Revenue Canada was rather questionable and that
any judge called upon to rule on this issue would not hesitate to
overturn such a twisted decision without giving it a second
thought?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree.
The reality is that it is for the very reason that the ruling was
challenged that the government referred the matter to the standing
committee. That committee heard evidence, including expert
evidence, on the very question.
After having examined the evidence, which I urge the hon.
member to look at, if memory serves, six of the eight legal experts
who testified supported the approach taken.
I do not agree that a court would take a different view. I think we
have had a full airing of the issue. It was before the committee for
public discussion and I believe the matter should rest there.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister has been accused of flip-flopping several times on
the payment of GST on membership dues to non-profit
organizations. There is still a lot of confusion out there. What is the
situation? Do they have to pay or not?
4672
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has taken
a considerable interest in this subject.
I am pleased to report that the changes issued last April have
been altered and that memberships in certain non-profit
organizations are no longer subject to the GST.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is always talking about fairness. It
professes that no one in the country and no party in the House can
match the Liberals in their commitment to fairness.
Yet when we have the poorest province in Canada being
exploited by one of the largest, the Prime Minister will not even
admit there is a problem, let alone seek a solution.
Then the Minister of Natural Resources has the gall to say in this
House that the question of fairness is not a matter for the federal
government.
Why should the people of Canada believe that the Liberal
government is committed to fairness when it consistently ignores
the injustice of the Churchill Falls project?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it seems to me the leader of the
third party misses the point. Is he possibly suggesting that it is the
role of the federal government to be the arbitrator and determine
the fairness of every contract entered into by any two parties in this
country? Surely not.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not suggesting anything of the kind. We are talking
about one particular project.
(1450)
The minister administers the National Energy Board Act. Surely
she has read the words fair and reasonable, fair and reasonable, fair
and reasonable, time and time again.
Quebec Hydro has made profits of over $500 million annually
from Churchill Falls in recent years, while Newfoundland gets only
a fraction of that amount.
If Newfoundland received a fair portion of those profits its
dependence on federal-provincial transfers and equalization would
be significantly reduced to the benefit of all Canadians.
Why will the federal government not simply ask the National
Energy Board to ascertain-we are not asking it to give an
order-what would be a fair and reasonable division of returns
between the provinces involved under present economic
conditions?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that since the leader of the third party
seems to be intimately acquainted with the National Energy Board,
he would know that the National Energy Board has no jurisdiction
to interfere and modify the terms of an existing contract.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have the same problem as earlier, but still.
In February, the Minister for International Trade wrote to his
colleague, the environment minister, to warn him that Bill C-29,
which prohibits the importation of MMT, runs totally contrary to
Canada's obligations under NAFTA and the WTO.
Considering that Ethyl Corp. is about to make a $275 million
claim under NAFTA if Bill C-29 is passed, can the minister tell us
how he will ensure that Canada will win its case before NAFTA?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is proceeding with Bill C-29
for many different reasons. We will defend our position with
respect to NAFTA. Just because they put in a claim does not mean
they will be successful.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister telling us that, if the federal government goes ahead with
Bill C-29, in spite of his department's warnings, it could end up
having to pay Ethyl Corp. $275 million coming from Canadian
taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government is convinced that for many reasons Bill
C-29 is in the best interests of Canadians, both environmentally
and healthwise.
Second, Ethyl Corp. is entitled to its opinion. Are you suggesting
that a U.S. multi-
The Speaker: Colleagues, always address the Chair in your
answers.
Mr. Marchi: Just when I was getting hot, Mr. Speaker. Is the
member suggesting that a U.S. multinational corporation should
dictate what the Government of Canada should do in the best
interests of Canadians, both environmentally and healthwise? Our
answer to that is a clear no.
4673
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over the
last two weeks there was a very serious lobbying effort by the
heritage minister and her department on behalf of the cable
companies with respect to the private member's bill that was before
this House.
Does she deny that there was this lobbying effort? We need a
simple answer, yes or no.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my
attention by a number of opponents of negative option billing that
when this issue was raised by a number of members on the
government side of the House almost a year ago, unfortunately the
Reform Party did not even think it was an issue.
Luckily its members have caught on. They understand that
negative option billing is not in the interests of any consumer.
Hopefully with the work of all members of the House, we will have
a package that will ban negative option billing forever.
(1455 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
member has become very familiar with the non-answer. She did not
answer the question. Was there a lobby or was there not?
The fact is that Canada AM on Monday, September 23 quoted
from a document dated September 17 from her heritage
department, and again it was quoted in the Globe and Mail today. I
simply ask her how in the world can she deny the existence of a
lobby by either her department or her office?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, advice is given and
people lobby on every occasion. The member opposite right now is
lobbying in the House for his particular perspective.
The fact is that on Monday last there was a vote in the House
which enshrined a principle to oppose negative option billing. This
government opposed negative option billing last year. It opposed
negative option billing this year. It will oppose negative option
billing next year. As long as we are the Government of Canada
there will be no negative option billing.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Some 4,000 public servants could be affected by the
government's move to create a new federal food inspection agency.
These employees are concerned about their future. As the
transition to the new agency takes place, what assurance can the
minister give these public servants that they will be treated fairly?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian food inspection
agency is an exciting new innovation in government operations
which is widely approved and supported throughout the agriculture
and agri-food sector.
The new agency will involve some new innovations in its human
resources regime to provide the necessary flexibility for the agency
to function effectively. But of course the core values of the public
service will be incorporated into the operations of the new agency.
Fair treatment of employees will be paramount in the transition
process that we, of necessity, have to go through.
I would add that also paramount is our absolute determination to
ensure that Canadians will continue to benefit from the safest and
highest quality food supply in the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. Under Bell Canada's latest
proposal concerning business rates, phone bills will be higher for
businesses located in regions, as opposed to those located in large
centres. This gap could result in businesses moving to large urban
centres.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that his current competition
policy will have the effect of adversely affecting regions, and if so
what does he intend to do about it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of principle, this telecommunication service
should be available to all Canadians, wherever they live in Canada.
As the hon. member knows, it is also necessary to have a very
competitive telecommunications system, so that we can attract
investments to create other opportunities for Canadians.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given what
the minister just said, does he not realize that the rate increases
proposed to the CRTC for businesses located in the regions could
cost some $115 million to these businesses and their communities?
4674
Since the minister is behaving in a manner reminiscent of
Pontius Pilate in this issue, are we to understand that he cannot
do anything to protect the economy of the regions?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is in the question, in that it is primarily an
issue for the CRTC, which deals with services provided in Canada's
rural areas and urban centres.
As I just said, it is necessary to have a very competitive system,
because it is not easy for us to find investments, including in rural
areas of Quebec, without a telecommunications system that can
face the U.S. competition.
We must accept the fact that technology is changing, and so are
the ways of delivering telephone services.
(1500)
The time has come for Canada to make changes, while keeping
in mind the need to provide a universal service to all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, if the
government's GST harmonization deal goes through in Atlantic
Canada, housing prices will go up 5.5 per cent, municipalities will
be forced to raise taxes, the sales tax on books, of course, will be
doubled and the tax in pricing policy will wipe out profit margins
for small businesses and gut jobs.
Will the government finally admit to Canadians that this was
nothing but a desperate backroom deal to weasel out of its broken
election promise on the GST? Will it save Canadian taxpayers a
billion dollars by deep sixing it now before more damage is done to
the Atlantic Canadian economy?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the
Canadian people agree on is that the GST harmonization with the
provincial retail sales taxes are good for business and good for the
people of the country and not harmful. The Atlantic provinces
agreement is just the first step in moving to a harmonized retail
sales tax across the country.
We hope that the hon. member will support us in this, if he is
interested in business, if he is interested in developing the
economy, if he is interested in this country at all.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, even
the Liberal premiers are now saying that a billion dollars is not
enough to cover up the bad smell from this deal.
Nova Scotia Premier John Savage says: ``Ottawa can tax books
as they do at the moment. We do not tax books and we will not''.
That sounds like a deal breaker to me.
Since the premiers are now saying they will walk away from the
deal, will the finance minister admit that his deal is starting to
unravel because the government does not know how to keep its
word?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to
listen to the members of the Reform Party talk about this,
especially when it was the Reform Party that said in a minority
report on the GST that a harmonized tax would do it.
This deal is not falling apart but rather it is a deal which will go
through.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unlike
politicians, farmers have to plan well beyond the next election so
they want to know the facts about the likely future of single desk
agencies in the 1999 trade talks.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
who yesterday told us he had been at a Cairns group meeting where
he took no farm representatives. There appears to have been no
record of the proceedings of what went on.
Will he in future include wheat board advisory members as farm
representatives and will he make available the record of such
discussions so that all farmers may assess what is really going on,
given that New Zealand and Australia, his two believed allies, tell a
different story about 1999.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon.
gentleman has just said, in preparation for the Cairns group
meetings there were discussions between representatives of farm
organizations and myself, including the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture and others.
The reports of the Cairns group meetings were published at the
conclusion of the meetings and broadly carried in the international
press.
May I just re-emphasize for the benefit of the hon. member and
others, any future decisions to be taken about our marketing
institutions or anything else having to do with Canadian agriculture
will be made in Canada by Canadians for our own good Canadian
reasons and we will not be driven by foreign capital.
4675
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and it has to do with the Somalia
inquiry.
I want to make a constructive suggestion to the Prime Minister
today. I think he will acknowledge that this inquiry has deeply
affected the morale of Canadian troops and that there will be a very
long delay between the report and the proceedings. We also know
that there are two different sets of events here, the events in
Somalia and what happened afterward.
(1505)
Given these circumstances, will the Prime Minister not do the
sensible thing and ask for an interim report?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the inquiry has a mandate to look into what happened in
Somalia when the Progressive Conservative Party was in
government and it has to finish its job.
The question of an interim report or no interim report is not for
me to ask. It is for the commission to decide. I hope that it will
complete the work as quickly as possible. It will be in the interests
of the armed forces and everybody that the file be completed, the
report be handed in and the government act on the
recommendations, if need be.
An interim report will not deviate from the reality that when the
inquiry goes into the second phase there will be discomfort for
some people because nobody likes to have an inquiry. It is the first
time in the history of the armed forces that there has been a public
inquiry. I understand that it is difficult. In the meantime the
soldiers are doing their job very well, in Haiti and elsewhere. From
inside it seems that those who are in-
Some hon. members: Order, order.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Let me finish. I do not abuse
the time of the House.
All who are inside are doing their best to keep the armed forces
in good shape and everybody hopes that the inquiry will be
completed as soon as possible.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Zhou Wenzhi, Vice-Minister of the
Ministry of Water Resources, People's Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have three points of order which I am going to
deal with today. I am going to begin with the hon. minister.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to confirm that tomorrow will be an allotted day.
The Speaker: I am now going to proceed to the first point of
order that I have from the hon. member for Kootenay East.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
question period today the Minister of Canadian Heritage accused
me of being a lobbyist. I am an elected member of this House. I
wonder if you might find it in your power to suggest that she
apologize to me for calling me a lobbyist when I am just-
The Speaker: We use different words in the House many times
in our debates. I would rule that is not a point of order. It is
probably a point of debate.
(1510)
I will pass on to the next point of order, the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
much earlier, in fact in the month of June this year, before the
summer recess during a discussion of the Airbus affair in question
period the Minister of Justice agreed to table a letter that he
received from the RCMP.
Twice I have raised a point of order requesting this letter be
tabled. Since returning from the summer recess, while checking
with the Journals Branch on September 19, I was advised that
nothing has been tabled concerning the Airbus affair.
Is the justice minister going to keep his promise or is this another
example of the deceptive, sleight of hand government that the
Liberals are so good at? I would ask the Minister of Justice-
The Speaker: My colleague, I know that you are very concerned
about this particular matter, but the word ``deceptive'' is rather
inflammatory. I wonder, my dear colleague, if you would withdraw
the word ``deceptive''?
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the government's
practice of not always doing what it says it will do.
The Speaker: I put it to the hon. member. I wonder if he would
consider withdrawing the word ``deceptive''.
4676
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I will accede to your request, sir.
The Speaker: I do thank you for doing that. I think we are ready
to proceed.
With regard to your specific point of order, a request that a letter
be tabled, I checked and evidently such a request was made. I
would ask the hon. member if he would appeal to the minister when
the minister is back in the House and see if we can get some
movement on that. That would be my suggestion at this point.
I go to another point of order, the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
during question period today three ministers made reference to the
fact that decisions which the government take are not influenced by
American corporations. I think they have misled the House because
Cargill has been very important-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Sit down.
The Speaker: My colleague, I would rule that is indeed a point
of debate. Notwithstanding the fact that we do not always agree
with the words that are used either in the questions or the answers, I
would appeal to hon. members to recognize that these are points of
debate that are arising.
No doubt the hon. member will want to use the particular words
as he used today in a debate at some later time.
_____________________________________________
4676
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
(1515 )
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the third report of the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 4, 1996, your
committee has considered Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon
Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act and has agreed to
report it without amendment.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 28th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
and various memberships on committees.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 28th report be
concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is not
consent.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions. The first petition comes from Edmonton,
Alberta. The petitioners would like to 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 upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition comes from Hazelton, B.C. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or
other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon 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.
4677
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to present two petitions signed by over 2,000 people in my
riding of Rosemont. These petitioners support the efforts of a
mother, Micheline Tremblay, who has been trying for close to four
years to have her son, Karim, returned to Canada, after he was
abducted by his father and taken to Egypt, his father's place of
birth.
Four years of legal action have still produced nothing, because
there is no legal agreement between Canada and Egypt for
co-operation in cases of child abduction.
The petitioners call on the Canadian government to bring the
appropriate political pressure to bear on Egypt in order to ensure
that Karim is immediately returned to Canada. The government
must do everything possible to bring about a co-operation
agreement between Egypt and Canada, in order to facilitate the
rapid resolution of such situations, which are completely
unacceptable.
[English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions from
constituents within my riding and I believe there are some from
outside of my riding.
The first petition has to do with citizens who are profoundly
concerned about the inadequacies in the sentencing practices
concerning individuals convicted of impaired driving charges.
The petitioners therefore request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will
ensure that a sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while
impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the
severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this
crime.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
second group of petitioners have signed a petition concerning a
Canadian law that does not prohibit convicted criminals from
profiting financially by writing books, setting up 1-900 numbers,
producing videos, et cetera.
(1520 )
They therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact Bill
C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at
the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no
criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise on behalf of my
constituents in Mission-Coquitlam to present a petition. It asks
that the government conduct a full public inquiry into the
relationship between lending institutions and the judiciary, and to
enact legislation restricting the appointment of judges with ties to
credit granting institutions.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present two petitions on the same subject. The
petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to support Bill C-205,
which would prohibit criminals from profiting financially from
their crimes by writing books, setting up videos or those sorts of
things.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to present another petition on behalf of constituents and
concerned parents across the country who support the effort to
create a national pedophile registry.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets and homes safer for our children and they are opposed to the
current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within our
communities.
