Karen Kraft Sloan

[The Environment, December 1st, 1995]

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

The UN weather agency reported this week that the hole in the earth's ozone shield covers an area twice the size of Europe. The hole grew again this year at the highest rate ever, threatening the globe with increased exposure to deadly ultraviolet radiation.

What is the Canadian government doing to prevent the deadly environmental catastrophe of ozone depletion?

[Diabetes Awareness Month, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind members of the House that November has been proclaimed Diabetes Awareness Month by the Canadian Diabetes Association.

Over one million Canadians including many members of my own family have diabetes, a major cause of premature death, blindness, kidney disease, heart disease, stroke, limb amputation and other significant health problems. The chances of having diabetes increase with age. It affects more than 13 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 65 and 74.

The Canadian Diabetes Association supports diabetes research and provides a wide range of services for and on behalf of persons with diabetes and their families. I am proud to say the federal government also plays an important role by supporting diabetes research, with the Medical Research Council of Canada being the country's largest contributor to diabetes research.

I ask the House to join with me in wishing the Canadian Diabetes Association and its many volunteers a very successful Diabetes Awareness Month.

[Canada Post, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very disturbing that pornographic and sexually explicit advertisements were delivered to several thousand households in western Atlantic Canada. This unsolicited and unaddressed material could easily be opened by children.

How does the minister responsible for Canada Post intend to prevent this disgusting material from reaching people in my constituency of York-Simcoe and other Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, I will explain to the House what is in Bill C-94 and why we are taking immediate action against MMT. I will also respond to some of the misplaced concerns expressed by members of the opposition as well as identify why the government is addressing the MMT question.

As many members are now aware, MMT is a manganese based fuel additive used to increase the octane rating of gasoline. It has been used in Canada since 1977 as a replacement for lead in unleaded gasoline. Lead was phased out of virtually all Canadian gasoline by 1990. Canada is one of the few countries that use MMT. The United States banned it from unleaded gasoline in 1978.

Gasoline containing MMT adversely impacts the operation of sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems. These OBD systems are important because they monitor the performance of emission control components in vehicles.

The auto industry has made the decision that it will no longer accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs caused by MMT related damage.

Some companies have even indicated they will disconnect the OBD systems in whole or in part and may reduce Canadian vehicle warranty coverage starting with the 1996 model year if MMT continues to be used in Canadian gasoline. That means the increased cost of maintaining these systems would be passed on directly to the Canadian consumer.

The Canadian Automobile Association is a 3.7 million member consumer advocate organization for automobile owners. During its presentation to the standing committee it articulately outlined concerns facing Canadians both environmentally and economically. It stated that MMT is a heavy metal based fuel additive. When the sensors of the OBDs are coated with the heavy metal they cannot properly detect oxygen.

It is easy to see then that when sensors give a false reading, the warning light signals the motorist and the motorist would bring the car in for unnecessary warranty covered repair work. This cost will undoubtedly be transferred to the consumer down the road in the form of higher automobile sale prices, making already difficult car purchases an impossibility for many prospective car buyers.

Because the new OBDs are an advanced system of detection that catches ignition problems as soon as they fall below standard, the CAA states that the new system of OBDs will be one of the best things that could happen to cars from an environmental perspective, and if MMT would reduce its effectiveness, CAA wholeheartedly endorses a ban on the substance.

Consumers will opt not to use MMT in their fuel. The Reform Party is against this ban. The Reform Party should remember to represent its constituents and not take the position of defending a special interest lobby group against the wishes and protection of the people of Canada.

Who is the Reform Party standing up for, Ethyl Corporation, an American based firm which is the sole manufacturer of MMT? Ethyl Corporation manufactures MMT in the U.S. and ships it to Canada.

The Reform Party claims there is no reason for this bill. It says the minister is unilaterally pushing the legislation through. This process began under the previous government, which saw the necessity to examine the MMT question.

Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both the automotive and petroleum producing industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994, otherwise the government would take action. This deadline was subsequently extended into February of this year to review automobile and petroleum industry proposals.

The matter was not resolved and so the federal government has had to step in. The result is Bill C-94. The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute and this is important to understand. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions programs we are putting into place. It could also negatively impact the automotive sector which would pass the newly incurred costs on to the Canadian consumer.

