House of Commons Hansard #88 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mmt.
Don Boudria LiberalMinister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie
Mr. Speaker, I guess it bears repeating. The Government of Canada did not give unconditional foreign aid to the Government of Viet Nam, pure and simple. Funds were given to individual projects, to local groups, humanitarian aid, women's groups and for organizing le Sommet de la Francophonie. I hope the hon. member is not against that initiative.
No government funding went to the Government of Viet Nam, period.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the post office.
At a time of tragic increases in the number of jobless in Canada, will she admit that just six days after Christmas, the result of her decision on regular ad mail will result in up to 17,000 people losing their jobs, another 1,500 supervisors losing their jobs, that most of these 17,000 people work less than 15 hours a week and therefore are not eligible for EI? The majority are women living below the poverty line.
Is this the minister's idea of a Christmas present to the people who presently work for Canada Post?
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's numbers are wrong. I suggest he speak to Canada Post.
That being said, Mr. Radwanski travelled the country. He held hearings across the country. They were supported in correspondence which I received in letters by the thousands.
Canadians have said to us they do not believe that Canada Post should be delivering junk mail. We have listened and we have asked Canada Post to exit from the economy unaddressed ad mail in as compassionate a way as possible.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pathetic response to the 17,000 people who are going to lose their jobs six days after Christmas. Is that the best she can do?
If the small business sector is expected to pick up the slack and provide alternative delivery service, will the minister acknowledge that in many cities between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the households will not receive these distributed pamphlets and so on because they are either dependent on postal mailboxes or mailboxes in apartments? The market will be excluded for perhaps up to 30 per cent of the small business operators?
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, we believe that getting out of the economy unaddressed ad mail is a good move for the private sector. Many small business people will be picking up these jobs. As a matter of fact, there are already ads in some areas in some newspapers for workers so they can be in a position to take over this particular work.
As well, many small community newspapers welcome this move as it will allow them to continue to give good service to their communities.
Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie.
Following reports in Afghanistan indicating that human rights are not being respected, especially for women, can the minister indicate to this House what actions Canada is taking to deal with this grave situation in Afghanistan?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is extremely concerned about human rights not being respected, in particular women's rights, in Afghanistan.
That is why we have suspended all Canadian funds for local initiatives until further notice. The only aid that remains in Afghanistan is humanitarian assistance through the Red Cross and United Nations agencies.
It is our hope that stability will be restored to that part of the world for the good of all people in Afghanistan, in particular the women who are so mistreated by these human rights abuses.
Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On October 11, the Minister of Transport stated in this House that his government's international air transportation policy is flexible and that the "use it or lose it" principle applied only if another airline wanted the route. Otherwise, things would remain unchanged.
Are we to understand from the minister's comments that he had been pressured by Canadian before he took the Prague route away from Air Canada, which would otherwise have kept it, and reassigned it to Canadian last July?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the policy that we have with respect to routes to countries such as the Czech Republic is very straightforward. It has been established now for over a year and a half.
The routes are assigned to one of our major airlines and if the airline does not pick up that route and use it within a period of 365 days it is reassigned to the back-up or supplementary carrier, the secondary carrier. This is a well established procedure.
The minister is concerned about pressure. There is no pressure whatsoever from Canadian because it is essentially an automatic procedure. The only area where there might be some concern is whether we issue a letter to the first carrier at the end of the first year or whether we wait some time, and the normal process is to within a reasonable time send out that letter.
In the case of Prague I believe the letter was sent out some two months after the one year period expired.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a letter from a gentleman in Peterborough, Ontario wherein he returns the flag that the minister sent to him. As a matter of fact, he says: "A strange thing about this flag is that we never made a request for the flag. What I have done is, I have written many MPs, including the minister, whom I may say never replied". Apparently she did reply by sending him the flag. He says: "I am sick and tired of the arrogance and waste of this Liberal government. I am tired of being misled".
My question, very simply, is the same one that I will continue to ask until I get the answer. Is this flag program being financed from the TV production fund, yes or no?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member, if he is truly interested in the concerns of the people of Peterborough, that the member for Peterborough informs me that the people of Peterborough have replied in record numbers, calling his office and seeking flags.
I would point out that constituent Mary Wurmbach of the riding of Simcoe Centre went to her member of Parliament with a request from nine members of the Reform Party for flags, and was basically told by her member's office to go fly a kite.
