John Murphy

[Katimivik, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants I met with a group of young people involved with Katimivik.

Katimivik is an Inuit word meaning meeting place. The project being funded under Youth Services Canada brings youth between the ages of 17 and 21 together to acquire work experience, become involved in their communities and discover Canada.

Through exchange programs such as Katimivik, Canada's young people have an excellent opportunity to travel and learn about all regions of our great country. By promoting this wonderful program the government is helping to bring young people together to achieve common goals, build lifelong friendships and to help break down regional barriers that often divide us.

I urge the government to continue to promote Katimivik and other similar exchange programs as a valuable means of building stronger ties among all parts of Canada.

[Canada Post Corporation, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take the required measures to privatize all operations and services of the Canada Post Corporation.

I cannot support this motion. To support it is to support an end to universal access. My riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants is primarily a rural riding, a riding where people recognize the important role of the post office in strengthening the economic and social infrastructure of our communities.

Much like myself, the hon. member for Yellowhead lives in and represents a predominantly rural riding, an area where a private corporation might not choose to provide a service. Does the hon. member realize that if this motion were adopted, the postal services in his riding and in rural ridings across Canada could be seriously affected or become non-existent?

As government we believe in the importance of providing easy access for all Canadians regardless of where they live. I cannot understand why the member for Yellowhead would introduce a motion that could deny postal services to his own constituents.

Canada Post is improving services to Canadians. In the past five years Canada Post Corporation has increased by nearly 30 per cent the number of locations where stamps, postal products and postal services can be purchased. The crown corporation has a network of over 2,500 franchise outlets across the country. When we walk into our local drug store or convenience store, chances are we can purchase postal products at one of these outlets. These outlets attract customers to these locations which means increased commerce. It is good for business and good business helps our economy.

By building on these partnerships with local businesses, Canada Post is expanding the accessibility of postal services without incurring large expenditures. This is part of Canada Post's drive to ensure convenient access to postal services for Canadians.

I also point out to the hon. member that independent surveys done by Decima and Anderson Strategic Research show that customer satisfaction with these outlets is well over 90 per cent.

Canada Post's diversity is evident and it is demonstrated in how it operates throughout the country. Take for example Atlantic

Canada. In Atlantic Canada, Canada Post is a 200-year old federal institution which has helped to build and maintain the region. Atlantic Canada is predominantly rural and has the largest number of small post offices in the country. Among them is Canada Post's first post office which is located in Halifax. Throughout the region there are approximately 2,300 locations to buy postal products.

The post office is not just a place to buy stamps. It is a place to interact with other people, to establish the links which make a community and build a country. I live across the street from the post office in Canning, Nova Scotia and I see the traffic. I hear the conversations. I see the relationships which are made. I see the transactions people make. I talk to those people. It is the hub of our community.

For millions of Canadians the post office has been connection point and an important part of our culture. Hon. members will remember that in February 1994 there was talk of further closures of rural and small town post offices. During that debate I talked and met with postal officials and many concerned citizens in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants and the message was clear: "Do not close down the post offices". I brought that message back to Ottawa.

On February 17, 1994 in the House I urged the government to demonstrate its commitment to rural Canadians to ensure that these post offices remained open. The minister listened to these concerns and to the concerns expressed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As we know, he placed a moratorium on closures and conversions of rural and small town post offices. In announcing the moratorium the minister said: "As long as this government is in power, no rural or small town post office will be closed".

I remind the hon. member that in his riding the towns of Whitecourt, Grande Cache, Hinton, Edson and Jasper are all covered by the Liberal moratorium on post office closures.

If Canada Post were to be privatized, would the private company keep all of these small post offices open? Even courier companies are closing down shop in small towns. If these companies close down, who is left? Who will deliver the parcels to rural areas once the hon. member has privatized Canada Post? That is why Canada Post is a necessary national institution.

The hon. member must take into account that 20 per cent of Alberta and 23 per cent of Canada is rural. With privatization there is a real danger that rural Canadians will be forgotten.

People in the town of Evansburg in the hon. member's riding held a meeting and asked the government not to close down their postal outlet. The government is listening. Canada Post under this government will not abandon rural Canadians.

While the motion talks of privatization, I wonder what kind of service Canadians living in the northern regions would receive under this scenario. In all likelihood the answer is nil.

