Monique Guay

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I participate in this debate today on Bill C-62, the fisheries bill.

This bill, which died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament as Bill C-115, is back before this House. It proposes an integrated approach to fisheries management in Canadian waters and adjacent waters. It is the end result of a process to simplify and modernize the fisheries legislation. The words simplify and modernize I just used were certainly not intended to be taken in a positive way.

While these words generally have a positive sense, we do not consider them as such and we will not therefore support this bill put forward by the Liberal government. The fact is that there are serious flaws in the four parts of Bill C-62, which my colleagues and myself will address in greater detail in our remarks.

True to their ways and their vision of Canada, always trying to further centralize power and acting unilaterally, the federal Liberals are once again breaking their promise to decentralize and allow the provinces to play a more prominent role.

Last Wednesday, I watched on the Ottawa station of the CBC, as Quebec's favourite minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is also a favourite of cartoonists, was boasting away as usual about this great federation whose leaders are so committed to carrying this whole decentralization effort through. This is all rhetoric coming from the Liberals and their school bag packing minister. Those who carry a school bag have to do their homework, otherwise they fail. With their Bill C-62, they are flunking the test, they are not swimming, they are sinking, which brings us back to the fish.

The people opposite will not have it any other way, because decentralizing and giving more prominence to the provinces is not consistent with federalism, with the very basis of federalism.

The federal government is certainly not prepared to commit hara-kiri. That is why they are all words and no action. It is becoming a real joke when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs uses all the words in his vocabulary, always the same few words, to try to persuade us that Canada works.

This bill is part of the farce being played out by the ministers and their great leader, who only swears by the red book and whose promises have gone up in smoke. The first part of the bill clearly shows that the regime for the protection and management of fisheries undermines the best interests of the fisheries and the workers whose livelihood depends on this industry. This part of the bill provides for the conservation and management of fisheries.

The various elements of this part of the bill raise a lot of questions. The minister should have looked at what is happening in this industry in Quebec and the rest of Canada. That would have been the logical thing to do. However, the minister chooses to put the cart before the horse by first setting the terms of future fisheries management agreements, as is provided for in clause 17.

Some crucial elements for a relevant and appropriate review of the issue have been left out. These crucial elements deal with the core of the fisher people that needs to be defined and the appropriate fishing guidelines to be applied in the future.

The depletion of the fish stock both in the Atlantic, where ground fish are being threatened, and on the west coast has led to a moratorium on fishing in the Atlantic and forces us to stop and think about the difficulties the fishing industry is facing from sea to sea. We have to sit down with all the stakeholders and get their input to see what the future holds for the industry.

This bill ignores several important and even crucial questions for the fishing industry and those who depend on it. The people the minister had indeed consulted with are complaining because they believe nobody listened to them. What good does it do to consult the people if you do not listen to them? But we must recognize that members opposite are past masters in the art of fake consultations. For almost three years now, they have been having more and more of them in all fields.

They use these consultations as a democratic screen. In fact, it is the finance minister who started this new fad of fake consultations. You will remember the finance minister getting off a plane and running, hair flying, to consult on his first budget. Liberals suffer from a "chronic fake consultation syndrome". They consult to look good while their plans are already drawn and their decisions are already made.

Ministers keep all powers at the expense of all concerned. The whole population of Canada even saw how the Liberal leaders acted this way, a couple of weeks ago, at their last national convention. A fine democracy where the die is already cast. This bill is no exception to the Liberal smokescreen strategy.

Indeed, clause 17 really gives the Minister of Fisheries unlimited powers, which will make him the sole master of the fishing industry. He will be able to sign fisheries management agreements with any association that, in his opinion-and I repeat-in his opinion, represents a class of licensees or people.

These agreements can determine the maximum catches, the number of licenses, the rights that can be levied by Her Majesty, the obligations, responsibilities and funding measures concerning fisheries management and the applicable conservation and management programs. The minister can even establish guidelines for the tribunal on decisions to take in case of a severe violation.

With clause 17, the minister gives himself all the powers and, unfortunately, this is not necessarily in the interest of those primarily concerned, since the minister can make almost any decision without any consideration for them.

If the minister makes a bad decision in terms of resource allocation as a direct result of a lack of consultation or findings on the fisheries situation, he can always change his mind under clause 21. This does not seem very serious and shows a patent lack of will to provide a really adequate mechanism to ensure an efficient fisheries management, which would reflect reality and which all concerned would take part in and be satisfied with.

