Osvaldo Nunez

[Semaine Interculturelle Nationale 1996, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, November 8, will mark the beginning of La Semaine interculturelle nationale in Quebec, around the theme "Gens d'ici, Québec 96: un avenir commun". This week will demonstrate the solidarity between Quebecers of all origins, and will foster understanding, dialogue and rapprochement.

The focus of this week will be what unifies all of the people of Quebec, what makes the people of Quebec open, democratic and respectful of the rights of everyone.

Hundreds of activities will be organized throughout Quebec, with a view to a greater understanding of cultural diversity, as they were last year.

Because this week contributes to strengthening the solidarity within our community, the Bloc Quebecois members wish this event focussing on rapprochement unqualified success.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup as it deals with an extremely important issue.

In the speech from the throne, the government promised a complete overhaul of the Canada Labour Code. It was long in coming, but just a few days ago, a bill was finally introduced. Unfortunately, it does not contain any real anti-strikebreaking provisions.

Parliament has been looking at this for many years. Across Canada, there are more than 700,000 workers under federal jurisdiction, subject to the Canada Labour Code, who are not protected by anti-strikebreaking provisions like workers in Quebec, British Columbia and, until just a few months ago, Ontario. The Conservative government of Ontario abolished this protection.

In Quebec, since the anti-strikebreaking legislation was introduced in 1977, labour disputes are no longer as violent and tend to get settled more quickly. Today, we enjoy unprecedented social peace in Quebec.

Having been involved in the labour movement for 19 years, I know this area pretty well. I even introduced a bill of my own containing very specific anti-strikebreaking provisions. I hope that, when the time comes, we can count on the support and co-operation of this government. While many Liberal members are quite sensitive to this issue, all the Minister of Labour actually told us is that anti-strikebreaking provisions may be included, but would apply only when an employer tries to break the union.

This would be extremely hard to prove. How can one tell that the employer intends to break the union? You cannot prove that. This provision will have no immediate, concrete impact on labour relations.

This is a most unfortunate shortcoming, which will hopefully be remedied through amendments to this bill, when it is considered at committee stage. I do hope the government will reconsider and include real anti-strikebreaking provisions in the Canada Labour Code.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the throne speech by raising, among other issues, Canada's relations with Latin America and the upcoming visit of the Chilean president.

Before dealing with the main topic, I want to say that I am very sensitive to and concerned by the tragic situation and the humanitarian disaster taking place in Africa's great lakes region. The international community must immediately take action to help the more than one million refugees in Zaire.

A summit was held in Nairobi two days ago, and eight countries asked for a neutral multinational force to be sent to the region to establish temporary humanitarian corridors and safe havens for refugees. Unfortunately, Rwanda has so far opposed the idea. I urge the federal government to do its utmost to ensure that this humanitarian assistance is sent as soon as possible, and I wish the best of luck to the mission headed by Raymond Chrétien.

In the speech from the throne, we are told that Canada will do everything possible to extend the scope of NAFTA, the North American treaty that includes Canada, the United States and Mexico. We are also told that Canada is committed to establishing priority relations with Latin America.

However, efforts to extend NAFTA have so far failed. The heads of state of our continent met in Miami, in December 1994. They decided to invite Chile to join NAFTA. This was two years ago, and no new country has acceded to the treaty.

This past January, Canada and Chile decided to began negotiations on an interim bilateral agreement, to make it easier for Chile to join NAFTA. I expected these negotiations to be very quickly brought to a successful conclusion, but it is still not the case. Chilean president Eduardo Frei was supposed to visit Canada from October 1st to 4th, but the visit was postponed to November 17, 18 and 19, because of the failure to reach an agreement during these negotiations.

As you know, I come from Chile and I attach a great deal of importance to the visit of the Chilean president in the coming days. The president will come to Ottawa and Toronto. I must express my great regret, in this House, that he and his delegation will not be going to Quebec, in spite of the invitation sent by the Quebec premier and his government. I hope the federal government has nothing to do with this decision. At times, I have personally noticed federal interference in Quebec's relations with other countries.

