Osvaldo Nunez

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion asking the House to recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society. This motion also asks the House to condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives in really supporting the Montreal area economy, particularly in the transportation sector.

During the last election campaign, the Liberals had promised in their red book to give back to Montreal a strong voice within the Canadian government, to favour community groups, to support small and medium business, which constitutes the essence of Montreal's economic fabric, to revitalize housing through a renovation program, and to maximize, in the greater Montreal area, the spinoffs of the research and development program.

Beyond these fine promises, the federal government is doing nothing to help with the economic recovery of Montreal. In the transportation sector, many issues demonstrate the federal government's bad faith. In the last 15 years, 15,000 jobs have been lost in the railway industry in Montreal, which is more than half of the work force in this sector.

The federal government did everything it could to favour rail transportation in the west, at the expense of Quebec, and particularly Montreal, which used to be the main railway centre in the country. Ottawa massively invested in infrastructure in western Canada, while supporting grain transportation to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, it let the Quebec network deteriorate and thus become obsolete.

In the air transportation sector, Ottawa's decisions also had devastating effects on employment in Montreal. In July, the federal government announced it was withdrawing from Air Canada its Czech Republic destination, to the benefit of Canadian International. This decision is further evidence of favouritism toward this company.

In this regard, I must add that, for many years, Ottawa has been postponing the entry of Air Canada in the Asian market and is trying to restrain its access. It then becomes realistic to think that, if the government chooses to put forward policies that put Air Canada at a disadvantage, it is in fact because it wants to penalize it for maintaining its head office in Montreal instead of Toronto.

It is important to mention that Air Canada is currently one of the largest employers in Quebec, with some 7,000 employees. However, we have to wonder why an Air Canada centre is already being built in Toronto and what the consequences will be for Montreal.

The handling of the Dorval and Mirabel airports issue is another example of the kind of mismanagement experienced in air transportation in Quebec over the past two decades. Having two airports has greatly hindered Montreal's competitiveness vis-à-vis the northeastern states. In addition, the decision the federal government made in 1986 to allow air carriers departing from Europe to transit through other Canadian airports sounded the end of Montreal as a major hub. As a result, three times more passengers are now going through Pearson Airport in Toronto than through Dorval and Mirabel together.

I would now like to address briefly the difficult situation in my riding of Bourassa, which includes the 86,000 residents of Montréal-Nord. Starting in January 1997, the riding will also include approximately 10,000 residents of Rivière-des-Prairies.

The population of Montréal-Nord is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan, with the majority, or 38 per cent, coming from Italy or Haiti. The Latin American, Middle-Eastern and Southeast-Asian components are also growing.

The unemployment rate in the adult population of Montréal-Nord is higher than the average rate for the island of Montreal, at 16 per cent versus 12 per cent. In the 15-24 age group, the rate is higher there than elsewhere, at 20.3 per cent versus 16 per cent. Of the total population of Montréal-Nord, 18.8 per cent rely on income security benefits, as compared to 10.7 per cent in Quebec. Those relying on welfare are mainly people living alone, single mothers, children, immigrants and young people.

Many of my constituents are living in poverty. They often come to my office to ask me to do something. As hard as I try, I sometimes feel torn and helpless, unable to meet their urgent needs for jobs, housing, and even food.

The Papineau employment center is slated for closure at the beginning of 1997. The minister who was praising earlier all the great things achieved by Montreal is responsible for this center. At the same time, this government is cutting back on grants to those organizations responsible for developing job readiness programs. The federal government has this great infrastructure program, but Henri-Bourassa Boulevard has yet to be completed.

So I wish to express my indignation at the extremely unfair treatment of the Montreal area, especially Montréal-Nord. Federal members and ministers from Montreal are not doing anything for the city. The federal government must take concrete action to straighten out the disastrous socioeconomic situation of what used to be the heart of Quebec's economy.

I would like to say a few words about what the Minister of Human Resources Development has just told us in this House. He told us that the Quebec government treats Montreal like any other region in Quebec. That is not true. The Quebec government has appointed a minister responsible for Montreal, Serge Ménard, who is doing a great job, unlike the federal government.