Some members of the House have gone so far as to suggest MMT creates great benefits for Canada's environment. They suggest that nitrous oxide emissions are reduced by 20 per cent when MMT is used. What they do not say is that this claim is based on data collected by Ethyl Corporation, the makers of MMT, from test cars that were driven 50,000 to 110,000 miles. This was then extrapolated to 195,000 miles.

This does not take into consideration the adverse wear and tear of the automobile which is degraded over time. Because of this it has been determined that there has been no rigorous scientific basis for applying the Ethyl Corporation's average emission values to Canada-wide projections.

When examined in the context of the current Canadian fleet, Environment Canada's analysis indicates that NOx reduction would be only about 5 per cent. This has been substantiated by the University of Waterloo institute for improvement in quality and productivity. The report also indicates that the results of a study by Ethyl Corporation on reduction of NOx emissions greatly overestimates the reductions in NOx.

The Ethyl Corporation experiments have not been shown to be representative of field vehicle use, and the scientific rigour of the experiments is uncertain.

Ethyl's research was conducted and presented by a private consultant from the U.S. When I asked about the extreme differences in statistical data between the Ethyl Corporation report and the University of Waterloo analysis, she replied: "Statistics is not an exact science. There isn't only one right way to look at a set of numbers".

As every member of the House knows, the University of Waterloo is a Canadian university whose research is of national and international acclaim. The University of Waterloo does not have a particular vested interest, being a public university. So whose interpretation of the statistics is more likely to be in the public interest?

What would the Reform Party know about scientifically proven environmental concerns? Very little. This is the same Reform Party whose member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia stated earlier in the House: "There is an awful lot of voodoo science around with respect to the effects of man made carbon dioxide on global warming". Can anyone believe this? Voodoo science?

I am continuously shocked by statements made by the Reform members who choose to ignore accepted realities. Ninety-nine of the one hundred and ninety-six living Nobel Laureate scientists along with roughly 2,000 other world scientists jointly signed an urgent warning to humanity. In their declaration they appealed to the people of the world to take immediate action to halt the accelerating damage threatening humanity's global life support systems.

I quote from their media release when I say human activities may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner we know. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided. This kind of consensus is truly unprecedented.

The urgent appeal goes on to say that no more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to revert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

The Reform Party openly scorns the leading scientists of our planet. Voodoo science? Is the Reform Party suggesting the Nobel Prize is a mystical, voodoo award?

To return to the claim by Ethyl Corporation of a 20 per cent reduction of NOx emissions, if this 20 per cent reduction claim were true, why would the people who make cars in this country be working hard to make onboard diagnostic systems so advanced if MMT fuel could do the job by itself? The reason they are working hard is simple. MMT does not provide the answers to NOx reduction that its makers claim. Let us be very clear about this.

Los Angeles has some of the worst pollution problems in North America. California has taken strong action against environmental pollutants, including a ban on the use of MMT. If MMT is what Ethyl Corporation and the Reform Party advocate as a product to reduce NOx emissions, perhaps they should consider why the state of California has acted decisively on the issue.

Canada is one of the few countries that uses MMT. While we are on the topic, some members opposite are citing a recent U.S. court hearing in favour of the Ethyl Corporation, the producers of MMT. MMT will still be banned in California and in those states that require federal reformulated gasolines to be used. That means 30 per cent of the United States will continue with the ban on the use of MMT in fuel.

Furthermore, witnesses have told the committee that given the negative consumer attitudes toward MMT it is very likely consumers will demand to use MMT free gasoline, just as the consumers have chosen to use unleaded gasoline. What is more, we have yet to see if the U.S. government will appeal the decision.

Some members opposite also quite conveniently fail to talk about what the onboard diagnostic system does and what can happen if and when MMT causes the system to fail. Onboard diagnostic systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution control systems, in particular the catalytic converter, and alert the driver to malfunctions.

If the OBD system is not working a 50 per cent reduction in the efficiency of the catalyst translates into a twofold increase in emissions compared with a properly functioning vehicle. What we are talking about is the failure of new emissions technology in automobiles resulting in increased car emissions harmful to our environment.

Let us also be clear about the economic impact of removing MMT. Some members of the House have suggested the cost would be in the billions of dollars. In fact the costs will be small for the entire petroleum industry. Estimates of the costs of MMT removal provided by the industry itself range from $50 million to $83

million per year which means an additional one-tenth to one-quarter of a cent per litre increase at the pumps.