Given such a lack of vision for the future of fishing, we have every reason to be worried and we should vigorously criticize the minister and the federal government for their ineffectiveness. The future of fishermen and fisheries is once again threatened. The federal government does not do anything in this bill to rectify the situation and to reassure fishermen and all the people who rely on this industry. The future is becoming more and more gloomy.

Because of the troubling situation, this unacceptable bill and the vital importance of this issue, we are demanding that powers for fisheries management be transferred back to Quebec. Why should we trust the federal government in this area any more, when it has not done a good job of managing it and has nothing good to propose for the future?

Even though Captain Canada, who has moved on and is now threatening to pull the plug on the Churchill Falls contract, went to New York with his nets and his fish, we must not be taken for fools with regard to the content of this bill, its impact and the fact that it does not even offer a glimpse of hope for the future of the fishing industry.

I will now turn to part II of the bill, entitled "Fish Habitat Conservation and Protection, and Pollution Prevention", which is of particular interest to me. It is amazing to see the impact of this bill in terms of duplication and overlap not only with the provinces, including Quebec, but also with other federal statutes.

I am thinking about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the bill that the environment minister tabled a few days ago about endangered species, among others. All this is getting very complicated.

Part II of Bill C-62 includes clauses 42 to 64. It allows the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or another minister designated by the governor in council to take action with regard to the removal of obstructions impeding the free passage of fish or detrimental to fish habitat, the construction of fish-ways or canals and the control of activities or undertakings which are likely to result in the alteration or the destruction of fish habitat or in the deposit of a deleterious

substance in waters frequented by fish or in any place where that deleterious substance may enter any such waters.

So that part of the bill concerns all the water environment and, indirectly, the atmospheric and land environment as well, where deleterious substances may enter a stream and alter it.

The powers given under the bill to combat or prevent the various forms of pollution are considerable: authorizations, permits, notices, reports, plans and specifications, inspections, fines, orders to close, emergency interventions, and so on.

These powers are not entirely new. They are already found in the existing Fisheries Act, but they are given greater prominence through various titles and groupings. The bill also provides for more extensive powers to intervene to protect fish habitat. This part of the bill creates a major problem, because it gives the federal minister powers that are identical or similar to those available to the Quebec Minister of the Environment and Fauna under the Environment Quality Act and the Act respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife.

For these reasons, part II of the bill can be considered a major irritant in relations between the federal government and Quebec, just like other federal legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The interference of the federal government in areas already occupied by Quebec once again duplicates legislation, adds to the number of public servants, and increases the constraints on businesses and individuals, all of which lead to inflated costs and an ineffective system. Where is the minister, with his school bag in hand, to tell the fisheries minister that the purpose of Bill C-62 is not to achieve efficiency and the grand designs of decentralization?

There is no sign of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in this debate. He would rather spout nonsense on various stages and mouth pious wishes in connection with our supposedly great and efficient federation. But the bill we see before us, which is almost the complete agenda of the federal government, does not pass the test. The Liberals say one thing and do another.

I would remind you that Quebec has a fundamental responsibility with respect to the protection and uses made of the aquatic environment and its resources. It has ownership of public bodies of water. It also has exclusive rights over civil rights and public property, municipal governments, local structures and industries, land development and resource use, and in general anything of a local or private nature.

It is therefore responsible for integrated management of the aquatic environment, and for taking all protective measures liable to ensure its quality, by preserving aquatic life and the natural processes essential to the species inhabiting that environment, primarily halieutic species.

It seems exaggerated, therefore, for the federal government to use its jurisdiction over fisheries and the management of conditions favourable to the maintenance and development of fishery resources to end up exercising identical or similar powers to those of Quebec over the aquatic environment.

With this bill, the federal government is taking no notice whatsoever of the concerns that have been expressed at all levels in recent years concerning duplication, inefficiency and the dilution of resources occasioned by the current situation.

On the contrary, Bill C-62 reaffirms and consolidates federal domination of an area fully covered by Quebec legislation, which directly addresses protection of the habitat of all fauna, including fish, and water pollution control in all of its forms.

In principle, the department, or any other designated by the governor in council, may duplicate or even countermand the authorizations required by clause 22 of the Quebec environmental control act, and undertake the same impact studies as those covered by that act. Similarly, the governor in council has responsibility for adopting regulations which more or less duplicate or overlap Quebec regulations, as is the case at present concerning pulp and paper plant and oil refinery effluent and the liquid effluent from metal mines.

Even more than the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, this bill would provide the federal government with a powerful tool for controlling all activities taking place in the aquatic environment, whether private property, or belonging to a municipal government or the province of Quebec.