I think the minister is exaggerating when he talks about all the great things his government has done for Montreal. He should spend more time in his own riding of Papineau-Saint-Michel, which borders on my riding of Bourassa, where many unemployed Haitian and other immigrants live in incredible poverty.

Pearless, a company in my riding, laid off many workers, most of whom were from Latin America, Asia and Haiti.

This morning, the secretary of state responsible for regional development spoke to us about CDECs or economic and community development corporations. There is a CDEC in Montréal-Nord, but, unfortunately, the federal government is no longer providing $25,000 to develop this institution, this organization. The Quebec government, for its part, gave $25,000, while the city of Montréal-Nord provided $15,000 plus office space, which is equivalent to $25,000. There is no federal contribution at this time. Is this their way of supporting CDECs, which do a wonderful job in the whole Montreal area, especially Montréal- Nord?

For all these reasons, I support the Bloc motion and condemn the Liberal government's policies concerning Montreal and especially its failure to take action.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I also think if there is a political party in Canada which is particularly anti-Quebec, it is the Reform Party.

How can you explain that over the last year, so many Albertans have come in Montreal to tell people in Quebec they care for them and want them as part of Canada, when your attitude is so totally anti-Quebec?

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by my friend, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I cannot, in any way, share his views on the Quebec sovereignist movement.

The term "Quebecer" is not exclusive, it is inclusive. It includes anglophones, such as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, and allophones, such as the member for Bourassa. The hon. member condemns the comments made by Villeneuve toward Jews, as we all did here in this House and elsewhere but, at the same time, he congratulates Mr. Galganov. The same rules should apply to two extremist members of Quebec's society.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and other Liberal members remained silent when a minister of this government, the former Minister of Human Resources Development, asked me to leave Canada, to look for another country, because I do not approve the government's policy and because I am a sovereignist member of Parliament. The member did not say anything then, nor did other government members.

It is unbelievable to hear a minister tell us there are two types of Canadians and Quebecers: those who agree with the federal government's policy are welcome, while those who do not must leave the country. I cannot accept such comments.

I also want to put a question to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. The federal government's inaction is the reason why Montreal's economic situation is catastrophic. It is because of measures taken by this government if, for example, Canadian International moved and is now concentrating its operations in the west, if it secured the rights to fly to the Czech Republic and is now Canada's carrier to the Asian market.

Air Canada is adversely affected because its head office is in Montreal. It cannot fly to Asia, it cannot fly delegates to the Liberal Party convention this weekend. Canadian International does it, as it will also fly those who will attend the rock concert, etc. Why? Tell me.

[Canada Labour Code, October 22nd, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services).

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to introduce a bill whose purpose is to add anti-scab provisions to the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It also contains provisions for maintaining essential services in the case of a strike or a lockout.

I would like to point out that more than 700,000 workers work in the federally regulated sector. Quebec passed similar legislation in 1977. I hope that when the time comes, the Liberals will support this initiative as they did when they were the official opposition.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I worked in the Quebec labour movement for 19 years. By introducing this bill, I am keeping a promise I made to the workers of this country, and it also shows that the Bloc Quebecois is listening to the unions.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This bill was tabled last June 14 by the President of the Treasury Board and would rationalize federal organizations, boards, commissions and advisory bodies. It affects 46 agencies, of which 7 will be dissolved and 39 restructured or modified.

Bill C-49 provides for major changes in the operation of administrative tribunals. These tribunals, which are often less well known than superior courts, nonetheless have a major impact on the daily lives of Canadians and of Quebecers.

These tribunals often hand down more rulings than superior courts. In addition, their rulings often have very important consequences for citizens and for the Canadian government. In fact, there is no longer any doubt about the importance administrative tribunals have acquired in recent years. They are regularly the site of battles between the government and private citizens seeking rulings on the respect of their rights.

There is currently a bill to reform administrative tribunals before the Quebec national assembly. Questions as important as the independence and impartiality of administrative tribunal judges are now being discussed.

This same problem can also be found at the federal level. Bill C-49 could have provided a solution to the fundamental problem of partisan appointments to administrative tribunals. The Liberals would rather stick their heads in the sand.