Canada Post has had a profound impact on the north. Since its formation in 1989 the northern services division has been responsible for maintenance and improvements to postal operations in northern Canada.

Ongoing training programs have allowed northern services to work toward the gradual turnover of operations and management to indigenous residents of the area. The area administered includes Yukon, Northwest Territories, communities in northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and all of Labrador. This division represents 72 per cent of Canada's land mass and a diverse population of 221,000 people.

The geographic location, the climate conditions, the low population density and the remoteness of population centres create operational challenges and some difficulties in mail delivery and communication with residents. To overcome these difficulties, the corporation has adopted its network policies and procedures to meet the specific needs of the north.

It is clearly evident that Canada Post helps to promote and maintain this region of our vast country. Canada Post must remain a crown corporation because there is a need to provide consistent services to Canadians while being fiscally responsible. This means servicing all areas of the country, even those which are less profitable, and serving them well.

That is why the Canada Post Corporation was established as a crown corporation on October 16, 1981 out of what was then a government department. I remind all members of the House that the Canada Post Corporation Act was supported by all three parties in the House of Commons. It was welcomed by organized labour, business and consumer groups.

The Canada Post Corporation was established as a crown corporation to provide purpose and direction and to bring business values to the operation of postal services in Canada. Why should this government now take a successful corporation and privatize it? I believe that over the years Canada Post has made progress. However, I also believe we still have a lot of work to do.

I am pleased to see that our government is conducting a mandate review of Canada Post. It has been 15 years since the corporation was established and 10 years since the Marchment report, the last major review of Canada Post's mandate. It is therefore necessary to examine the current situation against the original intent. It provides a valuable opportunity to revisit corporate direction.

Canada Post is a national institution and we are proud of it. Canada Post has achieved many accomplishments. Canada Post is a viable crown corporation and it provides an essential public service.

I cannot support the motion before the House because I believe it would bring an end to universal access to postal services. This in turn would negatively affect the very communities I have been elected to serve.

[Bank Act, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate today on Bill C-100. I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my support for this legislation which will enhance the safety and soundness of the Canadian financial system.

I would like to focus on the issue of early intervention when an institution is experiencing financial difficulties. It is an area where Bill C-100 establishes a dramatic shift or enhancement in the philosophy of financial institution regulation. It is a reform that I believe all consumers should applaud.

As the hon. secretary of state pointed out earlier, the logical underpinning for early intervention in problem situations begins with the principle that ownership of a financial institution is a privilege, not a right. This reflects the absolute vital role in terms of economics and public confidence that such institutions play in an open market economy.

The legislation before us takes this principle to a natural and essential conclusion. It recognizes that when a financial institution is experiencing difficulty, the owners do not have the right to continue business until the bitter end. In other words, the obligations of management include a duty to depositors, policyholders, creditors, as well as shareholders. This means that an institution's owners do not have a natural authority to carry on in the hope of some miraculous turnaround, until capital is depleted or they cannot pay liabilities as they come due.

Bill C-100 translates this view into concrete measures. It makes clear that if early intervention in and resolution of institutions experiencing difficulty need to occur it can occur. This is specifically recognized in a new mandate for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. This mandate is given bottom line reality to changes in the statutes to permit this institution to obtain a winding-up order for problem firms earlier than this is warranted.

I should point out that this new mandate represents an important clarification of the mission statement of OSFI. Prior to Bill C-100, this institution was guided very informally by the objectives to maintain public confidence in the Canadian financial system.

However the bill provides the regulator with a detailed, legislative mandate which recognizes OSFI should contribute to public confidence. It will do so by recognizing the interests of depositors, policyholders and creditors of Canadian financial institutions.

Prescribing such a mandate more formally in legislation is an important step. This will give the regulator greater accountability for its actions. It also lets institutions and other stakeholders know that the regulator will deal with them in an expeditious manner should problems arise.

Greater transparency with respect to the role of the regulator provides all financial institutions, healthy or troubled, with a greater incentive to monitor their affairs more prudently.

I firmly believe the very fact that the early intervention is a clear and concrete part of the OSFI mandate is in itself an incentive for better management.

Bill C-100's mandate for this institution extends beyond simply requiring the regulator to take immediate action with institutions experiencing financial difficulty. OSFI has a broader responsibility to promote the adoption by senior management of financial institutions of sound policies and procedures to control their risks. After all, financial institutions must bear a greater responsibility to their stakeholders for managing their exposure to risk adequately. This is consistent with the principle that ownership of financial institutions is a privilege and not a right.

