Keith Martin

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to speak to Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

The purpose of the bill is to ban the import and interprovincial trade of MMT, an octane enhancer. Essentially MMT reduces emissions from motor vehicles. The government claims that MMT damages the onboard devices in new 1996 cars. It is going to be obligatory for cars used in Canada not to use MMT. This was at the prompting of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association.

The Ethyl corporation that makes MMT and the petroleum products group claim that first, MMT is not a health hazard to Canadians and second, does not damage onboard devices.

If the minister wishes to ban MMT, then she has to prove that MMT is a health hazard to Canadians. The contrary has been proven by the Ministry of Health which has shown that MMT does not damage the health of Canadians. I have heard some spurious allegations by members across the way who have actually claimed that since the health department said what it did, that maybe MMT really does harm Canadians. Those are statements made off the top of their heads without any factual basis. If we look at the facts, MMT does not harm the health of Canadians.

Central to the bill is the question, does or does not MMT damage onboard devices? There is ample evidence showing that onboard devices are not damaged by MMT. It is wise to look at the situation in the United States. We say we want a common gasoline for our vehicles, but the United States is bringing back MMT. It is bringing MMT back for a couple of very important reasons: first, that it is

not a health hazard to people; second, that it does not damage onboard devices; and, third, that if it is removed from gasoline nitrous oxide emissions will be increased by more that 20 per cent. Nitrous oxide is a very important component of smog. Smog exacerbates respiratory problems in people who suffer from asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.

If MMT is to be banned another substance will have to take its place. That will make gasoline more expensive. It will translate into more expense at the pump and in turn will cost to the industry more. It would act as a depressant on the economy, which means fewer jobs.

The minister cannot ban MMT on the basis of health reasons so she is going to try to ban its movement in interprovincial trade and in import and export which, in effect, is a ban on the substance. That is how the minister has managed to get around that.

The real truth behind this is that the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association is looking for a scapegoat because its members know that their onboard devices malfunction. They want to find some other reason for this and have found a handy peg to hang their hat on by claiming that MMT damages the onboard devices. However the facts prove otherwise.

When looking at the situation in the United States which does not use MMT, we find that onboard devices malfunction at exactly the same rate as they do in cars using MMT. This is very conclusive, suggestive and strong evidence that MMT, as a reason for the damage of onboard devices simply does not hold water.

I ask the minister to look at new ways and new energy sources. The transport sector has a 90 per cent plus dependency on fossil fuels. As we all know in the House, fossil fuels are finite and one day they will come to an end.

We must also look globally. By the year 2025, 11 billion plus people will be living on this planet or twice as many as lives on it today. Therefore, energy consumption will double or, as many people believe, will increase even more than that.

Another reason is that in developing nations people are actually consuming energy at a far greater rate than they have in previous years. Through industrialization and manufacturing the demands for energy and fossil fuels increase.

I ask the minister to work with the minister of science and technology and the Minister of Transport and look at different ways we can work on new and more environmentally sound alternatives to fossil fuels in the future. One alternative is electrically powered cars. We cannot provide energy now at the low cost that we have with fossil fuels but in the future this will be an important alternative for powering vehicles. While we cannot do it now, we must look to the future and develop the research and technology so that we can do that.

Another interesting concept is the hydrogen fuel cell which works on the electrolysis of hydrogen sulphide or water. Although these systems are too bulky right now to use this might be an alternative form of power for vehicles in the future. Another is photovoltaic cells which take energy from the sun. The Holy Grail of all energy sources is the concept of fusion.

As a country we do not have the finances to engage in extensive projects in this area. By working with our neighbours to the south and some Europeans that are doing some fascinating work on fusion technology, we can provide our scientific expertise to them to try to make this into a reality in the future. While it may not be practical for the transport sector, there are many other energy sectors for which this technology will have to be used.

Although these alternatives cannot replace fossil fuels right now, we do not see enough of working together between ministries. In this instance the Ministry of the Environment has logical partners in the ministry of science and technology and the Ministry of Transport. They are intimately entwined. It would serve Canada well if these ministers got together with their staffs and determined areas where they could work together in an efficient fashion.

I suggest the minister look at some other areas in the transportation sector and work with the Minister of Transport, as I said before. It costs about $7,000 a year to operate a car, with high social and environmental costs. It is very expensive. Canadians should look at the European model and extract from that more environmentally sound measures on the transportation of people, paying particular attention to bicycles and rail travel.