In an era when the public is so cynical about politicians, the President of the Treasury Board would have shown honourable courage in tackling the question of political appointments to administrative tribunals. Instead, he introduces even more partisan rules, increasing the control of the political arm over administrative tribunals.

Certain provisions in the bill are of particular interest to me. The bill contains a new mechanism for removing from office persons appointed by the Governor in Council to administrative tribunals. Those appointed may, after certain procedures have been followed, be removed from their duties for just cause, by the governor in council.

The process set out in the Bill can be initiated by the chairperson of the administrative tribunal by asking the minister concerned whether the members of the tribunal in question ought to be subjected to disciplinary or corrective measures. The chairperson must cite one of the following reasons: incapacity, misconduct, failure to properly execute the office, or incompatibility.

After the request is received, the minister may take one or more of the following steps, at his discretion: obtain information himself, refer the matter for mediation, request an inquiry, and/or take no further measures. In the case of an inquiry, the governor in council may appoint a judge of a superior court to conduct the inquiry.

Then, only after a inquiry report has been submitted, can the minister recommend that the member be removed from office or suspended without pay, or impose any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure.

The Minister's recommendations are totally at his discretion, regardless of the content of the report.

The bill standardizes the appointment of chairpersons of administrative tribunals. All will henceforth be designated rather than appointed. Such a major modification makes the chairperson highly vulnerable to political pressures from the government, which can quite simply designate a new one, any time it sees fit. I shall speak later of the specific situation of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is, as we know, the most important administrative tribunal in Canada.

These new measures are likely to undermine the credibility of administrative tribunals still further and, particularly, to make them still more dependent upon political power. Without an in-depth reform of appointments to administrative tribunals, measures that seriously hamper the independence and impartiality of these tribunals should not be introduced.

As we all know, the President of the Treasury Board refuses to deal with this important issue, because he does not want to give up the sacrosanct powers of ministers to appoint the members of administrative tribunals. Any reform of or change to administrative tribunals must tackle the arbitrary way in which administrative tribunal judges are appointed and their mandates renewed. Political patronage in a quasi-judicial process should have no place in a modern democracy like ours.

The Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien defines administrative tribunal as follows: ``a generally autonomous and independent body, which the government has empowered to settle disputes between itself and its citizens''.

In 1995, the President of the Quebec Bar Association clearly stated in this regard: "The lack of job security may have unexpected psychological impact on the decisions of a person who may be more concerned about pleasing the government than rendering a fair judgment".

Administrative tribunal members may even be reluctant to set legal precedents favouring citizens at the expense of the government.

I would now like to analyze some provisions of this bill which deal with the Immigration and Refugee Board.

On March 2, 1995, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the introduction of a bill aimed at reducing from two to one the membership of the refugee status determination tribunal of the IRB.

The bill amends section 69.1 in the Immigration Act. This provision provides that two members are usually needed to constitute a quorum at hearings on refugee claims. Except in three particular cases, any split decision by a two-member tribunal is deemed to favour the claimant. Consequently, the claimant needs to convince only one member of the validity of his claim to be recognized as a refugee under the Geneva convention.

This bill will modify this system so that all refugee claims can be heard by a one-commissioner tribunal, except in complex cases in which the chair may assign more than one member.

Let us take a historical look at the make-up of this board. In 1985, at the government's request, Rabbi Gunther Plaut tabled a report on refugee status determination in Canada. The basic condition of this new system was that a high quality hearing be held before a decision maker. Three models were suggested, one of which provided for a hearing before a one-member board, except where a negative determination were made, in which case the board would be made up of three members. It also provided for an appeal, where authorized, to the Federal Court.

In the fall of 1985, the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration reviewed the Plaut report. The committee did not approve any of the three suggested models and decided on a two-member board hearing. In the case of a split decision, the claim would be approved. It would also be possible to appeal a decision before the Federal Court, if the court agreed to hear the appeal.

The committee felt it was desirable for decisions to be made by two persons. Its rationale was the following: the issue of credibility is paramount in processing refugee status claims, as claimants generally cannot present oral or written evidence in support of their claims. That is why it is better to have two persons determine whether or not the claimant is truthful.