The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile
registry be established in order to help better protect our children.
[Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition from the residents of British Columbia.
[English]
They draw the attention of the House to the fact that Canadian
law does not prohibit convicted criminals from profiting
financially by writing books, setting up 1-900 numbers, producing
videos, et cetera.
They pray and call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-205,
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the
earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no
criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition which has been signed by literally
thousands of Manitobans, most of them from northern
communities like Churchill.
4678
They are very concerned about the fact that the Canadian
National Railway has listed the Sherridon subdivision which
serves the communities of Pukatawagan and Lynn Lake as a line
to be disposed of in the next three years. They are very concerned
that the closure of this line may in turn lead to the closure of the
copper and zinc mine in Leaf Rapids and with it the community
itself, and will negatively impact the communities of The Pas and
Flin Flon through declining mining, smelting and forestry activity.
They are concerned that the closure will eliminate rail passenger
service to Pukatawagan forcing the First Nation to obtain all of
their transportation services by air, including food and medical
supplies.
They are concerned that the closure will remove $75 million to
$80 million a year from the economies of Manitoba and Canada.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to invite the Minister of
Transport to use the powers available to him under section 48 of the
Canada Transportation Act to enter into an agreement with CN
North America for the continued operation of the Sherridon
subdivision.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
two sets of petitions. The first has about 300 signatures from
people of Burlington. They request that Parliament not amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and
refer the problem of educational reform in that province back to the
Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other
non-constitutional procedure.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition has about 50 signatures. The petitioners note that
we have one Canada that is indivisible. They request that
Parliament and the Prime Minister confirm immediately that
Canada is indivisible, that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces,
territories and territorial waters, may be modified only by a free
vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, or through the amending formula as
stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present two petitions signed by well over 300 constituents.
These petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205 which
was introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, and I
support that.
The passage of this bill would ensure that under Canadian law no
criminal may profit from selling the details of their crimes.
(1525 )
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is signed by about 125 residents of Nanton,
Alberta. It has to do with section 745 of the Criminal Code which
allows convicted killers to apply for early release after serving only
15 years in prison. In fact, the success rate is close to 80 per cent.
Most Canadians are appalled that the section is in the Criminal
Code.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada and all
members of Parliament to take immediate steps to have section 745
of the Criminal Code repealed.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 25 residents of
metropolitan Toronto. The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass
legislation which will ensure that the sentence given to anyone
convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death
while impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero
tolerance by Canada toward the crime.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions on behalf of
my constituents and other people from Saskatchewan.
The first petition is addressed to the House of Commons and
requests that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested
by the Government of Newfoundland and that it refer the problem
of educational reform in that province back to the Government of
Newfoundland for resolution by some other non-constitutional
procedures.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the second petition I am presenting on behalf of many
constituents, people from Delta and Richmond, B.C. and various
parts of the country, but mostly from British Columbia and
Saskatchewan.
The petition concerns the wartime merchant navy which was the
fourth arm of the armed services. These veterans are not now
entitled to receive the war veterans allowance and they request that
the House of Commons pass legislation which will enable them to
receive pensions and pensionable benefits. They also ask to have
post World War II university education, housing and land grant
benefits, small business financial aid and veterans health care
benefits.
4679
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the third petition which I wish to table today on behalf of
many constituents and people from Saskatchewan pertains to gas
pricing.
The petitioners are very concerned about the unfair and
unjustified gas price hikes and the multinational oil companies
which control oil pricing in Canada. They ask that Parliament urge
the Government of Canada to establish an energy pricing review
commission to keep gasoline prices and the prices of other energy
products in check.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I believe if you were to seek it there would be unanimous consent
for a previous concurrence motion.
I move that the 28th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs with respect to committee
membership, presented earlier this day, be now concurred in.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier
I denied unanimous consent for this matter to proceed.
My question to you, first, is whether this motion is debatable at
this point. If not, I would like to rise on another point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Right now the
Chair is seeking the unanimous consent of the House.
Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Nunziata: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the
hon. member would like to know the reason I am not giving
unanimous consent to this matter, it has to do with the whole
question of parliamentary reform, committee assignments, the
manner in which members of Parliament are appointed to
committees and the manner in which members of Parliament are
appointed-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is a point
of debate.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1530)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Paper
No. 3, standing in the name of the member for Fraser Valley East.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of every bill submitted by
Members of Parliament for reimbursement by the Government of Canada for any
entire trip to, from, in or around Washington, D.C., which included the day of June
13, 1995.
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, Motion P-3 is a question for an order
of the House to issue copies of every bill submitted by MPs for
reimbursement by the Government of Canada for a trip to and from
or around Washington, D.C. The Government of Canada did not
meet the cost of any trip to Washington. Further inquiries
concerning this matter may be addressed to the Clerk of the House.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Since the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East is not in his seat at the present time,
is it the government's wish to have this Notice of Motion
transferred to debate?
Mr. Zed: Yes, Madam Speaker, transferred for debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Transferred
for debate.
(Transferred for debate.)
_____________________________________________
4679
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved 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.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this House is giving
final consideration to Bill C-29, the manganese based fuel
additives act, because this is an important piece of legislation that
should be dealt with on the basis of both merit and good common
sense.
I would ask my colleagues to view this legislation in the larger
context. That context is as large as the great Canadian outdoors and
as important as the air we all breathe.
This government has made clean air a priority. We have already
introduced tougher standards for vehicle emissions for the new
model year that will help bring cleaner air to all our cities and
towns.
These new tail pipe emission standards for cars and trucks
represent reductions over present standards of some 30 per cent of
total exhaust hydrocarbons and 60 per cent of nitrogen oxide.
4680
The MMT legislation before us at third reading today is another
important stepping stone in the prevention of air pollution. This
should not be interpreted as the end of our campaign for cleaner air.
We will be making more announcements on this issue in the days
and weeks to come.
When all these regulations and standards come into effect,
Canadians will see the difference, smell the difference and breathe
the difference.
Furthermore, this package of government initiatives will result
in billions of dollars in health benefits saved to Canadians and for
our health care system. They will help prevent the pain and
suffering of choking and gasping attacks on the young and the
elderly when bad air days shroud our cities with a dirty blanket of
pollution, which happens too often in many of our cities,
particularly during the summer.
(1535)
Right now we have Bill C-29 before us, which I hope and trust
will receive third and final reading from the House in a rather
expeditious manner.
I think it may be easier to wrap our minds around the common
sense of the government's position than it is to wrap our tongues
around the pronunciation of what MMT actually stands for. MMT
is the commonly used acronym for a more tongue twisting name
which simply put is a manganese based fuel additive. This additive
is used to increase the octane rating of gasoline.
[Translation]
MMT was first considered an alternative to lead in gasoline. It
has been used in Canada since 1977. As the hon. members are
aware, lead was gradually phased out of almost all fuels before
1990.
[English]
The phase out has brought considerable improvement in our
urban air quality. Today, almost every Canadian motorist uses
MMT simply because Canadian refiners use MMT. The exact
amount of this additive may vary from one batch of gasoline to
another. In general, though, premium grade gasoline contains a
higher volume of MMT than regular grade gasoline.
However, it should be understood that MMT has always been
controversial. In 1978 it was prohibited for use in unleaded
gasoline in the United States because it was suspected then that the
substance damaged emission control equipment.
MMT is certain to have no place in the higher tech, cleaner fuels
of the future. So Canada in a certain sense is compelled to confront
the problem of MMT not because of some new environmental
threat that has just emerged on the horizon, but because our fuels
and monitoring devices used to counter environmental threats are
simply getting more sophisticated. Cleaning up our air involves
using cleaner fuels as well as having cleaner cars and trucks.
While research has continued on the products that we put in our
gas tanks it has also continued on our hardware, the engine that
burns the fuel and the control equipment that lowers the emissions.
Technological advances have steadily cut the harmful emissions
coming out of our tailpipes. In fact, since the early 1970s and the
advent of national standards, over 90 per cent of the most noxious
tailpipe pollutants have been removed.
Now we have taken another major step forward with the
introduction of sophisticated on board diagnostic systems.
[Translation]
These systems are of great environmental significance. They
control vehicle emissions and warn the driver of any operating
defect so that the necessary repairs can be made.
[English]
When used properly, they ensure that cleaner burning engines of
today and of tomorrow operate as designed. They will also help
warn drivers about proper maintenance needs that will result in
decreased tailpipe emissions and improve fuel economy.
This is a very important technology, but even more important is
that it work, that it does its job properly as originally designed.
That is where the problem arises when we talk about MMT. The
automobile industry strongly warns that gasoline containing MMT
clogs and jams up the operation of sophisticated on board
diagnostic systems.
(1540 )
Like many of us in this House, I have listened to the arguments
and the debate from every conceivable side of this equation. I have
read the science as well as the reports. The arguments and the
debate for this legislation as well as against it, I suppose, would
essentially fall into four distinct categories.
First, there is the importance of a healthy environment. Second,
there is the issue of Canadian fuels in the larger North American
context. Third, there are the issues of consumer protection. Fourth,
there is the economic impact of the proposals underlying Bill C-29.
[Translation]
But for me, as Minister of the Environment, the driving force
behind this bill is that a fuel additive with the potential to hinder
the proper operation of pollution control systems will have indirect
negative effects on the health of Canadians.
[English]
We cannot take chances with people's health. We cannot take
chances with the air we breath. This is a precautionary principle
that I and our government stand by strongly. This brings me to the
main argument of my first point concerning the need for this
legislation, the health of Canadians and a healthy environment.
Transportation, specifically the automobile, is the single leading
source of air pollution in our communities. When 21 auto
manufacturers are convinced that MMT clogs their pollution
monitoring
4681
equipment, including on board diagnostic computers which alert
the drivers to problems and pollution dangers, and when those 21
auto makers petition and warn the government and members of
Parliament about their concerns, it becomes clear for me and the
government that we must heed that message seriously and respond
in a responsible manner.
Let us all remember there are some 14 million cars on Canada's
roads, each pumping out over four tonnes of pollutants every single
year it is on the road.
Do we want to gamble with pollution monitoring devices in the
backdrop of those kinds of statistics and facts? I think not. Nor does
the government, especially when we realize that air pollution is
linked to some health issues that are deadly serious.
As for the additive MMT, we have received support and
representations from a wide spectrum of Canadians and
organizations, and not only the environmental organizations,
legitimately so, that I happen to represent as a constituency. The
spectrum has been much more varied than that.
For instance, we have heard and been petitioned by the Canadian
Institute of Child Health, the Asthma Information Association, the
Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the Ontario Public
Health Association and the cities of North York and York public
health departments and a litany of environmental organizations
across the country.
We have also received international letters of support and
requests from south of the border and other origins as well. All of
them advocate discontinuing the use of MMT in our gasoline
because, simply put, the margins of safety are just too narrow.
What are some of these groups saying? I read one letter from the
Canadian Institute of Child Health and I was moved by one
paragraph: ``It would be both scientifically and morally
irresponsible to repeat our country's past experience with lead
additives''.
(1545 )
The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada noted with
apparent anger that the corporation that fought against removing
lead additives years ago is the same corporation fighting against
removing MMT from gasoline.
The Canadian Automobile Association said that MMT damages
catalytic converters and coats oxygen sensors. The list goes on, as
does the debate.
We need to ask ourselves one fundamental question: what is the
point of pushing for new technology? What is the point of the
government pushing for new national emissions standards from our
auto makers so that the air that Canadians breathe can be protected,
if it is then going to allow the wrong fuel to be put in the tank? This
fuel could gum up the technology and not reach the standards that
the government has set for the auto makers and that has been set for
a modern, dynamic and caring kind of society?
As I have already indicated, any potential health threat is and
should be of prime concern to the government. For example in
Toronto, the city that I have the honour of representing, in 1994, the
last year for which statistics and full figures are available, there
were about 40 days when the air condition at the very best was
moderate and at the very worst was poor.
As members of Parliament we hear about this. We may also have
people in our families who feel these things. During such days
asthmatics and especially asthmatic children because they breathe
quicker than we adults are especially vulnerable. In fact the public
health department in the city of North York said that it is especially
concerned about the health of children because it knows from
scientific evidence that children take in more manganese oxide
than adults and eliminate it more slowly.
Is it any surprise that we were shocked to read news reports this
spring which noted a 20-year study by the health department of the
Government of Canada had found that in the metropolitan Toronto
area when pollution levels are high-for instance one of those 40
days during 1994-two to three more Canadians died from heart
and respiratory diseases.
Environmentalists and others who extrapolate figures from
government reports have estimated that air pollution, mostly smog,
which comes in large measure from our automobiles and trucks,
adds and extra $1 billion every year to Canada's health care costs.
We have debates in this House about health care and we talk to
Canadians who are worried about the affordability of health care.
Are we to be indifferent to air quality when it has such a profound
effect on Canadians and then it translates into $1 billion a year on
our health care system? I hope not and I believe Canadians feel the
same way.
[Translation]
Fifteen per cent of hospital admissions of infants for respiratory
conditions are linked to ozone and sulphate pollution. We are living
in an age when dangerous atmospheric pollutants, rather than
hormones, are poisoning babies.
[English]
Consequently, if there is a possibility that MMT can cause
problems with the technology that helps prevent pollution and
sickness, put quite simply we cannot ignore such a threat. After all
it was the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment that
agreed on the need for cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels.
4682
In fact, the CCME, not my department, issued a report on cleaner
fuels and cleaner vehicles which recognized that fuels and
emission control technologies should be treated as an integrated
system to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
(1550 )
I believe very strongly that Bill C-29 is consistent with the
approach laid down by all the governments and ministers of the
environment. I urge all my provincial counterparts, in the name of
positive and progressive harmonization, not blind harmonization,
and for the sake of moving toward cleaner fuels and renewable
fuels, to follow the lead of Canada's national government.
Clearly this point should be put on the record. The approach
represented by MMT legislation, brought forward today at third
reading, is in keeping with a policy designed to encourage the
development of renewable fuels such as ethanol. I am proud of
being in a party that has championed ethanol. I am proud to be in a
caucus with colleagues who would not give up the battle until they
saw that the alternative became a reality.
It is the government's national public policy and Canada's
sovereign right to encourage alternative fuels, renewable fuels and
cleaner fuels. It is a policy that the government will pursue
aggressively and without any apology to anyone or any
corporation.
The second point that should be made concerns the United States
situation and putting Canadian fuels and additives in a larger North
American context. There has always been an argument that
Canada's MMT legislation should be in harmony with the
legislation in the United States and that the two should be a level
playing field. It makes good economic and trade sense, in addition
to common sense, that automobiles and trucks should be built with
emission controls that work across the continent.