Furthermore, likely alternatives to MMT would be produced in Canada, creating more jobs and opportunities for Canadians, whereas MMT is produced exclusively in the U.S. My question to the members of the Reform Party is why are they opposing this bill? Whose interests are they protecting?

The bill has a number of important improvements for Canadians. here are some of the key highlights of the bill. It will prohibit the import or interprovincial trade for a commercial purpose of MMT or anything containing MMT. It will give the minister the power to authorize exceptions for MMT that will not be used in unleaded gasoline subject to a monitoring requirement. Coverage of the act can be expanded by order in council to cover other manganese based substances used in automotive fuel.

The act is binding on all persons and entities including the federal and provincial governments. The enforcement tools are similar to those in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The penalties are strict. For the unauthorized import or interprovincial trade of MMT the maximum penalty on summary conviction is a $300,000 fine and/or six months in jail, and on indictment the maximum fine is $1 million and/or three years in jail. For knowingly providing false or misleading information on the importation or interprovincial trade of MMT the penalties are the same but with a maximum of five years in jail instead of three on indictment.

On conviction, as in CEPA, the court can also order an additional fine equal to the monetary benefits resulting from the offence, prohibit conduct that may lead to a repeat offence and direct the offender to notify third parties about the conviction.

In summary, we have two polarized positions on this issue. On one hand, over 20 automotive manufacturers, competitors, independently came to the same conclusion that MMT is harmful to OBD systems on their cars, OBD systems that are necessary to reduce emissions. The CAA, a consumer advocate organization, supports this position. A report from the University of Waterloo supports its claims with regard to NOx emissions. It has undertaken a considerable amount of work to prepare its support of the ban. If MMT really reduced NOx in the quantities suggested by Ethyl Corporation it could reduce emissions for the automotive manufacturers for free.

On the other hand, we have an American company, the sole manufacturer of MMT, holding an opposing position. I remind the House that Ethyl Corporation fought against the reduction of lead in gasoline in 1984.

This legislation is for Canadians. It is to protect Canadians from increases in automobile prices. It is legislation to protect our environment by ensuring the effective use of new, advanced onboard diagnostic systems for cleaner exhaust emissions. It is my commitment to the people of York-Simcoe for a better community.

[Excise Tax Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my introduction has tremendous relevance for the importance of the magazine industry in Canada. It is really unfortunate the members of the Reform Party do not understand how valuable the Canadian magazine industry is to the country.

Compared with the United States, Canada may be small in numbers, but Canadians everywhere have shown that they are big in heart and are capable of creating a mighty roar for Canada. The Canadian magazine industry is an important and vital contributor in defining us and explaining who we are. In comparison to the American industry it also is small in number in terms of its potential circulation but it is very important to Canadians. It represents a wide diversity of interest and must be supported.

Magazines have two clients, the reader and the advertiser. Over the past 30 years-

[Excise Tax Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in Montreal on Friday, October 27 Canadians from coast to coast shared their love for Canada and Quebec. My riding of York-Simcoe sent six buses and turned away 200 more. In other ways, in rallies and vigils and in presentations of song and drama, they celebrated Canada.

[Quebec Referendum, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the efforts of the no side during the referendum campaign.

The federalists have been responsible. We have presented a dream to Canadians. Our dream is of pluralism and tolerance. We want a Canada where our children learn to work together rather than build walls and become isolationists.

As of today we are witnessing a massive outpouring of love and support for the people of Quebec for a united Canada. People from all over Canada, including my riding of York-Simcoe, will be flocking by the thousands to Montreal on Friday to show their support for unity.

David Ducharm and Andrew Douris along with many other school children presented me with a petition calling for Quebec to remain part of Canada.

Better opportunity for our children and for the greater good of humanity is what federalism offers. For the sake of our children, for the love of our children, let us keep Canada together.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Part of the misunderstanding of the bill arises from the myths created in the recent Ontario election. Employment equity is not about quotas. Moreover, this bill specifically states that employers are not required to hire unqualified members or create new positions to satisfy the legislation's requirements.

The federal legislation takes a human resource planning approach to employment equity, relying on consultation and negotiation to achieve workplace goals. I know about this approach firsthand, as I worked as a consultant to the Ontario universities in developing training materials for employment equity.