The committee also suggested that a divided decision be viewed as a favourable decision, thereby giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant, which is in keeping with the policy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, provided of course that the claimant's story is credible.

This can be a controversial issue. For some, particularly refugee advocacy groups, the current system, which requires a favourable decision by one member only, greatly reduces the risk of a bad decision being made. It also appears that a number of members prefer to share the onus of the decision and thus develop a certain collegiality.

With all due respect for these organizations, I believe that a tribunal made up of only one member will cost less, be easier to set up and, more importantly, will allow the IRB to hear a greater number of cases. This, however, is based on the assumption that the board will have more hearing rooms available.

It is to be noted that the delays and the backlog in the processing of IRB files are considerable and in fact unacceptable. It should also be pointed out that no other tribunal in Canada has an initial decision process similar to the IRB's, not even those hearing criminal cases, where the consequences may be very serious for the accused.

A one-person tribunal may have the effect of making the member more responsible. If the member proved to be unable to make decisions alone, he would not deserve to keep his job. In any case, there should be a review process, in case the member makes an erroneous decision.

When the member for York West was the Liberal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, he was strongly in favour of an internal review system at the IRB. In November 1993, he said he wanted to amend the refugee determination process, so that unfavourable decisions could be appealed within the Board. The former minister even said that the lack of an appeal process was a flaw.

While I agree with the idea of having one instead of two members hearing a claim, I wonder about the qualifications of some members appointed by this government. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am a vice-chairperson, reviewed several appointments and reappointments.

In many cases, the appointments are exclusively partisan. In fact, there is only one way to become an IRB commissioner, and that is to have worked at some time or other for the Liberal Party of Canada, or to have friends in the party. And the salary is very interesting: $86,000 and up annually. The length of service to the party also determines the length of the appointment: one year, two years, three years or four years.

I would like to give a few examples of the patronage appointments of this Liberal government. It should be noted that in the 1993 election campaign the Liberals condemned the political patronage of the Conservatives of the time. The Liberal Party of Canada was going to be a strong advocate of honesty and integrity in government if elected, or so it told us.

But now Mr. Interjit Bal has been made an IRB commissioner. His previous experience included working for the Prime Minister during his leadership campaign and for the Liberal Party of Canada during the 1993 election. He was also chair of the ethno-cultural committee of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was forced to admit to the standing committee examining his appointment that he came into Canada illegally. He was therefore obliged to step down from his duties as commissioner.

I will mention other partisan appointments to the IRB. Auguste Choquette, former Liberal member; Raymonde Folco, former Liberal candidate in the riding of Laval East; Patricia Davey, married to an assistant to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau; Milagos Eustaquoi, former Liberal Party candidate; Janet Susan Rowsell, who worked for the Minister of Justice.

I was an Unemployment Insurance Commission referee from the union movement. During the Conservative reign, I often criticized the partisan appointments handed out by Brian Mulroney. The present government continues to appoint faithful Liberals, often very incompetent ones, to chair arbitration boards. The same situation can be found in the Bank of Canada, the Senate, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian Pension Commission, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and so on.

It is very important that the initial hearing of a refugee claim be of the utmost quality, as I have said here in the past. The board members must, therefore, be competent and well informed.

On March 3, 1995, in response to accusations of patronage, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the creation of an advisory committee composed of a chairperson and four members. I have, however, been extremely disappointed with the outcome, for the committee continues to appoint incompetent board members. It is a known fact that there has been no improvement over the way things were before, under the Conservatives.

In closing, I would like to invite the Standing Committee on Government Operations to have the part relating to the IRB examined by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, since this is a highly technical matter and our committee has something to say on this. There are organizations which want to come and testify before the committee, and the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Government Operations gave us the particular opportunity to contribute our opinion on Bill C-49.

[Poverty, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, community and social groups across the country, including Montreal, marked the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. They demonstrated against increased poverty.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops took this opportunity to remind the federal government that its cuts to social programs are making the living conditions of the Canadian people, especially women and children, significantly worse.

They also condemned the government's failure to introduce a real action plan to eliminate poverty in this country. The figures speak for themselves: one in five Canadian children lives in poverty.

