Paul Forseth

[Gasoline Additives, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

The minister has stated before in the House that he supports uniformity of gasoline standards between Canada and the United States. As the minister is aware, this past Friday the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favour of Ethyl Corporation to sell the gasoline additive MMT in the U.S. This is the same substance this government wants to ban.

Will the minister admit that in view of the U.S. decision this government has no reason to ban MMT in Canadian gasoline, a substance that makes cars run cleaner?

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

What is the difference?

[The Environment, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment forgets that she is not the only minister of the environment in the country. There are 12 others and they make up the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, a forum for co-operation and joint action.

The federal minister thinks that environmental policy revolves around her. In contrast, the CCME is committed to developing the environmental management framework agreement which would reduce duplication and overlap.

Is the minister in support? Not a chance. Now harmonization has been put on hold.

The environment minister has pushed the provinces around too much. She has also cancelled any provincial negotiations on financial support to Habitat Canada which the provinces said they would assume by increasing waterfowl hunting fees.

The minister does not care for a program that would save the government money; she is only scared of devolving her assumed power.

Are her feelings hurt? Co-operation is a two-way street. It is time the minister got off her pedestal and listened to what the provinces have to say. She may even learn something about political sustainable development.

[Irving Whale, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has been politically grandstanding on this from the very beginning. It was her call to raise the Whale and now Canada is further in debt by $12 million and everything is still at the bottom of the sea with no hope to rise again as the Mary Ellen Carter .

Will the minister get a grip on her ministerial accountability and will she admit that it was the fault of her department for ignoring the 1992 Marex study?

[Irving Whale, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

In 1992 a study of the Irving Whale said that PCBs were on board the barge at the time of sinking. The minister claims she had no knowledge of this until July 6 of this year. She has stated in this House that it was the transport ministry that overlooked this report and not her ministry, Environment Canada.

Will the minister put Canada first and tell the House in just a word who is responsible for the mistakes that led to a prohibitive court injunction, transport or environment?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for moving the motion to suspend this legislation for six months.

It would be a rather smart move on the government's part to put this bill on the side and allow an independent tester to see if MMT is really hazardous to these onboard diagnostic systems in 1996 automobiles. So far there is no conclusive evidence or data that MMT ruins the idiot lights on the dashboards of cars.

We have debated the bill for some time now. I think the bill was first debated on June 19, 1995. I have heard all the discussion from both sides of the House and we still come to the same conclusion. It is not clear that MMT is hazardous to our health, our air or automobiles.

In the debate last week the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated: "The product in question has been known to have effects which are offensive to the health of people". The member presents the broken ideology of the entire Liberal Party: make a statement, substantiated or not, so long as it scares people into thinking it is right. In this case the member was making an inaccurate statement. I guess he has not read his own government's reports and is simply shooting from the hip.

Canadians have a right to hear the truth and have government pronouncements backed up by real data. In the December 6, 1994 Health Canada report "Risk Assessment for the Combustive Products of MMT", all analysis indicate the combustive products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell cannot dispute a study of his own government. What the member does not realize is that if MMT were so hazardous to the health of Canadians his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, could have easily added it to the schedule under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. She cannot and so she has gone through the back door only to find a few snags along the way. These snags are raising questions from some within her own party and yet she refuses to listen.

The Minister of Natural Resources has strong reservations which the environment minister is ignoring. Why? The Minister of the Environment is being pressured by auto manufacturers who have told her that if the product is not banned maybe they will close some plants and maybe lay off some workers. Instead of listening to reason, the minister went ahead and proceeded with the bill

banning the trade of this substance so it would not be uneconomical to use in Canada.

There seems to be considerable concern about what type of replacement for MMT will adequately address the increase in NOx emissions. We know ethanol will not reduce NOx very much. We know MTBE is a very expensive alternative, especially for the refineries.

Another major concern I have heard from those who have an interest in the legislation concerns the main rationale for the bill. What is it? The minister has told us the MVMA has evidence to prove MMT causes failures in its onboard diagnostic systems. However, it has not elected to make that research public in order for third party independent groups to evaluate it.

The minister has stood in the House on several occasions and listed every car manufacturer under the sun and said they have all done studies which prove without a doubt that MMT is hazardous to OBDs. Several members of the Reform Party have asked her for those studies but she refuses to table them in the House.

