André Caron

[Consumer Protection, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.

In the report of the Standing Committee on Finance tabled yesterday, the Liberal members recommended establishing a federal consumer protection bureau.

Since according to the White Paper, the government is in favour of reducing overlap and duplication in regulations that apply to the financial services sector in Canada, how does the Acting Prime Minister react to this recommendation from the Liberal committee, which would have the effect of creating further overlap and duplication?

[Resumption Of Debate On Address, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

The speech from the throne was delivered a long time ago. When asked to speak on it, I had to read it over again. I did so. I found a series of general comments, which sounded like political platitudes. I also found that a lot of things which should have been said were not mentioned by the Queen's representative, when he addressed the two Houses.

In order to find a little more substance, I read over again the budget speech presented by the Minister of Finance.

As you know, we are in an era of economics. Everything is in relation to the economy. Everything is calculated, whether it is the fuel consumption of automobiles, the cost of adopting a child, or the price of a child's kiss. This is the age of economics.

I read what the Minister of Finance told us in his speech and I compared it with the speech from the throne. I noticed that some terms kept coming back. The Minister of Finance talked about securing the future of Canadians, something also mentioned in the speech from the throne. The minister spoke about anxiety, a lifestyle that is in jeopardy, a medicare program that is threatened, and a pension plan that is in serious danger.

He told us about the fear of Quebecers and Canadians regarding their jobs and the future of their children. The governor general made similar comments in his speech from the throne. The minister added that his government wanted to find concrete solutions to these issues.

I will stop here for now and continue after question period.

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise a second time to say how much I appreciated the speech of the member who just spoke. I think he put the question well and his selection of literary quotes was relevant.

There is a French novelist-I am not sure of his name-who wrote a book entitled Les animaux dénaturés , a story about a crossbreeding between monkeys and man that turned out badly.

The member mentioned a number of practices that are objectionable, and I agree with him. He also mentioned all the possibilities that science has to offer to cure a number of illnesses. I agree with him on the fact that in maybe 50 years from now, considering what is happening now in the field of genetics research, something around two thirds of what will have been done will be for the best and the other third will have been made illegal, if the laws of ethics and, more simply, of humanity, remain the same.

There is a French scientist who, at some point, ended genetic research performed on animals because the same procedure could have been applied to man. He thought that, considering the present state of science, ethics and even religion, this research had to be stopped.

But research must go on. However, such things as paying donors, sex selection, artificial uteruses, cloning, choosing the sex-as we all know, in some cultures, it is far better to be a man than a woman-those techniques could create a situation where there will be more men than women. This is the cultural issue, but there is also a moral and even a religious issue.

I ask my colleague why the government did not include these measures, which it often describes as horrifying and terrifying, in the Criminal Code. I think Canadians would have readily understood that some of these procedures are in fact in the criminal realm.

What about cloning. If I remember well, that means you create two genetically identical human beings. These are not twins, they are clones, just like computers.

I think that would be criminal. Why did the government not seize the opportunity to ban these procedures and include them in the Criminal Code? Then, Canadians would have understood that it is a crime to do such things, that those procedures are criminal activities. Now it seems we equate something forbidden by the Criminal Code with something immoral. We all know that very often there is a difference between the two. Some activities might be very immoral but acceptable according to the Criminal Code.

Why were those procedures the previous member called horrible and reprehensible, and for good reason, not incorporated in the Criminal Code?

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, like so many people I am concerned about the health technologies, and having followed the proceedings of the Baird commission, which went on for a number of years, I looked forward to the tabling of the federal government's bill on reproductive and genetic technologies.

There are many new approaches to health care and research, and one of them involves altering the genetic code. This is useful because some diseases can be cured in this way, and now we can see whether babies who are still in their mother's womb are likely to have certain health problems and then try to correct them. There are many reasons why we were looking forward to this bill. And especially since there is both a moral and a medical dimension.

When we started altering the genetic code and talking about sex selection and the various technologies that are possible, when we talk about the sale of embryos and surrogate mothers, this is what society has been debating in Canada and Quebec for years.