I hope the government will take immediate action to stop the growing impoverishment of Canadians and Quebecers.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the health of Canadians and Quebecers is at great risk. That is why I do not believe this bill is warranted in the circumstances. There are scientific studies to back me up on this.

I think that the government is facing a huge challenge, because if there is no consensus within Cabinet itself, among its own members, it would be wiser not to go ahead with a bill as strongly criticized and as controversial as this one.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to us that there is a very strong lobbying effort by the automotive industry on this issue. Like my hon. colleague, most of the government members who oppose our view are from Ontario, where there is a high concentration of car manufacturers.

If you were really sure of your facts, you could discuss the matter with your colleague, the Minister of International Trade, who is also from Ontario, who wrote the Minister of the Environment, saying how concerned he was about the potential implications of this bill.

If you are so right, why did the Government of Saskatchewan express very serious reservations about this bill? The Government of Quebec did the same thing; the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution opposing this bill.

I think it would be in the interests of the people of Canada and Quebec not to proceed with this bill, especially at a time when there is a difference of opinion in government, within Cabinet. I think the bill should be considered further before being brought back, given that it is very controversial.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak immediately because, shortly after six, I must take a plane to Winnipeg where I will replace a Bloc Quebecois colleague on the justice committee which is holding consultations on young offenders. I also want to thank my colleague from the Reform Party who agreed to let me speak before him.

I am happy to participate in this third reading debate on Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances. That bill would prohibit the utilisation of manganese-based products, including MMT. That additive has been added to unleaded gasoline since 1977 in Canada. However, it is important to mention that Bill C-29 does not ban the production, sale or utilisation of MMT in Canada.

Just like all my other colleagues from the Bloc who participated in this debate, I also think that this bill raises several questions. The economic and environmental consequences of this bill, as well as its impact on trade between Canadian provinces and between Canada and our southern neighbour, the United States, command a more thorough consideration before we pass the bill as readily as the Liberal would want us to.

I wonder about the relevance and the appropriateness of such a bill considering that this government should, in theory, first and foremost see to the common well-being of the country. I say in theory because, judging by the spirit of Bill C-29, in fact, the government seems to be acting in favour of one small group at the expense of Canadians and Quebecers in general.

Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-29 because there seems to be a disproportion between the costs and benefits for the population. I also will not support Bill C-29 because I feel it is unfair since it favours the wealthiest people in our society, that is the majors of the automobile industry who gather more and more in the very Liberal province of Ontario.

I take this opportunity to salute the 26,000 General Motors workers who are now on strike at the plants in Boisbriand, Quebec, and in Oshawa, St. Catharines, Windsor, London and Woodstock in Ontario.

These people are out on strike to save their jobs and to prevent this multinational company from selling two automotive parts plants in Ontario, plants which employ some 3,800 unionized workers. These workers are also striking in protest against General Motors' undue reliance on outside suppliers for parts. In most cases, the subcontractors employ non-unionized workers who are paid less.

I wish to express my solidarity with the CAW strikers, the Canadian automobile workers, and I wish them success. I hope they will sign shortly a good collective agreement with their employer.

Having worked a considerable time in the labour movement I know a strike is never easy; it is difficult and I hope they will manage to reach an agreement in the very near future.

One of the reasons put forward by the government in support of this bill is that MMT is harmful for the environment. Therefore, it is also harmful for public health. However, it is mainly the automobile manufacturers who are making these allegations. They contend that MMT in gas fouls up the car pollution control systems which could lead to an increase in the price of cars, therefore they threaten to reduce warranties and to disconnect the onboard diagnostic systems. The minister who introduced the bill was very receptive to these pressures which have more to do with blackmailing than with true warning against the harmful effects of a product.

Blackmail, indeed, since at the same time other people were voicing a reverse opinion on this bill. Based on Health Canada studies, one of which was done on December 6, 1994, officials from the oil industry and the product distributors, particularly Ethyl Canada, claim that MMT is not harmful to public health. Results from several scientific tests also show the addition of a quantity of MMT to gasoline leads to a reduction of emissions contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone and urban smog. Contrary to statements made by the automotive insdustry lobby, with the ban on MMT, urban smog becomes more significant.