Supervisory systems must be designed in such a way to create an incentive for corrective action by financial institutions themselves to set right and salvage firms where possible.

However, earlier resolution alone cannot ensure that a troubled financial institution will not fail. In an open market environment, especially in today's increasingly competitive global arena, firms may fail. Therefore it is extremely important, when closure of a financial institution is imminent, the supervisory system be prepared to shut down an institution in a manner that protects the interests of all stakeholders.

In this regard, Bill C-100 provides the regulator with sufficient scope to close down a troubled institution before the value of the firm has been fully depleted.

The legislation includes amendments to the winding-up and restructuring act which provides OSFI with additional grounds for obtaining a wind-up order for a financial institution. The act is also being amended to provide more flexibility to restructure, under court supervision, the affairs of insurance companies in liquidation. This should provide protection for stakeholders if closing down is required. The liquidator will have greater scope to enhance value within the estate and improve recovery on assets deposed of by the liquidator to the benefit of all policyholders.

Again, the interests of financial consumers stand to be recognized under Bill C-100 revised closure policy. I believe this legislation acts on the aspects of good regulation and good management, fairness and openness.

In other words, there is a fundamental need for transparency of the supervisory system. If we are to encourage the most positive attitudes and behaviour within institutions, it is essential that they understand the steps that the authorities can take if the financial situation deteriorates. We must be prepared to deal with situations where firms make mistakes and face difficulty.

We must have a more transparent system in place so that messages to the company management are clear. That is why the secretary of state is proposing a guide to intervention that clarifies the actions that can be expected, a guide that clarifies the role of OSFI and the CDIC, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.

This guide sets out four stages of intervention. Each stage makes clear to institutions what type of regulatory action will be taken. It includes a number of fairly technical supervisory measures that may be measured and used by OSFI in recognizing the interests of stakeholders.

It also spells out actions by CDIC in fulfilling its legislated objectives to control risk to the deposit insurance fund and minimize its exposure to loss.

These regulatory actions range from the initial stage one situation, where the regulator takes a number of small steps when the institution is experiencing difficulty. At this stage, OSFI could require the external auditor to expand its work. If the company continues to decline, there are two other stages of more direct action that can be taken by the regulator, where a more hands-on approach is taken. By stage four, firm action is required because insolvency is imminent.

The institution approaching this stage will have warning that unless it improves its situation it will be shut down. Bill C-100 provides that in such a scenario, OSFI could seek a winding-up order while the institution still has positive capital.

This is clearly to the benefit of the depositors, the policyholders, the creditors and other stakeholders. It is consistent with the institution's mandate.

The legislation before us is largely technical in content. It does not have the drama of some other high profile issues, but this should not obscure its vital importance, nor its real benefits to our economy and to the security of millions of Canadians.

Consumers have come to expect that regulatory authorities take prompt action to deal with the problem of financial institutions. A sound, dynamic financial system is important to all Canadian consumers and an essential component to economic strength, the strength that ultimately, as we know, produces jobs.

The legislation enhances the soundness that Canadians expect from their financial system. A sound, dynamic financial system is a fundamental foundation for personal financial security and public confidence. The legislation before us will ensure that such confidence is fully justified.

I urge all hon. members to approve this legislation. It is in the interest of all our constituents and our nation as a whole.

[Mothers Against Drinking And Driving, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 16, I attended the local kick-off for the Mothers Against Drinking and Driving red ribbon campaign in the town of Kentville in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. The red ribbon project is this organization's most visible grassroots campaign. Each red ribbon serves as a reminder for motorists to be safe and sober drivers during the holiday season and throughout the year.

In 1994 over 1,700 people were killed in alcohol related accidents. That works out to 4.6 people per day. By working to raise awareness on this issue, we can all help to prevent the senseless deaths and injuries that result from drinking and driving.

I have a red ribbon tied to the antenna of my car. I would ask that all members of the House support this very worthwhile campaign by doing the same.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-96.

The bill has a single and fairly simple purpose, integration. The government is setting out a solid legislative process for integrating Canada's social and labour market programs. With these changes, the Department of Human Resources Development brings under one roof all of our efforts to help Canadians achieve their full potential in society and in our economy.