Let us make no mistake. The trend for cleaner fuels in North
America is away from the additive MMT not toward MMT. It is
important that everyone understands that despite a recent United
States court ruling on a technical procedural point and not one of
substance that ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to
allow MMT to be marketed as a gasoline additive in the United
States, at least 15 of the largest petroleum companies in the United
States have said that they do not intend to use MMT. That list
includes almost every major petroleum producer: Amoco, Anchor,
ARCO, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Hess, Marathon, Mobil,
Penzoil, Philips, Shell, Sun and Texaco. They will not use MMT.
As well, health tests, as mandated by the United States
regulations, will also continue on MMT. Again, on a health basis,
the jury, despite the court ruling on a procedural technical aspect, is
still out. If we do not believe we have enough evidence, about
one-third of the United States market will use what is called
reformulated gasoline, especially in areas that suffer from acute air
pollution. Under the U.S. clean air act, MMT is not allowed in
reformulated gasoline. It is prohibited by law.
Finally, the state of California, a recognized trendsetter when it
comes to emission controls, expressly prohibits the use of MMT
additives in fuels. What does this mean? It means that the playing
field is still not completely levelled. It also means that level
playing field is just around the corner. There will be both
MMT-laced and MMT-free fuels in the North American market.
(1555)
When all is said and done, currently the American market is
approximately 85 per cent MMT-free. It is very obvious to this side
of the House that when we talk about the larger North American
context that MMT is going the same way as leaded gasoline. The
legislation in Bill C-29 is in keeping with that trend. This is unlike
my friends on the other side who want legislation which would
somehow buck the trend toward alternative and cleaner fuels for
our cars and trucks.
The third point to remember in this debate is consumer
protection.
[Translation]
We in Canada are faced with a conflict between two major
industrial sectors: the automotive manufacturers and the petroleum
industry. The automotive industry claims that MMT damages their
products and forces solutions on them which might increase their
price to the consumer.
[English]
When the onboard diagnostics are gummed up by MMT, it is not
the guys producing the automobiles in Windsor or the petroleum
industry but the Canadian consumers-our constituents-who
would have to carry extra warranty expenses. The auto dealers
association spoke very clearly in its expression of similar concerns
about MMT and car warranties.
Aside from the cost factor of added trips to the garage for
Canadian constituents, there will also be the perception that
Canadian autos do not work well because the warning lights will
always be blinking, not because of a malfunction, but because of a
gasoline additive.
Not only is there a health cost to be paid by Canadians if we
continue to use MMT, but car owners will also be dipping into their
pockets and into their purses a lot more often because of
malfunctioning maintenance systems. Canadians do not need these
unnecessary economic burdens foisted on them and this legislation
will certainly help to prevent that from occurring.
My fourth point concerns the overall economic impact that Bill
C-29 would have on our country and on our refiners. The petroleum
industry claims that MMT reduces nitrogen oxide
emissions-perhaps the opposition critic will quote that-by up to
20 per cent. I
4683
say quite categorically that this figure is subject to much dispute
and much debate. In any case, alternatives to MMT exist.
This legislation will allow the emission monitoring and control
equipment to freely operate as it was designed: to prevent
unnecessary vehicle maintenance. In this regard, it was not a study
from my department but a study commissioned by the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment which concluded that the
impact on Canada's refining industries would not be overly
excessive. The study estimated that the cost for refiners to remove
MMT for all of Canada would total $150 million in capital
expenditures plus $50 million a year in added operating expenses.
I would be prepared to admit that this will lead to an increase in
the cost of gasoline and not a decrease. In pennies this translates to
an increase in operating costs of .2 cents a litre for the refiners.
(1600)
Let us carry on that conversation. If we take an average Canadian
motorist, statistics tell us that the motorist will travel 20,000
kilometres in any given year, at a fuel consumption rate of some 10
litres of gasoline for 100 kilometres travelled. The average
motorist in a year will use about 2,000 litres of gasoline.
If we apply what the refiners have told us it will cost them, .2
cents a litre, and multiply that by the number of litres that an
average Canadian motorist uses in a year, it translates to an extra $5
per motorist per year.
I would submit, with all due respect, without underestimating
the costs that Canadians have on all sorts of things, that a $5
increase per year for an average motorist is a reasonable price to
pay for doing the right thing for their health and their environment.
What does $5 mean?
An hon. member: It is a bargain.
Mr. Marchi: A member says it is a bargain. He is absolutely
right. On Labour Day weekend, when Canadians were getting into
their cars, their trucks or on to their motorcycles going to close the
cottage or visit family and friends, the average increase in gasoline
prices at the pumps was anywhere between 2 and 4 cents per litre.
If a person's mother-in-law lived far away they would almost make
up the five buck increase in one weekend. It happens every holiday
weekend. It will probably happen Thanksgiving weekend. It will
happen at Christmas and New Year's. People grumble and
complain and ask why the gasoline goes up when people are on the
move the most.
The hon. member from London is absolutely right when he says
that $5 is a fair price. He is also right when he says, in contrast to
other increases at the pumps, that it actually becomes a bargain for
Canadians when we think of environmental and health issues as
well.
When we talk about the economic impact, there are also the
financial benefits which one has to work into the equation. It is not
only the negatives that the petroleum industry talks about, although
as our mathematics show it is not as negative as that. We have to
work in the financial benefits. The petroleum industry oftentimes
conveniently forgets about the benefits.
In the 1994 study commissioned by the CCME, it estimated
health benefits of up to $31 billion over 23 years if cleaner fuels
and more stringent vehicle emission standards were put in place.
Put another way, the cost to Canadians in extra health costs, in pain,
suffering and death, could be pared down by almost $1.5 billion a
year, depending on whatever comes out of the tailpipes of our cars
or trucks.
If this debate were only an economic ledger sheet, which it is
not, the economic plus in taking MMT out of gasoline is clearly
and convincingly a lot higher than the economic minus in leaving it
in.
As Liberals we know that the ultimate decision underlying Bill
C-29 is not just about economics, even though the economics
comes out on our side, for Canadians expect us to do what we can
to protect their health and to preserve the environment. They also
expect us to protect consumers and Canadian automotive
technology.
I am surprised at the indifference of the Government of Ontario,
which locates the big three, which suggests that it is on an air
campaign, which talks about the IJC and the air coming from the
United States. I am flabbergasted that the province of Ontario and
that the new minister in Ontario have been absolutely silent on this
issue. It prefers to sit on the fence rather than take the right
decision. If one could be allowed to boast about Ontario's
economy, the reliance on our automotive industry, I think it was, as
my colleagues say, a shame for the indifference and the silence that
the Government of Ontario has demonstrated.
(1605)
It is for all those reasons, a healthy environment, the need to
promote cleaner fuels and alternative fuels, the trend to North
American harmonization, consumer protection and the economic
pluses, that there is little doubt as to why this legislation is
necessary. The absolute bottom line is that Canadians want to
breathe their air. They do not want to chew it. They do not want to
filter it. They do not want to cleanse it. They certainly do not want
to scrub it. They want to breathe it and they want to breathe it
freely.
This bill will most definitely help in this basic desire. I urge all
members of this House to give speedy passage to what is a good
bill in the interests of all Canadians.
4684
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker,
once again we are considering the bill to regulate interprovincial
trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese-based substances. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit
the use of MMT as a fuel additive.
Bill C-29 before the House today is a reincarnation of Bill C-94,
which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued.
The government nevertheless found a way to resurrect a number of
bills, including Bill C-29, which has now come back to us for third
reading. Bill C-94 did not make it through all stages during the
previous Parliament because someone put on the brakes. For some
rather vague, unspecified reasons, the Liberals decided not to pass
this bill at the time. Today, the Liberals, headed by the Minister of
the Environment, have brought the bill back to the House without
providing any further clarification of those reasons. The same
doubts remain, the same questions persist and the same issues are
being raised.
One wonders about the real reason why the Minister of the
Environment insists on passing a bill that arouses such controversy.
You may be sure that the lobbies from Ontario are a major factor in
the minister's decision. If that is not the case, he should come out
and say so.
This bill has two major industries warring against each other. On
one side we have the Ethyl Corporation, which produces MMT,
supported by the oil industry, and on the other side the association
of automobile manufacturers.
The lobbying done by these two players is considerable and
unceasing. Both groups are leaving no stone unturned to win their
case. The minister was exposed to all this lobbying and seemed to
be at a loss at what to do so far. And today, he brings back C-29.
The minister probably feels he should show up from time to time.
So far, however, his legislative menu has been pretty meagre, and
the same applies to what he has achieved.
We can hardly say the present minister is handling major issues
these days. The environment is losing popularity, and the minister
seems to be increasingly isolated within cabinet. Aside from a short
visit to the Gulf of St. Lawrence this summer to watch the
refloating of the Irving Whale, the minister is not seen very often,
because he has no important issues on his plate. So to make an
appearance in Parliament and not disappear altogether, the minister
brings back Bill C-29.
If you ask me, this is not the way to go about increasing one's
visibility. The minister would do well to go back to the drawing
board and do his homework on the whole MMT issue.
The former Minister of the Environment, which she was in name
only, in my opinion, if we consider her very mediocre record, made
a present of this rather hot potato to her successor.
(1610)
And he is no surer of his fact than his predecessor. That is the
problem with this bill.
The government is not sure that banning MMT is a good thing,
whether in environment, economic or legal terms.
The fault here rests mainly with the former minister, the minister
of broken promises. At the time, the minister had asked both
industries to work together to find a solution to the MMT problem,
indicating-which was not very clever-that in the event a basis of
agreement could not be found, she would put forward a bill to ban
MMT.
From then on, it was clear that the negotiations were strongly
biased and would be unproductive. So much for the former
minister's fantastic skills as a maestro.
Another rather surprising aspect of this issue is the need for a
Minister of the Environment to pass legislation regarding a given
commercial product, in this case MMT.
If the minister firmly believes that MMT is a health hazard, why
does he not just ban this substance under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act? Why take this roundabout way,
through commercial or trade legislation?
There is no scientific evidence that MMT in fuel constitutes a
health hazard. Studies on the neurotoxicity of manganese have
been conducted and indeed show that a health risk exists. However,
these results were obtained for major exposure to manganese, for
workers exposed to very large concentrations and for prolonged
periods.
It is therefore difficult to see the connection between the effect
of overexposure and the effect of manganese emissions from car
exhaust, the amount and concentration of which are not
comparable.
The former Minister of the Environment, whose departure was
noted-almost as a relief-by the Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment, had used harmonization with the U.S. as an
argument to justify introducing this bill. Since then, and as early as
first and second reading, this argument has taken a dive. While the
product had been banned for more than 15 years south of our
border, the Ethyl Corporation, involved in a long-standing battle
over this issue, was winning its case to have the product
reintroduced in several American states. All this to say that
harmonization with our neighbours to the south does not weigh
very much in the balance.
We could ask ourselves the following question: What would
happen if MMT was produced in Canada? What would happen
with Bill C-29, which does not ban the use of MMT per se, but does
ban its import? If MMT were produced, say in Ontario, would the
4685
minister take the same action? He could certainly not ban the
import of MMT. Would he then prohibit the product itself?
This is the point I made earlier about the strange way the
environment minister is targeting this additive. He is attacking the
sale of the product, not the product itself. And what about the
prohibition against provincial trade in this product?
You will agree that the minister is acting in a strange manner on
this issue. His predecessor did the same and she goofed in many
other issues.
This bill is clearly in response to the representations made by the
automobile industry, which claims that the MMT additive hinders
the functioning of anti-pollution systems, including the OBD-2
system. The purpose of the OBD-2 is to detect any malfunctioning
in the exhaust systems. The automobile industry claims that MMT
can trigger the illumination of a red light on the panel, thus
indicating the existence of a problem, when in fact there is no
problem.
Consequently, the car owner would have to go to a garage to
have a non-existent problem corrected, which has generated
unnecessary costs to the consumer. The red light that comes on for
no reason was one of the automobile industry's last arguments.
Before that, the industry had claimed that MMT had an adverse
effect on oxygen probes, spark plugs, catalysts, etc.
(1615)
In fact, none of the points raised by the automobile lobby are
supported by scientific evidence. The auto industry was never able
to come up with serious studies supporting its claims.
Based on our information, the automobile industry is currently
conducting tests to see if, indeed, MMT has all these negative
consequences for anti-pollution systems. Would it not be better for
the minister to wait for the results of these tests, so that car makers
can finally support their claims?
Car makers have also threatened to impose on Canadian
consumers a $3,000 increase in the cost of automobiles, to reduce
the coverage provided by the warranty, and to simply disconnect
the OBD-2 detection device. This pressure exerted on the minister
has paid off. However, it should be noted that they have more to do
with economics than with health or environment concerns.
Ethyl Corp. is the only one to have provided the results of tests
conducted on its product. The company conducted serious,
independent tests, in co-operation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the EPA. The results of these tests totally
contradict the claims made by car makers. In fact, the EPA itself
recognized that the concerns of the automobile industry regarding
the clogging of anti-pollution systems are not justified.
Given the results of serious tests conducted by one party and the
unfounded claims made by the other, you will agree that it is
difficult to support this bill. The MMT lobby was the only to
provide data. We are anxiously waiting for the automobile lobby to
do the same. In the meantime, is it appropriate to pass this bill? If
the tests of the auto lobby revealed that MMT does not cause the
claimed effects, will the environment minister change course and
remove the ban on MMT?
The Bloc Quebecois is definitely concerned about this metal that
is being added to gasoline. We are not indifferent to the issue. We
too, of course, want to see 100 per cent clean fuel and cars that do
not release emissions into the air we all breathe. In this regard, if
the automobile industry truly wants to produce cars that are 100 per
cent clean and emission free, why does it not build cars that use
electricity or, better yet, water?
You will agree that it is somewhat difficult to follow the logic of
the automobile industry regarding MMT when the automobile
itself uses fossil fuels and is therefore one of the greatest sources of
pollution on the planet. While we are at it, the automobile industry
should be true to its own logic and also ban the use of gasoline in
cars.
I would just like to digress briefly at this point to talk about the
Liberals' failure in this area. Members will recall that in 1994
Senator Kenny introduced a bill to reduce smog and greenhouse
gas emissions. This bill was passed in June 1995 and concerned the
entire government fleet of vehicles.
The bill requires the government to phase out these vehicles with
vehicles using an alternative fuel, such as propane or natural gas,
and, by April 1997, that half of new vehicles bought must use
alternative fuels.
The results to date are nonexistent. The Liberal government has
not implemented this bill. Furthermore, the Senate recently
denounced the government's slow progress in converting its
vehicles. What is the environment minister doing about this? Can
he not get his own government to do its duty and thus set an
example?