The problem is that the jurisprudence on division of powers tends to favour the federal side, since if there is any incompatibility, the federal legislation is generally recognized as taking precedence.

I would also like to point out that most of the decisions the federal minister must make with respect to a new project or activity that may affect a waterway require, according to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, prior examination or an in-depth study, and in some cases a complete assessment.

In other words, part II of the bill would intrude and would continue to intrude in the future on Quebec's exclusive or predomi-

nant jurisdiction over and responsibility for development, protection and management of waterways within its territory.

To the extent that the bill reaffirms and consolidates the federal position in this area, it causes the federal government and the Quebec government to compete directly with each other and ultimately favours complete federal control over environmental management, the economy and the use of water. At best, it would have the effect of restricting Quebec's ability to define its own objectives, priorities and means of action and develop an integrated water management policy.

I wonder what would happen if a project or structure receives the requisite permit and the minister of fisheries were to decide subsequently that the structure is harmful to a certain type of fish. In this area, we will now have four federal acts and possibly a larger number of regulations that, in turn, will duplicate two Quebec acts and regulations. A real mess, in which the average person will be hopelessly lost.

Imagine the number of public servants, bureaucrats and ministers who would be able to intervene. The federal government is entirely responsible for this situation. It constantly walks all over jurisdictions already held by the provinces, especially in Quebec and especially in environmental matters.

We wish the government would stick to its own jurisdiction, and start by harmonizing at the federal level. The environment would be better off as a result.

[Radioactive Waste Importation Act, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I take part today in this debate at second reading of Bill C-236 introduced by my colleague from Fraser Valley East, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into Canada.

I want to remind you at the outset that, in May 1995, the report of the Auditor General of Canada contained a chapter on this issue, entitled: Federal Radioactive Waste Management. Page 3-5 of this report provides, and I quote: "Canada has no disposal facilities for any of its high-level or low-level radioactive waste." And further on: "Decisions still have to be taken in Canada on whether and how to proceed to a disposal solution. Despite the significant investment, in Canada, of about $538 million in research and development, there has been no consideration of alternative approaches for moving Canada's high-level radioactive waste program forward after March 1997, when current federal funding ends."

Clearly, Canada is not yet equipped to receive foreign countries' radioactive waste. Since Canada does not know yet what to do with its own waste, how could it deal with, dispose of or store other countries'?

In this sense, the bill by my Reform colleague may seem premature and untimely, since Canada is not soon going to become the nuclear waste dumpsite of the world. But as untimely as it may be, Bill C-236 is to me a good message to send to the authorities so that they seriously question the appropriateness of bringing foreign countries' nuclear waste to our shores.

Currently, Canadian nuclear authorities are considering two projects for our nuclear waste. The first one deals with the permanent storage of spent fuel, or highly radioactive waste, and the other one deals with the development of a low radioactive waste disposal site in Ontario, in Deep River to be more precise.

As far as the permanent storage of spent fuel is concerned, the authorities are considering the possibility of storing this highly radioactive waste in a huge cave dug into the Canadian shield. According to present plans, this cave should be ready by the year 2025 and more than 4 million spent fuel clusters could be stored there. For your information, a cluster is about the size of a fireplace log and the anticipated 4 million clusters represent a volume equivalent to that of seven Olympic swimming pools. This spent fuel, 85 per cent of which is produced by Hydro Ontario reactors, remains highly radioactive for at least 500 years, and its handling requires appropriate steps to ensure the protection of human beings and the environment during this period.

In fact, certain elements of this fuel remain harmful for tens of thousands of years if they escape containment and are ingested or inhaled.

In view of this portrait of the Canadian situation, not to say Ontarian, we must ask if we really want more of such hazardous waste, especially coming from abroad. An article published in the Globe and Mail on October 27, 1994 entitled:

"Canada eyed as world site for nuclear waste, proposal to use Canadian Shield called dangerous".

-shows the fears and apprehensions of environmentalists with regard to this issue of permanent disposal. The article says at the beginning, and I quote:

"It may take 20 to 50 years to happen, but Canada has moved one step closer to becoming the world's nuclear waste dump site, environmental critics charged yesterday".

Environmental groups argue that Canada cannot legally ban the import of radioactive waste from the United States and that Canadian nuclear authorities might find it beneficial to open their future site to foreign waste. One can also read, and I quote:

"You build a dump here and you can bet the U.S. will be beating the bushes to get rid of their stuff".

These are very real concerns of environmentalists that we must consider very seriously.

