Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 21st, 1996]

Members of the official opposition will vote no.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote no.

[Liberal Members, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since Parliament resumed nearly four weeks ago, the official opposition has vigorously defended the interests of the citizens of Quebec and Canada. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said for the Liberal MPs from Quebec.

Since we started back this fall, the federal Liberals have been making shameless use of the period allocated for statements by members to denigrate the policies of the Quebec government, the Quebec premier, and all of the sovereignist spokespersons. Liberal members are resorting to these dodgy tactics at the rate of about two statements a day under Standing Order 31, about 20 per cent of their speaking time.

The federal Liberals are so obsessed with dumping on Quebec that they are no longer fulfilling their role as members of the government party. No doubt their antics are explainable by the

suggestion by Quebec opposition party leader Daniel Johnson that they might want to make political hay-

[Fire Prevention Week, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to draw attention to fire prevention week, and to take advantage of this opportunity to encourage the public to take the time to think about fire prevention, both at home and at work.

As you know, hundreds of lives are lost every year in fires of various types, but unfortunately most deaths by fire are related to fires in the home. This means that, if we are to improve this situation and reduce deaths by fire as much as possible, more emphasis than ever must be placed on prevention and on continuing to raise public awareness.

The discovery of fire goes far back into the history of human kind. Fire is a part of our everyday lives, and will surely be around for a very long time to come. Although, most of the time, fire seems to be under control, we must be vigilant and not let down our guard. Incidents involving fire can happen so quickly, and their consequences, both material and personal, can be very serious.

One of the best ways of saving lives if there is a fire is to install smoke detectors. A properly maintained smoke detector can, without a doubt, prevent terrible human tragedies and, moreover, detectors are inexpensive and easily installed.

Whether in a house or apartment or in the work place, these devices are essential to our safety, and I encourage people who do not have smoke detectors to get them as soon as possible, and people who do have them to check them to ensure they are operating properly. During fire prevention week, whose theme this

year is "let's hear it for fire safety: test your detectors", we all need to do our bit to improve our collective safety.

This coming Saturday, October 12, has been designated as the day to pay tribute to fire fighters. On behalf of the public, I would like to thank all full time and part time fire fighters for their excellent work and for all of the services they render to society.

We take their presence for granted, and all too often lose sight of the fact that they frequently put their lives on the line to save someone else. I want them to know that we are grateful and that they have every right to be proud of what they do. It is not always easy to serve the public. It demands self-discipline, determination, and professionalism. I encourage our fire fighters to keep up the good work. Our heartfelt thanks for the excellent work they do on our behalf.

In closing, I would like to invite everyone to take part in the various activities that will be held during the week and to keep in mind that it is important to be prevention-conscious all year long.

[Afghanistan, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, can the Canadian government make a firm commitment before this House, as it did in the past with respect to South Africa, not to recognize the Taliban regime, since it is against fundamental values held dear by the people of Quebec and Canada?

[Afghanistan, September 30th, 1996]

my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

A few days ago, Islamic fundamentalists seized power in Kabul, and the situation for women there has become intolerable. Women are being beaten, enslaved or killed by those who are now in control of the country.

How does the Canadian government plan to react to this tragic situation in Afghanistan?

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say with great interest. However, I totally disagree with him when he compares lead to manganese.

I began to study nursing forty years ago, in a pediatric hospital. Forty years, that is quite a long time ago. There were no anti-pollution systems at that time. Forty years ago,children were being admitted to hospitals with lead induced encephalitis. Therefore, lead toxicity was already a recognized phenomenon.

As far as manganese is concerned, at present there is no evidence to show that it poses any threat to public health. Granted, all of the heavy metals are dangerous. Copper is dangerous, but we have some in our system. If we had to remove everything that is dangerous, there would be nobody left on the planet.

The arguments made by my colleague to the effect that plant workers are convinced that the anti-pollution systems are greatly affected by manganese in fuel, are something that I can understand, coming from these workers, but we must also look at rulings, especially by U.S. courts, to the effect that this has nothing to do with deterioration of anti-pollution systems.