I would like, if I may, to cite a passage from the report of the
Senate committee that looked at the progress made in the
implementation of Bill S-7. I quote: ``The committee is of the
opinion that one of the obstacles to the rapid conversion to vehicles
using alternative fuels in automobile fleets is that members of the
federal cabinet do not seem to be leading the way. Ministers should
preach by example and have their cars converted. In fact, all
ministers received offers of conversion from methane and propane
suppliers. To date, only three have taken advantage of these offers.
The
4686
committee urges the others to follow their example in order to
underscore the importance the government attaches to this bill''.
(1620)
In light of such comments, it is difficult to detect any real resolve
on the part of the Liberals with respect to air pollution. I find it
paradoxical to say that MMT must be banned because it is a source
of pollution, and yet do nothing oneself to reduce this same source
of pollution. That is Liberal logic for you. Hard to follow, you will
agree.
I draw your attention to the environment minister's press release
from last April 18, in which he announces that the bill will be
tabled again. In the fourth paragraph, the minister states, and I
quote: ``Of importance to me, as the Minister of the Environment,
are the potential harmful effects on air quality of the interference of
MMT with automobile diagnostic systems monitoring exhaust
emissions''.
What strikes me in this paragraph are the words ``potential
harmful effects''. Let us admit that it is hardly a strong case for
legislation. Can a bill seriously be tabled using words like
``potential''?
In this business of MMT, where we must base our decisions on
scientific data, the minister's choice of words is vague to say the
least. This shows the government's spinelessness and hesitation
where this bill is concerned.
This press release goes along with an information sheet in which
we are informed of the five key points on which the minister has
based his decision. The first concerns the automotive industry. Of
course, the minister rehashes all the same old stuff from the
automotive lobby about the harmful effects of MMT on pollution
control devices, particularly the diagnostic systems commonly
called OBDs, and about how this in turn results in increased
atmospheric pollution and health hazards.
All of these real impacts end up as mere statements. At the end it
is written down in black and white that the automotive industry is
so convinced of the negative effects of MMT that it is currently
involved in a test program in the U.S. at the cost of $10 million, in
order to obtain definitive proof to back their position.
That statement takes some of the wind out of the sails of the auto
lobby, and of the minister as well. No test completed as yet, no
definitive proof either. I am not the one saying this, the Minister
himself is. How, then, can the minister table Bill C-29 while the
auto lobby cannot as yet, as I have just said, prove its argument?
We must admit that this is not a very effective approach for a
Minister of the Environment to take.
This is a source of concern, for the minister and the government
are showing that lobbies hold more weight for them than concrete
evidence, verified facts, and definite results. That is not, however,
any real surprise. We all know how those people across the way
operate, and where their motivation comes from.
We have seen how, in many other sectors, the most powerful
lobbies gain the upper hand over their little Liberal buddies. The
minister has also been pressured by another group in this matter:
the Ontario Corn Producers Association. This group wrote to the
minister on April 24, as follows:
[English]
``The Ontario Corn Producers Association with a membership of
21,000 Ontario farm families congratulates you for your decision
to reintroduce proposed legislation to ban the importation of MMT
for use in Canadian gasoline''.
[Translation]
Further on we read that other, more environmental octane
enhancers exist, including ethanol. As you know, ethanol is now
being used and is produced from corn, hence Ontario's eagerness to
congratulate the minister and to see MMT prohibited. Imagine the
size of the new market for ethanol if MMT were to disappear.
(1625)
I would say this is of major importance for Ontario farmers and
the processing industry that would develop as a result.
If I remember correctly, in December 1994, the former Minister
of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture launched a
development program to encourage the production of ethanol from
biomass material. In fact, the major projects for the construction of
plants to produce ethanol from corn are all in Ontario, if I am not
mistaken. And as the ministers said on December 21, 1994, in a
press release, ethanol offers an excellent opportunity to diversify
the economy and stimulate economic growth. It opens up a vast
market for agricultural products, thereby increasing the incomes of
farmers and making them less dependent on farm income
protection programs.
I would not want to question the motives of the present minister
nor those of the former minister, who resigned and has just returned
to the House, saved by the voters of Hamilton East, but there are
some strange coincidences in this dossier. The two main economic
lobbies, automobile manufacturers and corn ethanol
manufacturers, are from Ontario, and the two ministers who have
been involved in this issue happen to be from Ontario as well.
Is there a connection? As I said earlier, the Liberals are very
sensitive to lobbying. Unfortunately, there is still no product like
SPF 35 sun cream, for instance, to protect us from lobbying. Also it
is becoming increasingly clear that both ministers have met the
expectations of lobbies from their own province. We need look no
further.
4687
For instance, under key item 5 of the minister's information
sheet, which is headed: ``Possibilities for cleaner fuels'', it says
that the withdrawal of MMT from gasoline will create
opportunities for the introduction and use of ethanol and other
substitutes that may become a major component of a
comprehensive national policy on the nationwide production and
use of renewable energy sources. This policy, we read, would
reflect the commitment made in the red book of the Liberal Party
of Canada to an agricultural policy that would eliminate MMT,
and it would be in line with U.S. federal policy designed to create
new markets for renewable fuels such as ethanol.
No need to look any further to see what the Liberals have in
mind. Ontario will be the great beneficiary of the withdrawal of
MMT. That is crystal clear. The minister also indicated that this
will be in line with the promises made in the red book. So now we
have a political decision.
I agree that ethanol seems to be a useful additive. But ethanol
produced from corn also bears a major economic and
environmental cost. From the environmental point of view, corn is
a crop that causes considerable pollution and soil depletion.
Economically speaking, the cost of production is high. Consider
that today, the federal government provides an excise tax
exemption of 8.5 cents per litre on ethanol sold on the market to
make this product competitive. Some provinces have followed suit,
including Onta-rio.
These negative aspects are never mentioned by the Minister of
the Environment. A crop that causes pollution and depletes the soil
should give the Minister of the Environment some cause for alarm.
I think the minister should consult people on these negative aspects
of using corn. Can you imagine a Minister of the Environment
being in favour of a crop that pollutes?
This bill still raises a number of questions. But instead of finding
the answer to these questions, the minister prefers to blindly
accommodate the lobbies from his province. What will the minister
do when automobile manufacturers who, I may remind him, want
gas that is 100 per cent pure, ask him to prohibit ethanol as an
additive? Will he come and tell us that ethanol is a hazard to our
health and that it contaminates antipollution systems in cars? The
withdrawal of MMT as an additive will indeed have certain
consequences.
(1630)
According to the Ethyl Corporation and the oil industry, there
will be three major consequences, which I will list for you without
blindly considering them. We in the official opposition have some
reservations about the lobby group's arguments. We certainly
would not want to fall in the same trap as the minister, who,
influenced by the other lobby group, has lacked foresight and
rigour in this matter.
First of all, according to Ethyl, MMT reduces smog-causing
nitrogen dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. If MMT really reduces
urban smog, why would we want to remove it from gasoline?
Of course, the auto industry tells us that cars will pollute even
less in the future and that improved performances will more than
make up for the loss of current MMT benefits. Of course,
department officials told us that the urban smog problem was not as
bad in Canadian cities. But who is telling the truth?
Another consequence of MMT's removal is that refineries will
require costly modifications. According to the oil companies, these
adjustment costs combined with other operating costs will raise the
price of gas at the pumps. The oil companies' assessments show
some $100 million in capital costs and tens of millions of dollars in
operating costs. Can we ask the oil industry to make such changes
to their refineries to respond to the other party's claims, which are
not based on any scientific evidence?
Can the minister seriously initiate all these changes simply to
increase his visibility and respond to the pressures exerted by his
province? I know that the Minister of the Environment and his
Liberal colleagues, who are blindly following him in this matter,
will accuse us of being impertinent, of being anti-health, of
objecting to the reduction of air pollution. They can shout
themselves hoarse and say whatever they want about us, we do not
care.
If MMT is so harmful, the Liberals should ban it as a hazardous
product. The Liberals are saying that MMT is harmful so they
should act accordingly and ban the product itself.
The third consequence we must look at has to do with the oil
refining process. MMT increases the octane level in gas, thus
requiring less oil refining. We know that refining causes pollution.
So, if MMT is removed, the oil companies will have to do more
refining in order to increase the octane level and will therefore
cause more pollution. Is the minister ready to contribute to the
increase in direct pollution caused by refineries? Are the Liberals,
who are trumpeting their health concerns, ready to increase
pollution?
The question the Liberals should ask themselves is whether it is
more important to create a market for Ontario corn or to consider
the economic, agricultural and environmental impact of this bill
seriously and rigorously. They should carefully determine if the
expected benefits will indeed be achieved, check and quantify these
benefits, and align them in two columns for comparison purposes.
At present, the Liberals are going nowhere. It may be for the best,
but it is not very responsible.
These are claims made by the MMT lobby that still raise
questions, and these questions warrant the minister's undivided
attention. But the minister prefers to bury his head in the sand, just
like the Deputy Prime Minister did before him. The minister keeps
4688
repeating that MMT is a health hazard, while Health Canada
assures us that it does not represent a significant hazard to human
health.
In the September 12 issue of La Presse, the Minister of the
Environment was quoted as saying the following. ``But the
Government of Canada can act as well to protect the environment
and public heath.'' I will remind the minister that, on December 6,
1994, Health Canada published the results of an independent risk
assessment based on new epidemiological studies and data on
exposure in Canada entitled: ``Risk assessment for the combustion
products of MMT in gasoline''.
(1635)
Health Canada's study concluded that there was no health risk
for any segment of the Canadian population associated with the use
of MMT in fuel. More specifically, it was reported that: ``Airborne
manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in
gasoline-powered vehicles is not introduced in the Canadian
environment in amounts or under conditions that would pose a
health risk.''
The study also concluded that no relationship exists between
ambient air manganese levels and MMT sales or its use in unleaded
fuel, regardless of the region or the time of year.
What else does the Minister of the Environment want to tell us
about the adverse health effects of MMT, when Health Canada says
that there are no adverse effects? He should consult his colleague,
the health minister, provided of course he is not even more isolated
than he is believed to be in Cabinet. The Minister of Health could
run over the findings of theses studies for him, to refresh his
memory so that he can finally tell us why he really wants this bill
passed.
There is no shame in backtracking for a minister. Again, his
colleague could remind him of his own experience with the famous
issue of cheese made from raw milk.
To fuel the controversy about this bill, on September 10, the
American parent company Ethyl Corporation gave notice of its
intention to file a complaint and have the Government of Canada
pay the company US$200 million under NAFTA for damages
sustained by its subsidiary Ethyl Canada.
Ethyl argues that Canada is not fulfilling its obligations under
the North American Free Trade Agreement. According to Ethyl
Corp., Canada does not comply with Articles 1110, 1106 and 1102,
which deal respectively with expropriation, compensation,
performance requirements and national treatment.
Ethyl Corp. is seeking US$200 million US in compensation, and
the minister seems to take it lightly, saying that the government of
Canada has the right to take measures to protect the environment
and public health and that the company is entitled to its opinion. If I
were the minister I would quickly put Bill C-29 on hold, at least for
a while, and I would have in-depth discussions with my legal
advisors, to make sure that Canada is in a strong bargaining
position and can win its case.
The minister seems rather casual and nonchalant about the
company's intention to sue. At a time when cuts are being made to
the health, welfare and UI sectors, the minister should ask himself
whether Canada has the means to throw away US$200 million.
Should Canada lose its case before the arbitration tribunal, how
would the minister justify his bill, which looks more and more like
a measure designed to favour a specific interest group? Would he
send the bill to car makers, or to corn producers in his province?
Canadian taxpayers have a right to expect fair and rigorous
decisions on the part of their ministers, not partisan choices that
could cost them a great deal.
NAFTA is not the only agreement that would be violated by Bill
C-29. The whole issue of interprovincial trade is also affected,
since Bill C-29 prohibits such trade. Some provincial ministers feel
this is a case of federal interference. Bill C-29 would also
contravene the federal-provincial agreement on trade in Canada.
In fact, no less than six provinces openly oppose this measure.
Can the minister turn a blind eye to the provinces' appeals, when
his cabinet colleagues are extolling the virtues of the federation and
of co-operation in this country? Is the Minister of the Environment
that isolated in cabinet, when it comes to this issue?
(1640)
The minister's decision to go ahead with Bill C-29 has no solid
basis. His arguments are not supported by any scientific evidence.
The minister naively but willingly relies on the claims made by car
makers, and on the hope that the anticipated income growth of his
province's corn producers who, coincidentally, account for three
quarters of Canada's corn production, will materialize. The
minister's decision is also a source of concern for the future. It is
not reassuring, for the future and for the environment, when an
environment minister who has access to all the tools of a
department is so lax regarding a major issue.
I will conclude by tabling an amendment to the bill. I propose:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That'' and
substituting the following:
``Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be not now read a
third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.''
4689
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The
amendment is in order. Resuming debate.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-29 but it is also
unfortunate in many ways.
I thought this bill would have been terminated in the last
Parliament because there is so much contention surrounding this
issue. Contrary to what the hon. minister said today, there is ample
evidence to support that banning MMT in Canada is really a
spurious attempt to do something that should not occur. MMT has
not been proven to be damaging to onboard diagnostic devices, the
health of Canadians or the environment. I will discuss this a little
later.
This bill is very interesting. I will destroy the credibility of the
government with regard to this bill. I will demonstrate that the
comments made today by members of the government, both in
question period and in debate, conflict greatly with what they have
said previously and with what they really believe on this matter.
The banning of MMT is supported by a strong automaker lobby
group in the previous Minister of the Environment's constituency,
and that is the real driving force behind the bill. It is not based on
scientific fact. It is not based on any fact at all; it has been done on
a whim. The minister has been lobbied strongly for this by the
automobile manufacturers and it is obvious the auto manufacturers
have won.
It is my impression that Bill C-94 was not drafted in the same
manner as other bills. Rather, it was drafted on a whim.
(1645 )
The previous minister did not give a comprehensive analysis to
all the stakeholders, especially the hapless consumer. The previous
minister had no conclusive evidence whatsoever that MMT was
harmful to cars or to humans. All she was going on were the words
of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors, the big three. It is a sorry
state of affairs when the big three, the industry, can actually push a
bill through this House.
After the bill's introduction, the previous minister proceeded to
hold a press conference where she informed reporters that the
reason for banning MMT was because it caused problems with
onboard diagnostic systems to all new automobiles. However, this
was not the only reason the minister proceeded to ban the trade on
MMT. She stated that Canada was one of the only countries in the
world to still be using MMT in unleaded gasoline and that this
should change.
As a member of this House and as a representative of Canadians
in my riding, it is important that we weigh and pursue every
available option to come up with accurate and scientific based
conclusions before we create legislation on any topic. What is
needed on these technical matters is the best that science can offer.
