House of Commons Hansard #76 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mmt.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is it agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

September 27th, 1996 / 12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act.

I will take a moment, of course, to state the purpose of Bill C-44 and discuss some concerns the Bloc Quebecois has regarding this bill as well as amendments that will need to be made at a later stage, when the bill comes up for further consideration at committee.

Bill C-44 implements the national marine policy the federal government had announced back in December 1995. Naturally, it will apply to the whole marine industry in Canada and Quebec. The four main areas affected are ports operated by Transport Canada, law enforcement in Canadian ports, pilotage and, finally, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system.

Let us now look at each of these areas individually. As far as the ports are concerned, this bill provides for the establishment of the Canada Port Authority to replace the Canada Ports Corporation.

There are questions and concerns about law enforcement in Canadian ports, as we remain in the dark about the government's true intentions as to what is to happen to the police force which is currently comprised of about 100 constables and 30 civilians. Maintaining this force cost approximately $9.6 million in 1995. Further explanations are required concerning the future of law enforcement in these ports.

As for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, the government intends, of course, to pursue the commercialization of operations, and the bill provides the authority to do so.

The fourth element concerns the issue of pilotage. From now on, operations will be much more efficient, since public funding will no longer be available. The bill provides that Transport Canada will have to report to Parliament before December 31, 1998, regarding the review of the following issues: compulsory pilotage area designations, cost reduction measures, pilot certification process for masters and officers, and licensing requirements for pilots.

This is, in short, what is to be found in the bill. As for us, Bloc Quebecois members, we feel that the title of the bill somewhat exceeds its content. The bill is called the Canada Marine Act, but it is silent on shipbuilding, shipyards, and the merchant navy. It is not as complete as it could be.

It would have been interesting to find out about the government's intentions regarding these issues and to see them included in the Canada Marine Act, so as to have a global picture. This is only wishful thinking, but who knows, perhaps the government will provide more details in the subsequent stages of the review of the bill.

We also have to conclude that the government failed, when we look at the shipping policy of the past 20 years. Over the years, some $7 billion, in current dollars, were invested in the St. Lawrence Seaway, while annual revenues generated by the seaway are of the order of $70 million. Since that was not a huge success, they are now dismantling the whole thing, privatizing it, etc.

This is due mainly to the financial situation of the government who now realizes that, these last few years, it did not play such an efficient role as a promoter in this field, as in, might I add, many other transportation areas. Just consider the trend in the Department of Transportation these last few years. It was the same thing with the deregulation of air transportation, the dismantling of the rail industry and now, it is the shipping industry.

It is somewhat amazing that a country-made out of two countries-such as Canada, which covers a huge territory has not been able to better define all of its transportation policies. It is also disappointing to see that a such a vast country, where there is road, rail, sea and air transportation, could not become a leader or a role model in efficiency.

I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois has always supported a disposition policy and the commercialization of harbours and ports. We did mention it in the minority report of the Bloc Quebecois concerning the maritime strategy tabled in May 1995.

The commercialization of harbours and ports raised some concerns in every region, but maybe more so in areas like mine, where there are recreation harbours. The same question always comes back: "In what shape will they be handed over to the local authorities? In what shape are they now? In what condition will they be handed over?" We are told of a $125 million fund, which should be used to refurbish the ports and, in some cases, the cost could be negotiated differently depending on the port's condition.

This is not a very clear policy. We know that when criteria are rather fuzzy funds are often allocated to the ones who press harder. Often decisions are political and not necessarily based on considerations of efficiency when there are no clear, definite and well understood criteria.

Thus, there are concerns because many sites have not been properly maintained throughout the years. All regional and local disparities must also be taken into account. We must show respect and make sure that we have a system of ports that is adequate as a whole. When the amounts will be affected or negotiated for the management transfer to local organizations or companies, we must ensure that the system remains adequate as a whole.