Within this single department are all the programs and services that help people looking for work find and keep jobs, help employers find workers they need, help workers and employers under federal jurisdiction to maintain fair labour standards and a safe working environment, help people between jobs, Canadian seniors, families with low incomes and people with disabilities to get the income support they need.

It will help people get training and develop new skills for a changing economy. As well, it will help local businesses, communities and entire industries to target the skills for the future and build a skilled workforce that will help Canada be competitive and prosperous in a changing world.

By bringing all of these different programs into one department, we have taken an important first step toward ensuring programs work together, providing meaningful, co-ordinated solutions for the real world.

By taking this step the government has helped set the stage for real integration in the way programs and services are delivered to Canadians. Let us face it, when people come looking for service, they could care less which program branch delivers that service. The last thing they need is to be sent running around from one office to another.

One of the most fundamental goals of the government's approach is to ensure that integration takes place at the local level. To do so we must focus on locating the decision making and design of services at the local level. Instead of highly centralized decision making, we need to allow a much greater degree of discretion and judgment in the field.

Having been in the field of psychiatry and mental health for 30 years, I know what it means to tailor programs to individuals; it is very important and this bill accomplishes that.

Over the last two years I have developed a close working relationship with the Canada Employment Centre in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. I have had many opportunities to meet with the employees, listen to their ideas and watch these professionals do their jobs. I am convinced more than ever that decision making power must rest with the local level.

Decisions about what kinds of programs make sense in a community should be made by the community, in partnership with local businesses, trade unions, community and municipal organizations. If it is going to work we have to completely rethink the way we define programs and services.

As my hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's stated, we cannot say to communities across Canada: "Here is a program and here are all the rules you have to follow. Do it our way or not at all". He also went on to say that individuals need programs and even though it is not what they need, this is the only program we have money for so take it or leave it.

Instead, we want to say to communities and individuals: "Here are some basic tools that we know have worked. Here is the money and the available resources. Now you the client decide which tools make sense and how you can use these resources most effectively". Just do what needs to be done. That is the motto of this bill.

That is what integration means, bringing it down to the local level. That is what we are trying to do with Bill C-96. The government is also bringing this approach to the largest single social program in Canada, unemployment insurance.

For years now, we have had two separate tracks going for people who are unemployed. On the one hand there is the UI system, an absolutely vital program providing temporary income support for people between jobs. On the other hand we have developed an increasingly sophisticated and effective set of employment programs, a set of tools to help people develop new skills, gain work experience and in the end find jobs.

Our challenge in this bill is to integrate these two components, to build a single integrated employment service that people can turn to, not just for a cheque but for help to get back into the workforce. This means finding a way to combine that essential system of income protection provided by UI with an active system of employment, a system that gives people the resources and the opportunity to make choices about the kind of skills that are required, the kind of future they want to build for themselves.

For example, we are experimenting with a form of internship with small businesses. There are companies that desperately want to hire new workers but cannot afford to provide the training new workers require. With this program we help them hire young people, older workers and women returning to the workforce. We provide some support to pay for the learning curve, the time it obviously takes for new workers to become fully productive in their new jobs. The experiment is getting good results. Small businesses are creating jobs for unemployed Canadians, real permanent jobs.

Over the past year we have developed a program for self-employment under unemployment insurance. We want to give people a choice. Rather than simply collecting benefits while they look for a new job, we want to give people the opportunity to create their own jobs. The department provides some financial support, monitoring and counselling to help participants get their businesses started.

Over the past year 30,000 people have started their own businesses this way through the unemployment insurance system. They have not created just 30,000 jobs but rather 60,000 jobs. That is the

kind of positive initiative that can happen when we think in terms of integration.

Another example of integration can be seen in our government's strategic initiatives program. This program is important since it provides the government with the unique opportunity to experiment with program design that will support future policy development.

In September 1994 the government in partnership with the Government of Nova Scotia announced the launching of such a program. Success Nova Scotia 2000 will assist 3,000 young Nova Scotians to gain valuable work experience in leading industries using internships as an important part of their learning culture.

It is part of our commitment to find better ways for young people to secure jobs. By bringing together a full range of Canada's social and labour market programs, we are setting a new course and making a positive difference in Canada.

Bill C-96 provides a strong basis for this new direction. It ensures the structure that is in place for the federal government continues bringing programs and services together while working with our partners in the provinces and the communities across the country.