More recently, the Prime Minister of Canada gave his support to a feasibility study to import into Canada plutonium from Russian and American nuclear warheads to burning it as fuel in our CANDU reactors. This plutonium considered waste by these countries is considered fuel by Canada.

That is about one hundred tonnes of plutonium that we would burn in the interest of a peace effort, according to the Prime Minister. But once this plutonium is burned, it produces highly radioactive waste. How many bundles will be added to ours, to the 4 million bundles expected by the end of 2033? This roundabout way for foreigners to dispose of their plutonium waste raises some serious questions.

Would it not be better to sell them Candu reactors so as to make them autonomous and responsible for their own waste? And why should those countries not find their own solutions to this problem?

This overview of the status of highly radioactive waste clearly shows we must be careful and the apparent danger of linking the issue of financial profits to that of the environment in this matter.

Spent fuel is and must be considered extremely toxic, with all the adverse effects that may occur in case of management problems.

As for low level radioactive waste, Canadian authorities are also considering a type of permanent storage. Deep River was chosen as the site, as I said earlier. One of the technologies being developed involves the use of an underground structure protected against intrusion, consisting of a series of concrete vaults where waste would be stored for 500 years, after which it would be harmless. This project is not going down smoothly in this Ontarian locality and serious concerns are being expressed throughout the region. Can you imagine the reaction the communities concerned would have if, in addition, they were to receive waste made in the USA?

I look favourably on the bill put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. While Canada may be renowned around the world for being accommodating, it should not have to become the nuclear waste-basket of the world just to live up to its reputation.

Finally, I would suggest that the Prime Minister and his ministers and members of Parliament take a good hard look at what impact importing plutonium will have in Canada.

Members from Ontario, and particularly those in whose riding CANDU reactors have already been designated to burn plutonium, thereby adding to the radioactive waste problem, should consult their voters on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to give a short answer. That was a very long question, which would require a debate that could last a very long time. I would like to say to my colleague that Quebec has always been innovative in its legislation, in particular in the area of health. Quebec would continue to be innovative, and might do so even more rapidly as a sovereign country.

This being said, today's debate does not deal with the Quebec constitution or the Canadian Constitution but with health, an area which also involves morality and ethics. I would like us to go back to this bill rather than talking about the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that what my colleague for Drummond-our health critic-asked was that instead of this bill, it would be legally more desirable for the justice department to draft legislation banning certain technologies.

But instead, the government is interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction. This must be pointed out. For the benefit of all our viewers, I would like to read the position the Bloc Quebecois has always maintained and will continue to maintain with regard to health care.

I quote:

Under subsections 92(7) and 92(16) of the 1867 act, and according to their interpretations by many courts, health and welfare are areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This being said, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the five national standards enshrined in the Canada Health Act, in other words it supports the underlying principles of the health care system. However, it believes that the provinces must have full authority in the matter.

This position stems from a number of factors, especially the government's financial withdrawal. As a matter of fact, the repeated unilateral cuts in health care funding to the provinces have resulted, in Quebec alone, in a $7.9 billion shortfall in health care budgets. While the provinces are subject to national standards coupled with financial penalties for non-compliance, they have no control over the level of funding they get from Ottawa.

The Bloc Quebecois finds this situation unacceptable since all the federal government is doing is passing on to the provinces the cuts aimed at controlling the federal deficit, without any regard for their impact on the health care system, which it claims it is protecting. The Bloc Quebecois is extremely concerned and worried by the consequences these drastic and repeated cuts might have for the health care system as we know it today.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois intends to do all it can, through the stands it takes, to preserve the principles of universality, accessibility, public management, comprehensiveness, and portability.

However, it believes that, in the current context, the federal government is jeopardizing its own standards by making the provinces bear the burden of these cuts in order to bring its deficit under control.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal government respect provincial jurisdiction in the area of health care; consequently, it must withdraw from this area and transfer all federal health care moneys to Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, an act respecting human reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to human reproduction.

This bill, which follows the voluntary moratorium on certain reproductive technologies proposed by the Liberal government in July 1995, is the result of the deliberations of the Baird Commission, which worked from 1989 to 1993, and whose mandate was to inquire into and report upon current and potential medical and scientific developments related to new reproductive technologies and their health repercussions.

The commission was also requested to study the ethical, social, economic and legal consequences of these new technologies in order to recommend what policies and safeguards should be applied.

