Peter Adams

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to part of this speech on television and I have just arrived in the House. I was under the impression that we were debating Bill C-94, the Manganese based Fuel Additives Act. I wonder if I have arrived at the wrong time.

[The Late Yitzhak Rabin, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this evening at the Beth Israel synagogue in Peterborough people of all faiths will be meeting to mourn and remember Mr. Yitzhak Rabin.

I met Mr. Rabin once. He impressed me greatly.

Israel is an extraordinarily democratic nation. The struggles of the great majority of Israelis to solve their enormous problems through the democratic process are an example to us all.

Mr. Rabin's career was a key thread in the fabric of a democratic Israel from its birth to today. He showed us the path of moderation is not a soft option. It is a tough road beset by the pitfalls and traps of extremists. It is a path often shrouded by the fogs of apathy.

Our thoughts are with Mr. Rabin's family and the state of Israel at this difficult and tragic time.

[Railway Companies, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans wants the government to require the railway companies to put lines that have been ordered abandoned up for sale.

I contend the lines have already been advertised as available for sale. The fact they have been subjected to the long abandonment process which is now in place should be seen as a clear indication the railways do not want them.

Currently there are only five line segments that fall into the category defined by the member's motion. The CP Cornwall subdivision from Soulanges, Quebec to Cornwall, Ontario was approved by the National Transportation Agency for abandonment on December 27 of this year.

The CP Chalk River subdivision from Smiths Falls to Pembroke is scheduled for abandonment on November 19 next, as are the CP Chalk River and North Bay subdivisions from Petawawa to Mattawa, Ontario. A segment of the CN Chatham subdivision between Bloomfield and Tucumseh, Ontario is to be abandoned on July 14, 1996. Finally, the agency has ordered CN to abandon the segment of the Newmarket subdivision between Barry and Longford, Ontario on September 21 next year.

It should be noted that VIA has already expressed interest in acquiring the Chatham subdivision from CN, and the Ontario government has held and is holding discussions with CN regarding the Newmarket subdivision.

As is clear even from the wording of the motion, Parliament has delegated the responsibility for regulating rail line abandonments and conveyance to the National Transportation Agency in accordance with the provisions of the National Transportation Act, 1987. Briefly, the agency's powers under the act extend to the receiving and processing of abandonment applications. The criteria for reaching an abandonment decision are set out in the act. Any line abandonment application results in an abandonment order if there is no opposition to that abandonment.

However, if there is opposition expressed by anyone, the agency must publish the actual losses incurred from the operation of the line. Based on traffic and financial information provided by the railways and evidence submitted by intervenors in writing or at public hearings, it must make a determination as to whether operation of the line is economic or uneconomic.

If the agency finds the line is economic, the application is dismissed. Where the agency finds the line is uneconomic it is then required to make a further determination as to whether there is any reasonable probability that it could become economic in the foreseeable future. If not, the agency must order abandonment. If yes, the agency must order continuation of operations over the line if it is in the public interest.

For lines ordered continued in the public interest, the agency is required to reconsider the abandonment application at least once every three years. The agency is given some discretion in fixing abandonment dates to not less that 30 days or not more than one year after the date of an abandonment order. If VIA operates over the line the abandonment date is fixed at one year after the date of the order.

The governor in council has powers under the abandonment provisions to postpone the date of abandonment if certain criteria can be satisfied. This is in addition to powers accorded under section 64, whereby the governor in council can rescind or vary any agency order, decision, rule or regulation.

As members may have noticed neither the agency, the minister nor the governor in council has power to issue orders to the railways with respect to what properties they should put up for sale and when they should do so. It has always been possible for other governments, as my colleague from Rainy River said, to take an active role in promoting the sale of a line, or even to purchase the line itself.

No other business sector or mode of transportation is subject to such strict regulation of exit as has been imposed on the railway industry. With the enactment of the Canada Transportation Act, the government hopes to place the responsibility for rail rationalization where it belongs, with the railway companies.