Everybody looks to his own interests. In itself, that is not surprising. But I do not think that we should use the excuse of public health to support the interests of powerful lobbyists. I believe that the role of a government whether federal or provincial, is to look after the well-being of its citizens, all of them, and not to privilege one group in particular.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think today is my lucky day. I am very pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-29, formerly Bill C-94, an Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances. The immediate purpose of Bill C-29 is to ban the addition of MMT to unleaded gasoline in Canada by prohibiting the importation of that substance.

Over the last few years, environmental concerns have become more present in our daily lives and are important for the citizens we represent, particularly those living in big cities, who call for for an ever healthier environment. They want standards to be established not only to further reduce pollution, but also to improve the overall quality of the environment.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to act in order to protect people's health and to legislate on the issue of dangerous substances contributing to the deterioration of the global environment.

However, the bill before us today does not stem from a desire to protect the environment or public health. Instead, it seems motivated more by a desire to meet the expectations of the automotive industry and those of Ontario corn growers who hope to see a whole new market develop for them, that of ethanol, an additive made from corn, which could eventually replace MMT.

This bill came about in 1994, it must be remembered, thanks to a powerful lobby of automobile manufacturers. According to them, MMT, a substance that has been added to unleaded gasoline since 1977, causes damage to the pollution control equipment in automobiles and is detrimental to public health.

It goes without saying that car manufacturers are quite opposed to the addition of additives to gasoline, be it MMT or any other substance.

Faced with a threat by car manufacturers to raise the price of cars in Canada and limit their warranty if the practice of adding MMT to gasoline continued, the environment minister of the day, the current Deputy Prime Minister, caved in and introduced Bill C-94, which eventually became Bill C-29.

For us, at second reading, this bill is still raising the same questions. We voted in favour of this legislation so that the two major stakeholders in this debate on banning MMT could present their respective point of view. These stakeholders are the car manufacturers and the oil industry, especially the Ethyl Corporation, the only company to produce and export MMT to Canada.

We hoped that the Standing Committee on the Environment would conduct an in-depth review based on studies by both parties concerned.

Already then, it was obvious that the former environment minister was not taking into account studies showing that MMT was not a threat to public health. Indeed, in a study dated December 6, 1994, Health Canada concluded that MMT was not a health hazard. Obviously, any substance added to gasoline is, to a certain extent, a pollutant as is gasoline. But for Health Canada, MMT in itself is clearly not a health hazard.

In the United States, the automobile industry has had to reconsider its position on MMT as a result of a decision by an American court to the effect that the ban on MMT had to be lifted for lack of conclusive evidence of any harmful effect on antipollution devices.

Indeed, in its decision, the United States court of appeal for the District of Columbia pointed out the lack of evidence in the arguments made by supporters of a ban on MMT, and I quote: "Concerning the arguments presented by the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association to challenge the finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that MMT does not affect either partially or totally the functioning of the emission system of vehicles, the American court has deemed these arguments unfounded. First of all, the court pointed out that the agency had established the Ethyl additive had easily passed the tests required for all the most severe investigations ever conducted".

It must be kept in mind that, in April 1995, this same court made a decision rejecting the claims of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the effect MMT was harmful to health, even though the Agency recognized MMT was not playing any role in the deterioration of pollution control equipment.

Therefore, it is more than likely MMT will be reintroduced in the United States, and very rapidly so.

The oil companies favour the use of additives in gasoline. According to some data, MMT added to gasoline would help reduce nitric oxide emissions, which are harmful to the environment and one of the causes of urban smog.

From the hearings of the Standing Committee on Environment, it has not been shown, on the basis of scientific studies, that MMT is a toxic substance and a risk to public health. It has not been demonstrated either that MMT is harmful to pollution control equipment in automobiles. Furthermore, the objective of harmonizing our gasoline policies with those of the United States does not hold any more since the ban on MMT was been lifted by our neighbours to the South, which makes possible the addition of MMT in gasoline in the United States.