I am pleased that Chile returned to democracy in 1990, after 17 years of dictatorship and systematic violations of human rights. I myself came to Quebec in 1974 because of the hard line dictatorship that had ruled in Chile for 17 years. Today, Chile is a country with a very high rate of growth and has resumed its place within the international community.

Santiago is the headquarters for ECLAC, the prestigious economic commission for Latin America. It has an annual growth of approximately 7 per cent and a population of 14 million. It is the site for an increasing number of international meetings. In the coming days, 21 countries will be meeting in Santiago for the Ibero-American Summit, which includes not just Latin American countries but also Spain and Portugal. This summit will look at economic problems, as well as social and political problems, and the issue of democracy and human rights.

In March of 1977, Chile will also host the summit of heads of state and heads of government of the Americas, which will be attended by approximately 44 countries and in which the Prime Minister of Canada will participate. Chile also belongs to APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, which will be meeting in Manila in a few weeks and in which the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of Chile and other heads of state and heads of government will take part.

I am also glad to see that relations between Chile and Canada and Quebec are very good. They are at the highest level in all areas of the economy and trade. Last year, the Prime Minister of Canada visited Chile and other Latin American countries. Fortunately, Canada finally decided to join OAS, the Organization of American States, in 1990.

Quebec has very close ties with Latin America. We share many fraternal ties of friendship based on our common Latin heritage. Relations are intensifying.

Former Liberal minister, Charles Caccia, went to Chile. Bernard Landry also visited that country in late August and early September. The Canadian Chilean community, which numbers 35,000 throughout the country, with concentrations in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, is very pleased and satisfied with this visit, a first. No Chilean head of state or head of government has visited Canada for at least 50 years.

We were expecting this bilateral trade agreement to be signed. However, all signs so far are that it will not be, because negotiations have been more difficult than foreseen. There are still a few details to be worked out. I do not think these problems will be resolved in the next ten days.

However, a social security agreement will be signed during this visit between Chile and Canada, providing benefits in the form of disability pensions for the surviving spouses of individuals who have worked in both countries, Chileans who worked in Chile and who are now here, or Canadians who are now working in Chile. This is an agreement I have been pushing for since Chile's return to democracy. It is an agreement that also, in my view, meets the aspirations of the Chilean community in Canada. I hope that Canada will sign other such agreements with other countries, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, which have sent many of their nationals here.

But I also regret that, since the president is not coming to Quebec, the social security agreement between Quebec and Chile will not be signed this time, although there are 10,000 Chileans, 10,000 Quebecers of Chilean origin, living in that province who would like to see it signed as soon as possible.

Today the exchange of goods and services is being liberalized on this continent. Canadian investments in Latin America are increasing daily, eight billion dollars in Chile alone, primarily in the area of mines, forestry and communications.

There are still problems to be resolved, however. Many Latin American countries complain about how complicated it is to get a visitor's visa to come here. This is the case for Central America. The problem is greater there because Canada does not have ambassadorial representation in some Central American countries, such as Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

This is a problem, because people have to travel to apply for a visa. I hope that, some day, the Canadian government will be represented by ambassadors in some Latin American countries, because there is a principle of reciprocity in international law which ought to be respected. These are countries, Bolivia for example, which have embassies in Ottawa.

I have said that I was in favour of these efforts toward continental economic integration, but I do have a couple of reservations, because a process of integration should be able to benefit all of the population in the countries concerned, which is not the case at the present time. In Latin America, there is still extreme poverty in many countries, with immense differences between social classes. The great majority of people do not have essential services, sometimes lack housing, do not have access to education, face some very serious problems.

What I would like to see in meetings and discussions between Latin America and Canada is for us to also be able to address the problems of poverty, unemployment, underemployment, exclusion and human rights issues. During the Chilean president's visit, I hope that the agenda will include, not only economic questions, investment, exchange of goods and services, but also social, cultural and political questions of concern to the entire Chilean and Canadian population.

I would also like to see this Parliament make more effort to link Canadian and Latin American parliamentarians. Since I was elected to Parliament in 1993, I personally, with the support of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, have made every effort to intensify and strengthen parliamentary relations between Canada and Latin America. I have personally visited Chile and Argentina, Cuba and Central America. I have met many parliamentarians.

