Julian Reed

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there has been so much misinformation delivered to this Chamber on the subject of MMT that it is very hard to know where to start to answer it. I will make some comments in response to the member for Chicoutimi by starting at the bottom and working up to the earlier comments.

The member said that the government should be soliciting the opinion of the provinces before it proceeds with a bill of this kind. I remind the hon. member that the opinion and the co-operation of the provinces are absolutely essential for any kind of ethanol production in any province of this country.

In Ontario when the government brought in the ethanol biomass bill, it was essential that the province of Ontario participate in that project, which it did. When ethanol comes to Quebec, which it will do-and I wonder what position my friends from the Bloc will take when a huge industrial complex is built in Quebec-it will require the co-operation and the opinion of the province of Quebec, just like any other part of the country. The opinion of the provinces is not only desirable, it is absolutely essential.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi talked about Ontario factories producing ethanol. We should set the record straight on that one too. There is one factory producing ethanol in Ontario and it produces about half of the ethanol that is produced across Canada at the present time. Much of that ethanol is used for cosmetic, medical and industrial purposes. Only a very small percentage of it goes into motor fuel, even though the demand for ethanol blended gasoline is growing quite quickly. As a result, there is a deficit. We are actually importing the ethanol blend in order to satisfy the demand.

The two new plants that are going up in Ontario, a 66 million litres a year plant in Cornwall and a 150 million litres a year plant in Chatham, will multiply the amount of ethanol produced many, many times. It will only begin to satisfy the demand. The hon. member suggested that somehow Ontario was gaining some undue advantage here and that is not so.

With regard to the health aspect of manganese, the health ministry has declined to approve or to call manganese a noxious material of one sort or another. It does not matter whether the health ministry does or does not, what matters is that the use of the alternative, that is, oxygenates of one sort or another in gasoline, will dramatically lower the emissions of carbon monoxide. It is not a matter of whether or not manganese is noxious; what matters is if it can be replaced with something that will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the internal combustion engine, then it is a radical step forward.

This government set out with a goal and a commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2004 by 20 per cent from 1988 levels. The inclusion of 10 per cent ethanol in gasoline reduces carbon monoxide by 30 per cent. It exceeds the target for that particular emission. I do not have the figures on what percentage of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the internal combustion engine but it is significant.

Some misinformation has been put forward to this House on what has happened in the United States and what the American experience has been. To set the record straight, nearly 20 years ago the Environmental Protection Agency outlawed the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States. A year or so ago the supreme court in the United States ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its mandate. The word came back to us that the United States was ready to embrace MMT generally across the board. It has not happened.

If we talk to the refiners in the United States they will tell us they are no longer interested in using MMT even though they have the authority now to go ahead and put it to environmental tests. A number of states have outlawed the use of MMT. If we are talking about harmonizing motor fuel between Canada and the United States, the harmony will only come when MMT is no longer in Canadian gasolines.

A statement was made about nitrous oxide emissions, NOx as it is called, that taking MMT out could cause an increase of up to 20 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions. The question one has to ask is, how much is in there to begin with? The fact is motor fuel produces very little nitrous oxide. Even a 20 per cent increase, which has been debatable depending on whose statistics are used, but let us say it is 20 per cent, if it is 20 per cent of nearly nothing, it is still nearly nothing.

My hon. friend from Chicoutimi also talked about who it is who supports the removal of MMT. There are about 2.3 million members of the Canadian Automobile Association across Canada and the CAA has declared its support for the elimination of MMT in gasoline. Yes, the auto manufacturers certainly support the elimination of MMT. They came to the committee that I have the honour to sit on and delivered the evidence right there as to what an oxide of manganese does to the emission control systems in internal combustion engines.

There are new emission control systems now. We have to contend with the effects on these new control systems. If we do not get rid of MMT, then there is no point going ahead with these very sophisticated, very much improved emission control systems.

In conclusion, what we are dealing with here, the lobby to keep MMT, is simply addressing the last vestiges of kicks from a dinosaur whose day came and now has gone.