I find it rather disturbing that at the beginning this process will be somewhat haphazard as was the case for the commercialization of airports. There will be a problem because obviously things will not proceed as fast in one place at it will in another. This is not the model to apply to sea transportation. We have reasons to worry, since the same department is involved.

There is a factor which is surprising from the logical point of view but not from the political one. In the last few years, as everybody knows, the federal government has come to realize that it can no longer afford to provide the same level of service, but it nevertheless tries to keep the same level of control.

This is why paragraphs a ) and e ) of clause 12(1) provide that the federal government has one representative on each of the boards. Pursuant to this clause, the federal government can also appoint other individuals in consultation with the users.

But the government, in consulting, does not have to follow up on the recommendations of the stakeholders. Obviously, an exception is made for directors representing the municipalities or the provinces, but we can see that the federal government will have one direct representative and will appoint other representatives. As is usually the case, these people will certainly have views that are compatible with the government's. Thus, the government is keeping a high level of control.

It is always somewhat surprising and somewhat irritating to see a government investing less and less money but keeping the same level of control.

If the government wants to decentralize and to have local management because it is more efficient, etc., why does it impose, on a board of directors, people that are appointed through a political process? Often these people are local friends of the government who are there to ensure that the government's views will prevail on these boards of directors.

We have seen this in several other cases, and it is very disturbing and disappointing for the people in the regions who realize that this decentralization is sort of artificial. The government is decentralizing the financial problems but is keeping control over the decision-making process.

There is a last point I want to mention. The members of the Bloc Quebecois have suggestions and recommendations to make with regard to the Pilotage Act. I cannot elaborate on that at this moment since my time is running out, but I am sure the members who represent us on the transport committee will do it adequately.

In general, this bill contains some interesting elements, but it needs a lot of improvements. We need to have complete and effective decentralization, which means, among other things, that situations as the one described in section 12 must be avoided.

Corrections will have to be made to this bill and, once this is done, we will be able to judge if it is a good or a bad piece of legislation.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Comox—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments regarding Bill C-44 as it pertains to Port Alberni, which is in my riding. It is one of the six recognized ports on the west coast.

I met with the harbour commission about a month ago. It had some major concerns regarding the legislation. The difficulty, it would appear, is that this legislation will treat Vancouver, which is a huge port, similar to a smaller port such as Port Alberni.

Alberni has an operating budget of $3 million to $4 million. It has operated with a very small profit for the last eight years. In other words, it is not a burden. It is on a user pay system. It is working. The Port Alberni Harbour Commission is working well. It serves the community. It does not cost the taxpayers any money. However, this legislation will change all that.

I have to return to the analogy of treating a huge port like Vancouver similarly to a smaller port such as Alberni. It is the the pantyhose solution, one size fits all. In this case it will not work.

It would appear that the problem goes back to when the legislation was drawn up. It was drawn up by bureaucrats before there was consultation. Yes, a committee will do a cross Canada tour, but the bureaucrats have now got themselves into a position where they are backed up against a wall, defending legislation

which will not fly. Why do we have to have this kind of situation where the bureaucrats draw up the legislation before there is nationwide consultation to get the information which is required to write good legislation?

I hope when the committee travels across Canada that the representations from the different ports and boards will be listened to.

That brings up another point. It is really odd in the Canadian system that a committee is not tied to a minister. A committee can come up with some wonderful recommendations, good legislation, which the minister can then totally ignore if he or she chooses to do so. That is wrong.

I hope that the committee listens well, makes good recommendations and furthermore that the minister and the bureaucracy also listen and come up with legislation that fits all the ports across this country and does the job that we require.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the short title of which is Canada Marine Act. This bill is crucially important for the future of shipping and the survival of ports and harbours in Canada and Quebec.

First, allow me to point out that in all matters concerning transportation in general, the way the government works is to harm regions, legislate in a piecemeal manner, without measuring the impact its legislations will have once in force.

During last spring's debate on Bill C-20, many members wondered about the impact of the privatization of air navigation services on remote regions. We were not against the principle of privatizing these services, but we thought that it should not be done in the sole perspective of deficit reduction and by dumping the problems and costs in the local stakeholders' backyard.

