Dave Chatters

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I looked forward to this debate for some weeks, having heard the Prime Minister say that he promised a full debate in the House of Commons before any decision was made in regard to this matter. I can only say that I was extremely disappointed to find out in the last couple of days that the whole debate was to be a fraud, a sham, that the decisions have already been made, not only to commit soldiers but how many soldiers would be committed.

I suppose five years from now the auditor general will be able to tell us what the operation cost, because the Minister of National Defence, the finance department and the government have no idea what will cost, or at least they are not willing to share it with us.

The government knows what the command structure will be for the Russian forces there and who will be in charge of those forces, but they do not know yet who will be in command of the Canadian Armed Forces and what the command structure will be. That does not give one great confidence. In addition, there is the unmitigated arrogance of members across the way to taunt us on this very serious matter, this insult to democracy we have witnessed all day.

I can say that the Reform Party has every bit as much concern as anybody on that side of the House for the suffering and the atrocities that are taking place in the former Yugoslavia. However, our primary concern must be for our Canadian sons and daughters. My concern is that the government would send my son and his colleagues into the theatre of war without properly equipping them and without proper command. I think that is truly atrocious.

We have simply asked from the beginning of this whole debate that the government and the ministers lay before Parliament a proposal that would clearly lay out the Canadian criteria, the mandate for the mission. We have also asked that the government lay out the command structure and how our Canadian soldiers and commanders would fit into that structure.

As we have heard before in previous debates on this issue, there were great concerns that we were one of the major forces in the peacekeeping effort in the former Yugoslavia and that we had

absolutely no input into the decisions made concerning those forces. We really do not want to be in that situation again. We want to be able to make decisions and be part of that command structure.

We also asked that the government lay before Parliament for debate the rules of engagement. What happens when some of these war criminals are arrested and taken into custody? What happens when our Canadian soldiers are face to face with those individuals and perhaps need to shoot somebody to enforce the mandate they have been given?

I do not think we have heard anything on any of these issues. We have questioned the business of the length of the commitment. We have heard 12 months and yet we hear that at the end of 12 months this mandate is to be handed over to some fictitious organization and that our soldiers will be withdrawn and the authority transferred to others.

It is unbelievable that they can go into the situation that exists there now and in 12 months they can have democratic elections and that we can have some kind of a government structure in there to turn this whole situation over to.

We have heard again from our members the problems our peacekeepers have already faced in the former Yugoslavia such as our soldiers not having enough combat helmets. They certainly do know which way to wear them, front or back, but if they do not have them it is difficult to put them on either way.

We have also heard about the armoured personnel carriers that were rolling coffins our soldiers were riding around in and the efforts to armour them to provide safe transport for our soldiers. After that they were so heavy they did not have enough power to get to the top of a hill. There are all kinds of horror stories, and that was a peacekeeping role. Clearly the members opposite do not seem to understand the difference. This is not a peacekeeping role. This is a combat role.

I believe we have asked a lot of reasonable questions that the government would bring forward on this debate and that we could debate and we could have discussion. We had hoped Parliament might have a chance to have a free vote on the issues debated and that members could make a democratic decision on behalf of their constituents based on that vote.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Well, I am sure he would not choose you to be his Minister of National Defence, as well.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Well, the minister does not give one great cause for optimism. I will put it that way.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate because I have somewhat of a unique position in the whole issue, having a son in the Canadian Armed Forces who could end up as part of this mission and possibly be one of those who could come back in a body bag if this thing turns into a disaster.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a number of questions.

I cannot remember when I have heard such a gross distortion of facts as we have just heard. Perhaps it is as a result of overexposure to manganese.

Does the member not believe that officials and experts in the Department of Health are competent and reliable? Has she read the blues from when Health Canada appeared as a witness before the committee and on several different occasions clearly stated manganese in fuels does not present any health hazard to Canadians? That is clear. It is written down and there for her to see.

The other comment I have is a return to the red herring of ethanol. The member should check the evidence presented by witnesses. Every manufacturing and refining witness that appeared before us said ethanol is not an alternative, it will not replace MMT.

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

Madam Speaker, for some reason the member for Davenport does not seem to remember what went on in committee.

The evidence was very suspect. The pictures of the sparkplugs which he referred to were two different types of sparkplugs. The witnesses told us they were exactly the same sparkplugs run in the same engine and all the rest of it. On the tailpipe emission issue, a government member was clearly confused and had some real doubt as to the authenticity of the data before him and what they were suggested to mean.

Without any question, the evidence is suspect at best and certainly is not enough on which to base the decision to ban MMT. The evidence simply is not there. The bill is an embarrassment to the country and the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to comment on that because truly we are beginning to see the real motivation for the legislation. It is a political motivation.

I am not responding to any lobby. I met with both sides on the issue. I listened to the evidence from both sides. We did extensive

research into that evidence. The evidence is not there to support banning MMT. It simply is not there.

Certainly to suggest that by not banning MMT it will create a loss of jobs in the auto industry is a red herring. Cars will certainly continue to be built where they are being made today.