I think we have the resources, the capacity to do more. With Mexico, for instance, we have a parliamentary friendship group but we should have a recognized parliamentary association. We have other associations, especially with Europe, the United States and Japan. The parliamentary groups do not have the resources to do anything effective.

As a member of Parliament of Chilean origin, I welcome this visit by President Frei. I hope it will be a successful one. Meetings will take place here in Ottawa between the two governments. I previously noted visits by the Argentine President Carlos Menem, by President Zedillo of Mexico and Central American presidents. I hope the Canadian government will invite other heads of state and government leaders. We share the same continent. We have common problems, and we should have more extensive relations.

Here in Ottawa, I often met the ambassadors from Latin America. We speak the same language. Sometimes they do not have a very good understanding of the political, legal and constitutional structure of this country, because in Latin America, generally speaking, all states are centralized. For instance, they do not realize that if they want to conclude an agreement on social security, they also have to negotiate with Quebec, separately from Canada, because social security is a shared jurisdiction. The provinces in Canada have a great deal of autonomy. We have to make the effort, and whenever I have a chance, I try to explain the situation in Canada to them. I also explain the situation in Quebec.

I think the federal government has sent the wrong message to Latin America by saying that Canada is a united and homogeneous country. It has emphasized Canadian unity without ever informing the international community that Quebec has legitimate aspirations, that it wants to use democratic means to become a sovereign country, and that this is legitimate. The United Nations have recognized more than 25 countries during the past ten years. There is nothing anti-democratic about what Quebec and Quebecers are doing.

Again, I hope this visit by the Chilean president will help expand relations that are already very good between Canada and Chile, and between Chile and Quebec.

[The Hispanic Community In Canada, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, I took part in the annual assembly of the Canadian Hispanic Congress in Vancouver.

The hispanic community is made up of some 300,000 men and women who were born in Latin America or Spain. They came here to escape persecution, dictatorship or civil war, or merely in search of a better life.

Canadians and Quebecers of hispanic origin, of which I am one, constitute a relatively new, dynamic and growing community, with an important contribution to make to their host society. Quebec has welcomed some 80,000 Latin Americans with warmth and generosity. They have integrated well with this society, with which they have characteristics in common, due to their shared latin heritage.

As the sole member of this House of hispanic origin, I wish to greet the members of this ethno-cultural community, the executive of the Canadian Hispanic Congress, and particularly its president, Bernardo Berdichewsky.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member and I agree with him that one third of the jobs in Canada depend on international trade. However, I do deplore the lack of information. Hon. members were not kept abreast of the negotiations leading to this agreement, and unfortunately we now have the same problem with respect to the negotiations between Canada and Chile.

I asked the Minister of International Trade for a progress report, but all we got was one briefing with a public servant, who did not answer all of our questions. As hon. members, we should be better informed about such negotiations.

I also deplore the fact that this Canada-Israel agreement does not include any social provisions to protect workers, as is the case in NAFTA or the Canada-Chile agreement. These two agreements provide for parallel agreements on labour and on the environment, which are missing from the Canada-Israel agreement. In my opinion, such social provisions are needed to protect Israeli, Palestinian and Canadian workers. I would like to hear your reaction in this regard.

[Immigration, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a survey released yesterday by the Quebec minister responsible for relations with the public shows that Quebecers are increasingly tolerant and open to ethnic and cultural diversity.

A majority of people believe that immigration promotes economic development, with 72 per cent regarding it as contributing to the province's cultural richness. Young Quebecers are the ones who have the most positive and dynamic attitude in this respect. This bodes well for the future of Quebec.

Comparisons with the rest of Canada are striking. While only 29 per cent of respondents in Montreal consider that there are too many immigrants in their city, in Toronto and Vancouver, that percentage rises to 46 per cent and 49 per cent respectively.

This goes to show that the people of Quebec have the most positive attitude toward immigration in Canada. I can personally attest to that. Newcomers who choose Quebec as their new home can expect a warm welcome.