Another prevalent and incorrect assumption is that the federal employment equity is a carbon copy of American affirmative action policy and furthermore that Americans are now rejecting it out of hand. Neither belief is true. Let us start with the most controversial features of the U.S. affirmative action program, set asides. Set asides require that a specific percentage of government contract funds go to minority contractors. These are mandatory preferences dictated by law. Polls show that although most Americans favour affirmative action, they are opposed to this kind of preferential treatment. I want to set the record straight on this point. There is absolutely no equivalent to set asides in the Canadian approach to employment equity. They simply do not exist and have never existed.

Let us look at the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. Some people have a vague notion that this decision somehow struck down federal affirmative action programs, but let us look again. First, this decision was about set asides, which do not exist in Canada. Moreover, the Supreme Court decision did not strike down any federal laws or dismantle contracting policies, nor did it decide they were unconstitutional. The court simply requires federal affirmative action programs to meet the same standards of review already in place for state and municipal affirmative action programs, namely that the program serve a compelling interest and that it be narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose.

The bottom line is that no program was struck down by this decision. On the contrary, seven out of the nine justices confirmed that sometimes affirmative action is indeed required to counter the effects of systemic discrimination.

President Clinton pointed out that leading economists and distinguished American business leaders report their companies are stronger and their profits larger because of the advantages of workforce diversity. They insist that regardless of legislation they will pursue affirmative action because it is the key to future economic success in the global marketplace. Indeed, as I stated earlier, it is the Canadian corporations and the private sector that are very strong proponents of employment equity. The Reform Party purports to be a party for business special interest groups, so why can it not listen to the leaders in the private sector?

Seeking solutions to employment inequality is precisely what Bill C-64 is about. The objective of our legislation is to ensure equality and justice for all. Canadians have an unwavering faith in values of fairness and equity. We believe heart and soul that there should be no discrepancy between our words and our deeds. We are determined that our constitutionally guaranteed rights should be a daily fact of life for every child, woman and man in this country. Equality and equity is the very foundation of our nation.

It is in fact because of our employment equity legislation that we are on the leading edge in preparing this country for the unparalleled demands of the 21st century global economy. While we still have more to do in ensuring that all Canadians achieve their potential, our experience with employment equity has made us a world leader in the field, acting as a role model for other nations designing equity legislation. That is not rhetoric, but a reality of which every Canadian can be proud.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s Judge Abella coined the phrase employment equity because she rejected the term affirmative action. Employment equity is a Canadian concept.

There are a lot of myths surrounding the issue of employment equity, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out. The recent publicity surrounding the affirmative action policies in the United States and employment equity in the recent election has led some people to some inaccurate conclusions. They get the impression from the media that suddenly Americans, including the U.S. Supreme Court, are turning against affirmative action en masse. A vocal few seem ready to jump on the bandwagon, asking: "If the Americans are not going to keep it, why should we?"

Before everyone falls for the myth that fairness in the workplace has fallen into disfavour all across North America, let me quickly review the facts. The real story is that programs that affirm employment equity are alive and well on both sides of the border. The most compelling argument for employment equity is that people actually want it.

Let us look at the situation in Ontario, where roughly two-thirds of businesses responding to a poll just after the recent election reported they are in favour of reforming or keeping that province's employment equity law as it is. Only 8 per cent said they would cease implementing employment equity initiatives if the law is repealed, with 69 per cent saying that it would not have any impact on their company's equity plans. That sentiment is reflected in comments by the director of human resources policy for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Ian Howcroft was reported as saying that many of their members have already started employment equity initiatives and that he believes most of them will continue.

Many members of the private sector are strong proponents of employment equity. They recognize the benefits to their corporation, benefits in terms of improving quality of working life in their organization and in real financial benefits. Unlike the members of the Reform Party, these corporations are moving their companies into the 21st century. The Reform Party members think we should still live in the 1950s world of Ozzie and Harriet.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the previous member for Dauphin-Swan River has stated, our oceans represent a shared global resource. Canadians watching this debate today may not be aware that 80 per cent of the world's population lives in coastal areas attached to oceans. Not only are oceans an important and integral part of Canada's key to survival, they certainly are for the world. The bill before us today calls for Parliament to formalize Canadian jurisdiction over vast new areas of ocean waters and resources off our coasts.