I expected the federal government's bill to be complete at least in one respect. I listened to the speech by the member for Laurentides, and I realize that eventually another bill will compensate for the shortcomings in the one before the House today.

I just want to put a question to the hon. member for Laurentides, considering the fact that Canada, in its present state, is a vast country whose diversity is such that people differ in the way they see things.

I realize, as I read polls like Angus Reid, that people in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces do not react in the same way to certain questions as people in British Columbia and Western Canada.

I think this might be one of those areas where we should have decentralized. This is probably one of those areas where we should not have national standards. I am not saying that ethics should vary from one area to the next, because I think certain practices should be condemned in Quebec as well as in British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces, but I think that depending on the location, there may be a way to put some different interpretations on certain practices.

If we had decentralized towards the provinces, since health care is their jurisdiction, I think we would have had a better and more flexible interpretation of the legislation. What I am afraid of in this area is uniformity, the federal approach, the national approach. I do not think this area is one that lends itself to uniformization.

My question to my colleague is this: even if we did not consider the constitutional implications, according to her, would it have been better to proceed with a form of decentralization, to amend the Criminal Code and let the provinces be responsible for enforcement, so that enforcement could be flexible across what is now Canada?

[The Jonquière Seniors Association, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, an association providing services to senior citizens in my riding, Les Aîné(e)s de

Jonquière, recently received the Armand-Marquiset honourary award at an international gerontology symposium held in Montreal.

This award recognizes the excellence of voluntary work perpetuating the values promoted by Armand Marquiset, the French founder of the movement Les Petits Frères des pauvres.

We often say no man is a prophet in his own country and, yet, the organization Les Aîné(e)s of Jonquière is the exception. Its remarkable work has long been recognized by the people in the community it serves. Its reputation is now transcending our borders.

I congratulate Les Aîné(e)s de Jonquière association for this award, honours all of Quebec. We must encourage all the associations that, like Les Aîné(e)s de Jonquière, are concerned with easing and enriching the lives of our elderly people with all the respect and recognition they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for a few days now to the famous debate on MMT and Bill C-29. For the benefit of those who are still wondering what MMT is after so many days of hearing about it in the House of Commons, it is methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl.

I am surprised that Liberal members supporting the bill have not each given the name of the product in full, so dangerous does it appear to be, so chemical that anyone surveyed would oppose such a product.

We know that it is a fuel additive, a manganese-based product used to increase the octane rating in gasoline and improve engine performance. It has been in use for a number of years.

Before preparing my speech, I reread the speech of the hon. Minister of the Environment, who called for a ban on this additive in gasoline. We heard about children with respiratory problems, and city smog. It was a bit apocalyptic. It brought to mind certain futuristic films with gloomy cities whose inhabitants are all dressed in black, a bit like Batman films, where everything is dark and dirty. Such was the image evoked by the minister.

However, on giving it further thought and listening to the speeches, we realize that many of our colleagues across the way are talking about ethanol. We are wondering whether this is a debate about MMT or about ethanol. We have questions. A closer look at the situation reveals that there are two large lobbies, two large organizations behind each of these products.

First, there is the automobile lobby, which is telling us that MMT could damage the anti-pollution system. There was talk of fouled spark plugs. There was also talk of devices to test new motors. You know that there is a lot of computerization and electronics, and they are claiming that the presence of MMT in gasoline could cause this equipment to malfunction.

According to the automobile manufacturers, the product presents a hazard. But if the product is harmful, we would have liked to see the Department of Health add it to its list of hazardous products. If it had, we would not have had this debate. The Minister of Health had the authority to do this.

The Department of Health looked into the matter in 1994 and said there was no obvious hazard, and so the use of MMT as a gas additive was not prohibited.

Then the following question arises: What are the arguments of those in favour of continuing this practice? Those in favour are mainly the oil companies. Here again, these are not necessarily companies that are very reliable from the average citizen's point of view, because the oil companies, like the automobile manufacturers, pursue their own particular interests. They have a vested interest in MMT as an additive. Let me explain: According to the oil companies, production costs would go up if MMT were ever to be replaced by another product.

