Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais

[Quebec Economy, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, Quebecers are not going to be represented at an important economic and trade meeting with Chinese officials because the PQ premier decided not to attend that event. Just like he did when Team Canada conducted its very important and successful Asian tour, the PQ leader prefers to stick to his separatist creed, rather than co-operate with our partners from the business world, to promote economic recovery and job creation.

Quebecers are primarily concerned with economic issues and job creation. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a priority for the PQ premier. On October 30, Quebecers will say no to the separatist project, a project which does nothing to promote economic recovery and create jobs for them.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on September 14, the Bloc Quebecois critic on Canadian heritage issued a press release in which she stated that the federal government had failed in its effort to protect and promote French language in Canada.

In making such a statement, the separatist opposition is looking for a way to make people forget that its separation project means that French speaking people outside Quebec will be left to fend for themselves.

We, the Canadian government, really care about that community. Thanks to the concerted efforts of our government and the Ontario government, the 200,000 French speaking residents of eastern Ontario now have the largest French speaking technical college outside Quebec.

This afternoon, the Prime Minister will personally attend the official opening ceremony of the Cité collégiale. This is yet another example of the efforts made by the Canadian government to promote the use of French from coast to coast.

[Referendum Campaign, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the chairperson of the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, Lorraine Pagé, just sent a letter to members of her union, asking them to support the Yes side and make a financial contribution to the sovereignist campaign.

This invitation by the CEQ to subsidize the Yes side comes less than one week after Bombardier was lambasted by Quebec's separatists, including union leaders, for asking its employees to support the No side.

It seems more and more obvious that an independent Quebec will be a Quebec split in half, in that the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association will only be granted to those who support separatism and the PQ government. Quebecers do not want that kind of a country and they will vote No.

[Referendum Campaign, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members are resorting to the scaremongering tactics of Quebec's separatists.

Indeed, we learned that the Bloc member for La Prairie began using such tactics on the elderly as early as last March.

In an interview with the weekly Le Reflet régional , the Bloc member said: ``It is not Quebec's sovereignty which threatens the income of seniors; the danger for old age pensions comes from the federal government. Such is the price to be paid if we vote no at the next referendum''.

These comments by a member of Parliament are both irresponsible and shameful. They also show the weakness of the separatists' arguments. Stop using such silly scaremongering tactics. Quebecers are not interested in separating and they will vote no on October 30.

[Conseil Du Patronat Du Québec, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Conseil du patronat du Québec has just released the results of a major survey it conducted among 418 of its corporate members, including almost all of the one hundred largest private businesses in Quebec.

It reveals that 88 per cent of the respondents will vote no in the referendum and 87 per cent of them are not in favour of Quebec sovereignty. Ninety per cent of the corporate members said that a yes vote in the referendum would result in very significant costs for Quebec. Like the vast majority of Quebecers, business leaders wonder what advantage there is for Quebec in separating from Canada.

For these businesses, which are real job creators, Canada remains unquestionably the best strategic choice for Quebec's economic, social and cultural development.

[Payne Webner Study, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec separatists did not take long to react to a study published yesterday on the credit rating of an independent Quebec. The study, which is on the whole very positive for those who are promoting independence for Quebec, remains conspicuously silent on several important aspects of the question, as pointed out by Michel Van de Walle in his business column in the Journal de Montréal .

Another issue our separatist friends have tried to dodge arises from the confusion around the author of the report. The firm of Payne Webner, whose name was associated with the report, said in a press release last Wednesday that it neither sponsored it nor endorses its conclusions.

What, more accurately, should be referred to as the Albert Gordon study fails to clarify satisfactorily a question that is extremely complex. We can imagine that after a very difficult week like this one, Quebec separatists needed a new set of rose-coloured glasses.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, following the Reform member from Athabasca, he should check his facts because when he refers to factual statements by the New Brunswick environment minister he should at least get his name straight.

The federal government took a decisive step to protect the environment, jobs and consumers and to ensure Canada remains a leader in automotive technology.

Bill C-94 will prohibit the import and interprovincial trade of MMT, a manganese based fuel additive manufactured in the United States. The proposed bill, to be known as the manganese based fuel additives act, will come into effect 60 days after it gains assent.

Only in Canada is MMT added to unleaded gasoline. The United States banned MMT from their unleaded gas in 1978. Bulgaria and Argentina are the only other countries interested in using it. Why is MMT not used in a larger number of countries? Because MMT impedes the functioning of emission control devices on modern cars and trucks.

Environment Canada has received and reviewed many studies on the effects of MMT on this kind of system. I agree with Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda,

Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Saab, Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai, who all say that MMT impairs the operation of state-of-the-art onboard diagnostic systems, or OBD systems, where the vehicle's emission control device is located.