[Canada Labour Code, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to debate Bill C-35 at report stage. This bill tabled on May 9, 1996, is to align the federal minimum wage rate with the general minimum wage rates established from time to time by the provinces and the territories. Let me say right off the bat that I support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

This is a subject in which I have a great interest. As a previous speaker indicated, I was involved in the Quebec labour movement for a long time and, at every convention of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec or of the Congrès du travail du Canada, resolutions were passed requesting that the federal and provincial governments raise the minimum wage, which is consistently too low.

I have often criticized the federal government, arguing that, in its capacity, it should be an example to the provinces in the area of labour law in Canada. As a member of the International Labour Organization, the federal government is the one that signs international conventions respecting minimum wage and other principles important to the workers.

Like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I think that the best way for low-wage workers to improve their conditions is to unionize. The unions can do something to improve the plight of these workers. Those who earn minimum wage are not even entitled to social benefits. I think that raising the minimum wage is a great way of fighting poverty.

Under Bill C-35, the rate paid to any particular employee is that of the employee's province or territory of employment. The Governor in Council retains the authority to establish a minimum wage rate that can apply to employees on a provincial or territorial basis and that differs from the rate set by a province or territory.

This bill is important to the official opposition, and it is in our best interest to support it. Of course, once this legislation is completed by the antiscab bill I tabled in this House last week and the other necessary amendments to the Canada Labour Code, we can then state loud and clear that the Canada Labour Code is in line with reality at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Make no mistake about it, the Canada Labour Code still has some major flaws.

I support this bill, which-it is important to emphasize this-concerns more specifically the most vulnerable in our society. For example, workers who are not covered by a collective agreement or who hold precarious, often part time jobs, increasingly concentrated in industrial and economic sectors that are sensitive to fluctuations, the soft sectors in the economy.

Two thirds of minimum wage workers are women. Many are immigrants and young people. Of course, the harmonization of the minimum wage based on the rate in effect in the province or territory should be hailed. In fact, the Government of Canada has not raised its ridiculous $4 hourly rate since 1986. This rate is so out of step with today's cost of living, it seems like an anachronism. There was an urgent need to raise it as soon as possible.

It is interesting to compare this $4 hourly rate with the rate in effect in the Canadian provinces, which average around $5.60. In Ontario, the minimum wage rate is $6.85, while Quebec raised its rate to $6.70 on October 1. I must point out that this increase is due in part to the women who, in May 1995, participated in the "bread and roses march" from Montreal to Quebec City.

In the Prairies, the minimum wage rate hovers around $5 an hour: it is $5.35 in Saskatchewan, $5.40 in Manitoba, $5 in Alberta. I do not understand how a province as rich as Alberta can have such a low minimum rate. The minimum wage in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories is $7 an hour, compared to $6.86 in Yukon. It is $4.75 in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, $5.50 in New Brunswick, and $5.35 in Nova Scotia.

As I said before, it is quite clear that raising the minimum wage is an important tool in the fight against poverty. Such a policy makes the economy of a country or a province more dynamic, in that it helps reduce the underground economy, while stimulating the consumption of goods and services.

Also, in the case of a welfare recipient, working outside the family home becomes more interesting when the minimum salary is more decent and in line with the costs involved. It is important to remember that, over the years, the gap between minimum wage and the poverty line has decreased.

It would have been a good thing to table this bill and to announce at the same time the implementation of a true policy to fight poverty in Canada and in Quebec. One Canadian in six currently lives in poverty. The proportion is even greater in the case of women, children, immigrants and young people.

Canada's population is increasingly poor. I am not the only one to say so and to deplore this fact. The loss of jobs and the cuts in the federal public service payroll and in social programs are meant to help reduce the public debt, but they do little to put a stop to the impoverishment of our society.

Moreover, this situation does not only affect the poor, but also social classes which were thought to be immune from a deterioration of their quality of life.

This is why I can only support whatever attempt this government makes to help protect the interests of Canadian and Quebec workers. The federal government should show the way regarding minimum wage and everything that relates to labour law. Unfortunately, it is not the case.

Still, the proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. This is why I support Bill C-35.

[Immigration, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There is nothing new in what she says. The levels set by the government for 1997 are about the same as for this year.

There are, however, a couple of changes. Economic immigrants take up far more of the total: 60 per cent of immigration. Canada will take in between 82,000 and 90,000 skilled workers and between 20,000 and 30,000 business persons. This, I feel, is a good decision, but one that was made at the expense of the family reunification program.