Meanwhile, the oil companies have other arguments as well, because they cannot just tell us it will cost us more and they will have to sell their products at a higher price. They are also warning us against replacing MMT with a specific product, ethanol, which we will discuss later on.

There is also the issue of reducing the amount of nitrogen oxide. It seems that the presence of MMT would reduce the production of nitrogen oxide in the atmosphere. This is a positive factor, and the oil companies have mentioned this. I already mentioned the cost factor. The oil companies also quoted a study by the company that produces MMT. There is, after all, a company that has an interest in the production of MMT, Ethyl Corporation. It demonstrated on the basis of its studies that the product as such was not harmful.

Considering these arguments, we are inclined to believe that the bill aimed at prohibiting the use of MMT is not entirely on solid ground.

Much has been made of the fact that in the United States, the use of MMT as an additive was banned. However, there has been a court ruling allowing certain larger oil companies to resume adding MMT. So that argument is no longer valid.

There is another argument in favour of maintaining the use of MMT as a gas additive, and that is NAFTA. As you know, we signed NAFTA several years ago. The Liberal Party was opposed to it. It was supposed to make very significant changes in the treaty, but it was all much ado about nothing, because there were no major changes. However, according to the NAFTA treaty, we would not necessarily have the right to ban the use of MMT.

Earlier, there was a reference to a $200 million lawsuit, and one hon. member opposite said, in responding to the hon. member for Laurentides: "They-the Americans-sue everyone for anything". But when you read the American newspapers, you realize that people are being sued for enormous amounts of money. So I do not think it is very reasonable to argue that it does not really matter if we are sued, that we should not take it seriously, since it is just a way for American lawyers to make a living.

There is another aspect we should not overlook, and it is that six provinces in Canada are opposed to this ban. If it were only Quebec, people could say that the Quebec separatists are at it again, objecting to a federal measure because it interferes with provincial jurisdictions, but here we have not one but six provinces. We could also mention a letter from the Premier of Saskatchewan who is opposed to banning MMT.

We can see there are two lobbies in opposition here, the automotive lobby and the petroleum industry. However, we as legislators must reach a decision. We can see that the arguments for removing MMT from gasoline have no scientific basis. We can see that the arguments for continuing to introduce the manganese-based additive to gasoline are readily defended.

There is another aspect which is becoming more and more obvious, one on which my colleague from the party in power has spoken at length just now: what would replace MMT, since gasoline needs to have an additive in order to have the proper octane level, would be ethanol. We note that there has been major development in that industry in Ontario.

The other day, I heard our colleague for Lambton-Middlesex speaking of the imminent opening of a $153 million plant in Chatham, Ontario, which would provide an outlet for some of the 15 million bushels of corn produced in the Chatham region.

I am well aware that the product is being developed in Ontario, that they want to replace MMT with ethanol, but I feel this should be done openly. They ought to say: we have a Canadian product we

want to develop, and it can be proven that it would replace MMT advantageously. Then they convince the gasoline companies to replace the MMT. There is no obligation for them to add MMT, they could just as easily put in ethanol.

What we are doing now is doing the work of those who are trying to develop the ethanol industry in Canada. We are trying to get MMT taken out through binding legislation, which would leave only one possible additive, ethanol, which just so happens to benefit many ridings in Ontario.

This is why my party will be voting against the bill. There is no proof that this is a dangerous product. It is not appropriate to vote in favour of such a bill.

[The Municipality Of Laterrière, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the municipality of Laterrière has just celebrated the 150th anniversary of its founding.

This celebration provided a great opportunity to showcase its natural, cultural and historical assets. Designed as a series of historical vignettes set in various locations throughout the municipality, the original play "La tournée folle du grand brûlé" brought part of its history back to life.

The celebrations ended October 6 with the blessing of a statue in honour of Laterrière's founder, Father Jean-Baptiste Honorat.