The decision to withdraw from a certain segment of business is a commercial decision and does not justify government intervention. For example, if a trucking firm decides it no longer wants to serve a particular city because it is losing money, it simply stops going there. Why should a railway company not have the same freedom? If a grocery chain decides it wants to close a store at a particular location and possibly open one at a more profitable location, the government does not interfere. Why should that same government prevent a railway company from doing the same thing? This government does not exist to tell competing businesses such as transportation companies how to conduct their business.

It is clear there is no overriding reason why the government cannot comply with the member's Motion 494. The member will find that the advanced publicity regarding railway rationalization plans required under the Canada Transportation Act fulfils the general intent of his motion.

I appreciate the member's interest in this important topic. We are at a stage where we are moving from one railway regime to another. There are difficulties inevitably involved with that transition.

The decisions made are very important indeed. To that extent I greatly appreciate the member's interest. However, I argue that his concerns are well met under the existing legislation.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have another petition from numerous citizens in eastern Ontario.

The petitioners point out that acts of discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians are an everyday reality in all regions of Canada and that this kind of discrimination is unacceptable in a country known for its commitment to human rights, equality and dignity for all citizens.

Therefore these petitioners call upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adapt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition from citizens of the city and county of Peterborough. The petitioners state that whereas the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord's Prayer have been included in the historic parliamentary prayer of the House of Commons since 1867; and whereas Canada was founded and built upon the principles of Christianity and a large majority of Canadians profess the Christian faith; therefore they call on the House of Commons to close the parliamentary prayer with the words "through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen" and reinstate the Lord's Prayer at the conclusion of the opening prayer.

[National Unity, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the outcome of the referendum gave us all a glimpse of the consequences that would result from the breakup of our great country.

The tiny majority won by the no side gives us an opportunity to strengthen confederation from the inside. I think that Canada is a better country with Quebec, that Quebec's culture and economy make Canada stronger, and that Quebec is stronger within Canada.

Being part of a large entity is beneficial to Quebec's economy and culture, as they are supported by both francophone and non-francophone citizens across the country. I thank all Peterborough residents who travelled to Montreal last Friday and all the people who expressed their attachment to and support for Canada during the campaign.

Let us join forces to make Canada an even greater country.

[Petitions, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the citizens of Peterborough and elsewhere in Ontario concerned about the massive spill of cyanide in the Essequibo River in Guyana, South America. They point out that the spill was the direct responsibility of a Montreal based Canadian gold mining firm called Canbior. They also point out that the safety, livelihood and well-being of some 18,000 Guyanese citizens are affected.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to direct an independent inquiry into the incident in order that the Canadian residents and citizens who have a humanitarian and an environmental responsibility in this matter are informed of the steps being taken to arrange for the adequate compensation of people affected and have steps taken to ensure that necessary measures are being taken to correct this environmental disaster.

I have a second petition on the same topic, in which the signers point out that the river in question is the largest in Guyana; that it passes through the rice producing belt of Guyana, rice constituting one of the country's main exports; and that this is one of the worst environmental disasters since the incident in Bhopal.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to intervene on behalf of the Guyanese people affected by sending a trained team of environmentalists to determine the nature and extent of the danger to residents and the environment, and to aid the Guyanese government.

[Great Lakes, October 3rd, 1995]

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

My interest in Great Lakes pollution took a great leap forward when I discovered it was causing decreased sexuality in males. My question to the minister is simple. What is she doing to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem and future generations of Adams?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the point of the member opposite. In fact to show that the legislation is worth while is to debate the amendment Reform members have put.

I was just saying that these various corporations support the legislation and the evidence we are putting forward. Then there is Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai. They all say that MMT adversely affects the sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems where the pollution control equipment of automobiles is found.

These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle's emission controls and for alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure the cleaner burning of the engines of today and tomorrow. They ensure that

automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy.

In short, these important onboard systems are the basis of anti-pollution control measures across the continent and of reduced fuel consumption in our vehicles. Therefore this onboard technology is very important technology. It is extremely important once it is installed that it works, that it does its job. The legislation is designed to make sure that technology works effectively.

Mr. Speaker, this government will not allow MMT to prevent the Canadian automotive industry from designing vehicles that do not pollute nearly as much. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to enjoy the best anti-pollution devices.

