Debates of Oct. 31st, 1995

Excise Tax Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

According to Standing Order 45, the whip has informed the House that the vote has been deferred until 5 p.m. this day.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, as reported without amendment from the committee.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would like to make you aware of a ruling by our Speaker on Bill C-94.

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-94, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 27, on page 3, with the following: d ) the use that is made or is to be made of it;''.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-94, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 45, on page 3 and lines 1 and 2, on page 4, with the following:

"of its completion, file a report".

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to move an amendment this afternoon on Bill C-94.

According to the Order Paper, on the first amendment you will find that clause 9 of this bill will be amended by striking out line 27 on page 3 and substituting the following: "the use that is made or is to be of it".

The reason for this amendment is that the clause as originally drafted assumes the controlled substance was used within 30 days of the transaction, which may not always be the case. In certain cases this product could be put in stock until its future anticipated use. For that reason, I moved the amendment. I believe it is a good amendment and I hope we have concurrence on that.

On the second amendment, I would ask of this House if we could have unanimous consent because of the fact that the amendment on the Order Paper has been further amended. I would like to read that amendment at this time if I may. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent for this amendment to be changed.

The motion would read this way:

That clause 10 of Bill C-94 be amended by striking out line 45 on page 3 and lines 1 and 2 on page 4 and substituting the following: "of each transaction under the authorization, file a report".

The reporting requirement as it is in the draft is too lax to allow for effective monitoring by the minister. As an example, if we follow the current draft it could be as much as 12 to 14 months after the transaction that a report is filed with the minister. This would be much too long.

Mr. Vena from Environment Canada agreed with the suggested amendment. Ms. Fry from the Department of Justice also indicated that there was no rationale for the section as drafted, other than that this was an arbitrary line-drawing. Therefore I feel that the amendment as I have placed it today is in order and should be supported.

I would therefore seek unanimous consent of this House for the amendment I have just presented.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the intervention by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to make that substitution?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

So ordered. Debate.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I will concur with the first motion made by the member for Huron-Bruce. The addition of

the words he has suggested puts in a much clearer perspective the issue of the 30 days authorization.

In regard to the second amendment, it would have been the position of the government to refuse the amendment the way it was previously phrased. Now that it has been changed by making much more precise reference to each transaction authorized, we feel much more at ease with the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

To sum up, the government will concur with both the first amendment and also the revised second amendment. This is going to be our position.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words to the amendment put forward by the member for Huron-Bruce.

The member had the opportunity to sit through the committee stage of this bill and hear the various witnesses who came forward. Had the member actually been listening to what the majority of witnesses were saying during the committee, he would not have been bringing forward amendments at report stage. He perhaps would have been speaking to the minister directly and encouraging the minister to scrap the bill.

Apparently the member was not at every committee meeting and as a result has brought forward two amendments, both technical in nature. I am sure that in his mind they strengthen the scope of the bill. I ask whether Bill C-94 will be strengthened or improved by these so-called technical amendments. The member knows very well that really the only way to help this area of concern is to scrap the bill, rather than to amend it.

The first amendment makes a change to clause 9. In the clause there is a reference to the record of a controlled substance. In the interpretation section of the bill, controlled substance means a manganese-based substance that is mentioned in the schedule and includes any other substance that contains such a manganese-based substance.

We are made to believe with this bill and with the member's amendments that MMT is hazardous. The government members across the floor know full well that this is not so. When they have the opportunity to vote for this bill at final reading stage, they will not only be voting in favour of bad legislation, they will be saying to the Canadian people that the government can ban a substance even if there is no evidence that the substance is hazardous.

I will close by saying that I could speak for a long time on the disappointing aspects of the bill, but I know that should be kept for third reading and will do so.

The amendments proposed by the member for Huron-Bruce cannot be supported by the Reform Party. While they may change what can or cannot be done with a manganese based substance and when a report should be submitted to the minister, they do not address the fundamental question. Before a substance can be banned, should it not go through a process of independent scientific review?

The bill cannot be improved by one or two amendments. The bill needs to be reworked from scratch if it is to have any credibility in both the industrial sector as well as the environmental sector. Good legislation would propose a predictable process for any substance, not just MMT.

The minister failed and the bill will ultimately be her legacy of another administrative blunder.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to the bill and to the amendment just briefly.

I could not help but notice during the last few minutes some of the comments across the way delving into the political garbage bucket like the hon. whip for the party opposite often does. I do not want to hold up the bill because we are on record as explaining why the bill is poorly designed. It is without scientific rationale. It is a knee-jerk reaction in support of friends of the Liberal Party. That has already been well documented.

I repeat for the record that today's activities again are an example of how the party opposite does not have any kind of political agenda or legislative agenda that Canadians and Quebecers can grasp on to with enthusiasm. This is more time filling, political time wasting on behalf of a government that seems bereft of any new ideas. Its idea of change is that it is already doing it. It just does not cut.

The bill should not pass. The amendment does not address the problems within the bill. Decisions should not be made in Canada based on what we felt like when we got up in the morning. There should be some scientific facts behind it.

The government quotes studies and tests. On and on it goes. It will not submit in the House the tests it quotes from. The reason it cannot ban MMT is that the health department says it is not a hazard. The reason it cannot be banned outright is that there is no scientific reason for it. All the government can do is prevent its interprovincial trade and prevent its importation at a time when the United States of America will go ahead. The court has approved its use in the United States.

It is a shame the government cannot come up with some better idea or legislative agenda that would address the issues of importance to Canadians instead of the time fillers we have been dealing with today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The first question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will play say yea.