This August in New York the United Nations Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks reached agreement by consensus on a new UN convention on high seas fisheries. When this new UN convention is properly implemented it will provide permanent protection for straddling stocks on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. This is an enormous step forward. It is fully consistent with the oceans act. It completes the protection of some of Canada's most important ocean resources, the once great cod and flounder stocks on the Grand Banks.

While the oceans act is an important element in protecting these resources inside 200 miles, the new UN convention is key to providing permanent protection for them outside 200 miles.

There is massive fishing power deployed on the high seas. The nations of the world have often been unable to control it. The result has been destructive overfishing, depleted resources, human misery and conflict among states.

Before this new UN convention it was unclear whether the escalation of fishing power could devastate resources before the international community had crafted the legal tools needed to prevent that from happening. However, Canada had taken the lead by approving Bill C-29 to protect threatened straddling stocks until effective international means to do so are implemented.

To fill the gaps in international law and control high seas fisheries before it was too late required that coastal states as well as distance water fishing states do their part. All countries at the UN conference had to view matters in the global context.

There have been serious failures in conservation of straddling stocks in all of the oceans of the world. There will continue to be such failures as long as the international legal framework is incomplete. The foundation in the law of the sea convention is sound but by itself it is not adequate. That was recognized at the UN Conference on Environment and Development by the UN General Assembly when the UN conference on straddling stocks was convened. It is significant that the UN conference on

straddling stocks arose out of the UNCED conference on the environment.

Over the past 20 years international environmental law has developed and found wider and wider application.

Environmental law and the law of the sea are becoming more integrated. Environmental concepts such as sustainable development, the precautionary approach and the ecosystems approach must be applied to achieve effective fisheries conservation. The new UN convention will greatly advance that integration.

The new UN convention contains the five principle elements needed for an effective international system for conservation. First, the international framework of rules must be legally binding. The new UN convention will be legally binding. Second, there must be proper conservation and management measures. The new UN convention provides for this, notably in the precautionary approach.

Third, there must be compatibility of conservation and management measures both inside and outside 200 miles. The new UN convention provides for this. Fourth, there must be binding and compulsory dispute settlement. Again the new UN convention provides for this. Finally, there must be some means to deal with the situation where the flag state is unable or unwilling to control its vessel fishing on the high seas. The new UN convention does this as well.

Let me explain why high seas enforcement is necessary for an effective conservation system. There are serious and chronic control problems in high sea fisheries. The FAO in its March 1995 report on the state of world fisheries highlighted problems of control and pointed toward pollution.

Renewed international attention is focusing on unauthorized fishing and the role of monitoring, control and surveillance. Fisheries conservation and management are being undermined by such fishing and, together with the lack of effective monitoring, control and surveillance systems is threatening the sustainability of fisheries.

The international community also acknowledges that the accurate collection and reporting of fisheries by-catch and discards data are important aspects of monitoring, control and surveillance, issues that will attract increasing attention.

The most realistic and effective means of collecting, verifying and reporting these data are through the use of increased at-sea monitoring of fishing activities.

The FAO report has it right. At-sea monitoring of fishing activities is needed for an effective conservation system. It is a necessary element of the new UN convention.

The new UN convention will make the high seas fisheries provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea work as they should but have not until now. Together, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the new UN convention will constitute an effective international legal framework for sustainable development in high seas fisheries.

Under such a regime we can rebuild straddling stocks and harvest them on a sustainable basis. This is a great advance over the situation Canada has faced in the past: foreign overfishing, depleted resources, economic decline and conflict with distant water fishing states.

For responsible distant water fishing states like Japan, creating an effective international conservation regime is strongly in their interest. With us they should ratify and implement the new UN convention as soon as possible. Implementation of the new UN convention will be an important advance for humankind. It will be a giant step toward sustainability. In Canada it will be of great benefit to the tens of thousands of fishers and fish plant workers in Atlantic Canada whose livelihood and future depend on the straddling stocks of cod, flounder and turbot.

With the oceans act and the new UN convention in time those resources will be bountiful once more. I am happy to support the bill and I urge all members to join me in allowing the legislation to move forward quickly. The oceans act charts a wise course for the future of ocean policy.