I will say one thing. If there are job losses to be incurred because of the issue, they will not be in the auto industry; they will be in the manufacture of MMT. That plant will close down and those jobs will be lost in Canada. They will be gone.

The member has the facts just a little mixed up. We are accused of being overcome by the lobby of Ethyl corporation and that there is some kind of evil corporation from the U.S. which is not even Canadian. Where are the head offices of every member of the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association? They are no more Canadian than Ethyl is, quite frankly. If the member is concerned about job losses, let us be realistic and fair. They will not be in the auto industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-94.

We introduced the amendment simply to allow time for the topic to be studied and assessed in light of what has happened in the U.S. and to avoid embarrassment for the government and the country.

The move to ban MMT at this time clearly has little support in evidence. Everyone on the committee, including the government members, raised substantive doubts on the validity of the evidence.

The presentation of the previous speech we heard was very well done. Nevertheless it was a presentation that again accepts unquestionably the evidence provided by the auto manufacturers in spite of the fact that they refused to table any of those studies for us to look at.

We are told that the minister intervened personally to try and bring about a settlement on this issue. I would question how the minister could intervene personally to negotiate a settlement on this issue when she refused to meet with one of the parties involved. In spite of several attempts by that side, that party in the dispute, the minister refused to meet with them.

The member says she personally intervened to try and bring about a settlement. What hogwash. A settlement cannot be brought about by only meeting with one side. Again she says they have had plenty of time to settle the dispute, that the government has given ample time to do that.

In the 1993 campaign the Liberal party, before it became the government, committed in its red book to ban MMT if an agreement was not reached. In the dispute the motor vehicle manufacturers lost all will to negotiate any kind of agreement because it was there in writing: if an agreement was not reached, the government was prepared to ban MMT.

We again hear how there is no time to let the National Research Council or the Department of the Environment conduct independent tests. There is this urgency because of the technology on the 1996 cars. The 1996 cars are here. They are on the market. They are being sold. The OBD II system is onboard. It is functioning and has not been disconnected. Why are we in such a terrible rush?

Yesterday we heard from the member for Davenport that if these OBD II warning lights were disconnected and the system was malfunctioning, it would somehow contribute greatly to more pollution and would be a health hazard for Canadians. My response to that is: What about the millions and millions of cars on our roads that are pre-1996 and do not have OBD II systems and seem to be functioning quite well? This OBD II technology is not vital to the operation of a car. Whether or not it functions is not how we judge the pollution that is coming from the car. They are simply warning devices. They have no effect on the pollution produced from the tailpipe of that car.

There is not that great a rush and we do have time to do that testing. It is important in the interests of this country to wait. Certainly if MMT is allowed to be used again in the United States in the coming year, this bill and this movement by our government will truly be embarrassing. Certainly it will be embarrassing to the country to have the Minister of the Environment go down in history as the minister who passed a bill to increase ground level ozone and smog. It is truly ludicrous.

We have introduced the amendment to appeal to the common sense of the House to let the bill rest somewhere at least for a couple of months or a year. Let us do some independent testing to verify the evidence. Let us wait and see what happens in the U.S. so we can truly move toward harmonization of fuel, an objective the Minister of Industry clearly stated in the House as being crucial.

Whatever happens in the U.S. and however small an amount of MMT is or is not allowed in, to ban MMT in Canada is to move away from the goal of harmonization and not toward it. It only makes good common sense to wait until we see what happens and to do independent testing so that we have concrete evidence one way or the other.

Certainly this party supports the banning of MMT if it can be shown in independent testing that it is a problem. Ethyl corporation and the petroleum refining industry stated in committee that they are perfectly willing to withdraw the product from the market if independent evidence shows that it is detrimental. That is certainly a more reasonable position than the one presented by the government.

[Petitions, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of the citizens of the community of Athabasca.

The petitioners request that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, that the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code which forbids the counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions concerning the member's presentation.

He stated that this issue has gone on for some time. I would accept that. I heard the suggestion that the two sides were unable to reach a conclusion. I would ask him how he could realistically expect the two sides to ever come to any agreement after the minister made this statement, prior to October 1993, that she was prepared to ban the use of MMT. How can he realistically expect the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Association to continue to bargain in good faith after that statement was made and it was clear what would happen if no agreement was achieved?

This member in committee clearly stated that he was no expert in these matters. We heard evidence presented before the EPA and two court challenges in the U.S. that there has been significant failure of OBD technology in the U.S. There is just as high a failure rate there without MMT as there is in Canada. This evidence was presented by experts in the court as well as before the EPA. Even his own members on the committee expressed serious doubts as to the validity of the evidence. Why does he then as a layman accept unquestionably the evidence provided by MMT as to catalytic converter problems and all the rest of it?

Finally, why does the member insist that this has no implications on trade or that it is not a trade matter when clearly section 1209 of the energy chapter of the draft agreement on internal trade reached with the provinces states that no party shall prohibit or hinder access to its petroleum markets or its petroleum product markets? How then can this bill not affect trade?