In fact, what this bill is proposing us, is to comply with the requests of the automobile industry. As I said earlier, at the present time, nothing argues for the banning of MMT. If MMT has such a detrimental effect on public health in general, it should have been banned by Health Canada or under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. What this bill proposes is not to ban MMT as a product but to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of this substance.

What are the consequences of this trade ban? First of all, it must be pointed out that Ethyl, an American corporation, is the only company that manufactures this product and exports it to Canada. The plant importing it, which is located in Ontario, mixes MMT with other fuel additives. These products are then shipped to refineries. Under this bill, which bans interprovincial trade in and the importation of MMT without banning its use or production, if the Ethyl corporation ever built an MMT manufacturing plant and set up the distribution of this substance in every province and territory, unleaded gasoline produced across Canada could still contain MMT. I am not an expert in this area, but I think we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that the real purpose of this bill is to protect public health and the environment.

Nothing in this bill would prevent the scenario I just described from becoming reality, because MMT has not been banned. This is a rather extraordinary way to deal with a substance which, in the opinion of the Minister of the Environment and the Deputy Prime Minister, is deleterious to the health of Canadians and Quebecers.

At a time when businesses are looking to rationalize their operations, it would be rather surprising for Ethyl to decide to open plants in every province and territory of Canada. This means that, under Bill C-29, it will be forced to shut down its operations in Canada.

Some 40 jobs would be lost if the plant in Ontario closed. Also, MMT no longer being available, oil companies would have to change their refining and production methods.

The oil industry estimates that it would cost close to $100 million to produce gasoline that is equally performant without MMT, as a result of this bill. This extra cost will inevitably make the price of gas at the pump go up. As usual, consumers will pay for this initiative, not to mention the potential job losses resulting from this price increase.

We have come across another possible effect a few weeks ago. On September 10, feeling aggrieved by this ban on MMT exports to Canada, Ethyl gave notice of its intention to file a complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The company argues that Bill C-29 is in conflict with certain provisions of NAFTA, as the subject-matter of the ban is not the product itself but its import. As was pointed out, the production, sale and use of MMT are not prohibited. As a result of such contraventions of NAFTA, Ethyl will sustain damages, actually more than $200 million American, or nearly $275 million Canadian, in loss of revenue.

Questioned on this in the House last Wednesday, the Minister of the Environment insisted this bill was essential to protect both the environment and the health of Canadians. In light of the consequences this bill will have, we can only doubt his sincerity and, consequently, vote against the bill.

Again, not only did the federal government encroach on provincial jurisdictions by legislating in interprovincial trade, but it also ignored the opposition to Bill C-29 expressed by the provinces.

Last May 1, Quebec's legislature unanimously passed a resolution requesting the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning gasoline additive, MMT, as long as environmental studies had not been conducted in a properly scientific manner.

As always, the Liberal government turns a deaf ear to the requests from Quebec and the other provinces that the minister withdraw the bill in order to examine its real impact and what is really at stake.

When this government decided to interfere in interprovincial trade and ignore the pleas of the provinces, it demonstrated once again how it really sees co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. Its idea of co-operative federalism is to wax eloquent on federal-provincial agreements, and then keep moving in on provincial jurisdiction constantly breaking its promises.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is once again asking the minister to postpone passage of this bill. The environment and the health of our fellow Canadians are too important to simply be used to further the expectations of the strong lobby of Ontario's motor vehicle manufacturers and corn producers.

[Canada Marine Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, here is proof that common sense will always lead to some agreement. Of course we would be delighted if the division were held on Tuesday, if the House agrees.

[Canada Marine Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the short title of which is Canada Marine Act. This bill is crucially important for the future of shipping and the survival of ports and harbours in Canada and Quebec.

First, allow me to point out that in all matters concerning transportation in general, the way the government works is to harm regions, legislate in a piecemeal manner, without measuring the impact its legislations will have once in force.