In the same vein, Coast Guard fees for services, such as ice breaking and dredging, are likely to hinder the competitiveness of Quebec's ports. Again, the federal government's main thrust is the fight against the deficit and this, at all cost, at the expense of the true interests of Canadians and Quebecers. That jobs could be jeopardized does not seem to carry much weight in this government's political choices.

The same can be said today about Bill C-44. First, in spite of its title, the bill does not propose any kind of shipbuilding or merchant marine development strategy. Instead of development, it seems that, once again, under the pretence of streamlining operations and improving services, the government has only one thing in mind: to dump its deficit onto the provinces, municipalities and local stakeholders.

The bill's main objective is to commercialize port services by getting rid of the present Canada Ports Corporation and replacing it by Canadian port authorities.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to a policy to divest itself of ports and harbours by commercializing them. In fact, local stakeholders would probably be able to manage those facilities much more efficiently than the federal government did until now. Indeed if we look at the last 20 years of federal management of ports and harbours, we can only come to the conclusion that there have been an excessive bureaucratization which resulted in unreasonable costs and inefficient management of facilities.

The St. Lawrence Seaway, for example, received $7 billion in investments over the years but generates only $70 million in revenues annually for a traffic of only half that of 1970. There are 324 commercial ports and harbours in Canada.

Right now, 90 percent of the commercial maritime traffic transits through 45 of these ports. Obviously the federal government must withdraw from the management of that sector, but not any which way.

In the bill before us today, we see that the Canada Ports Corporation will be replaced by Canadian ports authorities or CPAs. These CPAs will manage the port facilities, but the federal government will keep ownership of the lands and facilities. That is to say that the government will withdraw from the fiscal aspect while keeping its control since it will have a representative on all CPA boards.

We can understand that this government is trying once more to avoid its financial responsibilities while keeping all its powers. When this government talks about decentralisation, we must understand that in reality it wants to decentralise its debt. When it talks about involving local stakeholders, we must understand that their main role will be to pay the bills while being forced to abide by federal standards.

Criteria are also being established for ports do be designated CPAs. Applications made by ports will thus be evaluated under the following criteria provided in clause 6: first, the port is, and is likely to remain, financially self-sufficient; second, the port is of strategic significance to Canada's trade; third, it is linked to major rail lines or a major highway infrastructure; and fourth, it has diversified traffic.

Only ports respecting those criteria will be designated as CPAs. As I said earlier, the federal government is withdrawing from the financial area but it wants to hang on to control of CPA administration.

Of greatest concern is the fate of ports which cannot become CPAs. The government is taking its time: it allows itself six years to dispose of those ports. This delay will therefore create some insecurity in Canada as well as in Quebec. Actually, the federal government has neglected the maintenance of the ports and most of them are in poor condition. They will need substantial repairs. Therefore, several ports probably will be left out of the running and will not have the status of port authorities, unless municipalities and provinces invest significant funds for their rehabilitation.

Again, under the cover of decentralization, the federal government is passing the bill on to other levels of government. It would be more honest on the part of the federal government to rehabilitate those port facilities before their transfer given the fact that their deterioration is the result of lack of maintenance by the government.

Although the Bloc Quebecois is not against the principle of privatizing port facilities, we will vote against this bill just because the government is not proceeding in the right way. This bill needs major amendments in order to meet the different needs of port localities and regions.

To this government, decentralization of powers seems to mean only decentralization of the debt, a debt which results from a poor management on its part. The impact of this bill in its present form, combined with the new fee structure for Coast Guard services, will come down hard on a number of municipalities, in both Canada and Quebec, which rely on commercial shipping. The government does not seem to be taking this into consideration.

We will therefore try to see that the Liberal government assesses the real consequences of its policies-policies which may be costly to the people of Canada and of Quebec.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

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

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, September 30, 1996 at the regular time of adjournment.