The Liberal government can call itself responsible, but I ask
whether it is really responsible to take the words of a few
automobile manufacturers over the words of hard, scientific
evidence which demonstrates that MMT does not pose a health
hazard to Canadians? What I will demonstrate later on is that it is
going to do the exact opposite.
We know that the bill was introduced last year and MMT was
still not permitted at that time in the United States. The minister
has stated today quite unequivocally that his goal is to harmonize
gasoline with the situation south of the border. That is a very
reasonable thing to do, but why are we attempting to harmonize our
gasoline by banning a substance that is being reintroduced in the
United States? Does this make sense? No, it does not make sense.
Mr. Marchi: That is false.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): The minister is
saying this is false, yet he knows full well that the United States, I
think it was in October 1995, stated unequivocally that MMT does
not pose a health hazard to people, is not damaging to onboard
devices and therefore ought to be allowed. In fact, this proves that
it is going to actually improve the environment by limiting the
amount of nitrous oxide emissions in the air.
I would be very interested to know the evidence the minister has,
if he has any, to prove contrary to what I am saying in the House
today.
To look at the history, in 1977 Congress made some amendments
to the clean air act, which the minister referred to earlier today. One
amendment dealt with the emergence of catalytic converters in
automobiles. I want to read what the courts stated about the effect it
would have on MMT. As catalytic converters could not be used
with leaded fuels, their adoption had led to a sharp rise in the use of
MMT as an octane booster and Congress responded to the concern
that it and other fuel additives might harm the effectiveness of
these converters. That was their belief back in the 1970s.
Congress however directed the EPA to grant a waiver once it was
determined that the additive would not cause or contribute to the
failure of an emission control device or system. The EPA
deliberately stalled on making a decision until the courts instructed
them to do the testing. On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that
MMT ``did not cause or contribute to the failure of emission
control systems''. However, not wanting to be outdone by the
courts, the EPA denied the waiver on the grounds that the
manufacturer, Ethyl, had not yet established an absence of health
effects, another very reasonable conclusion.
4690
The courts wrangled until about October 20, 1995 when the
United States Court of Appeal in the case of Ethyl Corporation
v. the Administrator of the United States, EPA, ruled: ``We order
the EPA to register MMT for use as an additive in unleaded
gasoline as of November 30, 1993''. Therefore, they proved that
MMT did not show any adverse health effects. That is a very
important point.
(1650)
What is significant with this ruling is not that Ethyl won and
MMT could be sold in the U.S. in unleaded gasoline by the year
end, but rather it is the process which was undertaken by Congress
and the EPA. They did not approve of MMT in unleaded fuels until
it was proven that MMT was not a health risk and that it was not
damaging onboard devices, which are the two concerns the
minister expressed today. They are the same concerns which we
have in the Reform Party. They are the same concerns which have
been disproved by studies undertaken in the United States.
When the bill was introduced in May, both the environment
minister and the industry minister said that eliminating MMT from
our gasoline was essential in order to achieve a North American
harmonization of fuel. Yet as I have previously said, the United
States has now brought MMT back into play.
The minister said that 85 per cent of the fuel in the United States
was MMT free. That is probably so, but let us not forget that MMT
was banned until the end of 1995. One could also say that from the
end of 1995 until now, MMT has been reintroduced into the
American fuel system and has occupied 15 per cent of the total
volume.
Both ministers were confident that the ban on MMT would
remain in the United States. In May 1995 the environment minister
was asked during question period about the fact that the courts
would probably rule in Ethyl's favour. The Deputy Prime
Minister's response at that time was: ``I advise the hon. member
that last week when I had the opportunity to speak with Carol
Browner, head of the EPA, she reaffirmed the U.S. commitment not
to allow MMT. She decried the fact that there is only one country,
Canada, that still allows MMT and we intend to change that''.
The Minister of Industry has in fact gone further than his
colleague. He said last April during question period that the key is
to have uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. He
said: ``The member will know that MMT is not permitted in the
United States by legislation. It is crucial that we have uniformity of
standards''.
If we are trying to create uniformity of standards, why are we
banning MMT which is now being reintroduced in the United
States? We are in fact going backward in time to create disharmony
in our fuel.
The Minister of Industry also clearly stated on the record that it
is important for U.S. and Canadian gasolines to have the same
composite harmonization. I would suggest we have proven today
that the government is very confused in what it means by
harmonization.
When the EPA attempted to ban MMT it mistakenly believed it
was harmful. The Liberal government wants to ban it not on
substance, but rather on the basis of importation and
interprovincial trade. Why can it not be banned in Canada? The
reason it cannot be banned in this country is because it is
understood that MMT is not a health hazard to people.
If we were going to be genuine about banning this substance, if
we truly believed it was a substance which was harmful to
Canadians, then we would ban it under that premise. The
government is not pursuing that course because it understands that
the scientific facts demonstrate very clearly that MMT is not a
health hazard. Therefore, the government is taking this roundabout
way of trying to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of
MMT. It is very disingenuous.
The minister had every opportunity to let this bill die yet did not,
even knowing full well that there was an extensive amount of
opposition within his own party, in the backbenches, and even
within cabinet. In a moment I am going to reveal a very interesting
letter from the Minister for International Trade.
The Minister for International Trade sent a letter to the Minister
of the Environment which was dated February 23, 1996. The letter
reads:
(1655 )
``Dear Minister of the Environment: I understand that you are
considering the reintroduction of Bill C-94 in the upcoming
session. My department continues to have certain reservations
concerning this measure which I wish to draw to your attention.
``One of the original arguments that favoured the ban on MMT
was that the U.S. already prohibited its use as a petroleum additive.
Recently the U.S. Court of Appeal overturned the U.S. ban.''-And
this is very important-``This has effectively removed
harmonization arguments in support of Bill C-94''.
I will repeat that because it is what the Minister for International
Trade said to the Minister of the Environment: The U.S. Court of
Appeal has overturned the ban and it has removed the
harmonization argument that the Minister of the Environment has
been speaking about at length today.
The letter goes on to say: ``An important prohibition on MMT
would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the World
Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade
Agreement. It would constitute an impermissible prohibition on
imports particularly if domestic production, sale or use is not
similarly prohibited. It could not be justified on health or
environmental grounds given current scientific evidence''.
4691
The Minister for International Trade has told the Minister of the
Environment that MMT cannot be banned because it is not a health
hazard and MMT cannot be banned because it does not prove to be
a risk to the environment and that it will not harmonize gasoline in
North America.
In conclusion the minister said: ``Let me stress my department's
belief that Bill C-94 should not be reintroduced as it could have
many adverse implications for Canadian trade without
compensatory environmental benefits''.
What the Minister for International Trade said is completely
contrary to what the same minister said today in question period.
Today he is supporting the bill giving an argument exactly counter
to what is stated in his letter to the Minister of the Environment.
That is hypocrisy. It cannot be both ways.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Order. It is my
duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: The hon. member for Rosedale, Canada pension plan; the
hon. member for Bourassa, Immigration and Refugee Board.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): CEPA was designed
specifically to ban harmful substances. In order to add a substance
to the schedule of banned substances under CEPA, it must be
shown by Health Canada that the substance is hazardous to the
health of Canadians, but it has been shown that it is not a health
hazard. Health Canada reports that its analyses indicate that the
combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an
added health risk to the Canadian population, period, end of story.
MMT is not harmful to Canadians according to Health Canada. I
would be very happy to share that report with the minister if he is
interested.
From the very beginning we in the Reform Party have
unequivocally stated that we would support banning MMT if the
government could prove through independent scientific studies that
MMT was harmful to Canadians or to the onboard diagnostic
systems in cars. We have not seen that evidence and therefore we
can only conclude that MMT should not be banned.
When the petroleum companies appeared before the committee,
they suggested that they would have a tremendous amount to lose
should MMT be removed from Canadian fuels. In their testimony it
was suggested that the removal of MMT would result in an increase
in manufacturing costs, as much as $69 million per year. Refineries
would have to burn more crude oil in order to achieve the high
octane levels needed for today's automobiles, without any
economic benefit.
The refineries would be forced to burn a greater amount of crude
oil in order to achieve different octane levels, but in the process, it
would produce greater emissions through the burning of crude oil.
Therefore, it would increase the cost of energy for the
transportation sector and would be a direct tax on jobs and
ultimately a drag on the economy.
(1700)
When this bill was introduced to the environment committee,
one of the questions raised had to do with the possible alternatives
to MMT. According to the auto makers, the octane of gasoline can
be increased through changes to the refining process as well as
through the addition of other octane enhancers such as MTBE,
ETBE and ethanol.
The former environment minister, the Deputy Prime Minister,
once made a comment that she did not need to conduct independent
testing because the big three auto makers had said MMT was
harmful. Who are we to dispute the big three auto makers?
On October 18 Rod Raphael, chief of monitoring and criteria in a
division of Health Canada, appeared before the environment
committee and said the following about MTBE, a possible
alternative to MMT: ``We have concerns with respect to MTBE and
the fact is that MMT could prove to be carcinogenic and that the
evaluation of MTBE is still out''.
Why would we consider using MTBE when it has shown to have
a potential negative effect on the health of Canadians? Why are we
replacing something that has been proven to not be harmful to
Canadians?
There is also data to show these alternative fuel enhancers have
lower mileage rates, so much more that more gasoline has to be
burned with more nitrous oxide emissions into the environment
with a negative effect.
Bear in mind that nitrous oxide is one of the greatest contributors
to pollution through smog. This bill has been brought through
various stages. I want to make it clear and point out that at every
stage we in the Reform Party have made every attempt to put this
bill on hold until conclusive proof has been found that it
demonstrates a negative effect on the environment or to Canadians'
health.
It is clearly beyond me why this government continues to pursue
this bill, showing as it were that it has not shown to demonstrate
any negative effects on the health of Canadians.
Furthermore, the banning of MMT may prove to be deleterious
to Canadians' health by increasing nitrous oxide levels within the
environment. There is no disputing that the presence of MMT in
unleaded gasoline actually reduces smog, and therefore banning
MMT means an increase of nitrous oxide, and replacing it with an
4692
alternative would result in an increased negative effect on the
environment in a number of different ways.
As politicians we are very familiar with polls. One poll says this
and another one says that. If we want a polling company to get a
favourable answer, it is very easy to do that. That is what we have
seen here in this case.
The same thing happened with MMT, with Ethyl having its
studies to prove its case and the auto makers doing their studies to
prove their case. It proves absolutely nothing. I must say, though,
the studies done by Health Canada are conclusive and flow exactly
contrary to what the hon. minister has been saying in this House.
I do not understand why the hon. Minister of the Environment is
choosing to ignore studies that come out from the Ministry of
Health that fly completely against his conclusions.
Other studies done, for example by Kilbourn Inc., show that the
removal of MMT as a reduction of sulphur content in gasoline
would result in an increase in capital costs of nearly a billion
dollars and an increase of $200 million in annual operating costs.
These large costs, though, are sure to cripple many refineries in
the country and force a lot of Canadians out of their jobs, in the
order of thousands I might add.
Since the beginning we in the Reform Party have pushed for
independent testing. If the minister were honest in his intentions,
he would do that.
This need not have ever come to the House, not last Parliament
or this one. Ethyl Corp. and the auto makers were dealing with this
themselves. They were almost going to have a conclusion to it
when the government stuck its big foot in. It has now completely
polarized both these groups. Now it comes to our purview here.
We are wasting taxpayer money in this House by even discussing
this bill which could have been dealt with in the private sector in a
very effective and efficient fashion.
(1705 )
The negativism about this bill comes not only from within
cabinet, not only from the government backbenchers, but from
provincial ministers across this country. Throughout 1995
provincial environment ministers submitted letters to the Standing
Committee on the Environment with regard to MMT. I am going to
read some of these to make it perfectly clear what these provincial
ministers are saying.
Ty Lund, Alberta's minister of the environment, states: ``This
unilateral federal action on a non-toxic component of gasoline will
likely only serve to draw valuable resources away from consensus
efforts to improve Canada's gasoline and deliver real air quality
benefits. Canadian petroleum refineries may be dealt a legislative
disadvantage if MMT is banned in Canada and allowed in the
United States''.
The former New Brunswick minister of the environment,
Vaughn Blaney, stated that the province of New Brunswick raised
concerns regarding the negative environmental impacts of
proceeding with this plan, including the potential increase of
emissions of greenhouse, toxic and acidifying gases from motor
vehicles. The exact opposite intent of what the minister wishes to
have is going to happen if MMT is banned. We are going to make
our environment not cleaner but dirtier. To use the minister's
words, nobody wants our air needed to be scrubbed, chewed on or
otherwise. We want it cleaner, but banning MMT is not going to
effect that change.
Wayne Adams, Nova Scotia's environment minister, stated: ``We
understand that the position taken by the federal government on the
effect of MMT on vehicles equipped with advanced emission
control technologies resulted from claims to its effect by the
automobile industry. We also understand that they were not able to
substantiate those claims with sound technical documentation.
Further, there is proof that the removal of MMT from gasoline will
cause increases in nitrous oxide emissions by up to 20 per cent.
Therefore we cannot support Bill C-94''.
Bernhard Weins, Saskatchewan's minister of the environment
and resource management, stated: ``In our view the scientific data
on MMT do not indicate a net environmental gain that will result in
the passage of this legislation. In addition to the cost implications,
increased greenhouse gas emissions as a result of intensified
refinery processes required to replace MMT and increased vehicle
tailpipe emissions of smog forming oxides of nitrogen would also
occur''.
These are not people who are in the camp of Ethyl Corporation.
These are not people who have any particular axe to grind other
than the safety of Canadians and the health of Canadians. Why are
these people opposing Bill C-94 on the basis of sound scientific
data to show that banning MMT is not going to make our
environment cleaner but rather will make our environment dirtier?
Guy Chevrette, Quebec's minister of state for natural resources,
stated the bill will have a major impact on the competitiveness of
Quebec's refiners. It goes on and on. There is a list of these
statements. The words of these provincial ministers and the
statements made by the Montreal Board of Trade clearly speak for
themselves.
I ask the Minister of the Environment to please rethink his
position on this bill. His provincial counterparts are not standing
behind him. Part of cabinet is not standing behind him. I would
venture to say that a large number of the backbenchers in the
Liberal Party are also not standing behind him.
This bill should be dropped. This bill should never have come
forward in this Parliament and it should be scrapped. I suggest the
minister start to address the wide variety and number of significant
4693
environmental hazards that are in our midst today which have
simply not been dealt with by this government.
There are a litany of environmental problems that are affecting
Canadians from coast to coast which in the three years since we
have been here are simply not being addressed. Included are
deforestation, salinization of soil, the damage to our wetlands,
desertification, pollution in the Arctic.
(1710)
Colleagues in the House here today, my friends from the Bloc
Quebecois, friends from the Liberal Party, went to the Arctic and
heard increasingly disturbing evidence of carcinogens, teratogens
and toxins increasing in the Arctic. They are increasing through the
food chain with dramatic, disastrous and deleterious effects for the
health of the people who live in the Arctic.