[Road Safety, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.

Canada ranks fifth among developed countries in road safety. There are some rather troubling statistics. In 1995, 3,300 people died. Another 250,000 suffered injuries. Forty-five per cent of those who died were driving while drunk.

How will the minister's recently announced road safety strategy achieve the goal of making Canada's roads the safest in the world?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, methylcyclopentadinyl manganese tricarbonyl is what we are talking about this afternoon. There have been a lot of myths and purported evidence delivered in this debate today.

I want to pay tribute to the Hon. Ralph Ferguson, the former member of Parliament for Lambton-Middlesex, who actually spearheaded the process of getting oxygenates into gasoline and MMT out. This process began long before I had the honour of being elected to the House. This bill should be attributed to Ralph Ferguson because of the work he did and the evidence he produced. He started the ball rolling and elicited the enthusiasm of this member, at least, to get on the ball to discover that we could actually do something positive with motor fuel.

It is not the question of whether manganese is toxic. There is some evidence which shows it is, but our health ministry has not declared it to be a toxin. What appeals to me about phasing out MMT is that the replacement that can be used probably provides for us the largest single window of air quality improvement that we are going to have during this session of Parliament.

By replacing MMT as an octane enhancer with oxygenates we will reduce the carbon monoxide emissions from all our automobiles, whether they have good emission controls or no emission controls, by 30 per cent and we will reduce carbon dioxide by approximately 15 per cent. The previous speaker, my friend from the Reform Party, talked about nitrous oxide emissions being increased, possibly up to 20 per cent if that were to take place.

If the member will look at the evidence he will find that there is also evidence which demonstrates there is no increase in nitrous oxide emissions. But if there were 20 per cent, 20 per cent of practically nothing is practically nothing. I would suggest to him that some of the evidence which was brought before the committee really pushed the envelope.

Thirty-nine cities in the United States have mandated fuel which contains oxygenates for the simple reason that they are concerned about ground level ozone. Anybody who lives in a metropolitan area in Canada, and particularly in metropolitan Toronto, will remember last summer and the summer before that during the hot weather ground level ozone warnings were being issued on a daily basis. Ground level ozone now has been studied to the point where we can predict by its intensity how many additional admissions there will be to hospitals. We can predict how many additional deaths from respiratory failure there will be because of ground level ozone. Does it not make simple sense to do everything we can to reduce those occurrences?

Getting rid of the manganese in gasoline and getting oxygen in its place is exactly what will accomplish that, whether evidence may show whether it is toxic or not. At this time we can leave that debate to one side.

There is overwhelming evidence from a health point of view and from the positive possibilities that are presented-

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Ethyl Corporation, an American chemical manufacturer, has recently launched a trade dispute under NAFTA regarding Bill C-29, the manganese based fuel additives act. Ethyl claims that the passing of Bill C-29 constitutes discriminatory trade action.

We must not forget that above all this bill is about the health of Canadians. The effect of MMT on exhaust emissions has serious health implications for all Canadians. We must also remember that MMT is not used in American gasoline due to health concerns, yet this company is prepared to attempt to force the hand of the Canadian government.

We do not need to import a foreign made octane enhancer. We can replace MMT with domestically produced and renewable fuels which are safe both for human health and the environment.

I urge all of my colleagues to continue their efforts to ensure Bill C-29 receives swift passage and becomes law.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, according to my information, no murders have ever been committed by anyone released under section 745.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he knows how many of those who were released under section 745 went on to commit murder again.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, about three days ago my office received a fax from a young man from New Brunswick who said please support Bill C-33. He is a declared heterosexual who spent a summer with a group of people, the majority of whom are homosexual. He said in his fax that he was discriminated against by that group.

The bill talks about sexual orientation, not about homosexual orientation or heterosexual orientation. It simply states sexual orientation. It seems anything we put the word sex into these days perks up everybody's ears for some reason.

There has been a lot of debate about the threat to the family from the bill. Do we think for one minute the family will ever be threatened by anything done in this Parliament or in any legislature around the world? The family is a natural occurrence. It has come together for thousands and thousands of years for obvious reasons, for mutual support, comfort and procreation. The word family simply does not have to be defined; it assumes a heterosexual family.