I have a problem, but it is my problem, not yours. It is true that the assistant whip of the government rose to request the floor. I understand that the representative of the official opposition was already at the table. I will respect the tradition of the House and give the floor to the hon. member who was already standing.

I hope this will not complicate matters, and maybe they were both seeking the same solution. The assistant whip of the Government has the floor.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am going to solve your problem.

I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent of the House to present a motion to further defer the vote until Tuesday at the end of Government Orders. If there is consent I will gladly defer to the whip of the opposition party to present the motion.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

How co-operative!

I think possibly this will resolve the matter.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, here is proof that common sense will always lead to some agreement. Of course we would be delighted if the division were held on Tuesday, if the House agrees.

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Does the House agree that the vote will be deferred until Tuesday?

Canada Marine ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from Wednesday, September 25, 1996, consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial pur-

poses of certain manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed and of the amendment.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think today is my lucky day. I am very pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-29, formerly Bill C-94, an Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances. The immediate purpose of Bill C-29 is to ban the addition of MMT to unleaded gasoline in Canada by prohibiting the importation of that substance.

Over the last few years, environmental concerns have become more present in our daily lives and are important for the citizens we represent, particularly those living in big cities, who call for for an ever healthier environment. They want standards to be established not only to further reduce pollution, but also to improve the overall quality of the environment.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to act in order to protect people's health and to legislate on the issue of dangerous substances contributing to the deterioration of the global environment.

However, the bill before us today does not stem from a desire to protect the environment or public health. Instead, it seems motivated more by a desire to meet the expectations of the automotive industry and those of Ontario corn growers who hope to see a whole new market develop for them, that of ethanol, an additive made from corn, which could eventually replace MMT.

This bill came about in 1994, it must be remembered, thanks to a powerful lobby of automobile manufacturers. According to them, MMT, a substance that has been added to unleaded gasoline since 1977, causes damage to the pollution control equipment in automobiles and is detrimental to public health.

It goes without saying that car manufacturers are quite opposed to the addition of additives to gasoline, be it MMT or any other substance.

Faced with a threat by car manufacturers to raise the price of cars in Canada and limit their warranty if the practice of adding MMT to gasoline continued, the environment minister of the day, the current Deputy Prime Minister, caved in and introduced Bill C-94, which eventually became Bill C-29.

For us, at second reading, this bill is still raising the same questions. We voted in favour of this legislation so that the two major stakeholders in this debate on banning MMT could present their respective point of view. These stakeholders are the car manufacturers and the oil industry, especially the Ethyl Corporation, the only company to produce and export MMT to Canada.

We hoped that the Standing Committee on the Environment would conduct an in-depth review based on studies by both parties concerned.

Already then, it was obvious that the former environment minister was not taking into account studies showing that MMT was not a threat to public health. Indeed, in a study dated December 6, 1994, Health Canada concluded that MMT was not a health hazard. Obviously, any substance added to gasoline is, to a certain extent, a pollutant as is gasoline. But for Health Canada, MMT in itself is clearly not a health hazard.

In the United States, the automobile industry has had to reconsider its position on MMT as a result of a decision by an American court to the effect that the ban on MMT had to be lifted for lack of conclusive evidence of any harmful effect on antipollution devices.

Indeed, in its decision, the United States court of appeal for the District of Columbia pointed out the lack of evidence in the arguments made by supporters of a ban on MMT, and I quote: "Concerning the arguments presented by the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association to challenge the finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that MMT does not affect either partially or totally the functioning of the emission system of vehicles, the American court has deemed these arguments unfounded. First of all, the court pointed out that the agency had established the Ethyl additive had easily passed the tests required for all the most severe investigations ever conducted".

It must be kept in mind that, in April 1995, this same court made a decision rejecting the claims of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the effect MMT was harmful to health, even though the Agency recognized MMT was not playing any role in the deterioration of pollution control equipment.

Therefore, it is more than likely MMT will be reintroduced in the United States, and very rapidly so.