There is a very important issue in my riding. The E & N railway runs north-south on Vancouver Island. It can be a very potent and environmentally sound mover of goods, services and people. This railway has been lying idle for many years and is highly unproductive. I hope the Minister of the Environment will work with the Minister of Transport to try to make this railway a reality, not in the public domain but in the private domain; ownership being retained in the public domain but management and functioning in the private sector.

Vancouver Island is an area where the population is growing at perhaps the fastest rate in all of Canada. Unfortunately we are seeing the southern California syndrome where we have urban sprawl at its worst. We can look at Vancouver to see what happened there.

With that growth in population will come transport and energy demands. These must be met by looking toward the future by determining ways in which we can provide this transportation

without damaging and destroying the pristine environment that the island affords.

In conclusion, with respect to MMT our role in the House is to determine the truth. The minister acknowledges the conclusive evidence that first, MMT does not damage people's health. Second, there is conclusive evidence within our own country and even south of the border to show that MMT does not damage onboard devices.

We need to determine the truth. I ask the minister to review the relevant data and rethink this issue. Clearly there is no reason to ban MMT in Canada now. If the minister has to have an independent study to determine once and for all whether MMT actually does damage onboard devices then she ought to do that.

Again I hope the minister would work with the minister of science and technology and the Minister of Transport to look at new and improved ways of meeting the energy needs of Canadians in the future.

I wish to move the following motion to Bill C-94. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:

"This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, since among other things the bill does not take measures to compensate for the fact that MMT free gasoline would cause the fuel industry to burn more crude oil, causing greater emissions into the atmosphere while at the same time increasing tailpipe nitrous oxide emissions".

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Davenport why we even have this bill, when MMT is proven by the Department of Health not to be a health hazard to Canadians and there is ample evidence demonstrating that MMT does not affect onboard devices at all. I wonder why we are trying to ban this substance.

[The Environment, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD report shows that we are doing fairly well, but there is more that we can do. We have embraced the concept of sustainable development, but like many countries we have had trouble in translating this into reality. Encouragingly the minister agreed with this.

In the face of this admission the government has produced a pea soup agenda with respect to the environment, this even after a superb report by the committee on the environment that was completed earlier this year and was lauded in many quarters.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment: Why is she putting bills such as the environmental auditor general forward when the functions of the environmental auditor general can be co-opted by existing structures?

Why are we talking in the House about banning MMT and spending enormous amounts of money and time on this issue when there is no reason to ban it for reasons of health? There is a lot of evidence to show that MMT does not damage onboard devices, the basis on which the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to ban it.

The government is taking up these issues when there are other larger, pressing, persistent and dangerous issues affecting Canada's environment as we speak.

First, the OECD report states that Canada has not been exporting toxic materials to other countries since we signed the Basel convention in 1992. The investigative unit of the minister's department shows that Canada is exporting highly toxic materials to non-OECD developing nations such as Hong Kong, China, India, Thailand and South Korea. The toxic substances being exported to these countries cannot meet the environmental standards we have in our country. These countries are taking toxic materials, stripping parts away, and burning them or dumping them in a fashion that is highly damaging to the environment.

Second, there are 26 sites in this country that pose a high degree of hazard to people, flora and fauna. There is absolutely no plan to address these toxic sites within our own border.

Third, the OECD analysis also showed that on a per capita basis we emit the highest levels of such damaging agents as nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Yet in the face of this the minister wants to ban MMT which will greatly increase nitrous oxide emissions, which is a very important component of the smog that exacerbates respiratory problems.

Fourth, Canada refused to agree to be a signatory of an important section of the UN convention on the prevention of pollution from ships. As a result, one-third of the garbage on some of the most pristine and protected beaches in the British Isles comes from Canada. I would ask the hon. minister to please look at that.

I agree with the minister's statement about working with industry to try and develop economic ways to help them become more sensitive to the environment, and in developing ways to use industry in a sustainable fashion. We would be happy to work with the minister on that.

I also applaud her statement on trying to protect our flora and fauna. It is a heritage that the people of the country have been given and in turn, we are obligated to give to future generations.

Our problems demand immediate action, not only for the benefit of all Canadians but for the benefit of people around the world. Our environment is not only shared with those within our country, it is shared by all people on the planet. We have only one planet, only one environment and only one opportunity to make sure our environment will be sustainable and sound for coming generations.

We are at a watershed on the planet right now. If we choose to put forward sound plans for sustainable utilization of the environment, then we will have a world worth living in. But if we choose not to take this course of action, then the planet we know will not be what we were born into. It will be a very sorry place to live.

In southeast Asia a number of countries have gone full bore into developing their nations with very little respect for the environment. As a result great numbers of children are being born with genetic defects which are directly due to the polluted environment into which they are born. We must take heed of this and develop our country for the future in a way that we will not fall into this trap, for us and for the coming generations.