We can call two people of the same sex living together a family, pretend it is a family for those purposes. Think back to the historic family and why it exists. The family is not in jeopardy from anything that can be legislated or argued in the House. We should make that clear. My family will continue for generations to come, I hope, as it has for generations past. It has survived religious persecution to the Spanish Inquisition and everything in between, including Oliver Cromwell, and it still exists and it is still strong.

I ask those people who feel their families are threatened to look at themselves, at their own values and deal with them personally.

This country was founded by people who came here from Europe, by the Judaeo Christian ethic. The values of that Judaeo Christian ethic, found in most of the great religions of the world, were the foundation. In that ethic is taught tolerance, understanding and forgiveness. While some of the pronouncements of the Bible do not approve of certain things, if we read the whole thing it states very clearly that the judgment of those things belongs not to us at all; we are admonished not to stand in judgment.

My late father grew up in cabbagetown in Toronto and became a member of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews during the years when it was not a very popular thing to do. How ludicrous it seems that there was the same kind of fear at that time as has been expressed by some members of this House today. On Sunnyside Beach in Toronto there were signs which read: No dogs or Jews allowed. He became part of that movement which brought society a little further forward and brought to an end that open discrimination against Jews in Toronto.

This bill, this particular amendment to the human rights act simply adds one more step in the progress of a country that is looked upon as being generous, tolerant and appreciative of the other person. It is right and fitting that we should support this and not succumb to the fear that is being generated sometimes in the name of religion or particularly in the name of religion.

I respect everyone's point of view on this. I happen to have one point of view and my friends, some in my own caucus and some across the way, have another point of view. For me, this is not a moral issue. It is simply an issue of human rights. It is simply an issue of the gradual progress of our society toward something a little better than it was yesterday. There is nothing we can do in this House that is going to be threatening to any one of our families.

If we talk about sexual orientation, and refer to homosexuals which some members have done specifically although the bill works both ways, I would simply like to ask my friends: Who are homosexuals anyway? Who are they? They can be your brother, your sister, your second cousin, a friend, or a relative of the family down the street.

The argument is always made that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. If those who believe that would talk to some homosexuals for a while, they would find that it is not the case. To choose that lifestyle is not necessarily the popular way to go. Homosexuals do not represent a majority of the population. As a matter of fact they represent a very small minority.

Indeed the quality of our civilization will be judged in years and generations to come as to how we treat our minorities. A few hundred years ago the attitude toward someone who had mental problems or who was born with disabilities was very different from what it is today. There were places called insane asylums. I think every one of us would find it offensive today to consider that those were proper things to maintain.

We changed our thinking through the accumulation of knowledge and through understanding to try to-

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to respond to the question of seduction since we are both here seducing each other. I want to reinforce the fact that it was an era of mutual seduction. It worked both ways. I will leave a little story with my hon. friend to show an example of that.

In 1977 I ran in an election in Ontario. One of the issues my party brought to the fore in no uncertain terms was the deficit in Ontario at that time by the Tory government. We made speeches in the House prior to the election being called on the subject of government waste, excessive government spending, the largesse that was going on hither and yon which was piling up and accumulating the debt.

When we got into the election my leader hammered this message out for the first couple of weeks until the premier was asked about

the comments that were being made. He answered the reporters with two words: "Dr. No". That was the end of it.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

My hon. friend from the Reform Party is alluding to the fact that my contribution will be small, and I agree, but it will be a contribution of some use.

I will dwell a little in the history of where we were, how we got to be the way we are and where we may be going. It is necessary to put this budget and previous budgets into of context to address the financial situation of the country.

In my previous incarnation as a member of the provincial legislative assembly in Ontario, I remember deficit budgeting in its infancy. Every province was guilty of deficit budgeting, as was the national government and virtually all governments in the western world.

One of our senators has described that era as one of mutual seduction, when it was a very popular thing to believe that money came from government; that somehow or another there was an infinite well which could do almost anything.