The municipality of Laterrière was hard hit by the Saguenay floods. Remembering its history reassures us about this courageous community's ability to meet this new challenge.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

As the minister indicated, this bill is to bring the Canada Shipping Act up to date and increase the shipowners' limits of liability to public and private claimants for oil pollution damage in particular.

The bill will also bring Canadian legislation in line with a number of protocols and international conventions signed over the

past 20 years. The Bloc Quebecois obviously agrees in principle with the objective of the bill.

I can tell you up front that all these fine principles will be carefully considered in committee to see if they are just as fine in practice.

In his speech, the minister mentioned the Exxon Valdez disaster.

We would have liked him to mention the Irving Whale disaster as well. As you know, decades ago, this barge sank off the Magdalen Islands. This summer, the barge was lifted. It was the property of a large Canadian corporation well known not only for its commercial activities, but also for certain characteristics that became known to the public after the owner died.

It became obvious that the owner, the promoter, the founder of the Company had made it clear to his heirs that, in business, what mattered was interest, but not public interest. The fact that the company benefitted from the support of the people and the legislation of the various levels of government in the province and the country where it was established did not count as much as the bottom line, interest.

On the positive side, this reminds us that a business is a business and, as such, it is ruled by its interests. The expression "corporate citizen" should be banned from our vocabulary. There are citizens, individuals who are dignified with the status of citizens, but, as committed as a business may be to the community, it does not have that dignity.

That is why I think we should ban the expression "corporate citizen". Without any negative or bitter attitude toward business, it is from this perspective that we will be examining the legislation. We will ensure that this act goes beyond the current one and makes shipowners more responsible, particularly when accidents result in the leakage of hydrocarbons in the waters.

It is very important to implement a recognized principle in our society, namely that the polluter must pay. This is indeed a popular principle, but we have to be careful. These days, to justify certain bills and given the new ideology, governments often say that polluters must pay and so should users, which seems perfectly normal.

However, implementing this principle is often much more problematic, as we recently saw in the legislation imposing user fees for Canadian Coast Guard services. As you know, the Bloc opposed a number of measures. We fought hard and people said time and again that, before imposing new fees, the government ought to first clean up the coast guard.

We were told about truly shocking administrative practices. Still, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dismissed all these arguments and did not follow up on any recommendation made by those who came to submit briefs. Seventy-five per cent of all those who submitted briefs and who made representations were opposed to the new fees. Eastern Canada, and particularly the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes region, is clearly penalized by this new fee structure.

This is how a commonly recognized principle in our society, namely that the user pays for the services provided to him, is applied. This principle was applied to justify measures which are harmful to a region of Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, but which benefit the Atlantic coast-but we will not get into this again.

The Bloc will carefully examine the bill in committee and keep in mind what happened with the Irving Whale .

To Canadians, it is totally unacceptable that a company could renege on its responsibilities, let the government, in other words the Canadian taxpayers, pay to refloat its barge and then have the government, pursuant to the current legislation, obliged to give the barge back to its owner. In a year or two, or maybe just in a few months depending on how long it will take to repair the barge, we might see the Irving Whale off the Magdalen Islands. It is outrageous, since it cost $30 million to Canadian taxpayers.

The government might be looking for ways to get compensated, but I do not think that current legislation gives it the power to do so. We will examine the bill in committee in the light of recent events. I think we will have some interesting amendments to bring forward, based on the briefs we will receive and the evidence the witnesses will give during the committee's hearings.

[Air Transport, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is odd that it happened the very day that Air Canada had an agreement with Lufthansa specifically to use the Prague route.

How can the transport minister justify before this House that Air Canada never had an opportunity to be heard before it was decided to take the Prague route away from it and give it to Canadian? At least they could have listened to what Air Canada had to say.

[Air Transport, October 4th, 1996]

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

We learned, last July, that the Minister of Transport was taking the Prague route away from Air Canada and giving it to Canadian, the very day that Air Canada announced its new service to Prague, in partnership with Lufthansa.

How can the Minister of Transport justify this decision as anything other than a shameless bias in favour of Canadian to the detriment of Air Canada, which has its head office in Montreal and employs 5,500 people in the west and over 14,000 in Ontario and in Quebec?