Sheila Copps Liberal Hamilton East, ON
As a result, Mary Wurmbach is asking the member for Simcoe Centre why he is not doing his job for the nine members of the Reform Party in his riding who wanted flags.
Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
Colleagues, I would like to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Justice Daniel Annan, my brother Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Ghana.
Ethel Blondin-Andrew LiberalSecretary of State (Training and Youth)
Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to honour the work and life of Mr. James W. Bourque who died suddenly in Ottawa on Saturday. It is a great loss for the north and many others across the country and around the world.
Mr. Bourque was a tireless aboriginal activist whose commitment to his family and to his community were paramount. Mr. Bourque was a most respected, honest, hard working and committed individual.
Appointed to the privy council in 1992, Mr. Bourque was born in Wandering River, Alberta, and learned at an early age the traditions and cultures of his Cree background to which he remained faithful throughout his life.
His sense of duty and contribution to his community came at an early age. He was elected president of the local hunters and trappers association in Port Chipewyan when he was 18. He went on to work as a park warden in Wood Buffalo National Park between 1955 and 1963.
This man deserved the attention of all Canadians, including those in the House of Commons who serve with us every day. He served as the president of the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories from 1980 to 1982, was deputy minister of renewable resources for the Government of the Northwest Territories from 1982 to 1991 and chairman for the commission for constitutional development until 1992.
Mr. Bourque was a vocal spokesman for the aboriginal people and the environment. In 1984 he founded the Fur Institute of Canada where he served as the chairman for four years. He was also named co-director of policy for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People in 1994. Most recently Mr. Bourque was working with the Museum of Nature in its development of the centre for traditional knowledge.
In the words of Premier Don Morin who represents the Northwest Territories:
This is a great loss for myself personally and for all northerners. Jim worked hard on behalf of all the people in the north. He was honest, well liked and well respected. Everyone knew him as a fair man who believed in the rights of all people, who treated everyone with respect, from trappers to world leaders, and who had a deep love of his family.
Our deepest condolences and regrets are sent to his wife Sharleen, his children Arthur, Valerie and Edwin as well as to his grandchildren. Mr. Bourque left behind a legacy of respect, sharing, commitment and responsibility. He will be missed by all who knew him.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc critic on Indian affairs, I wish to express our most sincere condolences to the family and friends of James Bourque, who passed away last Saturday in Ottawa at the age of 60.
Mr. Bourque was very active in native circles. His political career started very early. At the age of 18, he became president of the hunting and fishing club in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. He then served as president of the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories, as Deputy Minister of Natural Resources for the Government of the Northwest Territories, and as chairman of the Northwest Territories' Commission for Constitutional Development.
In 1984, he founded the Fur Institute of Canada where he served as chairman for four years. Mr. Bourque also performed important functions within the native community of the Northwest Territories.
One of his friends said: "Jim often expressed that his role as an elder was to keep cultural fires burning bright". I think that statement summarizes this person well. Aboriginal peoples and environmentalists of Canada lose a great friend.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Reform Party to pay tribute to James Bourque and to give our respects and condolences to his family.
As was stated by our colleagues, Mr. Bourque was a well known aboriginal leader from the Northwest Territories. His heritage is truly Canadian. He was of both Cree and Ukrainian descent, but he devoted his life to Canada and to the betterment of all its people.
All too often in life, public service goes unrecognized. Mr. Bourque gave a great deal of his life to the service of his country and for this effort we thank him. We encourage others, especially young people, to follow in his footsteps.
We are looking forward to receiving the work that he has done with the commission on aboriginal affairs which we expect to be tabled in the House later this year.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I would like to extend our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to the family of the Hon. James Bourque.
Unfortunately I did not have the privilege to know Mr. Bourque personally but from listening to the hon. member for Western Arctic that is definitely my loss.
When I sat on the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future representing Atlantic Canada I had the opportunity to travel the country and meet many of our aboriginal people. They are beautiful and we owe them a great deal.
Mr. Bourque was a well respected man. He served as president of the Northwest Territories Metis Nations from 1980 to 1982. His commitment to and leadership of the aboriginal community was a driving force which will be missed by all those who had the opportunity to work with him.
Mr. Bourque has left behind a distinguished record of public service. He was named co-director of the policy for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1994 and was appointed to the Privy Council in July 1992 by the Progressive Conservative government. Mr. Bourque served this country well and his record stands as a shining example for us all.