These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle's emission control and for alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure that the clean burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They ensure that automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy.

In other words, it is one more important tool to help us address air pollution, including smog and climate change.

The government will not let MMT prevent the Canadian automotive industry from designing vehicles that are much less polluting. Our environment and Canadian consumers deserve that the best emission control systems be used.

Yet the Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT, and its subsidiary Ethyl Canada refute the vehicle industry allegation about the ill effects of MMT on the vehicle emission control systems and make a counterclaim that MMT is environmentally beneficial.

What is certain is that our efforts to reduce motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just the petroleum industry, the auto industry or the federal government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution requires simultaneous action by all. The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels the engines burn.

The auto industry needs to keep making improvement in vehicle emission control technologies such as those offered through onboard diagnostic systems. The government needs to take decisive action such as Bill C-94, which removes a major obstacle to the introduction of these technologies.

However, our strategy to reduce vehicle pollution goes beyond just taking action against MMT. The federal government is doing its part because we know that automobiles are a major contributor to climate change and urban smog as well as some toxic pollutants like benzene.

In a recently released task force report done by Canada's deputy ministers of the environment, it is noted that even with the improvements in emissions technology, vehicles are still the largest contributors to air pollution. On a national basis gasoline and diesel powered vehicles still contribute some 60 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions, 35 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions, or smog, 25 per cent of hydrocarbon emissions and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions.

The report stresses the need I talked about earlier to proceed on all fronts simultaneously. It states: "Vehicle technology and fuel composition, although two separate industry sectors, must be treated as an integrated system in the development of policies and programs in order to successfully reduce emissions from motor vehicles". This is good advice. It should complement our work in preparing a comprehensive motor vehicle emissions control strategy which includes the adoption of more stringent vehicle exhaust emission standards. To meet these standards we are counting on integrating improvements achieved in emissions control technologies and fuels.

Clearly we cannot hope to meet these standards without the kind of action we are taking against MMT in Bill C-94. It is not an action of impatience. Since 1985 the federal government has waited for the automotive and petroleum industries to resolve the situation without legislation. It was not resolved. The time for waiting is over. It is now time for the government to act.

The government will not wait any longer and risk compromising federal vehicle emission programs just because both sides cannot come to an agreement. The government will not sit back while auto manufacturers take standard diagnostic systems on 1996 models off line or refuse to have them covered under car warranties because of the damage caused by MMT.

It is decision time. Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both 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 MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions program that we are putting into place and in the long term it could also negatively impact the automobile sector.

A successful resolution of the MMT issue will ensure that environmental benefits are realized with the use of the most advanced emissions control technologies. It will ensure that Canadians are offered the same warranty coverage as in the United States. It will ensure Canadian motor vehicle emissions control programs do not diverge from those in the United States. This means Canadians continue to benefit from the cost and technological advantages of a North American harmonized fleet. It means Canada's auto sector will maintain its competitiveness.

I know some have expressed concern with our plan to prohibit the use of MMT in Canadian gasoline given a recent U.S. court decision to grant Ethyl a waiver to use MMT in unleaded gasoline sold in the United States. However, let it be perfectly clear that MMT still cannot be used in unleaded gasoline in the U.S.

Let us move ahead. Let us do it because we need new emission control technologies like the onboard diagnostic system.

We will not tolerate that Canadian consumers be denied access to the same pollution control technologies as their American counterparts because gasoline in the U.S. does not contain MMT.

We will not allow such a discrepancy to exist between Canadian and American vehicles.

[Common Currency, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the use of the Canadian currency by a sovereign Quebec, it is interesting to look at the recent case of the Czech and Slovak republics. These two new republics had agreed to use a common currency for a transition period of at least six months following their separation. After thirty-nine days, the fear and insecurity of capital holders, that resulted in a massive transfer of assets to other countries, led to this laudable goal being discarded.

The new Slovak republic only had three days to print its own currency to put an end to the massive flight of capital. Today, the currency of that republic, which is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two new states, is worth 12 per cent less than the Czech currency.

By separating from Canada, Quebec would also become extremely vulnerable to such a massive flight of capital. Is the separatist dream really worth the price that will have to be paid? Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I heard right, but I thought the hon. member would come back with different comments and maybe undo what he said in the first place. He said that the cost of sending MPs here was very high, with which I agree, and that we did not need to increase the cost and increase the number of MPs in the House.

I am surprised because the thrust of the bill will permit western Canadians to have adequate representation here as far as numbers are concerned. I do not agree with the member from western Canada who wants to eliminate the possibility of westerners having more MPs and more representation in the House.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am astonished by our colleague's comments. Perhaps he would care to tell the members of this House how many of the votes taken by Reform Party members since they were first elected to this House have in fact been free votes.