The minister knows these studies do not exist and she carries on as if they do. What a shame the country has an environment minister who is perhaps full of steam or vapour.

I understand General Motors is currently conducting a testing program to evaluate the effects of MMT on OBD systems. Why is GM initiating a test again when the minister claims it has already done a conclusive test? Clearly there are some inconsistencies. It is time the minister set the record straight.

On several occasions the Minister of the Environment has gone on that the United States has banned MMT since 1978 and that Canada is simply following suit. In 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency did not approve MMT because of its view that it might affect the health of Americans. However, the EPA's research was reviewed by the U.S. court of appeals and based on the findings the EPA was instructed to grant the manufacturers of MMT a waiver which will allow the reintroduction of MMT into the American market.

The minister might have egg on her face if she goes through with the bill at this time while a reversal is being made in the United States. At that time will the minister want to conduct further studies in Canada? She may even ask for an independent test to be done. We have been asking for that. This would not be the first time the minister has completed a 180 degree turnabout.

This past summer off the coast of P.E.I. the government had plans to raise the Irving Whale oil barge, sunk for over two decades. Despite the presence of the PCBs on board the vessel the minister went ahead. I questioned the minister in the House on that one and she reassured Canadians that all appropriate testing had been done and that the Canadian Coast Guard was more than prepared to make it a safe lift. The lift did not occur due to bad weather and was therefore scratched for this year. As a result there was a court that was convinced there had been inadequate study of the considerations of the PCB factor. The result was an injunction against the action of raising the barge. We have now discovered that the minister wants to undergo further testing on the presence of PCBs on board the Irving Whale .

I am discussing a pattern of the minister, ministerial responsibility, accountability. First she tells Canadians that everything is a go and there is no hazard at all. Then she says they must do more testing. The minister does not seem to be able to make up her mind. The same is going to happen if the United States lifts the ban on MMT later this year. Will the minister organize independent testing then? Perhaps she will be forced to.

The minister has a chance to save face and vote in favour of the motion that was moved. If she waits for six months she will have the opportunity to see what the U.S. courts will instruct. However, if Bill C-94 passes and the U.S. courts reverse the decision forbidding MMT to be sold again, the minister will have to bring forward another bill that would reverse Bill C-94. This would not only be an added cost to the taxpayer but it would also be a travesty of our parliamentary system.

Does the Minister of the Environment want to really make the taxpayers dig into their pocketbooks just because she is pressured by her political supporters? What about this pressure? The MVMA threatened that if the government does not ban MMT it will void the warranties. In a copy of the fuel section of the owner's manual of for example the 1996 Buick Regal, it bears no mention of a lack of warranty coverage.

General Motors certainly knows how to disclaim warranty responsibility since the 1996 owner's manual contains a disclaimer regarding the use of methanol in the vehicle. The manual goes on to state that the service light on the instrument panel may turn on with the use of certain fuels, not in Canada and the United States, but elsewhere because of a lack of grade of refining. If this occurs the owner should simply contact the retailer for service. What it means is they would want to clean the sensor. This certainly does not disclaim warranty responsibility so those threats that were mentioned in this House do not bear fruit.

If the auto industry has not carried through on its threat to void warranties in instances where MMT is used in gasoline, then why is the government trying to rush this legislation through the House? This bill has been political from the outset. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to do what is best for the country and our environment and not what is best politically. The minister is becoming Canada's best non-environmental minister and this in itself is hazardous to the health of Canadians.

We should reflect on the gamesmanship and the deal making related to this bill. It is becoming another instance where the government's political concerns in its own mistaken view have taken precedence over what is good for the country. This bill has nothing to do with helping the environment. In fact, it is said that the result is equivalent to adding thousands of cars immediately to the exhaust load of the air if this bill is passed. It is not good for Canada that we rush into banning trade in a commodity which could very shortly be used in the United States.

I was sitting here listening to the member for Peterborough who claims that the banning of MMT will save jobs. The MVMA threatened the environment minister to ban MMT or else workers would be laid off. The minister has denied that the MVMA threatened her with this. Now the member across the way has admitted that jobs might be lost, or at least that was the threat anyway and he is peddling this as an argument. We now have an admission that contradicts the minister.