I would like to extend the sincere condolences of the Progressive Conservative Party to Mr. Bourque's family, his wife Sharleen, his three children, Arthur, Valerie and Edwin, and his grandchildren. His loss will be deeply felt by all Canadians.
The Late James W. BourqueThe Royal Assent
The Speaker
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa,
October 22, 1996
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Peter dec. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 22nd day of October, 1996, at 4.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth Deputy Secretary Policy, Program and Protocol
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 should have a subtitle "this is the bill that time forgot". It seems we have been debating this bill forever. This may be the first bill I ever spoke on. It has been going on and on. It is kind of like that bunny on television, it just keeps going and going.
I am not sure what has happened except that there have been some interesting developments over the course of time. It is an opposition's duty to reveal the weaknesses of a bill and to see exactly how the ministers' arguments have unravelled when it comes to the reasons for bringing the MMT issue to the floor in the first place.
Let me recap for a moment. Bill C-29 is a bill to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT. MMT is a chemical that has become the substance of much controversy in Canada and to a lesser extent in the United States. It is a chemical added to unleaded gasoline to increase its octane.
The makers of MMT argue that it makes engines more efficient. But in juxtaposition, the auto giants want Canada to stop using MMT because they say that it harms their onboard diagnostic systems in new cars.
That is the essence of the argument. The minister has decided to ban the importation of MMT into Canada.
The American courts on April 14, 1995-and we warned them that this was coming-ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to grant a temporary waiver of its ban on MMT to the private company that wants to market it again. The U.S. Court of Appeals came out in favour of MMT once again. We hear that the Environmental Protection Agency is not going to appeal the latest ruling. In other words, the Environmental Protection Agency, a very stringent agency with standards as high as one could want, is not going to appeal the ruling that allows MMT. MMT is now allowed in the United States.
In December 1994 Health Canada published a study which said that there is no health risk from MMT. That is why the minister cannot ban the substance. In order to ban it, it has to be proven to be unhealthy. Regardless of what the chairman of the environment committee might have said in the House just before question
period, Health Canada published a study saying that there is no health risk from MMT.
Even more ironic is that the new substance which will replace MMT is also known to cause increased pollution. Even while MMT is determined to be safe by Health Canada, the banning of MMT, Environment Canada itself says will increase nitrogen oxide emissions by a full 20 per cent. It is no wonder that this bill has been batting around the House of Commons now for a couple of years. The minister has not been able to supply to the House the reasons that this substance is being banned.
It is the Reform Party's belief that we ought to make decisions of this type based on pure science, on rational logical arguments rather than on silly political considerations. That is why we continue to protest the government's trying to push this bill through. If the truth be known, I think it is why the government has been reluctant to push it too.
The government could have pushed this through. It could have passed it long ago, but there is a little niggling doubt about whether or not the government is doing the right thing. That is why the bill has been around for so long.
It is symbolic at least to me that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, one of the more political ministers in this House. Way back when she was Minister of the Environment, she brought this bill in.
This is the same minister who seems to get up in the morning with a plan of the week national unity strategy, who seems to get up and scratch on the back of a breakfast napkin in the parliamentary restaurant regarding how we are going to hold Canada together. She comes up with flag programs, with the Canadian propaganda office and so on.
This bill is opposed by people even within her own cabinet. The Minister for International Trade said that an import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the WTO and the NAFTA. He said that Canada may also be susceptible to an investor state challenge under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA. That is from her own colleague, a minister, a warning to her.
Nothing but the heavy hand of party discipline has kept this thing chugging along through the Liberal benches. They keep pushing this through and I can hardly believe why.
To quickly recap, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage was the Minister of the Environment, three personal kerfuffles before her present position, she cited case after case that this study says that MMT is bad for the environment, and another one and another one. I stood at the end of the speech and asked the hon. minister to please table those reports in the House. This is the reason, right? It is bad for the environment. It is going to cause all kinds of death, destruction, havoc and what have you.
I asked her to table the studies in the House. The answer was no, that they were private studies. The private studies were done by whom? By the automotive industry, which happens to be heavily concentrated in her neck of the woods.
We said to the government not to believe Ethyl Corp. if it does not want to, and not to believe the auto giants because they have a vested interest. We asked the government to commission a neutral study to determine the effects that MMT has on onboard diagnostic computers.