The family reunification program, which involves spouses, fiancés, parents and grandparents, will account for only 35 per cent of immigration to Canada. Until the Liberals came into power, the family class and the economic class were almost equal. This is no longer the case. In all, there will be a total of between 168,900 and

187,700 new immigrants. With the refugees, that makes a total of between 195,000 and 220,000 newcomers to Canada in 1997.

The minister does not, however, mention that some 80,000 people leave Canada each year. The positive balance will, therefore, range between 115,000 and 140,000 new people in Canada.

There is one other comment I would like to make. The government had created the category of provincial or territorial nominee. Last year, the objective for these persons to be nominated by the provinces or territories was set at 1,000. The number for next year will be the same. I have some questions, and the minister is not giving us any answers. Is this new category a failure? Are the provinces not interested in taking part in this program? The Bloc Quebecois believes that provinces ought to play a far greater role in immigration, a far more active role, because immigration is a jurisdiction shared between the federal and provincial governments.

The minister does not indicate where these new immigrants will be coming from, either. As at present, two-thirds of the new immigrants will come from Asia, particularly Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. The rest will come particularly from the former Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Pakistan.

When I asked departmental employees this morning, they were unable to tell me how many new immigrants are expected from Latin America.

There are no figures because the numbers have shrunk and are so small that Latin American countries do not rank among countries that provide high levels of immigration. In my opinion, Canada should make a special effort to attract more immigrants from Latin America, as we approach continental economic integration.

NAFTA will be expanded to create a broad economic zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, involving the mobility of capital, investment, services and goods. As far as mobility of individuals is concerned, however, problems on our own continent are increasing, and Canada is not very generous to Latin America as far as immigration is concerned.

Africa has the same problem. Today, 42 per cent of the world's refugees come from Africa, this out of a total of 25 million. We see what is happening today in Africa, but the minister remains silent on these tragic events.

However, I do want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with the target figures proposed by the minister for 1997, although the government is still far removed from the objective set in the red book, which proposed annual immigration levels equivalent to 1 per cent of the population of Canada.

I am critical of the fact that the minister has considerably reduced the family component. There has been a major reduction in this class, which goes against the promises made by the Liberal Party in its red book, where family reunification was one of their priorities. That is not the case. I closely followed the proceedings of the convention of the Liberal Party of Canada on the weekend. They said their record was very positive: 78 per cent of their promises had been kept.

The government's policy is a dismal failure as far as family reunification is concerned. Last year's target figures, which were much higher, were not met.

Under the Conservative government, about 250,000 new immigrants were admitted to Canada annually, but this year, the real figure will be less than 200,000. It is expected that next year, the real figures will also be well below the target figures.

The minister said in her speech, and I agree with her on this point, that we should never lose sight of the human aspect of immigration. However the immigration tax imposed by the federal government in the 1995 budget is certainly not indicative of a policy that is open and fair to all aspirant immigrants.

The fact that each individual has to pay $975 to obtain permanent residence in Canada is a major hurdle for immigrants from developing countries. I realize that at this last convention some Liberals tabled a resolution to eliminate this tax. I also realize that some members, even Liberal members, as yet do not agree with this discriminatory tax, which goes against the government's family reunification program.

This tax is even more irritating when applied to refugees. Even the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed very serious reservations about this refugee tax. I think it goes against the spirit of the Geneva convention, which is aimed at protecting persecuted people, victims of conflicts, and so on.

I must also point out that this tax is a significant source of revenue for the government, bringing in over $250 million a year. With the other fees immigrants must pay to have their files reviewed, obtain work permits, etc., the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's total revenues exceed $400 million a year, while its overall annual budget is only $600 million.

I would like to say a few words on the issue of refugees and displaced persons. The situation is tragic. In addition to the 23 million refugees I just referred to, there are over 100 million people displaced from one country to another or within their own countries as a result of wars, persecutions, natural disasters, racial or religious troubles, ethnic intolerance, political repression, poverty, and human rights violations.