The political stripe of the government of the day really did not matter. As was described, it was simply a case of mutual seduction.

By the time the government changed in 1984 the national debt had risen to $166 billion, over a period of 14 or 15 years. Then in the following eight years the national debt climbed from approximately $166 billion to $400 billion.

There was a realization during those years that this could not go on indefinitely, that a halt had to be called, and yet there seemed to be an absence of political courage to do something until we were on the edge of precipitous financial situation not only in the country itself but in each province. Every province has gone through the same experience, as my colleagues will remember.

In 1993, when the Liberals came to power, there was a feeling of frustration, a feeling of anger among the voting population and a feeling that government was somehow incapable of getting hold of the finances of the country. Expectations were low. It was a case of whether this ship could be steered through rough waters to safe harbour.

We were very fortunate to have the gentleman who is the finance minister at the present time appointed to that position. I think it was a cup that he might rather have passed by because the position of finance minister in this country is very often the kiss of death politically.

He set out on a course and he stated his course clearly at the beginning. He would take the economy in two year short term projections with a goal ultimately of getting rid of the deficit, paying down the debt, and certainly beginning with that portion which is held offshore.

It was a recipe that some people felt could not be achieved because previous finance ministers had continuously failed to achieve the targets they had set out. My honourable friends will recall previous finance ministers as much as $10 billion off their targets.

When our finance minister began this quest there was a lot of scepticism that he would achieve it, but achieve it he did and exceed it he did. Then he brought in the next budget, and achieve it he did and exceed it he did.

Today we thankfully head down that path of reduced deficits. I am not prone to quote other people's writings when addressing the House but I think an article in the Ottawa Citizen from April 13 is worth noting: ``The federal government appears to be sitting pretty

on its deficit target for the fiscal year just ended. The finance department said Friday the deficit for the first 11 months of the year was $23.2 billion, down $4.6 billion from the same period in the previous year. The finance minister set a deficit target of $32.7 billion for the year ending March 31, 1996".

I know some of my friends in the Reform Party feel this target or this goal is spread out too far. I can tell my hon. friends that had we not done that, had we took the slash and burn direction the Reform Party wanted we could have precipitated a recession of disastrous proportions. It was a matter of walking the tightrope and balancing the situation, moving toward the targets but at the same time not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

What has that accomplished? There is a renewed confidence from the international community in Canada today. Canada is now poised for the greatest growth of all the G-7 countries. Sometimes we tend to look inward too much and we do not look out to see ourselves as other countries see us. It is useful to do that from time to time. Then we can get a picture of where we stand in relation to the people we trade with, to the people we compete with, to the people who pay their taxes in their country, and so on.

In terms of taxation I know we all feel we are taxed excessively in Canada. If we compare ourselves to other members of the G-7 it is not exactly so. There are countries whose levels of taxation, especially income tax, are even higher than those in Canada.

I would be the last person to suggest we should keep a high tax regime and I will be one of the first people to recommend to the hon. Minister of Finance that once the targets of zero deficit are achieved and we begin to pay down the national debt that it reflect in a sharing of that good fortune with the shrinking of taxation. The freeing up of money will be one of the essentials for our future.

Now that we are at the point of a deficit of 3 per cent of the gross domestic product, beginning with 5.7, it now means we are approaching that point at which our growth rate is greater than our deficit. That means the deficit can be paid down more quickly now than it could initially. That ratio is very important. However, it is important to remember that what we have tried to do is have a fair and balanced approach to what we are doing, and I am sure we have succeeded in the minds of most Canadians, although not in the minds of everyone.

We have deliberately tried not to leave segments of society out in the cold but we have tried at the same time to impose a balanced responsibility on every citizen so that we are all sharing the load. After all, we all created the load in the first place. For those of my colleagues who are probably young enough to benefit from certain kinds of government largess, we are now in a position where we have to make it right.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Lanark-Carleton. It is a privilege for me to speak to the 1996-1997 budget. If I can make some small contribution to the debate-