I say this is all scare tactics and puffery in the absence of scientific evidence. What seems the most appropriate course in this instance is to use our motion, the six month hoist, so that we will have sufficient time to review all the scientific evidence and make a fair and considered evaluation of the rationale for Bill C-94.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, constituents of Hamilton East should know their MP has created legislation that will increase smog over Hamilton. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute recently made a claim that removing MMT would be the equivalent of adding over one million additional cars to Canadian roads. That is what this environment minister is doing.

It is said that the onboard diagnostic sensors are put in cars essentially for consumer protection. Industry Canada's role is to protect, assist and support consumers' interests. It would only make sense this bill be made an industry bill and dealt with in a more technical light. If the bill is industrial rather than environmental, it should then go to the appropriate standing committee.

Further, the problem addressed in this bill is essentially a commercial dispute between two industries, the automobile manufacturers and the petroleum refiners. It is about who pays to reach the next level. The Minister of the Environment really has no business stepping into the fray of this marketplace decision and the deals and the manoeuvres going on in another country.

Last year the minister was pressured by the MVMA and therefore found a way to make the issue an environmental bill. Apparently representatives from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler met with the Minister of the Environment to discuss the banning of MMT. They told her that if MMT was still in gasoline in August 1995, a time when all new models would be released, they would do one of three things: raise the price of each automobile by $3,000; void sections of their car warranties; and/or close down some high technology Canadian manufacturing units. She could not because Reformers were here, and they did not do what they threatened to do because they lied in the first place.

The minister did not know and for that matter probably did not care what effects MMT had on the environment. She knew the MVMA have tremendous power. When they said jump, she asked how high.

Our motion is to change the wording of the bill so it reads that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry. The House has heard the Minister of Industry rise on questions related to the issue. He realizes that it is closely associated with his department. However, the industry minister did not take it on because it was too embarrassing a proposal.

The Minister of Industry has said he wants a uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. He stated in the House on April 25, 1995 that "it is crucial that we have uniformity of standards. The efforts we have put into trying to ensure there was a voluntary agreement between the two sectors has been well placed, but finally governments have to decide".

The Minister of Industry wants our fuel to be the same as it is for various parts of the United States. He wants some uniformity. He may not have to wait very long. The United States is set to have the American MMT prohibition lifted some time before Christmas of this year. However, the Minister of the Environment is too committed down a certain path to thoughtfully do what is right. She is on a direct course to please her friends, play with her Canada, and leave us with all the bills.

All members of the House are honourable enough to evaluate what is really going on here. The Liberal backbenchers know what is going on. If there were ever a time to blow the whistle on the boss, it will be on Monday when we have a vote on the motion moved by my colleague from Calgary North. It is eminently sensible and appropriate to send this bill to the industry committee.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by my colleague from Calgary North is a logical one, a motion of practical sense.

I encourage members of the House to listen carefully to the debate. The motion is realistic and I urge the House to adopt it when it comes to a vote which I assume will be on Monday.

The title given the bill does not sound like one that should be sponsored by an environment minister. Bill C-94 is an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

Why is the Minister of the Environment so keen on the passage of the bill? When one sees something this discordant it usually plays out in the end, when all the documentation is finally exposed, that a short term political deal has been struck. Someone has the inside track and then much puffery is used to hide the intent.

The bill presented by the environment minister has nothing to do with helping clean up the environment. Consequently one has to ask what is really going on here. Few believe the minister, yet she proceeds with justifications. It is embarrassing to watch.

In theory one would expect that a minister of the environment would have little in common with car makers. After all, cars are the leading cause of smog. I suppose that when we look at where the minister resides the notion becomes a little clearer. Hamilton East is right in the heartland of auto makers central.

Not long ago officials from the Department of the Environment came to my office to explain the background of the bill. When they were asked what impact the bill would have toward helping the environment they had to admit it was slim to none and at best maybe only indirectly.

Some time ago I received an explanation of the onboard diagnostic systems that are said to sometimes not work when MMT is included in gasoline. According to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association the 1996 cars are to be equipped with the latest technology but because MMT is still in Canadian fuel they simply unplug the sensor lights for the systems.

Canadians need to picture this. Canada's environment minister is banning the use of a fuel additive because a little part on a car is said to create a premature warning light to go on. Where is the national environmental concern here?