[National Unity, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, over the last 128 years Canadians have built a country that is the envy of the world. We have built a land that is prosperous and a country based on shared values such as peace, compassion and tolerance.

We are also a nation profoundly attached to remaining a united country, a nation that includes Quebec. The mutual social, economic and political benefits of a united country or a united Canada have been clearly stated by the leaders of the no campaign.

All Canadians from coast to coast have spoken from their hearts. They have reached out to say loud and clear that we want Quebec to stay. Now is the time for Quebec to look at the facts. When it does so, I believe Quebec will reject confusion, uncertainty and separation.

On this important day I believe Quebec will clearly express its intention to remain in a united Canada.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-107. As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I know the importance of the bill. I will spend a few moments talking about the federal government's perspective on the B.C. treaty negotiations.

The federal government has a dual objective in entering into treaty negotiations: to achieve certainty as to the rights and obligations of all lands and resource users; and to establish a new relationship between First Nations and other citizens. It is important as Canada evolves to achieve a better relationship between our native people and the rest of Canadians.

The interests which Canada brings to the treaty negotiating table are outlined in the preliminary document dated June 27, 1995. This was prepared by the federal treaty negotiations office.

The Government of Canada has primary jurisdiction over issues such as financial benefits, governance and fisheries, while in other areas such as lands and wildlife it may exercise varying degrees of authority. Although the federal government does not have primary jurisdiction over all the topics which will be subject to negotiation, it has nevertheless declared its interest in every area. Overall, in concluding treaties in B.C., Canada's interest is ensuring that fairness, affordability, clarity and durability are present.

The federal government has also identified its specific interests in negotiating the key components of the treaty. Those key components are lands and resources, financial benefits and governance. Let me outline some of the key elements of each of these components.

In the area of lands and resources, we want to ensure the conservation of resources for the future use and benefit of all Canadians. We want to ensure that we promote and integrate a co-ordinated approach to land and resource management. We also want to identify and consult with all interested and affected third parties and deal with them equitably. We obviously have to respect the legal rights of all of our citizens. The promotion of self-reliance of the First Nations is important and is one of the reasons I sit on the parliamentary committee. Last, with respect to lands and resources, we must safeguard Canada's over-arching obligations.

In the area of financial benefits, we want to ensure in concluding agreements that they are affordable for all Canadians. That is very important. I believe we can work together with all parties to make sure that happens. We also have to ensure that there is no burden to Canada's economy and taxpayers.

Most important, we must ensure there is fairness and equity among all the treaties concluded in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada. That is important for our government. We talked about that in our red book, that there be fairness and equity in all of our conclusions when we do these treaties. The last and most important one is promoting self-reliance in the First Nations communities.

The main elements in the area of governance are establishing new relationships with First Nations. That is an important element for us. We are always striving to do that. I am watching this happen more and more in my committee. We are looking at it in a subcommittee on education of which I am also a member. We are looking at how those new relationships can be built so that First Nations can take their proper roles in the country.

We want to establish clear and harmonious jurisdictional arrangements among all levels of government. We also want to maintain Canada's over-arching sovereignty and the application of the charter of rights and freedoms.

We must make sure that First Nations institutions of government are democratic and accountable. This is coming more and more into play. Our native people want to be more democratic and accountable for their ongoing performance in Canada.

We want to recognize the unique needs of various First Nations. That is very important as well. There are so many unique needs of our First Nations people. Through this treaty and this commission those needs, unique as they are, can be highlighted and accentuated.

The means whereby Canada will achieve its interests will be determined through extensive consultations with third parties and ultimately through a process of negotiations with the First Nations and British Columbia.

What is the vision for post-treaty British Columbia? The federal government has a vision for British Columbia after treaty negotiations have concluded with the province's First Nations. Canada seeks a society in which new relationships are forged with First Nations, a relationship obviously based on respect and trust, one

that reconciles modern Canadian realities with the traditional native aspirations.

Although Canada has a vision of what it would like to see at the end of the day, there is no prescription to define this new relationship. It will be built on a process, that trust I talked about, the respect I talked about. That will be negotiated by the three parties: the First Nations, Canada and British Columbia.