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member from across the way for so eloquently describing the plight of the people in her land. Truly, one of the profound tragedies in this country is to see the plight of the aboriginal people, a society that has been wracked in many cases by terrible levels of substance abuse, sexual abuse, interpersonal violence. Health care parameters, whichever way you wish to measure them, are some of the worst in our country.

If we look at the reasons behind this, one of the things one cannot help but look at is employment and being gainfully employed and being able to provide for yourself and your family. The ability to have gainful employment is integral to an individual's self-respect and self-pride. In turn, that imparts a pride and self-respect on the community at large.

A community and an individual cannot have self-pride and self-respect if it is given from somewhere else. They have to take it themselves. It cannot be given by a plethora of social programs from the federal government. These programs, while necessary, are not the answer.

The reason I say that is if you look at the terrible statistics the hon. member from the Northwest Territories has mentioned, you will find that these are mere symptoms of programs and an approach to the aboriginal people in this country that have indeed failed and failed dismally.

We have to work with aboriginal people to enable them to take care of themselves, to provide them with skills training and skills programs that will enable them to be gainfully employed. If we are able to do that, aboriginal people can stand on their own two feet and provide for themselves and their communities. Then, as we just mentioned, the incidence of sexual abuse, violence, STDs and infant mortality would come down.

We have to change our approach, change the direction in which we are looking. This would not be a replacement of essential social programs. Usually we do not have gainful employment in areas that are far removed and very desolate. Sometimes it is possible through the forestry and fishing industries but usually it is not the case.

It is important that aboriginal people be allowed to develop infrastructures and industries that can be self-sustaining in areas appropriate for them. Many northern and remote areas cannot develop sustainable industries that will provide for the needs and demands of people whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal.

We are pouring in money to provide for people to live in areas far removed from where they can take care of themselves and their families. This approach must stop because it simply cannot work. Again the duty of the federal government will be to provide aboriginal people with the skills training necessary for them to stand on their own two feet. It is absolutely integral to anybody's ability to have pride and self-respect and to society's ability to have pride and self-respect.

I hope the government does not pursue the same course it and previous governments have been taking for decades. The politically correct thing to say is that we will merely pour more money into social programs and social schemes for aboriginal people, but this will simply not work because it does not address the root causes of why the individuals were there in the first place.

I hope the government takes a very careful look at its programs in the future to try to bring down the terrible parameters among aboriginal people and provide them with the ability to stand on their own two feet in the future.

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised a couple of points. He illustrated the salient misunderstanding of health care on the part of the government.

He spoke about taking part of the $72 billion and putting it into a private clinic system. That is what we are opposed to. Not a single penny of public moneys, not a single penny of taxpayers' dollars, will go into a private system.

When people are in the private system they have actually left the public system and are spending their own money. They are still contributing through their taxes to the public system and therefore the pot of money in the public system will be preserved.

Because the numbers of people on waiting lists in the public system will decrease there will be a greater amount of money on a per capita basis in the public system, which will provide for greater access and better equipment.

Another point the member raised was that if hospitals saw an urgent need for something they would find the resources or the money. The problem is that they do not have the resources. They are rationing all manner of services and are not getting access together. We have an opportunity not to duplicate any other system in the world but to enable an excellent system to continue to be excellent. We can do that by making the changes necessary to preserve publicly funded medicare in this country through amendments to the Canada Health Act. If we do not do that, we will not have a health act in this country. We will not have publicly funded health care access to people in this country in a timely fashion. That is going to be the tragedy if we continue on our present course.

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

That is right. The government is talking prevention out of one side of its mouth. On the other hand it is causing hundreds of thousands of youths to take up tobacco smoking and will cause between 40,000 and 200,000 premature deaths over the next 20 or 30 years. That is not prevention.

If the government had enacted sensible solutions with respect to tobacco, we could accept it and work with it. I cannot accept talking about prevention on the one hand as a solution to health care problems, while on the other hand lowering tobacco taxes and decreasing the tobacco reduction strategy. That simply does not make sense.

I implore the government to work with us to amend the Canada Health Act so that medicare can provide essential services to Canadians from coast to coast. It must also realize that we have a problem. Pedantic statements about preventive health care, saying that somehow we will build greater efficiencies into the system and quoting laparoscopic surgery as the panacea for health care cost control will not work. It will take more radical, thoughtful, sensitive changes for all Canadians to have their health care needs met.