I am not disputing that onboard diagnostic systems may be beneficial. Politicians hoped they would make car pollution equipment more reliable so they ordered manufacturers to put them on. Consumers sure did not ask for it and the reluctant car makers also balked.

Car makers kicked back and designed a scheme to blame someone else for their technical failures and shortcomings and their unwillingness to pay. Let us be clear: OBDs do not regulate or control emission systems, neither do they clean anything. I think some people are assuming these devices will reduce pollution from our environment. It is just adding warning lights, or as we used to say idiot lights, on the dashboard that signal that the existing pollution controls are normal.

Imagine it, idiot lights for cars are a legislative priority of the Minister of the Environment. The minister likes lights on her dashboard, so she brings a $1 billion disruption to the Canadian petroleum industry to get a little lighted colour in her driving experience. When the public absorbs what the minister is doing I know what they will want to do to her lights.

In the United States the Environmental Protection Agency placed a moratorium on MMT in 1978. It was a raw deal by some American politicians and regulators that will eventually be corrected in the courts. So far the United States court of appeals found that the EPA did not have the evidence to prove that MMT should not be used.

Banning MMT in Canada is not an environmental issue. However it could very easily have been had Health Canada found it harmful but it did not. It could not, no matter how hard it tried. In fact Health Canada on December 6, 1994 issued a report entitled "Risk Assessment for the Combustive Products of MMT". It reported: "All analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population".

I am sure the minister would have liked to put the substance on the listed schedule under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to please her friends, except Health Canada got in the way and made an unfavourable ruling.

If the minister could have banned MMT under CEPA she would not have needed this legislation. If the environment minister cannot prove this bill will directly affect the environment then I say this should not be an environmental bill.

The Minister of the Environment is telling Canadians the removal of MMT will significantly improve the quality of our environment. That is wrong, very wrong. The removal of MMT will increase nitrous oxide or NOx emissions by 20 per cent. That is why MMT is used. It is there to make gas burn cleaner, to help the environment. In case Canadians do not know what NOx creates, it is smog.

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and friend, the hon. member for North Vancouver, for his carefully considered motion.

It is an honour to speak on the issue of capital punishment, which has created a lot of debate in the country, perhaps even as far back as Confederation. It is not a pleasant topic to discuss. No one wishes to discuss the issues of death and tragedy. However, Parliament ought to be the place where we can freely discuss the issues that most concern Canadians.

Today in my area of British Columbia the issue discussed at coffee shops, in the barber shops, and in most local meeting places is the issue of accountability of murderers and how we as a community should respond.

Canadians are fed up with our justice system. Justice has gone. Perhaps it is seen as merely a legal system that does not represent mainstream Canadian values. Constituents observe how their local courts operate and how they produce fear and disgust rather than any sense of relief that officials are minding the store and doing their duty on behalf of the public.

The rationale that capital punishment does not deter really misses the point. It is 100 per cent effective to deter the individual murderer, as it would prevent the current practice where these kinds of criminals are released only to kill again. This happens in Canada.

My reason for speaking today is simple. The people have spoken. It is my duty as the member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby to make those voices heard here in the House of Commons.

Reform MPs were elected because we agreed to vote the wishes of our constituents. That is something the Liberal government does not agree with. In fact, the Liberal government punishes its own members for doing so. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was recently removed from his position as chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It seems that if a member votes differently from the pack the Prime Minister will punish them.

My colleagues opposite do not agree with me that community representation is important. That really makes me begin to wonder who they represent. Do they represent the interests of those who elected them to sit in the House, or do they represent only themselves?

I know that the hon. member for North Vancouver did not put forward the motion simply to cause debate in the House, nor did he

do it to put himself at the front and centre of some political column or controversy. The hon. member for North Vancouver put forward Motion No. 431 because his constituents are calling for Parliament to revisit the capital punishment debate.

The majority of Canadians who support the revisitation of the capital punishment question did not simply wake up one morning and remark that we should create a death row. They are quite upset to see a person murdered in cold blood only to see the murderer get out of prison on parole a few years later. Who can blame them for being upset?

Canadians have a right to a national referendum on capital punishment. They have a right on these types of matters to have policy reflect mainstream values.

Opponents are saying that the murder rate will not decrease if the death penalty is reinstated, that a murderer will still commit murders regardless. It is not possible to make the country free of murder. We will never live in a sinless world. Capital punishment is not put forward as a panacea, and neither is it a simplistic solution.