I have not seen one thing come into this House since that
meeting earlier this year to address that factual graphic evidence of
the damage that has been done to our environment in the Arctic.
The damage that is taking place among the people who are living in
the Arctic is silent and is killing. I know the minister is very
interested in this and I hope to see action on this.
On the endangered species legislation we have seen nothing.
While we talk in this House at least two species are being
eliminated from the face of the planet every single day, and Canada
is no exception. We have dozens of species on the endangered list.
We have dozens on the threatened list. CITES, the convention on
the international trade in endangered species of wild flora and
fauna, has repeatedly said interestingly and sadly enough that
Canada has the ignominious reputation for being one of the top ten
conduits of illegal animal parts in the world.
I did not know that, and I am ashamed to say that we in this
country are a conduit for some of the most threatened and
endangered species on this planet, species that are never going to
be in existence again if things are not done to protect them: the
black rhino, spotted cats, a wide variety of bird species.
In Canada we have the problem of bears being poached for gall
bladders and other parts. We have the grizzly bear situation in
British Columbia. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Correct me if I
am wrong, but I have not seen a single piece of legislation that has
come forward in the House to address endangered species. While
we speak habitat is being destroyed and species in this country are
being wiped off the face of the planet.
It would be very productive if we saw in this House efforts put
from the government on endangered species legislation, on habitat
protection, on habitat reclamation and on using novel ways of
actually reclaiming habitat that has been destroyed by industry.
Having the polluter pay is a sensible way of doing that without
burdening the taxpayer and putting onerous demands on the already
limited budget the minister has to work with.
Co-operative efforts with industry are going to improve habitat
and perhaps expand the amount of habitat that we have, that we
need, to protect our endangered species. In Canada, as in every
other part of the world, habitat destruction is the single most
important reason for the decimation of species.
There are novel ways to protect our parks. Our parks are under
threat in a number of ways. The primary reason they are under
threat is financial. You cannot blame anybody for this because that
is the financial reality we all live under, but there are novel ways of
doing that.
I think it is interesting for us to look at what other parts of the
world are actually doing to preserve their wild spaces. There are
interesting co-operative efforts that can be done with industry so
that the parks themselves can earn revenues. Those revenues can be
reinvested within the parks to hire enforcement officers, to increase
the amount of protected spaces they have for education, for
research and scientific study.
In doing that we would give the parks the ability to generate the
revenues so they will be there for us in this House, for our families,
for Canadians from coast to coast and for the generations of
Canadians to come. It is a legacy that we have inherited. It is a
legacy that is on our shoulders to give to future generations.
(1715)
These issues have to be dealt with. I plead with hon. minister to
bring forth good constructive suggestions and to work with other
members to address the critically important environmental issues
that affect us from coast to coast, not the banning of MMT which
has not been shown deleterious to the health of Canadians.
Could he please bring his skills and those of his ministry to bear
on these important environmental issues, on the pollution that is
taking place in our oceans as we speak, to develop new ways to
work with the Minister of Transport, to develop new co-operative
ways with the municipalities and the provinces, to deal with
alternative means of transportation.
The European experience is very interesting. Look at what they
have done with respect to train travel and electric travel for mass
transit. Even in relatively small communities of 60,000 to 70,000
people, they have established interesting transportation
mechanisms which have led to a decrease in the utilization of cars,
thereby decreasing the amount of auto emissions.
Co-operative efforts like that along with the use of non-electric,
non-petroleum modes of transportation such as bicycles can be
utilized very effectively. We might be put to shame by looking at
4694
the European experience. We could take some of what they have
done and apply it to some areas in this country.
The hon. minister comes from the city as I, Toronto. It is sad to
see the environmental degradation that has taken place in this very
fine city. I am sure he shares the concerns of everybody in this
House who lives in urban centres about the environmental
degradation they have seen.
Now is the time for this government to show and take a
leadership role in developing cost effective, scientifically sound
methods to decrease the pollution we have in our midst to improve
our environment not only for us but, most important, for the
Canadians of tomorrow.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor
will be sharing her time with the hon. member for Halton-Peel.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be here today to participate in this debate. The passing of
this bill will benefit all Canadians and fulfils another red book
promise made to Canadians.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Minister of the
Environment for reintroducing this legislation and for pursuing its
passage. The Liberal Party agriculture policy paper released on
September 24, 1993 stated: ``Liberals are committed to banning the
use of MMT in Canadian automotive fuels''.
The rationale for this legislation is twofold. It deals with the
health and the environmental risks and the need for harmonized
standards to ensure jobs and investment in Canada that flows from
our integrated North American automotive industry.
Everyone in this House must know that the Canadian automotive
industry accounts for 465,000 direct and indirect jobs across the
country. The industry represents approximately 7 per cent of
Canada's GDP and has invested more than $15 billion in Canada
over the last decade.
As a result of the North American approach to vehicle
manufacturing under the 1965 Auto Pact, more than two million
vehicles were manufactured in Canada in 1993, of which 85 per
cent were exported for sale in the United States.
In Windsor Chrysler, in partnership with the University of
Windsor, recently opened the Automotive Research Development
Centre. It invested $20 million and the federal government
contributed $4 million.
Initially the centre will conduct a road simulation project,
advanced engine design and alternate fuel research, creating 16
jobs for new researchers, placements for up to 20 co-op students as
well as ongoing employment for 100 individuals in the design area.
MMT will continue to be tested in Windsor.
If Canada is to attract these major research centres and maintain
the strong presence we have in the automotive industry, we must
keep harmonized sectoral standards.
(1720 )
However, harmonized sectorial standards require MMT free
fuel. Contrary to the information others have spoken before us
today, MMT is not widely used as a gasoline additive. Until last
year Canada was the only OECD country that allowed MMT to be
added to unleaded gasoline.
Although a recent narrow technical court ruling in the United
States has forced the EPA to grant a waiver to allow Ethyl
Corporation to use MMT, it is still prohibited in one-third of the
American market, as it is still banned in 37 states including
California, which I am surprised my colleague from British
Columbia was not aware of, and in many major U.S. cities that
require reformulated fuels under the U.S. clean air act.
As well, many of the larger petroleum companies, including
Amoco, Anchor Gasoline, ARCO, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon,
Hess, Marathon Oil, Mobil, Penzoil, Philips, Shell, Sun and
Texaco, have all stated they do not intend to add MMT to unleaded
gasoline.
Although emission control equipment and monitors have been
designed to perform in real life conditions, they do not function
properly if they are exposed to metals and other contaminants in
gasoline such as MMT. Experience in Canada has demonstrated
that MMT interferes with the engine and vehicle emission systems.
In a recent correspondence to members of Parliament, the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturer's Association states:
Automakers' concerns about manganese based gasoline additives, such as MMT,
have been supported by third parties. Leading manufacturers of spark plugs,
Champion Spark Plug Inc., and Robert Bosch Corp. corroborates vehicle
manufacturers' findings that MMT in gasoline causes significant deterioration in the
life of spark plugs, EGR valves, oxygen sensors and catalytic converters, which are
integral to the advanced emissions control systems on all new 1996 model vehicles
and essential to reducing exhaust emissions from cars and light trucks.
Ward's Engine and Vehicle Technology Update of February 1,
1996 devoted a recent article to problems associated with MMT
use in gasoline: ``Auto Industry Leery of MMT Gasoline
Additive''. Ward's quotes James Kranzthor, a senior product
engineer at Chevron in San Francisco, as saying ``Chevron
discontinued use of MMT in our gasoline sold in Canada last year
due to spark plug fouling and because of concerns of Canadian auto
makers''.
General Motors of Canada Limited has also written:
We would like to be able to offer a new technology, second generation ``On Board
Diagnostic'' system in Canada. This technology, now on all U.S. cars, senses when a
vehicle is beginning to demonstrate certain conditions (such a minor misfires) which
may lead to higher emissions. This allows the customer to have the vehicle serviced
4695
before there is an emission problem. Unfortunately, MMT impedes the effective
operation of OBD-II systems and there is no way we know to design around it.
I am aware that for the first time since 1978, MMT will be
allowed to be added to fuel in some U.S. states. However, this was
based on a very narrow court ruling on the grounds that as MMT
had been used in the U.S. before, MMT could again be employed in
the U.S. before long term health risk studies are complete.
However, I would like to point out that in the United States the
major auto makers, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and
Toyota, are now undertaking a $10 million research program with
the U.S. EPA to provide the necessary evidence for the U.S. courts
to have MMT banned again.
I would also like to quote from the head of the U.S. agency,
Carol Browner, commenting earlier this year that the EPA believes
that the American public should not be used as a laboratory to test
the safety of MMT.
I would like to discuss the health risks associated with MMT. Dr.
Donaldson, one of Canada's top neurotoxologists, was one of the
scientists selected by the National Research Council of Canada to
participate in its mid-eighties study entitled ``Manganese in the
Canadian Environment''. Dr. Donaldson testified to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency:
I believe that manganese is an age accelerating neurotoxin and I believe this is the
answer to manganese's ability to produce biochemically, pathologically and
clinically the picture which is very similar but not identical to Parkinson's Disease.
He also explained on CBC Radio on November 23, 1990:
One of the things which attracted me to manganese-was essentially its ability to
induce neurological damage almost identical with Parkinson's Disease. And this is
why I started to address how this metal line could possibly produce symptoms of
Parkinson's Disease and also brain damage which was similar to Parkinson's
Disease.
(1725)
Ms. Ellen Silbergeld of the Environmental Defence Fund served
on the EPA peer review panel on the EPA's health assessment
document on manganese. She testified:
Regardless of the effects of MMT on emissions control, there is no dispute that
manganese is neurotoxic to humans. It is on this basis that EPA should deny this
waiver. Particularly since Ethyl has yet again failed to provide evidence on two
critical points. One, that the use of MMT will not affect human health and two, that
the use of MMT will not measurably add to the environmental loading of manganese
in critical compartments directly related to human exposure.
We cannot ignore this evidence. We must act with prudence. I
am equally concerned that we must act now rather than regret our
inaction later.
Finally, I would like to take issue with the recent action taken by
Ethyl Corporation to attempt to file a $201 million claim against
Canada, trying to argue that under chapter 11 of the NAFTA this
environmental legislation has violated its rights as an investor. This
is clearly not the case. The president of the Canadian Automobile
Association stated:
Bill C-29 is not about trade and commerce, it is about environmental protection
and improvement. It would eliminate manganese based octane enhancers (such as
MMT) from gasoline sold in Canada, regardless of their origin. Most gasoline sold in
the United States and Mexico does not contain manganese based additives, so
Canadian practices will be harmonized with our trading partners as a result of Bill
C-29.
Bill Roberts, a lawyer for the U.S. Environmental Defence Fund,
stated in reaction to Ethyl's claim:
For Ethyl to ask Canadian taxpayers to pay for lost profits on a product that could
cause neurotoxic damage to millions of Canadian citizens is remarkably callous.
Finally, my message to Ethyl Corporation is that this
government does not respond to corporate threats and it is the
Government of Canada that sets policy in this country, not U.S.
corporations.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
methylcyclopentadinyl manganese tricarbonyl is what we are
talking about this afternoon. There have been a lot of myths and
purported evidence delivered in this debate today.
I want to pay tribute to the Hon. Ralph Ferguson, the former
member of Parliament for Lambton-Middlesex, who actually
spearheaded the process of getting oxygenates into gasoline and
MMT out. This process began long before I had the honour of
being elected to the House. This bill should be attributed to Ralph
Ferguson because of the work he did and the evidence he produced.
He started the ball rolling and elicited the enthusiasm of this
member, at least, to get on the ball to discover that we could
actually do something positive with motor fuel.
It is not the question of whether manganese is toxic. There is
some evidence which shows it is, but our health ministry has not
declared it to be a toxin. What appeals to me about phasing out
MMT is that the replacement that can be used probably provides
for us the largest single window of air quality improvement that we
are going to have during this session of Parliament.
By replacing MMT as an octane enhancer with oxygenates we
will reduce the carbon monoxide emissions from all our
automobiles, whether they have good emission controls or no
emission controls, by 30 per cent and we will reduce carbon
dioxide by approximately 15 per cent. The previous speaker, my
friend from the Reform Party, talked about nitrous oxide emissions
being increased, possibly up to 20 per cent if that were to take
place.
4696
(1730)
If the member will look at the evidence he will find that there is
also evidence which demonstrates there is no increase in nitrous
oxide emissions. But if there were 20 per cent, 20 per cent of
practically nothing is practically nothing. I would suggest to him
that some of the evidence which was brought before the committee
really pushed the envelope.
Thirty-nine cities in the United States have mandated fuel which
contains oxygenates for the simple reason that they are concerned
about ground level ozone. Anybody who lives in a metropolitan
area in Canada, and particularly in metropolitan Toronto, will
remember last summer and the summer before that during the hot
weather ground level ozone warnings were being issued on a daily
basis. Ground level ozone now has been studied to the point where
we can predict by its intensity how many additional admissions
there will be to hospitals. We can predict how many additional
deaths from respiratory failure there will be because of ground
level ozone. Does it not make simple sense to do everything we can
to reduce those occurrences?
Getting rid of the manganese in gasoline and getting oxygen in
its place is exactly what will accomplish that, whether evidence
may show whether it is toxic or not. At this time we can leave that
debate to one side.
There is overwhelming evidence from a health point of view and
from the positive possibilities that are presented-
The Deputy Speaker: My regrets, but the hon. member will
have five minutes when the House resumes next time.
* * *
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial
review of parole ineligibility) and another act, be read the third
time and passed; and on the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to Bill C-45,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility) and another act.
The vote is on the amendment. Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 130)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Ringma
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Williams -75
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
4697
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-124
PAIRED MEMBERS
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Caccia
Caron
Cohen
Dubé
English
Godin
Jacob
Lalonde
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Milliken
O'Reilly
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
(1755)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4697
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved that Bill C-246,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation of children
outside Canada), be now read the second time and referred to a
committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the subject of my bill, child sex tourism,
has already been debated in the House last June, during second
reading of Bill C-27.
When I tabled my bill on November 30, 1995, the government
was not yet talking about sex tourism. It was only in April, 5
months later, that the government finally moved and tabled its bill
to amend the Criminal Code in order to be able to take legal action
against Canadian citizens who travelled abroad and exploited
children in countries other than Canada.
Since last spring, topics related to the exploitation of children
have often been in the news.
There was the Stockholm conference, where representatives
from aound the world analysed the problem of the sexual
exploitation of children and the best ways of combatting it.
There was the Dutroux case in Belgium; everyone was horrified
to learn the details of the activities of this man and his accomplices.
The newspapers carried stories of a very active pedophile network.
Can we think for one instant that such a network exists only in
Belgium? Can we imagine that we are safe from such events in
Canada or in Quebec?