During last spring's debate on Bill C-20, many members wondered about the impact of the privatization of air navigation services on remote regions. We were not against the principle of privatizing these services, but we thought that it should not be done in the sole perspective of deficit reduction and by dumping the problems and costs in the local stakeholders' backyard.

In the same vein, Coast Guard fees for services, such as ice breaking and dredging, are likely to hinder the competitiveness of Quebec's ports. Again, the federal government's main thrust is the fight against the deficit and this, at all cost, at the expense of the true interests of Canadians and Quebecers. That jobs could be jeopardized does not seem to carry much weight in this government's political choices.

The same can be said today about Bill C-44. First, in spite of its title, the bill does not propose any kind of shipbuilding or merchant marine development strategy. Instead of development, it seems that, once again, under the pretence of streamlining operations and improving services, the government has only one thing in mind: to dump its deficit onto the provinces, municipalities and local stakeholders.

The bill's main objective is to commercialize port services by getting rid of the present Canada Ports Corporation and replacing it by Canadian port authorities.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to a policy to divest itself of ports and harbours by commercializing them. In fact, local stakeholders would probably be able to manage those facilities much more efficiently than the federal government did until now. Indeed if we look at the last 20 years of federal management of ports and harbours, we can only come to the conclusion that there have been an excessive bureaucratization which resulted in unreasonable costs and inefficient management of facilities.

The St. Lawrence Seaway, for example, received $7 billion in investments over the years but generates only $70 million in revenues annually for a traffic of only half that of 1970. There are 324 commercial ports and harbours in Canada.

Right now, 90 percent of the commercial maritime traffic transits through 45 of these ports. Obviously the federal government must withdraw from the management of that sector, but not any which way.

In the bill before us today, we see that the Canada Ports Corporation will be replaced by Canadian ports authorities or CPAs. These CPAs will manage the port facilities, but the federal government will keep ownership of the lands and facilities. That is to say that the government will withdraw from the fiscal aspect while keeping its control since it will have a representative on all CPA boards.

We can understand that this government is trying once more to avoid its financial responsibilities while keeping all its powers. When this government talks about decentralisation, we must understand that in reality it wants to decentralise its debt. When it talks about involving local stakeholders, we must understand that their main role will be to pay the bills while being forced to abide by federal standards.

Criteria are also being established for ports do be designated CPAs. Applications made by ports will thus be evaluated under the following criteria provided in clause 6: first, the port is, and is likely to remain, financially self-sufficient; second, the port is of strategic significance to Canada's trade; third, it is linked to major rail lines or a major highway infrastructure; and fourth, it has diversified traffic.

Only ports respecting those criteria will be designated as CPAs. As I said earlier, the federal government is withdrawing from the financial area but it wants to hang on to control of CPA administration.

Of greatest concern is the fate of ports which cannot become CPAs. The government is taking its time: it allows itself six years to dispose of those ports. This delay will therefore create some insecurity in Canada as well as in Quebec. Actually, the federal government has neglected the maintenance of the ports and most of them are in poor condition. They will need substantial repairs. Therefore, several ports probably will be left out of the running and will not have the status of port authorities, unless municipalities and provinces invest significant funds for their rehabilitation.

Again, under the cover of decentralization, the federal government is passing the bill on to other levels of government. It would be more honest on the part of the federal government to rehabilitate those port facilities before their transfer given the fact that their deterioration is the result of lack of maintenance by the government.

Although the Bloc Quebecois is not against the principle of privatizing port facilities, we will vote against this bill just because the government is not proceeding in the right way. This bill needs major amendments in order to meet the different needs of port localities and regions.

To this government, decentralization of powers seems to mean only decentralization of the debt, a debt which results from a poor management on its part. The impact of this bill in its present form, combined with the new fee structure for Coast Guard services, will come down hard on a number of municipalities, in both Canada and Quebec, which rely on commercial shipping. The government does not seem to be taking this into consideration.

We will therefore try to see that the Liberal government assesses the real consequences of its policies-policies which may be costly to the people of Canada and of Quebec.