The federal government has been waiting since 1985 for the automotive and oil industries to address this situation on their own. Last October, it urged the two industries to resolve this issue between themselves before the end of 1994; otherwise, the government would be forced to intervene. The two industries, however, did not succeed in solving the problem.

We then pushed back the deadline to February 1995. Again, the problem was not solved. Well, we have been waiting long enough. The time has come for the government to take action.

If we do not act now, the federal government's vehicle emission reduction programs will be in jeopardy. We will risk missing out on major reductions in smog, carbon monoxide and hydro carbons.

If we do not act now, Canadian consumers will be prevented from taking advantage of state of the art emission reduction technologies simply because they do not have access to MMT-free gasoline.

If we do not act now, we could face the situation where automakers will be forced to turn off the onboard diagnostic systems scheduled for 1996 models because of the damage MMT causes. General Motors is already bringing models off the assembly line with some of the onboard diagnostic functions disconnected. General Motors, like the others, is no longer prepared to assume the increased warranty risks for damage caused to anti-pollution equipment. As we have said, MMT damages this delicate, expensive and very important onboard equipment.

In the end it is the Canadian motorist who will have to pay more to have his or her car maintained because of this kind of industry action. We will not let this happen. We will not allow the buck to be passed to the Canadian consumer. We will not allow anti-pollution equipment in Canada to be less effective than anti-pollution equipment in the United States.

We will not allow the competitiveness of our auto industry to be threatened. We will not allow investment and the thousands of Canadian jobs which depend on that investment to be put in jeopardy.

Resolving the MMT problem will have positive environmental effects through the use of the most sophisticated emission control technologies. This will also give Canadians the same guarantee as that enjoyed by U.S. car owners and ensure that Canadian vehicle emission control programs are in line with U.S. programs.

This means that Canadians will continue to enjoy the economic and technological benefits of an harmonized North American car pool. It also means that the Canadian automotive industry will remain competitive.

Let us be clear. The job of reducing motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just the auto industry or by just the petroleum industry or the government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution demands action by all.

The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels the engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in vehicle emission control technologies such as those offered through onboard diagnostic systems.

As for the government, it must act to reduce automobile air pollution. This is what we are doing with Bill C-94. We are taking action by putting in place a global vehicle emission control strategy including the adoption of tougher standards for exhaust systems.

To meet these standards, we are relying on state of the art emission control technologies and on the types of fuel they require. We need new anti-emission technologies such as onboard diagnostic systems to help us reduce smog as well as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. We must reduce this kind of emissions, which have a major effect on urban air quality and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Preventive action means producing goods more cleanly. It means using less energy and conserving our natural resources. It means developing and using the latest green technologies like the emission reduction technologies in today's cars and trucks.

The bill before the House is one important measure of prevention. The bill is pro-environment, pro-consumer and pro-business. Eighteen of Canada's automobile companies think that what we are doing is right. Canadians think that what we are doing is right.

MMT can no longer stand in the way of the progress we continue to make in emission controls.

Let us protect jobs. Let us protect the environment. Let us vote for the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand to speak at second reading of Bill C-94, the Manganese based Fuel Additives Act, the legislation designed to take MMT out of unleaded fuels.

If the federal government is given an opportunity to protect jobs, protect the environment, protect consumers and keep Canada on the leading edge of automotive technology all at the same time, should it take that opportunity? I would say that it should. The government will seize a chance to support technology which will help us improve fuel economy and meet our climate change objectives. We will do what we can to reduce air pollution and smog.

That is why we are taking action to remove MMT from Canadian unleaded gasoline. That is why I am proud to speak on the legislation today.

This bill will prohibit interprovincial trade in and importation of MMT, a manganese based fuel additive made in the U.S. The proposed bill will come into effect 60 days after receiving royal assent. Canada is the only country in the world where MMT is used in unleaded gas. The U.S. banned it from their unleaded fuels in 1978. Bulgaria and Argentina are the only two other countries still showing some interest in its use.

Why is MMT not used by more countries? Because it hinders the operation of anti-pollution devices found in today's cars and trucks.

Environment Canada has received and reviewed study after study after study of the effects of MMT on onboard automobile equipment. I agree with the Minister of the Environment and with Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo.