Antoine Dubé

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Yes, you said that in your last paragraph, just at the end of your speech.

The hon. member lives in Montreal, I know that she is a sensible person, who generally recognizes reality. I do not want to insult her, but I would like her to clarify her thinking in this regard.

Does she admit that the good health of Montreal's economy is important for Quebec? Does she recognize that things are the way they are in Quebec because language is important, since we are a French speaking majority? Language and culture are important for the development of Quebecers, like they are for other peoples.

Of course, we are open to immigration. We prove it every day of the year. In the Bloc, the hon. member for Bourassa is an example of our openness. We are not against immigration, we are not against other languages, but it must be recognized that it is normal for Quebecers to ask that efforts be made for the economic development of their metropolis.

I would like the hon. member to clarify her thinking because I may have misunderstood. I hope that I misunderstood her because she seemed to suggest that we should not attach any importance to cultural identity and language.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, you might find it strange that a member from Quebec City should take part in a debate on Montreal. But let me explain why I wanted to speak. Montreal used to be Canada's metropolis, but it still is Quebec's metropolis. It is a city whose economic development obviously meshes with the economic development of the rest of Quebec. When Montreal suffers, the rest of Quebec suffers too. This has been known for a long time.

But what I find somewhat offensive in the hon. member's speech is that she suggested-and I do not remember her exact words-that the members from the Bloc and the other members from Quebec should put the cultural and linguistic issues aside, or at least give them less importance-

[Peacekeeping, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on October 11 I asked the Minister of Transport, considering the increase in the number of railway-related incidents and accidents in Canada, for a moratorium on the closure of one of the three track maintenance shops operated by CN in Charny, in my riding.

In his answer, the Minister of Transport said:

There are from time to time minor variations among all provinces but essentially when we look at accidents in the various categories in which they are analyzed, there has been a slight increase in some of the derailments but not at all untoward and certainly not out of the ordinary with respect to the normal variation statistics.

I hope this intervention produced some results, since last week I was told that CN had decided to extend the closure date. It will now be November 30 instead of October 30. I had hoped for a longer postponement, but still, a month is better than nothing.

I did not want to let that pass. One question during Oral Question Period is not much. I wanted to explain why, and I had read an article published in Le Soleil on August 15, which said: ``A 50 per cent increase in derailments in Canada during the first seven months of 1996: from 97 in 1995, their number has now reached 146. For the month of July alone, they more than doubled, from 9 to 20''.

I would like to give you some more statistics, since I have a few minutes left. For instance, the number of serious injuries as a result of accidents in 1995 was 40, but the annual average during the five previous years was 24. In 1995, the number of deaths caused by accidents was 87, while before it was 73. The total number of accidents for the last five years has gone up from 632 to 770.

I hardly need recall the figures given by Le Soleil on the number of accidents on the main lines, a main line that goes as far as the Maritimes, where accidents increased by more than 50 per cent.

These figures were not produced by an outside office but by the railway safety service of the Department of Transport, which is the minister's responsibility.

This is not the first time I put this question to the minister. I had done so before, on June 12. And now, months later, after the summer recess, and despite the statistics and what we read in the newspapers, the minister answers: "These variations are not important". We are talking about 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I have the good fortune of having in my riding an extremely important business: the Ultramar refinery.

I would like to familiarize this House with the views of its executives. I do not feel impertinent in the least; in the past two days, what have we in this House heard from Liberal members, especially those from Ontario? We have heard them defend Ontario's interests with respect to ethanol.

In this debate, the government wants to ban the use of MMT as a fuel additive. I would like us to address this issue, but the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, would defer debate for six months so that a scientific study can be carried out to prove that this product is indeed harmful. This is something that has never been clearly demonstrated.

I am referring to the arguments raised by Ultramar, which is a member of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. I would like to put forward some arguments, since they must be heard in this House.

According to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Ultramar refinery, car manufacturers have never proved clearly and factually that MMT can adversely affect the operation of catalytic converters.

Health Canada formally stated in public and in writing that there was not a shred of evidence that MMT threatened the health of Canadians. This is not insignificant. This statement was made by Health Canada, the federal department of health.

Another argument is that adding MMT to gasoline helps reduce toxic emissions. As we know, since 1976, this much safer additive has been used instead of lead, because something must be added to gasoline. Furthermore, the other elements in gasoline are known to be somewhat toxic. So why MMT? To reduce the impact of toxic emissions.

Another argument is that two federal ministers, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister for International Trade, have expressed reservations in this regard. According to the Minister for International Trade, this bill might violate the NAFTA agreement signed with the U.S. This is not insignificant as we could then be hit by a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

Bill C-29 banning the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT violates NAFTA, a point of view shared also by Gordon Ritchie, the former Canadian negotiator for NAFTA-far from being a nobody, this is the former Canadian negotiator-and for the interprovincial trade agreement.

Another argument we heard is that car manufacturers rejected the proposal of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute to have an independent organization investigate and report on the issue.

They formally committed to act on the conclusions of such an independent study. They really do want an independent study.

The last argument is that banning MMT threatens the competitiveness of the Quebec refinery industry and that would not be in the best interests of Canadian and Quebec consumers. This also is important. As we well know, the government never told us about the costs. They are not mentioned here either, but we know that it adds up to several hundreds of millions of dollars, a significant amount in these hard times.

As a member of the Bloc Quebecois committed to protecting the best interests of Quebec at all times, I want to remind the hon. members of this House that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously approved the following resolution: "That the national assembly request the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning the gasoline additive MMT as long as environmental studies have not been conducted in a conclusive manner".

If Quebec was the only one to make this request, it might not be enough, but at a energy ministers' conference, at least six provinces expressed the same view. Provincial ministers are not alone, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, send a letter to Mr. Chrétien on September 16, asking him the exact same thing. We know that, in 1982, during the Constitutional debate, Mr. Romanow was a very close friend of Mr. Chrétien, who should now listen to him.

I will point out that the Minister of International Trade also wrote, on February 23, stating that he had problems with this bill, and yet the current Minister of the Environment is forging ahead.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I looked more particularly at this aspect. I read the report of a study conducted in 1989 for Health Canada by the University of Montreal. It said: "It is difficult to assess the effects linked to the environmental exposure to Mn-manganese-coming from MMT due to the incomplete nature of toxicological data on long term exposure to small concentrations. Although the emission of Mn coming from MMT can be associated mainly with the inhalation of manganese oxide, a complete assessment of multiple exposure to manganese must take into account all means of absorption, including the oral route. Food accounts for over 90 per cent of all manganese absorbed by humans". We routinely eat manganese and all of a sudden the government is concerned about what can be found in car exhaust.

And this is not all: "With regard to drinking water, although its manganese contribution is less than 3 per cent of that of food, its assessment is critical to an overall evaluation of total exposure". Tests were conducted on animals, and the study points out that as far as they know, in humans, only one case of poisoning due to manganese in rain water is known. This case, involving very high concentrations of Mn, happened in Japan in 1941. The only known case was caused by water, not by an airborne pollutant. The only case was found in Japan in 1941.

This should lead government members to think it over and to track down other cases. I will not imitate Reform members who had horrible stories to tell. If they had any today, they could tell us about them, but only one case is known throughout the whole world, and it happened in Japan, back in 1941. The United States apparently had the same problem, the very same doubts, and we all know how they solved it recently. The issue was appealed and people who, like the present Liberal Party, tried to demonstrate the risk of MMT failed.

There is now an interest here in ethanol. We do not question its value, its importance, but we feel that, under the circumstances, a six month postponement would allow the government to establish its position more strongly, especially, as I said at the beginning, since the proposed amendment will lead to expenses of hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.

[Joffre Shop, October 11th, 1996]

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

On June 12, in responding to a question of mine, the Minister of Transport refused to impose a moratorium on the closure of the track maintenance equipment repair and overhaul shop at Joffre station, in Charny, claiming that there was no increased risk from a safety point of view. Since then, evidence has shown that these risks have increased 50 per cent.

Before the Joffre shop closes on October 30, will the minister act responsibly and impose a moratorium on this closure, so that a study to estimate the risks involved can be carried out?

[Hazardous Materials, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government's attitude is indicative of its unwillingness to be questioned, even though on this side we are in agreement.

I have been here all afternoon and I notice some inconsistencies in the government's attitude. For instance, with regard to the single food inspection agency, it took the federal government 18 years more than the Quebec government to solve the problem of overlap among its departments with regard to the setting up of a process to replace manganese with ethanol. It is urgent since the impact in Ontario is very significant. This is a matter of great urgency.

The proposal by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway is very interesting and would cost very little. I asked him because he had an assessment made of this. The cost for the implementation of this new measure would be $50,000 for the federal government and $60,000 more if we also applied it to the railway. For a mere $110,000 the federal government is requesting time, more time for a study. This is something they use in the United States, it has been scientifically proven and it will improve the situation.

Once again the government is showing it cannot react at the drop of a hat. It is taking an inordinate amount of time just to study a small measure which would greatly improve peoples' safety. Just

imagine, within five minutes of a call, fire fighters would know if there were hazardous substances in a place.

Let me relate a incident that happened in a company in my riding. Because of the products that were found there, water could not be used to extinguish the fire because it would actually cause the fire to spread. It would have been important to have this type of information. The government side, as always, is procrastinating, asking for time to get involved.

I know the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway agrees with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. He would agree with it. What he is proposing is an amendment that says "in agreement with the provinces". Why does he propose that? It is simply because fire fighters are under the authority of municipalities in general and municipalities are under the authority of the provinces.

All we are asking the federal government to do is introduce a system that would be used from coast to coast in order to improve the information for firefighters and facilitate their work.

As you know, in large centres, the knowledge and the information available to fire departments can be rather advanced. However, fire departments in small municipalities of Quebec, and elsewhere, are often made up of volunteer fire fighters. These people need a system that is easy to access and to operate, and one that will provide them with the available information. These are not permanent employees. They need a tool of reference to help them do their job and do it better.

It is unbelievable that the government would hesitate, study, ponder and wonder about a measure that would cost $110,000. The costs related to the proceedings of this House during the hour that was just spent on this issue are higher than that. But the government wants to continue to review and analyze the issue. This is unacceptable.

I wanted to make these comments in support of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, and the amendment of the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Yes, at the time, everything was working fine in the agriculture sector. You will recall that, since 1978 at least, Quebec has been combining, various services in the agri-food sector. Quebec's agriculture department is called Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and is also responsible for fishing and marketing.

Being bigger, the federal government was slower to react. Finally, in 1996, almost 18 years later, it realized that it had to combine three food inspection services from three different departments. Not so long ago, Industry Canada also had its own inspection service.

We have been told that this ought to be done because it represents savings of $40 million. If the figures are right, and if we add them all together over a period of, let us say, 10 years, it means that because of its lack of efficiency and of duplication in three of its own departments, the government lost $400 million. It now recognizes that it has been inefficient for 18 years. That is unacceptable.

Yes, we want the federal government to put its house in order but, as usual, a number of clauses in this bill will make it possible, through the Department of Agriculture and other departments, for the government to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. The bill reads in part that the federal government may enter into agreements with the provinces, but I doubt that it will because most of the time it does not.

The Quebec government gave its approval to the spirit of the bill, but last summer, at a meeting of agriculture ministers, the Quebec minister, speaking for his government, said: "The premiers urge the ministers concerned to ask that the Canadian food inspection system's implementation group recommend before the end of the year ways to set up a Canadian food inspection system. That is true.

At the annual agriculture ministers' conference held in Victoria on July 3 and 4, the ministers adopted the wording proposed by the Quebec minister, which reminded the federal government that the

Quebec government intended to co-operate in eliminating overlap and duplication, but asked that Quebec's jurisdiction be respected.

Since I am familiar with agriculture, I know that Quebec has about 495 officials working in food inspection and that in the three federal departments mentioned in the bill there are at least 600 officials involved in food inspection in Quebec. I talk about Quebec because it is the province I know best.

So, there is a total of 1,100 federal and provincial employees to inspect food in Quebec. I can understand that the federal government wanted to streamline its services. But it should go a step further and respect provincial jurisdiction.

If the federal government is sincere in its willingness to work with the provinces, it should negotiate with the Quebec agriculture department a way for the provinces to apply the required standards because food products do not only travel from province to province, but also to other countries. So the federal government would set common standards that would be accepted by the provincial agriculture ministers and by the federal minister, and Quebec, which has already integrated its services and which acted a long time ago to eliminate overlap, would apply these standards.

One food inspection service, with responsibilities for municipalities with regard to the third market is the one for distribution in Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières. We have already made arrangements with these municipalities so they can enforce the regulations in restaurants because it is more easily done at the municipal level.

The federal government should do the same thing as Quebec did with its large cities and work out an integrated action plan with Quebec so we no longer have two kinds of food inspectors: type A, B and C laboratories. This system often causes confusion, and some agricultural producers, depending on the region, are affected by this conflict between two jurisdictions.

Yes, this bill is an improvement, or it would be more accurate to describe it as policy of the not so bad, because the federal government has been inefficient in the area of food inspection for at least 20 years. We hope it will be more efficient in the future, and the ideal situation would be a co-operative arrangement between the federal government and the Quebec government to eliminate overlap and create a fully integrated and coherent network.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health seems to be interested.

I note also that the Liberal government is proceeding in a rather unusual way. It did the same thing in the case of employment insurance, that is it resorted to the pre-examination process in order to skip second reading, which is essential in a democracy, under our parliamentary procedure, as we could have suggested amendments at this stage.

But no, once again, the government is trying to ram things through Parliament and flouts democracy. Like my colleagues, I am in favour of the establishment, by the federal government, of a single food inspection agency.