It disturbs me greatly that members of the House across the way accuse us of wanting an American style health care system. They accuse us of saying that what is in our pockets when we need health care services is what matters. We deplore that. It is anathema to us and we will fight against those types of attitudes every way we can. In my estimation as a physician we are the only party in the House putting forward a plan to save not only health care but all our social programs.

If we can put aside the political rhetoric and work together to build strong and sustainable health care and social programs, we can build a better country for all Canadians. We are building the country for Canadians from coast to coast. We are particularly preserving health care programs for those most in need.

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to commend my hon. colleague from North Vancouver because he laid bare in the House a personal health care matter. I say to the people across the way who have

been heckling him that if he had not gone down to the United States he would be dead today. It is a very real example of how our health care system failed him as it fails other Canadians from coast to coast. The reason why he was able to have a life saving operation in the United States was because he had the money. That is what the government is preserving today. It is preserving a system that enables the rich to get better health care than the poor.

Today we are dealing with Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health. It is a housekeeping bill, a bill of wordsmithing, a bill that changes words, a bill that does not have anything to do with devolution of powers, nothing to do with personnel changes, nothing to do with any vision to save health care in this country; health care I might add that is in critical condition and needs emergency help.

It is profoundly tragic that we have this bill in front of us. In the last two years the Minister of Health has yet to put a single piece of legislation on the table to amend and improve health care for Canadians, Bill C-7 notwithstanding, which did not come from her department but came from another source.

The minister keeps on saying that we do not have a problem, that we are moving toward reorganization. She claims that Reform members are in favour of a system that prevents access for the poor. The problem is access. Canadians are not getting access to essential health care services from coast to coast. That is the problem. The government is defending a health care system that is crumbling from within.

I will give a little background. When the Canada Health Act was written in 1984, the people who wrote it with very noble intentions simply could not envision the increasing costs, the increasing demands and the changing demographics of an aging population. That was not envisioned. Today we are using a health act organized over a decade ago to deal with problems that did not exist then. Therefore we see the failure that the Canada Health Act has in trying to address the problems that we have today.

If we continue to pursue the course we are on now we will not have a health care system in this country. We will only see people suffering to varying degrees. Those who will suffer the most are those who are the poorest. I will give an example.

Operating rooms are closing across the country. They are closing because hospitals have to save costs. However, waiting lists are increasing. In the hospital in British Columbia where I worked patients decided to have their own blood transfused and banked for operations in case they needed it. It cost the patient $125. The Minister of Health in British Columbia, Mr. Ramsey said: "No, you can't do that because it contravenes the Canada Health Act". One month later we had an acute blood shortage in British Columbia.

I had patients with fractured hips, bleeding to death, with low haemoglobins and no blood was available. If the province had allowed the autologous blood transfusions we would not have had that problem. Is that access? I hardly think so.

In Victoria the wait for radiation therapy for prostate cancer is 16 months. What happens? Patients are sent down to Washington state where an entire industry has grown to serve Canadians. Is that Canadian access?

People with carpal disorder in the wrists have to wait six months before they have surgery. They are off work six months. This surgery could be done in a private clinic within two weeks. Is that access?

Imagine one of your grandparents needs a hip transplant,Mr. Speaker, and is in severe pain. If they live in British Columbia, 40 per cent will wait over 13 months to get that hip replaced and all of that time they are in pain. Is that access? Not at all.

The health care system is falling apart. To get around this, those who are rich go down to the United States for their health care needs. The politicians in this government say that the Canada Health Act is sacrosanct. They say: "We the government are defenders of the health care for all Canadians because we want to ensure that they have access, because we don't want those terrible Reformers amending the Canada Health Act and having an American style system that enables only the rich to have access while the poor suffer". That is the complete opposite to what we have.

My colleagues and I never got involved in this matter to destroy health care. We saw the suffering occurring in emergency rooms in hospitals across the country. We got involved to save health care. We recognize there is a problem. We do not want to destroy health care. We got involved to amend the Canada Health Act to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of income, have their health care services performed in a timely fashion. My colleagues and I have given examples to indicate that is simply not occurring.

We have proposed a system that would amend the Canada Health Act to allow for private clinics. Basically people could pay money to a private clinic for health care services. Not a single penny of the taxpayers' money would go into the system. Is it an unequal system? Yes, it is. However, is it not better to have an unequal system with better access for all people than the relatively similar access we have today that provides for declining access for all Canadians. In the present system the rich can go to the United States for their health care services while those in Canada suffer and die.

In Toronto, where I trained, the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting is seven months. People are dying waiting for bypass surgery. I know a similar example happened in 1986 when I was finishing my training in British Columbia where men and

women in their fifties were dying waiting for bypass surgery in Vancouver. That is not access.