Canadians want one thing: they want real justice. I do not think that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General really know what that is. They have their thinking clouded by some misguided social philosophy as they go on and deride the democrats, the Reformers, for speaking up on behalf of Canadians.

Let us make it specific. On September 6, 1995, Melissa Daley was sexually assaulted and murdered in Surrey, British Columbia. She was kidnapped from her own home. There was no reason for that to happen. It was a senseless killing. The offender should have been in custody at the time. The murderer hanged himself in his own jail cell just days later. That was not justice; that was suicide. The justice system failed us in this case. The system fails again and again.

As is to be expected with such a heinous crime, many constituents in Surrey wrote letters to the editors of our local newspapers. In one column a citizen wrote:

Where are our lawmakers when these atrocious murders are taking place? Don't they hear the anguished cries of these parents for their children? Why are these monsters allowed to walk free while our country mourns its losses? For God's sake, wake up, people. The laws have to be changed to protect the innocent. Don't ignore what's happening because it hasn't happened directly to you. You could be next.

June 29, 1987 was the last time Parliament had a chance to debate capital punishment. When the motion came up for debate at that time it was defeated by only 21 votes: 148 to 127. Amazingly enough the Angus Reid poll taken in 1987 showed 73 per cent of Canadians in favour of the death penalty. One would assume that if 73 per cent of Canadians were in favour a similar statistic should have been displayed in the House at that time-not so.

If all MPs in the 1987 Parliament were true to the fact that they would represent their constituents perhaps the vote would have been more like 200 to 75.

This past month notorious murderer Paul Bernardo was sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal slayings of two Ontario ladies. There was no disputing that Paul Bernardo committed the crimes. The evidence was black and white and the jury declared him guilty of first degree murder. The psychologist even showed that he was sane when he performed the murders and he remains sane today. If he is released from prison he will likely murder again.

On the witness stand observers said he showed no emotions and no remorse at all for the crimes. Now he will spend the rest of his life in a federal prison. Canadians are hopeful that Bernardo will not have the chance to murder again. However, they are sad he was given the chance to live while the innocent were not.

Opponents of capital punishment firmly state there is no need for any debate because the homicide rate in Canada is decreasing. The opponents may be correct in this statement according to Stats Canada. However the category of homicide includes first and second degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide. At the same time we checked that no person either in Canada or in the United States has ever been given the death penalty for a non-capital crime; that is, only those who commit first degree murder can be given the actual death penalty.

The vote on capital punishment in 1987 was not fair. The vote clearly did not represent the real wishes of Canadians. Members at that time did not consult with their constituents sufficiently. They simply came into the Chamber and voted for what they wanted. That historical action has never been accepted by the public as legitimate. Manipulation was rampant and every conceivable arcane rationalization was used by members to justify their vote. It was a day when the elected left their constituents behind and went their own way. We have suffered the consequences for the justice system ever since.

That is where Reformers are different. Not only do we try and listen to what the masses are telling us, we endeavour to put their words and aspirations into concrete action.

The motion is simple:

The government should support and work toward enabling legislation for a binding referendum on capital punishment to be held concurrently with the next federal election.

Let the people speak. The Prime Minister has enough excuses to ignore such a plea. There would be little extra cost since it would concur with the next election. Individual members of Parliament would not have to worry about party lines. The people of Canada

would simply decide. There would be no blame on an individual political party since the people would be given the chance.

Capital punishment is a special case of law making that transcends party politics. The Reform Party has no official position on the topic. However, a Reform government would be humble enough to bow to the will of the mainstream. Every voting citizen must examine their own conscience and solemnly enter that booth and make a choice for themselves for the kind of society they want to give to their children.

My appeal today is for democracy. My appeal today is for a referendum.

I now move this motion:

I seek consent of the members present to have Motion M-431 referred to the Standing Committee on Justice for further examination.

[The Environment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according to a December 1992 study submitted by Marex International Limited to the Canadian Coast Guard, the heating fluid on board the Irving Whale was Monsanto MGS, a trade name for PCBs.

Why did the minister clearly ignore this study before embarking on such an expensive adventure thereby bringing about a court injunction? Twelve million dollars spent and it is still on the bottom of the sea.