There is the current campaign by Mrs. Anne-Claude Girard, the
mother of a family in Jonquière. Her young daughter was the
victim of a well known pedophile in Quebec who had been
sentenced for several crimes against children. Mrs. Girard is
circulating a petition calling for a number of actions in order to
ensure that society is protected against pedophiles and that there is
adequate assistance for their victims. I believe that Mrs. Girard has
collected over 15,000 signatures in various ridings in Quebec, and
she will be circulating her petition in other parts of Canada.
There is the investigation now under way in South Africa, where
the police and the FBI are investigating a case similar to the
Dutroux affair. A pedophile is apparently linked to the
disappearance of five young girls, who it seems were assaulted in
Pretoria or ``exported'' to other regions in Africa.
There is another case in Peru, where a man presumed to have
raped and killed 12 young girls was recently arrested.
There is the retired Greek, who has just admitted raping 30
teenage girls.
There is the Austrian network dismantled early this month: 70
Czech and Slovak minors were being exploited in this network.
There is the case in Romania, where the police have just
questioned a 60-year old man accused of committing depraved acts
on six young girls.
There was also the case in Poland, a favourite new site for
pedophiles, where over 400 people, including numerous foreigners,
were sentenced last year for having sex with minors under the age
of 15.
(1805)
There is Italy, where minor girls are forced into prostitution by
networks, some of them Albanian. There is Argentina, where
authorities are worried about an upsurge in prostitution among poor
children.
4698
You will note that this perversion of adults having sex with
children confronts us everywhere. Sex tourism, of course, is just
one aspect of an environment that includes incest and other forms
of preying on children.
The purpose of my bill, which is designed to protect children, all
children, is to make it possible to take action against adults guilty
of such behaviour abroad as well as in Canada and in Quebec.
The so-called tourists who travel to other countries to take
advantage of children are pedophiles. Le Petit Larousse defines
pedophilia as: ``Sexual attraction of an adult for children''. When a
man goes to Bangkok to pay a low price for the sexual services of a
child, be it a boy or a girl, he is engaging in pedophilia. Cases
updated over the summer have established a very explicit link
between pedophilia and the networks built up by pedophiles in
order to be able to act freely.
These networks operate primarily in the area of pornography.
For example, a German was arrested in Romania after obscene
videos featuring children between the ages of five and ten were
discovered. The same scenario was repeated in Poland, where two
men are now on trial for films involving boys aged 12 or 13.
Early this month, an article in Agence France-Presse reported
that, in Seville as well, the legal system is worried about images
appearing on the Internet, an offence for which two men have
already been sentenced to jail in England.
In Quebec, the head of the sexual offence section of the Montreal
Urban Community police department declared this summer that
pedophile networks are now rampant in the city and that the advent
of the Internet, which allows pedophiles to obtain pornographic
material and to seek out children anywhere in the world stands to
contribute to the spread of the problem.
The experts at the Stockholm conference on the sexual
exploitation of children evaluated at one million the number of
pornogra-phic images and at 40 million the number of Internet
pages now devoted to child pornography. Forty million pages.
Those same experts reported that more and more pedophiles
armed with video cameras film their relations with children across
the world and sell their pictures on the Internet to pay for their
trips. Sex tourism becomes a vicious circle, as it were.
Pedophile networks are therefore active in the area of sex
tourism. The same article reported that this activity, already
widespread in Asia, is increasing in countries like Brazil, Cuba and
South Africa. It refers to various charges that have been laid for sex
tourism. One case involved two men from the Netherlands guilty of
having sexual relations with 16 year-old minors in the Philippines.
Another concerns a 69 year old Swede, sentenced to three months
in prison for sexual assault of a 13 year old Thai girl.
In my speech last June, I gave a few examples of this practice. I
will not elaborate on these now. I also analyzed the various ways
those who participate in sex tourism try and justify their abject
behaviour. I will not elaborate on that either, because I am short of
time. However, we know that the phenomenon exists, that it is
becoming increasingly widespread and that it is unacceptable.
I was very pleased last April when the government tabled a bill
with basically the same purpose as mine. I also listened carefully to
statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the present
government's intention to work with other countries throughout the
world to put an end to this shameful practice.
Since the government tabled its own bill and since that bill is
very similar to mine, I decided against asking the House to vote on
my bill. However, in order to improve our chances of achieving the
purpose of the legislation, I suggested an amendment to the bill
introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is what I would
like to see amended.
My bill contains provision for the conviction of persons who
either directly or indirectly encourage this kind of behaviour.
(1810)
I am referring more specifically to carriers, travel agencies and
advertising agencies. We do not find this provision in the
government's bill, and I find that disappointing.
The government will probably reply that the general
interpretation provisions contained in the initial sections of the
Criminal Code are broad enough to allow for legal action against
peripheral intervenors such as carriers and travel agencies. That
may be. It may be true from a strictly legal point of view. However,
I could give a few examples where Parliament was less reluctant to
elaborate on ``being a party'' in the case of other offences.
In this respect, there are two definitions that might help us. The
first one is the definition of being a party to an offence, provided
under section 21 of the Criminal Code, according to which being a
party includes actually committing an offence, doing or omitting to
do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it or
abetting any person in committing it.
The second definition, in section 22, is that of counselling
someone to commit an offence. Counselling is defined so as to
include procuring, soliciting or inciting. Finally, the definition of
accessory after the fact is given in section 23.
Why then, if the presence of these general principles is
sufficient, for example, to charge persons involved in the
commission of an offence, was the text of section 240 concerning
``an accessory after the fact to murder'' passed? Could section 23
not be used?
4699
Perhaps it was judged that the offence was of a serious enough
nature to assign it special status.
Why, then, do we find in section 245 the words ``everyone who
administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes
any person to take poison''? Why could sections 21 or 22 not be
used to obtain a conviction?
Why does section 212 specifically punish a person who, and I
quote ``procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have
illicit sexual intercourse with another person''? Here again, could
the sections previously referred to not have been used to obtain a
conviction?
It is a pretty sure bet that, if one were to go over the Criminal
Code with a fine toothcomb, one would find other examples where
the legislator felt it wise to repeat certain elements, in order to
clarify his intent. It is recommendable, in my opinion, for the same
thing to be done in the case of those indirectly involved in sex
tourism involving children.
I would also like to add that my bill is similar to that passed in
Australia in 1994. In addition to the clients of sex tourism
involving children, those who promote, organize or profit from it
are covered expressly by the new Australian legislation.
I know that legal systems differ from one country to the next, but
Australian criminal law is, nevertheless, based in large measure on
Common Law, as is the Canadian system. If Australian law has
been able to accommodate a clarification such as the one I am
proposing, perhaps Canadian law could do the same.
Perhaps protection of children is worth a few concessions by the
legal purists. While grateful for the government's having reacted
within a reasonable length of time, I am inviting it to reconsider my
proposal with the greatest of care.
Individuals, all individuals, involved in the sexual exploitation
of children need to know that they will be brought to justice and
punished in a manner suited to the odious nature of their act. We
have promised to join the war against the exploitation of children.
Now we must use all of the tools available to us as fully as possible.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to begin by commending the member for Quebec as
I know of her commitment to the issue. I am also very pleased to
speak to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual
exploitation of children outside Canada).
The government continues to have concerns regarding the sexual
exploitation of children and this bill gives us one more chance to
express our repulsion at the kind of behaviour involved in the
sexual exploitation of children. These are the same concerns that
have already led the Minister of Justice to introduce Bill C-27,
which addresses child sex tourism as well as child prostitution,
criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.
(1815)
I will not, however, be supporting the amendments contained in
Bill C-246, as presented by the member, because either they are
overly broad or they cover what has already been covered by Bill
C-27.
Bill C-27 passed second reading on June 10. It has been referred
to the justice and legal affairs committee. The committee will hear
witnesses and deal with any proposals to amend the bill before
reporting it back to the House on completion of its review.
Members will know that Bill C-27 extends the jurisdiction of
Canadian courts to prosecute Canadians and permanent residents in
this country who will have used the services of prostitutes under
the age of 18 while abroad. This is a significant departure from
what our criminal laws usually do in that acts committed outside
Canada can be prosecuted.
There is more. Our law permits that sex tour operations acting in
this country be prosecuted. I believe that these measures will assist
considerably in deterring Canadians and permanent residents from
engaging in activities thinking that they are shielded from criminal
liability because of their belief, whether true or false, that this
behaviour is tolerated abroad. Whether it is or is not tolerated
abroad is irrelevant; it is not tolerated in this country.
The amendments contained in Bill C-27 concerning child sex
tourism will meet the international commitments that the
government has undertaken with a view to improving the situation
of children throughout the world. For instance, at the ninth UN
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders which took place in Cairo in 1995, member states were
urged to adopt effective measures against practices harmful to
women and children. Bill C-27 goes in that direction clearly.
Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child and this bill will help to fulfil our commitments, as set
out in the convention, to protect children from all forms of sexual
exploitation and unlawful sexual practices. These concerns extend
to the prostitution of children whether in or outside Canada.
On August 29, 1996 in Stockholm, Sweden, 125 states, including
Canada, adopted the declaration and agenda for action prepared by
the World Congress against commercial sexual exploitation of
children. Canada pledged its best efforts to promote and achieve
the goals of the World Congress, as reflected in the declaration and
agenda for action. The extraterritorial amendment on child sex
tourism proposed in Bill C-27 fulfils one of the most significant
commitments of the declaration and agenda for action.
4700
Bill C-27 also acts on the commitments made by the
government in the February throne speech, namely the protection
of the rights of children as a Canadian priority. This bill proposes
further amendments to the Criminal Code to enable the criminal
prosecution in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent
residents who travel abroad to engage in the sexual exploitation
of children for money and other considerations.
The practice of child sex tourism can only be stopped by
international commitment and collaboration. Bill C-27 recognizes
this commitment and sends a very strong message internationally
about Canada's intolerance of such practices.
With this amendment Canada will join 11 other
countries-Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium,
France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the United
States-which have already enacted similar legislative measures.
As I have said, young people matter a great deal to us. It is
important to send a strong message of social disapproval with
respect to the abuse, exploitation and prostitution of children.
Young people of all nations deserve our respect and need our
protection.
Bill C-27 is important for all Canadians. It is in keeping with the
ideals of Canadian society, a society which does not tolerate
violence against children.
(1820 )
Bill C-246 deals essentially with child sex tourism. However, the
bill presents some significant problems and the member made
reference those problems. If the bill seeks to address the use of
young prostitutes abroad, it does not do anything other than what
Bill C-27 does. If it seeks to stop sex tourism operations in this
country, let it be known that the law already prohibits these
activities.
The Criminal Code in section 212 already addresses certain
aspects of sex tourism. In addition, parties to the offence of using
the services of young prostitutes abroad after the passage of Bill
C-27, such as those who aid and abet, are also guilty of the crime of
procuring. Therefore, I believe that the amendment proposed by
Bill C-246 in this respect is not necessary.
The real problem with this private member's bill is that it
overshoots the mark. For example, it would apply not only to
Canadian citizens and permanent residents, as Bill C-27 would do,
but it will also apply to any person who ``is present in Canada after
the commission of the act or omission''.
In international law, the nationality principle which is the
principle used to extend jurisdiction of our courts to offences
committed abroad makes it possible for a country to extend its
jurisdiction over offences committed by its nationals abroad. This
principle can also be relied on to establish extraterritorial
jurisdiction over permanent residents. But this principle would not
allow us to extend jurisdiction over any person who happens to be
present in or passing through the country, which is what Bill C-246
permits.
People who have no connection whatsoever with Canada could
therefore be prosecuted for offences that have no link with Canada:
the young prostitute is not Canadian and the customer is not
Canadian and the offence is not committed in Canada. These cases
are deserving of extradition, not of prosecution in this country.
It is essential then that Canada abide by the principles of
international law when it seeks to exercise jurisdiction for offences
committed abroad. We must also be practical. Do we want the
provinces which are tasked with prostitution related offences to
have to prosecute cab drivers in foreign cities that would have
transported customers where they have no grounds to believe the
prostitute would be under the age of 18? This is what this bill
allows and I do not think it is the kind of statute the House wants to
or should pass.
The House needs to fight sex tourism as proposed in Bill C-27,
which has received second reading. I share the concerns of the
member for Quebec. Fortunately the Minister of Justice has taken
the steps noted to address the issue.
I cannot support Bill C-246 because I believe that the bill the
Minister of Justice introduced to deal with the same issues, Bill
C-27, represents the best approach to the serious problem of child
sex tourism.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is a private member's bill brought in by the member for Quebec.
For Canadians who are watching these proceedings, this is one of
the privileges that members of Parliament have. If we see a matter
or an issue that deserves a legislated approach or solution and we
do not see the government bringing one forward, then we can draft
and table our own legislated solution for the consideration of the
House.
I commend my colleague from Quebec and all members who
take the time and trouble to listen to Canadians, to discern what
issues are on their minds and what needs to be addressed and to
bring forward legislation and proposals which will address those
concerns.
It is very interesting that although very few private members'
bills are actually passed by the House, we had an exception this
week which encouraged a lot of members of Parliament both from
the backbenches of the governing party and also the opposition
benches. It is fair to say that very few private members' bills are
passed in the House.
4701
(1825)
There is another very positive side benefit to these private
members' bills and the work that goes into them. Quite often they
encourage or force the government or bring about a situation where
the government brings in its own legislation to deal with the
problem that raised by the private member's legislation. As elected
representatives we guard and appreciate very much the privilege of
being able to bring these initiatives forward.
Bill C-246 is an attempt by one of the members of this House
from the Bloc party to address the issue of child sex tourism or
sexual exploitation of children. That is an issue which has been
more and more on the minds of Canadians. The sexual use and
abuse of children is repugnant to Canadians. It is a terrible abuse of
the innocence and the trust of young children. There is no question
but that it should be dealt with by the full force of the law.
Every Canadian, and we believe every human being, has certain
fundamental human rights, one of which is safety of the person,
safety from being exploited, abused and degraded. Certainly sexual
exploitation of children is one that we should take extremely
seriously and that we should address with every possible means.
I commend the member for Quebec for her concern about this
issue, her concern about children, not only in Canada but across the
globe and her attempt to deal with this situation.
As the previous speaker pointed out, the government, possibly as
a result of the member for Quebec's initiative and the raising of this
concern, has chosen to take some steps to deal with this issue in a
bill that we will be debating soon, Bill C-27. It came out after this
private member's bill. It covers most of the same issues. Again, we
commend the government on doing that.
Unfortunately there are some reasons why this bill is not one that
I can support. Although its intent is good and although we
recognize that it deals with a very important issue that needs to be
addressed, there are some real difficulties with the way this bill has
been drafted.
