Beth Phinney

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this very important debate today.

Canada has a long and impressive history of peacekeeping around the world. As I am sure all members are aware, peacekeeping as it is known today was invented by a Canadian, former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. During the Suez crisis of 1956, Mr. Pearson proposed the formation of an emergency UN force to supervise the cessation of hostilities.

Since 1947 Canada has participated in every United Nations peacekeeping operation. We are one of the few countries that has done so. We are also one of the few countries that has paid all of its United Nations' dues, including our share of peacekeeping costs.

Canada has played a major role in the ongoing peacekeeping efforts in the former Yugoslavia. It has been involved in four separate but related operations in the region. It has been participating in the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift. The navy has one frigate operating with NATO's standing naval force Atlantic, in the Adriatic, monitoring and enforcing sanctions.

Canada has also provided two crew members for AWACS aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia. Canada has also provided a battalion to support the United Nations operation in Bosnia. That unit was based in Visoko, northwest of Sarajevo. About three-quarters of that unit's personnel were withdrawn in October of this year, with the remainder returning to Canada in late November.

Canadian troops have played a valuable role in Bosnia. They have delivered relief supplies, protected civilians and monitored ceasefires.

Over the past three years we have all become far too familiar with the scenes of violence and suffering on the nightly news reports from Bosnia. The war in Bosnia has been extremely brutal and vicious, despite the best efforts of the United Nations and Canadian troops to relieve the suffering of innocent civilians.

The previous United Nations' efforts were at best a band-aid solution. Therefore I welcome the agreement signed recently in Dayton, Ohio, ending the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. After

more than three years of fighting, 250,000 dead and the creation of two million refugees, it is high time that the fighting end in Bosnia.

Although I hope that the Dayton agreement will bring peace to the region, I must admit that I share the doubts expressed by many. We have become familiar in the past few years with the short lifespan of Balkan truces and agreements. After several years of fighting, it will be extremely difficult for all sides to live together.

The peace agreement is extremely complex and will be very difficult to implement. For this reason I welcome the participation of NATO. As I am sure members are aware, NATO is planning to deploy 60,000 troops, including 20,000 American troops, to enforce the agreement.

Besides the United States, 11 other NATO countries have indicated that they will provide troops. As well, Russia and 19 other non-NATO countries have indicated that they will provide troops. Russia and many of the non-NATO countries are former members of the Warsaw pact and current members of the Partnership for Peace. This will be the first co-operative operation between NATO and the Partnership for Peace countries.

NATO has made clear that the implementation force will not be a traditional peacekeeping mission, but rather a NATO led enforcement mission. It will operate under chapter VII of the UN charter, which permits the use of all necessary means to fulfil a mission.

The implementation force will be required to monitor and enforce the withdrawal of each side's troops to their respective territories, establish and man lines of separation, enforce the ceasefire provisions of the agreement, defend protected areas and and assist United Nations and civilian aid agencies.

It is quite likely that the implementation force will be involved in some fighting as it seeks to enforce the peace agreement. For this reason, NATO troops will be heavily armed and authorized to use force.

Despite their large numbers and heavy armaments, NATO troops are likely to have casualties. The terrain will make operations difficult. Snipers and land mines can be very difficult to deal with.

Despite all the difficulties, I am in favour of NATO participation and Canadian participation in this operation. We have been trying since the war began to find a solution. Canada should not abandon Bosnia just when a real solution is becoming a possibility.

This agreement is the only means to end the war and we have a duty to support it. Although I feel we must support the Dayton agreement and the NATO implementation force, there are limits to what Canada can do. We must set clear limits on what role Canadian troops will fulfil.

I have the greatest respect for the professionalism and skill of Canadian soldiers. However, I am very concerned about the preparedness of the Canadian army to play a frontline role in a peace enforcement mission. I am concerned that the Canadian forces will not be properly equipped for the combat role they might be required to fulfil in Bosnia.

The defence review undertaken by the joint committee on Canada's defence policy clearly indicated the shortcomings in equipment of the Canadian military. Although the government has taken steps to correct many of the shortcomings, it will take time to fully modernize Canada's equipment.