Ethyl Corporation says it has done tests. It has a test to slap down here which says MMT does not harm the computers. The auto giants say it does harm the computers. Of course both sides have a vested interest.
We say throw all those reports out. Let us have a neutral body, some research facility, either government owned or government commissioned, to study whether it has any negative effect on the environment. That would put the thing to rest for me. Let us get the scientific proof, not the political shenanigans, once and for all get it out on the table and we will know whether or not this stuff is harmful to the environment or to the computers.
The government will not do that. What does it do? It continues to ban the substance for import and export, interprovincial trade and so on. Yet it has no independent scientific proof that it does any harm.
Just before the break, the chairman of the environment committee mentioned that there is no real opposition to banning this in Canada, that it is strictly from one giant U.S. based corporation and that is the only reason there is any opposition to this. I have not seen those particular people here in the House of Commons speaking against it, but he says that is the only opposition. Let me read a few quotes from some of the other people who have raised the red flag over this.
The premier of Alberta states: "Banning MMT is likely to increase, not decrease emissions and Bill C-29 will cost refiners in western Canada alone approximately $100 million in capital investment and an ongoing annual cost of $15 million". For Bombardier that is not a big deal. It can get a no interest loan, donate a little to the Liberal Party, get $87 million to $100 million in loans, $1 billion plus in loans over the last 10 years, it is no big deal. But for western Canadian refiners they are saying this is going to be a cost of $100 million and as the premier says, it will not decrease the emissions.
Ty Lund, the Alberta minister of the environment, states: "There is no indication and there is no scientific backing to suggest that there would be an improvement in the environment by banning
MMT. As a matter of fact, there is a risk". Of course, that is just a guy from the west. What would he know anyway? I am sure the minister would say yes, but there are all these vested interests again.
Let me quote Vaughn Blaney, the former New Brunswick minister of the environment, an easterner: "Health Canada advises that there is no health related reason to restrict the use of MMT. Environment Canada advises that in fact they are not able to regulate the compound as being deleterious to the environment". In other words, it is outside their purview. There is no reason to ban it.
Of course, that is an easterner and a westerner. How about somebody from the middle of the country? How about the Saskatchewan minister of the environment, Bernhold Weins? As far as I know, Bernhold Weins being a member of the NDP government is not a close associate of mine. I will just quote what he said as someone from middle Canada: "In our view the scientific data on MMT does not indicate a net environmental gain will result from the passage of this legislation". But of course that is the NDP.
We have had Conservatives, NDP, people in the east and people in the west. But this is probably a national unity issue so let us quote somebody from Quebec. François Gendron, former Quebec minister of natural resources, said: "The use of MMT even provides some benefits". We are making progress. "In fact it does reduce nitrogen oxide emissions which are ozone precursors". In other words, the minister from Quebec says that MMT is not just neutral, it may even be beneficial to the environment.
Guy Chevrette, the current Quebec minister of state for natural resources, states: "It appears that the use of MMT could provide some benefits to the environment. The bill will have a major impact on the competitiveness of Quebec refineries".
Alberta refineries are saying it is $100 million, Quebec refineries as well. In other words, this is not a national unity issue at all. It happens to be a common sense scientific problem and the government for some reason, and I am perplexed as to why, has decided to avoid the logic, the scientific arguments and has decided to press ahead with this. I just do not understand it. Unless there are some political considerations in here I do not know why this is proceeding. That is all those governments and who knows what they know.
Health Canada is a fairly neutral body as far as I know. Health Canada said: "Airborne manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline powered vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in quantities or under conditions that may constitute a health risk". Health Canada, a neutral body, is saying this is not an issue.
The chief monitoring and criteria division of Health Canada said: "All analysis indicates that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population". How much more does the government need? The U.S. Environment Protection Agency said: "MMT will not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system".
We could do a similar study in Canada if that is what the government would like. I am willing to support that but the government will not do it. It is going to push this through apparently.
The board of trade of metropolitan Montreal said it is going to hurt jobs, it is going to hurt Canadians. A Toronto Star editorial said: ``Ottawa ought to watch and wait, not legislate'', a nice little rhyming conclusion.
I wish the minister would reconsider his position, listen to his cabinet colleagues and others in the House who have said and proven time and again that this is a lousy piece of legislation for ill considered political gain.
Manganese-Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Is the House ready for the question?
Manganese-Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?