We have declining funds and increasing demands, but caught in the middle is the most important element of all, the patients who are sick, scared and worried. Their families are worried and scared. At a time of their greatest need our health care system may fail them. That is not what we want. That is not what Canadians want. That is not what the government wants. That is certainly not what the Reform Party wants.

I implore the Minister of Health and the government to stop the political rhetoric. Let us move away from political postering. Let us work together to build a new Canada Health Act that enables all Canadians from coast to coast to obtain their health care services in a timely fashion. We want to protect medicare, not destroy it.

We cannot sacrifice, as my hon. colleague from Macleod said, the most important social program we have today, the health care system. We simply cannot let that program, which is a defining characteristic of Canada, disappear. We must preserve it because it is the most valuable thing each and every one of us have as individuals.

As an aside I ask the hon. minister to look at some interesting work being done by one of the greatest minds in the country, Dr. Fraser Mustard. In Toronto he looked at the determinants of health care. He has a new vision with respect to health care. The determinants of health care are somewhat different from what we have seen in the past. A investment in the early development of children will pay Canadian society in many aspects in the long run.

I implore the minister to look at the work this man has done because it is ground breaking and something we can incorporate federally and provincially into the health care programs that exist today.

The government also needs a fiscal plan. As we unfortunately saw about six weeks ago, the IMF downgraded us by 50 per cent, saying very clearly to the Minister of Finance that if we do not get a plan to decrease the debt Canada would be in very serious and dire straits. We can read into it that our social programs will be in dire straits. Nobody in the House wants to see that. We want to preserve them in a financially sustainable fashion. Health care will suffer the same blows as all other social programs. Unfortunately sick people are the ones who will suffer.

I implore the hon. Minister of Health to speak to the Minister of Finance and other cabinet ministers to look at our zero in three plan and utilize aspects of it to put our fiscal house in order.

One of my colleagues said today that rather than amending the Canada Health Act we need to look to preventive measures. That is all well and true. However, will prevention lower taxes on tobacco? Is prevention cutting the tobacco reduction strategy by 50 per cent? Is prevention putting legislation programs and plans in place that are actually increasing tobacco consumption, especially among the youth, by 10 per cent or 15 per cent.

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a physician. He listened very carefully to my colleague in the Reform Party make a very eloquent and, I might say, one of the best speeches I have heard in the House. He

listened to his recital of the tragic case of Stephanie. The member must have had many patients who endured terrible pain and suffering because essential services were not available to them since the Canada Health Act rationed essential services.

The Minister of Health has often said in the House that we must provide Canadians with access, access, access to essential health care services and that we in the Reform Party were espousing ideas that would somehow limit that access. How is access served better when we have increasing costs, an aging population and increasing demand? When demand on our limited resources is actually increasing, how will we provide individuals with access to essential health care services?

We want to amend, not destroy, the Canada Health Act to enable private clinics to exist and to enable private services to be provided to Canadians. Only private moneys would be exchanged in the private clinics. Not a single dollar of taxpayers' money would be spent in the clinics. We would have a system that provides for greater access for all Canadians regardless of the care than what they have now.

How will our plan somehow destroy health care in the country when we will give better access to all Canadians regardless of their income?

[National Unity, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are rare occasions in the history of a nation when fate opens up a window of opportunity that can change the course of a country forever. Such an opportunity now exists.

The referendum process and subsequent results show Quebec to be a province that is deeply divided and have highlighted the intense desire for all provinces to deal with the problems that affect us all.

We must seize the opportunity now to move ahead to decentralize federal powers. The people must also be allowed to choose their representatives in the Senate and in the Supreme Court. However, let there be no mistake. These changes must occur for all provinces because when preferential treatment is afforded to one province over another it only creates divisions and resentment.

We must move ahead. The time now is for leadership. We must not look back in history and use past history to justify breaking the country apart. We must move ahead and heal the wounds that exist in the country today to bring all Canadians together in a strong and united Canada forever.

[Quebec Referendum, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on October 30, Quebecers will find themselves at a crossroads, having to make a decision on their future.

If they go right, they will vote against separation. It will be a vote against the status quo, a vote for the decentralization of federal powers and the end of the strongly undemocratic system in which we are living. This vote will put the provinces in control of their cultural and linguistic destiny.

If they go left, they will choose separation, thus causing a mass exodus of businesses, skyrocketing unemployment, and economic disaster.

I urge Quebecers to think about the future of their children and to join forces with all other Canadians in fulfilling our legitimate destiny, being the best country in the world to live in. Long live Canada, a united country.