The oil companies favour the use of additives in gasoline. According to some data, MMT added to gasoline would help reduce nitric oxide emissions, which are harmful to the environment and one of the causes of urban smog.

From the hearings of the Standing Committee on Environment, it has not been shown, on the basis of scientific studies, that MMT is a toxic substance and a risk to public health. It has not been demonstrated either that MMT is harmful to pollution control equipment in automobiles. Furthermore, the objective of harmonizing our gasoline policies with those of the United States does not hold any more since the ban on MMT was been lifted by our neighbours to the South, which makes possible the addition of MMT in gasoline in the United States.

In fact, what this bill is proposing us, is to comply with the requests of the automobile industry. As I said earlier, at the present time, nothing argues for the banning of MMT. If MMT has such a detrimental effect on public health in general, it should have been banned by Health Canada or under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. What this bill proposes is not to ban MMT as a product but to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of this substance.

What are the consequences of this trade ban? First of all, it must be pointed out that Ethyl, an American corporation, is the only company that manufactures this product and exports it to Canada. The plant importing it, which is located in Ontario, mixes MMT with other fuel additives. These products are then shipped to refineries. Under this bill, which bans interprovincial trade in and the importation of MMT without banning its use or production, if the Ethyl corporation ever built an MMT manufacturing plant and set up the distribution of this substance in every province and territory, unleaded gasoline produced across Canada could still contain MMT. I am not an expert in this area, but I think we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that the real purpose of this bill is to protect public health and the environment.

Nothing in this bill would prevent the scenario I just described from becoming reality, because MMT has not been banned. This is a rather extraordinary way to deal with a substance which, in the opinion of the Minister of the Environment and the Deputy Prime Minister, is deleterious to the health of Canadians and Quebecers.

At a time when businesses are looking to rationalize their operations, it would be rather surprising for Ethyl to decide to open plants in every province and territory of Canada. This means that, under Bill C-29, it will be forced to shut down its operations in Canada.

Some 40 jobs would be lost if the plant in Ontario closed. Also, MMT no longer being available, oil companies would have to change their refining and production methods.

The oil industry estimates that it would cost close to $100 million to produce gasoline that is equally performant without MMT, as a result of this bill. This extra cost will inevitably make the price of gas at the pump go up. As usual, consumers will pay for this initiative, not to mention the potential job losses resulting from this price increase.

We have come across another possible effect a few weeks ago. On September 10, feeling aggrieved by this ban on MMT exports to Canada, Ethyl gave notice of its intention to file a complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The company argues that Bill C-29 is in conflict with certain provisions of NAFTA, as the subject-matter of the ban is not the product itself but its import. As was pointed out, the production, sale and use of MMT are not prohibited. As a result of such contraventions of NAFTA, Ethyl will sustain damages, actually more than $200 million American, or nearly $275 million Canadian, in loss of revenue.

Questioned on this in the House last Wednesday, the Minister of the Environment insisted this bill was essential to protect both the environment and the health of Canadians. In light of the consequences this bill will have, we can only doubt his sincerity and, consequently, vote against the bill.

Again, not only did the federal government encroach on provincial jurisdictions by legislating in interprovincial trade, but it also ignored the opposition to Bill C-29 expressed by the provinces.

Last May 1, Quebec's legislature unanimously passed a resolution requesting the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning gasoline additive, MMT, as long as environmental studies had not been conducted in a properly scientific manner.

As always, the Liberal government turns a deaf ear to the requests from Quebec and the other provinces that the minister withdraw the bill in order to examine its real impact and what is really at stake.

When this government decided to interfere in interprovincial trade and ignore the pleas of the provinces, it demonstrated once again how it really sees co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. Its idea of co-operative federalism is to wax eloquent on federal-provincial agreements, and then keep moving in on provincial jurisdiction constantly breaking its promises.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is once again asking the minister to postpone passage of this bill. The environment and the health of our fellow Canadians are too important to simply be used to further the expectations of the strong lobby of Ontario's motor vehicle manufacturers and corn producers.