I will point out some of the concerns why I will not be able to
support this bill even though I am very much in sympathy with the
motivation of the member who is putting it forward.
First, it attempts to legislate in Canada for problems in other
countries. That is really beyond the jurisdiction and scope of our
law. There is a Latin term for it, that it is outside of the scope of the
Canadian Parliament to legislate problems in other countries,
although we would often like to do so.
My recommendation is that we not just throw up our hands and
say there are countries where exploitation of children for sexual
purposes is a real problem but that we work vigorously through
diplomatic channels to work with the other countries to promote
their efforts to clean up this terrible situation. We should be good
citizens of the world and good neighbours of these countries that
are trying to deal with these issues. We should encourage them,
help them and if necessary push them into doing so.
For our legislators to reach beyond our borders to deal with these
situations, repugnant though they are, is really not a very effective
or appropriate way to try to deal with this.
(1830)
Another problem is that since the crime that would be created in
Bill C-246 would take place in other countries, there is a real
problem in gathering sufficient evidence even if prosecution were
desired in this country.
There are different police methods, for example, in other
countries. The method of gathering evidence in other countries
may not be acceptable to our courts. They may violate charter
rights or processes that would render evidence invalid. There are a
number of difficulties getting the proper evidence from other
countries. It would be very expensive to do this.
When people think about the exploitation of children in this way,
they would very much like to say that costs should be no object in
trying to stamp out these terrible practices. The fact is there are
reasonable limits that have to be put on the use of our justice
funding.
As members know from some of the debates that have taken
place this week, when we were talking about expanding some of
the rehabilitation measures in our prisons, when we talk about
longer incarceration for violent and dangerous criminals in this
country along with other measures that Canadians are asking for,
we have to bear in mind there is a finite amount of funding, money
and tax dollars to support these things.
To send investigators, to have witnesses coming and to have
evidence brought in from around the globe is not as practical as all
of us wish it were and would like it to be.
Clause 1 of this bill really wants to go after everyone who has
committed an offence by sexually exploiting children outside the
country. The previous speaker mentioned the situation that could
very well arise when a citizen of another country may be visiting
Canada.
Do we capture everybody who crosses our borders who is
alleged to have these offences and then prosecute them? To some
extent, Canadians are saying we are not being very successful in
holding our own criminals in Canada accountable.
If we are trying to make people accountable from across the
globe who happen to visit here, we will expand the load on an
already overburdened justice system in a way that will make us
lose protections and effectiveness in other areas.
4702
We need to be, again, very temperate, very moderate and very
balanced in our expectations of how much our system can handle
and what our priorities are going to be.
There is another question. These are issues in no particular
ranking. I noticed that if convicted under this act, the conviction
would only be a summary conviction. In other words, this would be
as opposed to an indictable conviction. Summary convictions are
thought of as lesser offences.
Considering the terrible and repugnant acts and violations of
young children involved with the subject matter of this bill, I am
rather puzzled to know why we would go to all this trouble only to
have at the most a conviction on a summary basis, which would
draw a penalty of two years maximum and very often less,
particularly with our early release provisions and that sort of thing.
It seemed to me that if we were going to all this trouble and
expense to really want to stamp out this terrible practice by the
measures this member is suggesting, we should certainly give the
courts a lot more leeway to impose heavy penalties than is in this
bill.
(1835 )
A very important political statement, a statement of intent, has
been made by this bill. However, in my view the measures set out
in this bill will be very difficult if not almost impossible to
implement. There are things we need to do to deal with this, but I
do not believe this bill is sufficient.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to speak today on Bill C-246, An Act to amend
the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation of children outside
Canada).
I wish to recognize at the outset the generosity of the honourable
member for Québec, who introduced this bill. We are dealing here
with a situation involving to some extent the export of crime. Since
our society does not tolerate this type of activity, which we want to
prevent by passing this bill, some people will go to other countries
to commit the acts in question.
My personal opinion is that this bill tries to prevent a certain
form of imperialism.
This bill is characteristic of Quebec's and Canada's position in
general regarding respect for children and people and it also
reflects the fact that we cannot ignore the reality of such an activity,
especially since as a society we are exporting it because we do not
tolerate it on our own lands. There is at the moment a sort of silent
acceptance, which must absolutely be dealt with.
The Government has already proposed in Bill C-27 measures
comparable to the objectives of this bill. Its objective, I repeat is to
amend sections 7 and 211 of the Criminal code so as to prohibit
obtaining, for consideration, the sexual services of a person under
the age of eighteen years outside of Canada; transporting people to
common bawdy-houses outside Canada for the purpose of having
sexual relations with persons under the age of eighteen years; and
certain acts of procuring committed outside Canada in relation to
persons under the age of eighteen years.
I wish to congratulate the member for Québec, who introduced
this bill.
We can see that the government has finally decided to follow suit
with Bill C-27. The two bills are quite similar on the principle but it
appears that Bill C-27 needs to be reinforced because we are in an
area where we have a responsibility to act, even if we are dealing
with extraterritorial actions, since fundamental human rights are at
stake. We are not discussing relations between corporations, as
with the Helms-Burton act, we are discussing fundamental rights.
It seems to us that the government bill, based on an interesting
principle, similar to the one put forward by the member for
Québec, also needs to be strengthened.
First of all, we must make it more specific in order to give it real
legal authority to go after these people. As the bill now stands, a
principle is stated, but we do not really have the means to
prosecute. Furthermore, the wording should be changed to meet the
needs in this regard. Let us take an example. The clause suggested
in Bill C-246 states that it is about anyone who ``takes, transports,
directs, or offers to take, transport or direct, any other person to a
common bawdy-house''. These are very precise and concrete terms
ensuring that every person implicated in such a criminal act may be
prosecuted. They really allow for the control of such acts and show
the people who could be tempted by sexual tourism that Canadians
or Canadian residents cannot indulge in that kind of activity, under
threat of penalty.
Now, another shortfall of the bill is precisely concerning the
people targeted in it. Presently, only Canadian citizens and landed
immigrants are targeted.
(1840)
There are however people who live in Canada for a while and are
not targeted by that kind of bill, although they may precisely be
those who travel the most. I am thinking about refugees and asylum
seekers. I think it would be in our interest to specify who is targeted
in Bill C-27 to make sure that legal proceedings can be taken
against any individual in such a position.
The bill introduced by the member for Québec contains another
recommendation that is much more significant.
While the government bill treats this simply as aggravated
assault, the member for Québec-I support her on this one and I
invite all members to consider how wise her recommendation
is-suggests that the sexual exploitation of children outside
Canada be made a separate offence so that legal action could be
4703
taken directly instead of more globally under a section of the
Criminal Code dealing with several activities. It would be good to
be more specific.
There is another more technical element. The government bill
will make an exception for surgical procedures. According to the
advice we received from doctors, it does not seem advisable to
allow people to obtain, in a roundabout way, what is prohibited by
law. In other words, managing to legally perform sexual mutilation
as a result of a physician's broad authorization. We believe that
right now nothing can justify such an exception and we think it
should be removed.
Another thing, the bill provides that sexual mutilations would be
allowed on a consenting adult. This seems somewhat nonsensical.
Do we authorize adults to commit suicide or mutilate their own
body in various ways? Why should it be allowed in this case,
especially as people in a different cultural context may be subject
to specific pressure? Such a thing is not desirable. This kind of
action is no more acceptable when it involves an adult instead of a
child, and we believe it is important for Bill C-27 to be improved in
this respect.
In my view, this piece of legislation will have an impact abroad,
outside Quebec and Canada, but also internally, because it reflects
an important principle found in many other areas of human activity,
namely the fact that we will not tolerate the export of criminal acts
abroad because of the wealth of our society. Similarly, in the
environmental sector, we cannot tolerate the export of economic
activities that cause pollution because we do not want them at
home.
In this area, this is also not acceptable, and what is proposed by
the hon. member for Québec allows us to target a crime that the
Quebec or Canadian society would not accept. They would not
tolerate that people living in Quebec or Canada, citizens or landed
immigrants in our country, or refugees or asylum seekers could
commit such crimes abroad.
Therefore, the bill proposed by the hon. member for Québec is a
step in the right direction. It even suggests to the government ways
to improve the situation which we do not find in the government
bill, and this is why I would ask unanimous consent to put this bill
to a vote.
(1845)
The Deputy Speaker: Since no more members wish to speak
and the motion was not selected as a votable item, the time
provided for consideration-
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order please.
At the end of my speech, I introduced a motion requesting
unanimous consent of the House to determine if the bill was
votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent of the
House. Therefore, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4703
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in June I had
the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
and the Status of Women how the government intends to ensure
that the special needs of women will be considered in the reform of
the Canada pension plan. I am happy to be able to follow this issue
up this evening because it is an extremely important one.
The pension needs of women are different from the pension
needs of men. Several of my constituents have brought this to my
attention on many occasions, but particularly during the time of the
recent cross-country consultations led by my colleague, the
member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I often have the opportunity when I am in my riding to meet with
women, particularly elderly women who are living alone, to
discuss with them the problems they have in meeting their needs
and surviving in increasingly difficult circumstances in many
cases.
When the CPP information paper was released, it was criticized
for failing to include a gender analysis of the various options
presented. The importance of pensions to women cannot be
understated. The majority of the senior population is presently
female, and this proportion is presently on the increase. Therefore
the issue of women's economic independence and security in their
later years will take on even more importance.
During the consultations on the CPP, women's groups strongly
supported the CPP system saying that it has worked well for them
and is a vital concern to them. My understanding is that the CPP
offers a number of advantages for women not found in private
sector pension plans. For that reason it seems to me that gender
analysis reform to the CPP system is crucial.
When we reflect on the change in patterns of work and in the
contribution that women today are making to the workforce and
their ability to be flexible in that contribution, it is most important
that we should concentrate on the needs of the pension system to
4704
reflect both the needs for that new flexibility and for the needs that
women will have as they increasingly become employed in the
workforce.
That is why I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to
update the House on how this aspect of the reform process has
progressed. During the CPP consultations, women's organizations
advised the federal and provincial governments against reducing
the number of dropout years, of deindexing pensions or raising the
age of entitlement. They noted that these types of measures would
impose a disproportionately onerous burden on women.
It was pointed out that any reform of survivor benefits should
recognize that many women have low paying jobs. There were also
some calls for a homemakers pension plan.
These points, it seems to me, all have merit. Can the
parliamentary secretary comment on them?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the hon. member for Rosedale for raising this important issue in the
House. I too have been involved with this issue for some time now
and have been very interested in it. I had some discussions in my
own riding and across the city of Toronto on the issue.
While financial issues around the CPP are certainly of concern to
all Canadians, our ultimate objective is of course to ensure the
well-being of individuals in their retirement years.
We know how important the Canada pension plan is for women.
Women on average live longer than men, earn only 70 per cent of a
man's dollar and have less access than men do to private or
employer sponsored pension plans. As a result, their retirement
income is limited.
(1850)
Particular features of the CPP such as the child rearing, drop out
and survivor benefits provide recognition of the essential and
invaluable but unpaid work contributions that women make to our
society.
Women's full economic contribution must be recognized.
Women are now the main breadwinners in 25 per cent of families
and their income is increasingly important to all families. In
addition to this paid work however, women continue to perform the
majority of unpaid child care, elder care and household work; work
that no society can do without.
As the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of
Women stated in her original response, the government is aware
that women and men have very different patterns of employment
and earnings. For that reason Status of Women Canada with the
Caledon Institute held a round table to specifically look at the
gender implications of CPP reform. This round table was held as a
part of the consultation process led by the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre and the findings were conveyed to federal,
provincial and territorial finance ministers who are responsible for
the Canada pension plan.
This is part of the government's policy of undertaking gender
based analysis as set out in the federal plan for gender equality. Our
commitment to gender equality means equally valuing similarities
and differences between women and men and the varying roles
which they play.
The minister is very committed to ensuring that gender analysis
is done and that it is considered and taken into account when the
final results on the CPP are announced. I hope this helps the hon.
member and I look forward to discussing the issue with him.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 14,
1996, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a
question concerning Philip Chrysafidis, a member of the
Immigration and Refugee Board in Montreal. He was appointed by
this Liberal government on February 24, 1994. His term of office
comes to an end in February 1997.
In May 1996, five criminal charges were laid him. He was
accused of the illegal harassment of a female hearing officer at the
IRB and of her husband, also an employee of the IRB. A few days
later on, Mr. Chrysafidis purportedly threatened the man with
physical harm or even death. He is also accused of deliberately
intercepting private communications. Finally, he was caught
carrying a prohibited weapon.
Because of these accusations, Mr. Chrysafidis has been
suspended since May 7, but he is still receiving his full salary of
$86,000 a year. Therefore, he is being paid for not working. I
wonder how long he will receive $86,000 a year. As you know, the
trial could go on for months and even years. The accused will only
appear before the court on September 30 for his preliminary
hearing.
Given the substantial sum of money involved and the state of our
public finance, I wonder why the chairman of the IRB did nothing
to put an end to such abuse and also why the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration is not acting in a more responsible
way and demanding an administrative inquiry in this matter. All the
more so since three employees of the board are involved in this
case, whether as perpetrators or as victims of alleged acts.
When the accusations against Mr. Chrysafidis were made public,
IRB officials refused to comment on this case. They explained it
was more of a private case. The courts should then be left to do
their job.
However, I think this embarrassing situation for the IRB may
have the effect of staining its reputation. It is also damaging its
4705
credibility. I believe this situation is damning and unfortunate
enough for the minister to intervene in this case.
Certainly, the commissioner in question is presumed to be
innocent. But the relevant authorities must make the administrative
decisions that are necessary in this case. How long will this
commissioner receive his full salary when he is not performing his
duties?
Furthermore, I wish to mention that at least 11 complaints
against commissioners have been processed or have been the
subject of an inquiry since the complaint processing mechanism
was created at the IRB in January 1995. It must also be noted that,
in the past, 35 hearing officers had signed a petition criticizing
commissioner Chrysafidis' behaviour.
I invite the minister to exercise more diligently her role as
minister responsible for the IRB.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit I
find the persistence of the member for Bourassa in pursuing this
question a little puzzling. He knows full well that this matter is
currently before the courts and that it would be inappropriate for
the minister to comment at this time.
The hon. member of the opposition has suggested that the
minister should actively intervene and remove this individual from
the Immigration and Refugee Board. As he well knows, the IRB is
a quasi-judicial tribunal which operates at arm's length from the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It is important to
maintain this arm's length relationship if we want to preserve both
the impartiality and the perception of impartiality of IRB decisions.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not casually
meddle in IRB affairs, particularly affairs concerning human
resources. This is an area over which the board's chairperson,Ms. Mawani, has complete authority.
I would like to remind the hon. member that one of the
fundamental principles of Canadian law is that someone is innocent
until proven guilty.
At this point, this is all the minister can and is prepared to do in
this case.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m.)