If we withdraw MMT from gasoline, we will have to find a substitute for it. At the present time, it seems the Liberal government is in favour of ethanol, but ethanol production is financially and environmentally costly. Its production from corn pollutes the environment much more than MMT production.

MMT requires less intensive treatment than ethanol, which means less carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide from the stacks of plants producing gasoline. As for ethanol, fertilizers and pesticides used in corn production cause

damage to soil. If the environmental and social arguments in favour of this bill do not hold, the same goes from the economic arguments.

It has been demonstrated that costs related to the changes proposed by Bill C-29 are excessive. Canada simply cannot afford such rather irrational expenses.

The substitute proposed for MMT, that is, ethanol, would require several millions of dollars in investments. Besides, as my colleague was saying earlier, the government has already launched an investment program of about $70 million for ethanol development. Coincidentally, an ethanol plant in Chatham, Ontario, a Liberal stronghold, has received federal government assistance.

Undoubtedly, this bill is partisan, and it is not a coincidence that the government wants to have it passed at all costs. By giving in to the pressures of the automotive industry, which is concentrated in Hamilton West, the riding of the minister at the time, and in southwestern Ontario, and by favouring the ethanol industry, it is scoring political points.

As taxpayers, the people of Canada and Quebec will lose a great deal in this project. According to some estimates, it will cost over $100 million in capital, including $7 million in Quebec alone, in addition to the operating costs of the refineries, which will have to leave the additive MMT out of their gasoline. If this bill is passed, the oil companies may threaten to lay off employees or to increase the price of gasoline.

In addition to the production and transportation costs, there are the costs associated with the multiple lawsuits that might be launched by the American and Canadian companies hurt by this policy. It is imperative to point out that Bill C-29 violates certain provisions of international trade agreements, including NAFTA, as well as interprovincial trade treaties. Once again, through this bill, the Liberal government flouts certain sections of the Canadian Constitution prohibiting federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

On September 10, Ethyl Corporation, from the U.S., which is the only company manufacturing MMT and exporting it to Canada, filed a C$275 million lawsuit against the federal government. Ethyl argues that, under an article in NAFTA, its trade rights are being undermined by this legislation the government is about to pass. This multinational corporation alleges that its reputation has been damaged by the environment minister's comments on MMT.

Last February, the Minister for International Trade sent a letter to his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to warn her that prohibiting the importation of MMT would violate Canada's obligations under the terms of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA, and could only be justified for health or environmental reasons in light of the scientific evidence available.

The Premier of Saskatchewan also informed the Prime Minister of his reservations about the impact of Bill C-29. In a letter dated September 16, he wrote that "the bill is totally unjustified at this time". It is the Government of Saskatchewan saying this. That provincial government's views should be taken into consideration.

Saskatchewan is not the only province to object to Bill C-29. By attempting to regulate interprovincial trade, the federal government is once again interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Last May, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion calling on the federal government to defer passage of Bill C-29. Of course, as in several other areas, the federal government continues to turn a deaf ear to the provinces opposing its legislative agenda. Once again, co-operation between the federal government and the provinces has become an important issue.

For all these reasons, I cannot support this bill. The scientific evidence invoked to justify the ban on MMT is extremely weak, while environmental and economic considerations have not been taken into account. I, for one, feel that these aspects have an impact on the quality of life of Canadians and Quebecers. That is why we must look at them more seriously and carefully than this government is doing.

[Community Organizations, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, community groups that provide assistance to the unemployed in my riding of Bourassa are upset at the funding cutbacks by the Department of Human Resources Development. In the greater Montreal area, the unemployment rate continues to climb.

The groups hardest hit are women, young people and immigrants. Growing numbers of clients and ever decreasing funding are forcing many organizations to close their doors, and leaving others in serious financial difficulty.

Organizations like Impulsion-Travail, Carrefour Jeunesse, Emploi Bourassa et Sauvé, L'Ouverture, a youth centre, and the Association des travailleurs haïtiens du Canada do some exceptional work.

The Department of Human Resources Development must provide adequate funding to these groups in order to end the continual uncertainty and promote their stability and viability.