The fundamental elements of Canada's vision for post-treaty B.C. include certainty, equity and finality, practical arrangements, and opportunities for economic development. That is very important because our First Nations are striving to build their communities. They are striving to be more independent, but that independence can only come if there is economic opportunity and development, if native people can forge their design and abilities around economic development and make their communities more productive. That would give the independence and self-reliance which is so important for our First Nations people.

We have to make sure that the vision is workable, efficient and cost effective with these governance arrangements. What we will see in this vision at the end of the day are healthier First Nations. Nobody wants that more than the First Nations people themselves.

Last, we want more harmonious relations and better neighbours. That goes without saying. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-107 and, obviously, very pleased to support it.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.

I support the bill. I believe it is an important step in ensuring fairness and equity in the workplace. This is especially true for women, aboriginal people, persons of disability and members of visible minorities, all of whom represent segments of our society that have not always been given a fair opportunity. These groups continue to experience higher than average unemployment rates, lower than average salaries, and are concentrated in the lower paying jobs.

In recent weeks we have had a valuable debate about employment equity. It has allowed us to discuss an initiative that will help ensure all Canadians have equal opportunities in the workplace.

However throughout the debate there has been one recurring and unsettling element: the consistent effort of the Reform Party to practise the politics of polarization.

As I have listened to the debate, far too often members of the third party have chosen to misrepresent the intent and practice of employment equity. In so doing they have chosen a dangerous course. Instead of taking an important step forward they have opted for the status quo. Instead of making our society stronger and more inclusive they are spreading misinformation aimed at dividing people.

Before I deal with their politics of polarization, let me begin my remarks by noting other elements of the position of Reformers on the bill. The key element of their position is that infallible market forces are enough to address employment barriers. That was summarized in their minority addendum to the report of the standing committee. They stated quite clearly that the market would punish an employer whose employment practises had systemic discrimination built into them. Yet market forces alone cannot eradicate systemic discrimination. Voluntary measures toward achieving equity in the workplace have not brought about significant changes for many people.

There is another dimension to the Reform position, that is the denial of systemic discrimination in the workplace, discrimination that not only results from a conscious bias but from inadvertent practices and systems. In other words a seemingly neutral policy can have adverse impact on certain groups and individuals based on race, gender and disability.

The term systemic discrimination refers to this type of unintentional barrier to equality. However, when I listened to the arguments made by members of the third party, they believe only one kind of discrimination occurs when an employer says that he will not hire a person because she is a woman, a visible minority, an aboriginal person or has a disability. Systemic discrimination has nothing to do with any intention to discriminate. Canadian employers are fair. Many organizations have already recognized the existence of such discrimination in their workplace and are working hard to eliminate it.

That brings me to my final point, the politics of polarization. Time and time again hon. members in the third party have chosen to debate the issue in terms that can only create confusion and division. They talk about quotas when the bill explicitly rejects them. They claim the bill promotes a new kind of discrimination when it clearly does not. They harp on this as an attack on merit, yet the bill explicitly states that no employer will ever be forced to hire an unqualified person. That bears repeating because the third party is trying to confuse the people of Canada. The bill explicitly states that no employer will ever be forced to hire an unqualified person.

I advise my hon. colleagues across the way to take some time to sit down and read through the bill. They should read section 5 where they will see what employer obligations really are. They should read section 6 where they will see what is not an obligation. They should read section 10 where they will see what an employment equity plan really is.

Bill C-64 is about making all reasonable efforts to build workplaces that respect people. In listening to the arguments of my colleagues across the way it is clear they have chosen to ignore the experience of many employers covered under the existing legislation. They are making employment equity work the right way. They see it as a human resource planning pool. They know that a key element of an effective equity program is communication. People need to know what equity is and conversely they need to know what it is not.

When members of the Reform Party suggest that the legislation is about stealing legitimate opportunities from some to give it to the undeserving, what kind of a response do they expect? It would seem that they want a backlash. Rather than focusing on the issues of real equity in the workplace, they instead focus on misinformation about what the bill really stands for. They are trying to capitalize on genuine concerns many Canadians have about their jobs and their future.

Let us be clear. The Reform Party wants short term political gain based on the politics of fear.

This bill responds to a real problem. It reaffirms our government's commitment to equity for all Canadians. Our government is living up to its responsibility and we are working to make positive changes for Canadians. We realize that denying this problem will not make it go away.