I think that, without exceeding the general goals set by the minister today, we could make an additional effort for world refugees, especially women and children, who make up 80 per cent of all refugees and persecuted people.

I was very affected by the horrific scenes in Zaire we recently saw on television. In the Goma region alone, 200,000 refugees have gathered in the past few days. With its 214,000 refugees, the new Mugumpa refugee camp is the biggest in the world.

Again, as the Bloc Quebecois did yesterday, I call on the government to help these hundreds of thousands of sick people without drinking water or the basic means to survive.

Even though the war in Bosnia is over, there is still a problem. Some people have returned to Bosnia, but the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees tells us it is still too early. Some are so traumatized by the war that they cannot return to Bosnia right away.

There are problems in Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, the Sudan, etc. But it is mainly what is happening in Zaire that should concern the Canadian people. We must provide humanitarian assistance to the African continent. We need special programs to deal with the human tragedies facing Zaire and other African nations.

Under the Canada-Quebec agreement, Quebec set its levels at 27,000 new immigrants for the year 1997. I must point out that Quebec is the most generous province for refugees. In 1995 alone, Quebec welcomed 12,019 asylum seekers, compared to 11,546 for Ontario, the most populous province in Canada. Quebec welcomes 47 per cent of refugee claimants, compared to 45 per cent only for Ontario.

The minister makes no mention of it. In their recruiting campaign, Canada and the Canadian government should promote francophone immigration in Quebec. Quebec is the only French-speaking country, the only French-speaking nation, the only French-speaking state in America and, as such, it has to protect its French-speaking immigration. Quebec believes that it is enriched economically, socially and culturally through immigration.

I would like to mention in passing a survey published today in La Presse , which indicates that the people of Quebec are quite open to immigration. A survey released yesterday by Quebec immigration minister André Boisclair shows that two Quebecers out of three are receptive to cultural diversity and pleased with the number of immigrants coming here every year.

Quebecers are very tolerant, I have always said so, and they do not display any signs of xenophobia toward the minorities. This survey tells us that 67 per cent of Quebecers are receptive to cultural diversity; 56 per cent believe that immigration promotes economic development; and 72 per cent regard immigrants as contributing to the province's cultural richness. Also, 64 per cent of Quebecers, or 11 per cent more than in 1992, believe that immigrants work hard to fit into Quebec society.

Here is what this very serious survey conducted in April says. It shows how open Quebecers are, contrary to what some members have been saying, members of the Reform Party in particular and also members of the Liberal Party.

I agree, as I have just said, with the minister that the positive aspects of immigration should be emphasized. Immigrants make a substantial economic, cultural, social and political contribution. I notice that the minister did not address either, unfortunately, the hostility perceived today in Canadian society toward immigrants and more particularly refugees.

Contrary to a certain statements, immigrants contribute more than they receive. They do not tend to use social services as much as people who were born in Canada. The crime rate is lower among them than among people of Canadian stock. This needs to be repeated in this House, and it is the minister's responsibility to educate the Canadian public on the enormous contribution made by immigrants and refugees as well, since most refugees are young and highly educated individuals fleeing persecution and looking for a better life for themselves, their families and their children. They come to Canada with all this energy they have. They are prepared to contribute to economic growth and to employment development.

I will conclude with a few comments on the IRB. Time and time again the minister has said that the IRB is an independent tribunal, but in Bill C-49 before us, she is giving herself the power to remove the IRB chairperson at any time. Under the current legislation, the chairperson may be removed only after five years, coinciding with the end of his or her mandate. With this new legislation, she would be authorized to dismiss the chairperson after a year or two, then renew his or her mandate, chose someone else, and so on. For these reasons and others, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-49.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate again in the debate on Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances. Its purpose is to ban the use of manganese-base substances, including MMT.

This is a highly controversial bill, even among ministers and government Mps. The cabinet is not unanimously in favour of it. The majority of provinces are also opposed. As well, it involves a serious conflict between two major industrial sectors: the automo-

tive manufacturers and the oil industry. The former maintain that MMT is harmful to their products, and forces them to adopt mechanisms and practices which could result in purchasers having to pay more for their vehicles. The latter are opposed to the banning of manganese in unleaded gasoline, and contest the legitimacy of the arguments used by the other group.