Members may find it strange that a sovereignist is supporting the establishment of a Canadian agency in the health sector. Let me explain. Between 1980 and 1985, I worked for the former Minister of Agriculture of Québec.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first, allow me to note the lack of interest shown by the government party and the third party on this bill since the Bloc Quebevois-

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

I apologize, Madam Speaker, but I rushed in when I saw there were fewer speakers from the other parties than scheduled in this important debate. I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House to object to the adoption of Bill C-26. Among other things, the government wanted to put pressure not only on the opposition but also on the stakeholders in this area. For that reason alone, the bill is totally unacceptable.

We heard Liberal members say earlier that this was an historic bill, and we heard them brag about the broad impact of this bill on the lives of Canadians and Quebecers.

Before going any further, since I believe I will be one of the last speakers in this debate, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Gaspé on a job well done. Thanks to his persuasive arguments and the groundswell they provoked-I am referring particularly to what I called the rowboat debate-he managed to make the minister backtrack temporarily. I say temporarily, because this should not be a reason for the hon. member for Gaspé to relax his vigilance concerning the registration of rowboats, pedalboats and light craft.

All Bloc members talked to their constituents, and as people heard about the government's plans, they said it was ridiculous and incredible. Since when is the coast guard interested in the light craft that navigate on our lakes? The presence of DFO makes sense if you are on the Pacific, the Arctic or the Atlantic ocean, and even on the St. Lawrence River. We are used to seeing them there. But on the tributaries of the St. Lawrence? People could not believe their ears.

The work done by the hon. member for Gaspé raised the interest of the media, so that the minister delayed the coming into force of the registration of light craft. I admit I am still apprehensive, because after all, this is a pre-election year. We do not know when the Prime Minister will call an election, and it is clear that the government is playing for time.

With this bill the minister wants to make it easier to issue such regulations. In a previous attempt, he used legislation on financial administration. In this case, he wants to make it much easier. This is exactly what people do not want.

The worst thing is certainly the lack of consultation, of listening, of understanding on the part of the minister as to what the participants said. He listened to them, but he did not take their suggestions into account, except for postponing registration of small craft. As for the rest, the minister wants to reaffirm Canada's

sovereignty on its inland waters but also extend and confirm the 200 mile zone. We have no objection to his speaking of sovereignty.

We Quebec sovereignists are well aware of the true meaning of the word sovereignty. However, when speaking of co-operation, the government says it is possible, but we know its habits. We did not have that many examples of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces up to now, over the past three years, and we have been following all the debates closely. There was some talk of co-operation, but rarely, and I daresay almost never, did it translate into action.

This bill is a further example of this bad habit. The minister wants to decide with his officials in Ottawa. Whatever the provinces may say, the minister will do as he pleases. He did not even listen to the Premier of British Columbia. In his last speech, the hon. member for Gaspé reminded us of the time when, during a first ministers' conference, the Premier of British Columbia-not Quebec-walked out, saying that he felt he was wasting his time, that it did not serve any purpose, they did not listen, they did not want to know.

So a bill was introduced. I see some members, for example the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls who, with elections in the offing, wants to make a name for himself-he has a reputation as a dissident, even a critic, one of the rare ones within the government party to voice his opinions-and suddenly he has found a mission for himself: Bloc bashing.

That is a well known trick. It has been used many times. I am a fairly new MP. I have been here only three years. But the hon. members for Richelieu and Rosemont, who have more experience, have often told me that it has always been that way. What do MPs or government members do to make a name for themselves outside Quebec? They attack Quebec, they attack MPs, they sometimes try to insult them. This was not the case here. The hon. member did not stoop so low, even though his comments were not particularly appropriate.

Having sat on the opposition side for a long time, he should understand that members of the Bloc Quebecois are trying to do an important job in this place, to be the official opposition and as such to represent those who feel the government has not listened to them, or at least has not understood them.

But no, the government is forging ahead, passing this bill the member for Gander-Grand Falls called the most important piece of legislation since Confederation. I believe in his view it is, especially in his area bordering the Atlantic ocean. I can understand his point of view. But then, if it is that important, why not proceed more carefully and clarify many areas which are still grey.

I worked a long time for the former Quebec agriculture and fisheries minister and I remember that, up to 1984, the federal government was delegating part of its responsibilities regarding fisheries management to the provinces. And it worked. We were doing fine in those days. We know what happened to the fisheries after this was taken away from Quebec; we are actually looking for fish now. The stocks of just about every species are dwindling. Things have been going wrong since that time.

Instead of broadening its horizon in order to protect the fisheries through its strategy, the government is saying that it will be done in Ottawa, by Ottawa.

I remember a historic remark a politician made in Quebec to the effect that it was harder to have a bureaucrat leave Ottawa to go and see what was actually going on in the fisheries that to have a fish swim from the Gaspé to Ottawa.