In closing, Bill C-64 is not about giving unfair advantage to certain designated groups; it is about equality and removing barriers to employment. When this bill comes to final vote I will be on the side of building a stronger and more inclusive society in Canada. I will vote in favour of Bill C-64 and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

[Maitland, Nova Scotia, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to the citizens of the village of Maitland in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.

At a ceremony last July Maitland was designated as Nova Scotia's first heritage conservation district. This past Saturday Maitland was again recognized, this time as the recipient of the Elaine Burke award, an honour which recognizes community achievement in active living and environmental citizenship.

The citizens of Maitland have shown both pride in their heritage and a desire to build on their rich history in a positive and healthy fashion. I believe this pride in community is representative of the attitudes of people throughout my riding and indeed the province of Nova Scotia.

I would ask all members to join me in congratulating the village of Maitland on this well-deserved recognition.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to speak on Bill C-94, the manganese based fuel additives act. This bill is intended to prohibit the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT, a manganese based additive to unleaded gasoline. The law will take effect 60 days after royal assent.

Canada is one of the only countries in the world that is using MMT. The United States banned MMT in 1978. Only Bulgaria and Argentina are considering using MMT.

Environment Canada has received and reviewed study after study after study of the effects of MMT on this equipment. I agree with our Deputy Prime Minister and with Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, the list goes on, that MMT adversely affects the sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems where the pollution control equipment is found.

These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle's emission controls and for alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They ensure automobiles are properly maintained resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy. Therefore this is a very important technology. It is even more important that it works and that it does its job. We will make sure it does.

To ensure this technology works it must be free from MMT. OBD systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution control systems, in particular the catalysts, and alert the driver to malfunctions. If the OBD system is not functioning because of MMT and if the catalyst is not working at all, tailpipe emissions could be increased up to 40 times.

The third party has suggested that MMT reduces NOx emissions by 20 per cent. However this reduction is based on data collected by Ethyl from test cars. When examined in the context of the

current Canadian fleet, Environment Canada analysis indicates that NOx reduction would only be 5 per cent.

The third party has asked why the minister did not try to negotiate an agreement between the two parties. I can assure the House the government has been working since 1985 to broker a solution. Senior departmental officials from environment, transport, industry and natural resources have worked with senior representatives from the petroleum and automotive industries for several years in an effort to resolve this issue.

More recently the Deputy Prime Minister attempted to negotiate an agreement between these industries. She met with representatives of the petroleum industry on two separate occasions. The Deputy Prime Minister was prepared to support the introduction of a green pump containing MMT free fuel in an effort to resolve this issue. The petroleum industry rejected this approach.

It is now time to act. If we do not act now then the federal government's vehicle emission reduction programs will be in jeopardy. We risk missing out on major reductions in smog, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. If we do not act now, Canadian consumers will be prevented from taking advantage of state of the art emissions reduction technologies simply because they do not have access to MMT free gasoline.

If we do not act now, we could face a situation where automakers will be forced to turn off the diagnostic systems scheduled for 1996 models because of the damage MMT causes. General Motors is already bringing models off the assembly line with some of the onboard diagnostic functions disconnected. GM, like others, is no longer prepared to assume the increased warranty risks for damage caused to pollution control equipment.

In the end Canadian motorists will have to pay more to have their cars maintained because of this kind of industry action. We as a government will not let this happen. We will not allow the buck to be passed to the Canadian consumers. We will not allow anti-pollution equipment in Canada to be less effective than anti-pollution equipment in the United States. We will not allow the competitiveness of our auto industry to be threatened. We will not allow investment and the thousands of Canadian jobs which depend on this investment to be put in jeopardy.

Let us be clear. The job of reducing motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed just by the auto industry, the petroleum industry or the government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution demands 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 improvements in vehicle emissions control technologies such as those offered through onboard diagnostic systems.

Preventive action means producing goods more cleanly. It means using less energy and conserving our natural resources. It means developing and using the latest green technologies, like the emissions reduction technologies in today's cars and trucks.

This bill before the House is one measure of prevention. This bill is pro environment, pro consumer, pro business. Eighteen of Canada's automaking companies think we are doing the right thing. Canadians think we are doing the right thing.

MMT can no longer stand in the way of the progress we continue to make on vehicle emissions reduction and environmental protection. Let us protect jobs, protect investment, protect consumers and protect the environment. Let us make Canada the last country in the world to use MMT.