I object to the way automotive manufacturers are blackmailing the government and the consumer, with their threat of a $3,000 hike in price and restricted warranties if this bill is passed.

The petroleum industry claims MMT reduces nitrous oxide emissions by as much as 20 per cent. Moreover, a study commissioned by the Council of Ministers of Environment, Canada, estimates that the refineries would require $115 million in capital and $50 million yearly in additional operating costs to get rid of MMT in Canada. This would also mean a hike in gasoline prices. In addition, results of tests by the Ethyl Company in the USA contradict the arguments of the automobile manufacturers.

In my opinion, the proposal to ban MMT has no environmental, economic or legal justification.

This bill is not in line with Canada's obligations under trade agreements such as NAFTA and those relating to interprovincial trade. This past September, the U.S. Ethyl Corporation indicated its intention to lodge a complaint calling for $200 million U.S. in damages from Canada under the appropriate sections of NAFTA for the damages sustained by its Canadian subsidiary. This multinational also claims that its reputation has been tarnished by the comments of the Minister of the Environment on MMT.

As for interprovincial trade, by prohibiting the marketing of manganese-based substances, this bill violates federal-provincial trade agreements. It also constitutes an unacceptable intrusion by the federal government in this area. In fact, almost all provinces are opposed to this bill. Last May, even the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution, supported by the opposition, asking the government to postpone the passage of this bill.

So it is hard to understand why the government insists on sending this bill through the House, a bill that, by the way, was criticized by the Minister for International Trade. In a letter sent to the environment minister seven months ago, the Minister for International Trade maintained that banning the importation of MMT would be contrary to Canada's obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. There was no justification for health or environmental reasons, considering the scientific evidence available. He went on to say, and rightly so, that he was afraid this would lead to another trade dispute with the United States.

Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on September 16, in which he said that the legislation was in no way justified at this time. He added that, according to the scientific data available on MMT, there was no indication that environmental benefits would accrue as result of this legislation, and they found it difficult to let the refineries or consumers foot the bill.

At the present time, there is very little justification for banning the addition of MMT to unleaded gas. I may remind the House that from the economic point of view, this bill is a costly one, especially in terms of jobs lost, if we consider the threat to the viability of many refineries, including some refineries in Quebec.

This is in addition to the economic problems arising from the resulting violations of trade agreements with North America and the Canadian provinces. This bill contains a number of legal shortcomings, which may have major consequences for Canada's reputation and economy. How can we expect American businesses to be interested in penetrating the Canadian market, when the Government of Canada interferes with the way they do business or fails to observe its trade agreements by passing bills like C-29?

As far as the environment is concerned, the evidence has shown that removing MMT does not increase air pollution, nor is this substance harmful to public health.

A research program funded by the Quebec Department of National Resources, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute has made it clear that the contribution of manganese from MMT sources is negligible, compared with other industrial and natural sources; highway traffic only has an indirect effect on the percentage of manganese in the atmosphere by recirculating dust particles near roads and streets.

In conclusion, there is every reason to object vehemently to Bill C-29, which creates problems from the economic, environmental, social, commercial and legal points of view. For all of these reasons, I am very much opposed to Bill C-29.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that we should congratulate CAW workers for settling a dispute which lasted a few weeks between the CAW and General Motors. Ontario and Quebec workers succeeded and I congratulate them because they won a difficult battle.

Second, the federal government has a major responsibility regarding Montreal's problems. The Quebec government did its share. It appointed a minister responsible for Montreal. As for the federal government, it makes decisions that are detrimental to Quebec, and particularly to Montreal.

For example, the federal government favours Canadian International, whose activities are concentrated in western Canada, at the expense of Air Canada, whose head office is in Montreal. It makes decisions concerning Canada's railway system-Montreal used to be the hub of the railroad industry until a few years ago-with the result that the whole industry is now moving west. Montreal used to be Canada's metropolis. Now, Toronto has taken that title away from it. A large number of these decisions were made by the federal government, at the expense of Montreal. I am not saying that the federal government is responsible for all of Montreal's misfortunes, but it is largely responsible for its difficult and even disastrous economic situation, particularly from an employment standpoint.