I had a long talk recently with a constituent of mine who served in Bosnia and was gravely wounded. Although seriously wounded, he is very proud of the Canadian military and the job it has been doing in Bosnia. It is very satisfying to hear him talk about what he has personally gained through his military service. He feels the military is a great training ground for Canadian youth. He feels that the Canadian troops are the best trained troops in the world.

Despite this, he feels that Canada should maintain its role as peacekeepers and not become peacemakers. He is of this opinion as he is personally aware of some of the more glaring deficiencies in Canada's military equipment. For instance, the Cougar armed vehicles that Canada was using in Bosnia were purchased in 1980 as training vehicles. In his opinion, they do not provide adequate armour and the targeting system on the gun is not very effective. In his opinion also, the flak vests do not provide adequate protection and are inferior to modern vests.

Personally, Canada can best contribute by providing support troops and humanitarian relief. Canada should provide the support it is best equipped to provide and leave the provision of combat troops to countries best equipped for that role.

In previous peacekeeping missions, such as in Namibia, Canada provided logistics and support personnel.

In peacekeeping operations in the Middle East Canada provided communication troops and logistics support to United Nations peacekeeping operations. Another option would be to provide engineers and assistance in demining operations as Canada did in Cambodia. Another option would be to provide medical support to the implementation force in the form of field hospitals.

The resettlement of a large number of refugees will place an enormous strain on United Nations humanitarian agencies. Canada could provide support to resettlement and reconstruction efforts in Bosnia.

I emphasize that the most valuable contribution Canada could make to the implementation force would be to provide support troops in the areas of communication, logistics and medicine. I also emphasize that I am in favour of supporting the implementation force. We have a moral duty to support the peace efforts in Bosnia, and our troops will be up to any job they may be asked to perform.

[Status Of Women, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 25 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women outlined its concern with regard to women's economic status, specifically, various aspects of their paid and unpaid work.

Could the Secretary of State for the Status of Women please inform the House what the government is doing to improve the economic status for women?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments about the auto industry in Canada and point out some facts about it.

In 1994, $44 billion worth of vehicles and $20 billion worth of parts were produced in Canada. Producing $44 billion worth of vehicles in Canada employed 58,000 Canadians. Canadians across the country are involved in the industry. There is a Volvo plant in Halifax, many plants in Quebec and Ontario, and truck manufacturers in British Columbia. The vehicle parts manufacturing industry involves over 750 companies employing 82,000 Canadians.

I am sure that Canadians employed in these companies would like to know the hon. member and his party are supporting their jobs. I get the feeling from what I have heard in the House that their support is only for the oil refining industry and not for the workers of Canada and the Canadian industry. I wonder if the hon. member has any comments.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, many questions have been raised about the legislation now before the House. In some cases the debate has obscured what really is at stake. I would like therefore to try to answer some of the questions to give members a clear picture of the issue.

First, we have heard about the harm MMT causes to pollution control equipment in vehicles. Does this not have a plus side? Ethyl corporation is the producer of MMT. According to this company the use of MMT allows less intensive refining, thereby reducing emissions from the refineries. Ethyl corporation also maintains that MMT reduces tailpipe emissions of nitrogen oxide by up to 20 per cent and lowers toxic benzene emissions. If so, what is the point of banning such a useful additive?

Let us take the question of refining. It is true that MMT allows less intensive refining. In 1992 a report was prepared for Ethyl Canada. It indicated that if the additive were banned Canadian refineries would emit 40 to 50 tonnes more of nitrogen oxide per annum and 34 to 43 more kilotonnes of carbon dioxide. Those amounts represent 0.0025 per cent of our yearly emissions of nitrogen oxide and 0.01 per cent of our carbon dioxide emissions. Such slight increases are clearly minuscule.

What then about emissions from vehicle tailpipes? The data collected by Ethyl corporation showed an average reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions with MMT of up to 20 per cent. But the figures were for a test fleet of well maintained vehicles, whereas the actual Canadian cars are not on average as well maintained. If we put the findings into the context of the current Canadian cars, another analysis indicates that MMT causes a much smaller reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, no more than about 5 per cent.

As for toxic benzene emissions, these should not increase as a result of the banning of MMT. Gasoline can be refined to limit its benzene content. This past July the Minister of the Environment announced that she intended to regulate benzene levels in gasoline to a maximum of one per cent per volume. The regulations would also limit any increase in the amount of aromatics in gasoline.

MMT has been used as an octane enhancer in gasoline, but the oil refining industry has various options for replacing it. These options should still limit the benzene content. For example, the refining process could be changed to produce higher octane gasoline constituents. Along with or instead of that, other octane enhancers are available such as ethyl and MTBE.

This raises another question: Are we banning MMT to promote the use of ethanol? The answer to that is no. Ethanol is only one option for replacing the octane now provided by MMT. There are other options available, and it is up to the petroleum industry to make that choice.

What about the financial costs? Some wonder whether MMT removal would place a heavy financial burden on the oil industry or consumers. According to the industry's own estimates, the cost would translate to an increase of approximately 0.1 cents to 0.24 cents per litre, a minor amount, especially considering the normal day to day price fluctuations we see at the fuel pump in the order of a few cents per litre.

Other questions have been raised about the studies that provide the basis for the legislation. Why, it is asked, are we accepting the word of the auto industry, which is surely an interested party in the dispute. Why do we not make use of independent studies? The fact

is there have been no independent studies to determine the effect of MMT on emissions control systems. The research has been sponsored either by the auto makers or by Ethyl for the oil producers.

Some would ask why Environment Canada has not sponsored or conducted its own research. The department has sought technical opinions from two outside experts, one of whom was called on by both industries to participate in joint discussions. Both experts agreed that we do not have conclusive data but that MMT tends to affect emissions performance and increase costs.

To go further and conduct a government study of the issue would simply use up taxpayers' dollars and delay the introduction of new pollution control technology into Canada. We cannot afford to do that. Both industries have done their work and studied the issue. It is now time for a decision. Some might ask why that must be a government decision; why not leave it to the industries concerned to arrive at their solution? That is exactly what we have been trying to do for more than two years, but so far that approach has not succeeded.

Senior officials from four federal departments have met with representatives of the oil and auto industries. I would stress this about four federal departments because the previous speaker suggested we should be talking among the different departments and getting answers. This minister has spoken to and worked with four federal departments. More recently the Minister of the Environment attempted personally to negotiate an agreement. All these efforts have failed. We have no alternative but to legislate the necessary changes.

Still another question concerns actions on MMT in the United States. In the last months we have seen moves to reintroduce its use there. Most recently, this past October 20, a United States Court of Appeal decision ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to grant Ethyl corporation registration for the use of its MMT additive in unleaded gasoline.

Why are we banning MMT in Canada when the United States seems to be lifting its almost 20-year old ban on MMT? After all, part of the argument made against MMT is that we must harmonize our emissions control approach with that of the Americans. Are we not in danger of remaining out of step if we pass the legislation?

MMT prospects in the United States remain cloudy. The EPA could appeal the October 20 ruling or attempt other legal action. Major refineries might be reluctant to adopt MMT until uncertainties are resolved about the health effects associated with widespread use of the additive. Furthermore, the auto industry could launch its own challenge.

Even if none of that happens, about one-third of the U.S. gasoline market including California requires reformulated gasoline to meet more stringent air quality requirements. MMT is still not allowed in reformulated gasoline, which can be expected to claim a growing share of the U.S. market in the coming years as the country moves toward cleaner fuel.

California has gone so far as to expressly prohibit the use of MMT as a gasoline additive. This U.S. state is a world leader in emission control strategies. The example it sets is widely followed throughout North America and beyond. We should carefully consider the approach of California. It could well become the benchmark for tomorrow.

Another question asked is what is the rush. Why do we not wait for the doubts to resolve themselves? Why should we intervene now when the issue is still unclear and evolving? The answer is that the issue will never be settled to the entire satisfaction of both the auto and oil industries. Doubts are bound to persist, but there is sufficient evidence now to make an informed decision. This the two industries have been unable to do themselves, even though we gave them plenty of time in which to do it. The voluntary approach has failed so we must be prepared to turn to legislation to achieve a solution.

For those who have raised doubts and questions, I have some questions myself. In a time of budgetary constraints can we justify spending government money to duplicate studies already carried out by the private sector? Can we justify a delay in introducing state of the art emission control technology in Canada? Can we justify the extra expense consumers will bear if MMT continues to be used as an additive in Canada? Would there be considerable cost for industry or consumers if MMT is banned? Would there be a notable harmful environmental impact? Is MMT likely to have a place in the cleaner fuels of the future? After more than two years of discussion is there any likelihood that the industries concerned could reach agreement in the near future on MMT use? Is there any real alternative left except legislation?

I believe that the answer to all these questions is self-evident. Equally obvious is that the time has come for Parliament to exercise its obligation and legislate an end to the use of manganese based additives in gasoline. That is what Bill C-94 does. The measure is pro-environmental, pro-consumer, pro-investment and pro-business. It is time for the House to face the facts and pass the legislation.

[Petitions, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I also have thousands of signatures from across Canada on the subject of crimes of violence. The petitions are part of a petition, begun by Mrs. Priscilla de Villiers, which has already collected over three million signatures.

The petitioners ask Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against a person are abhorrent to society and ask the government to continue to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act of Canada accordingly.

[Petitions, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two petitions signed by over 100 residents of Hamilton and nearby towns on the subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The petitioners request Parliament to ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be retained without changes and enforced in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding of suicide or euthanasia.

[Committees Of The House, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 5, 1995, the committee has considered Bill C-78, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

[Quebec Referendum, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Hamilton Mountain are very concerned about the referendum campaign in Quebec.

In countless conversations with my constituents many have expressed a strong desire to see Canada remain united. They want Quebecers to remain within Canada so that they do not lose the benefits of belonging to one of the world's most prosperous and successful countries. We want them as members of the Canadian family to enjoy all the privileges that entails.

As a united country, we have managed to build a prosperous and progressive society. Both Canada and Quebec are better off united.

On behalf of the residents of Hamilton Mountain, I would like to appeal to Quebecers to choose Canada and vote no on October 30.

[Customs, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Customs has a difficult challenge at this time of year with a higher number of travellers. They have to enforce the laws against smuggling and other illegal activities at the border and at the same time they have to facilitate the movement of honest travellers and business transactions.

What is the Minister of National Revenue doing to meet this challenge more effectively?

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for getting this bill successfully through committee and back into the House. As a member of the committee I know we worked very hard to make the bill suitable for everybody in Canada and easily adaptable to the desires of most people.

I would like to refer to a letter I received by fax today. This letter was sent to the Minister of Justice from the Federation of Medical Women of Canada and states: "The Federation of Medical Women of Canada support the gun control legislation Bill C-68 now being debated and voted on by Parliament".

The letter goes on to state that in 1990 Statistics Canada reported 1,400 deaths per year involving firearms. Research has shown that the risk of homicide and suicide is greater for people who live in houses with firearms. The federation also states: "We view domestic violence as a social and health issue which requires an effective preventative approach with a combination of education and legislation. As an organization, we recognize that we have a role to play".

It is about the role to play that I would like to make a further comment. I am pleased that most Canadians are not the source of the problem for which the law is geared. This makes Canada unique. We have an abundance of law-abiding citizens but an additional attribute of Canadians is that even Canadians who are not directly affected do share a common sense of responsibility for the welfare of others.

To those who oppose the bill on the basis that they are good citizens and need no laws, I appeal to their higher sense of responsibility for they could make true models for all others. They could accept the bill as it is, respect it and set a model for those who are not law-abiding citizens. I am asking all who oppose the bill to act as good citizens and accept their responsibility and do what the bill asks.