The main conclusions and recommendations of the Baird Commission were in line with other studies done elsewhere in the world on the same subject. However, several recommendations are problematic because they do not respect Canada's unique situation, specially with regard to the constitutional distribution of powers.

Several recommendations the federal government would like to implement affect areas under provincial jurisdiction such as health, family law and civil liability, which could be a problem.

This bill was meant to be-and I said was-the government's response to society's concerns about scientific advances in the area of human reproduction and the possible use of these technological innovations for questionable commercial or scientific purposes.

But it proves to be a belated and incomplete response to public concerns. Since the report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies was made public in November 1993, the Liberal government has dragged its feet on the matter.

It was not until July 1995, more than two and a half years after the Baird report was tabled, that the government took a first step to put the brakes on the unbridled growth of the reproductive technology industry by proposing a temporary voluntary moratorium.

The Bloc Quebecois along with several newspaper editors, former members of the Baird Commission, including Patricia Baird, interest groups, including groups representing women and the clergy, criticized the fact that the moratorium was voluntary, since some physicians and clinics continue to provide services banned by this moratorium, which the government cannot or does not want to enforce.

Last January, the federal government announced the creation of a temporary advisory committee, whose mandate was to enforce the moratorium.

That did not prevent a newspaper from advertising for young women to sell their ova to infertile couples; institutions from continuing to pay sperm donors; doctors from retrieving sperm from deceased husbands on the request of their widows. To help you understand what is meant by the expression "new reproductive technologies", I will give you a list of a few activities which were carried out and are still being developed because the government's moratorium is only "voluntary": contracts in which surrogate a mother is paid to carry a child she will give up to her customers after delivery; trade in human ova, sperm and embryos; child gender selection for non medical reasons; free in vitro fertilization for women who cannot afford it in exchange for ova; alteration of the genetic material of an ovum, sperm or embryo and its transmission to a subsequent generation; experiments on bringing babies to term in artificial wombs; duplication or cloning of human embryos; production of human and animal hybrids; use of ova retrieved from cadavers or foetuses to give birth to babies or for research purposes.

There seems to be a consensus in our society on the fact that these technologies give rise to ethical, moral, social, economical and legal problems and that they must be controlled.

Canadians and Quebecers concerned by the situation think that it is about time the government began to do something. However, they are still worried to see that it does not seem to know exactly in which direction it is going.

Indeed, the government itself admitted that Bill C-47 was incomplete and temporary. It does not reflect a comprehensive vision of the issue and only confirms some prohibitions included in the moratorium while waiting for another bill that would complete the legislation.

In addition, even though this bill meets the demands of the official opposition with respect to criminalizing certain practices, the federal government is not amending the Criminal Code, enforcement of which would fall to the provinces. On the contrary, it is proposing parallel legislation that paves the way for the creation of a federal agency to monitor new reproductive technologies. Another federal agency.

Thus, the primary object of the bill is not to criminalize practices deemed unacceptable by society, but rather to set up a federal agency to monitor new reproductive technologies.

A good example of this barely concealed goal of concentrating all the power at the federal level is clause 11 of the bill, which says that the Attorney General of Canada must give his consent before a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted. This just shows that the federal government does not wish to co-operate with the provinces. This will complicate enforcement of the legislation, since hospitals, for one, come under provincial responsibility.

This new federal agency to monitor new reproductive technologies would be responsible for granting licences, inspecting clinics and enforcing regulations, and would also be called upon to oversee the development of reproductive technologies and to advise the federal health minister in this regard.

It would be responsible for granting licences for practices considered acceptable. These technologies could include, for example: in vitro fertilization; donor insemination; use of foetal tissue; preservation, manipulation and donation of human ova, sperm and embryos; research on embryos; diagnostic testing on a foetus before it is implanted in the uterus; late life or postmenopausal pregnancy.

As well, this agency would set up a data bank on donors and children of donors in order to allow future meetings in certain special cases. But a serious oversight in this bill is that it does not define how, by what mechanism, approval would be refused. Somehow, we do not know when, this will be done in a later phase of the supposed federal strategy.

There is also a problem in clause 2 of the bill. Its definitions of certain technical terms do not correspond to their medical definitions and a number of terms are missing from the list. This will sustain endless legal debates when this legislation deals with the first offences. It seems to me that as parliamentarians we have a responsibility not to pass laws without knowing whether or not they can be enforced.

In the case before us, we have every reason to believe that the federal government, because it does not wish to co-operate with the provinces, will have to acquire additional policing and legal structures in order to be able to enforce its law. The federal government will have to deploy considerable resources in order to oversee hospitals, research centres and private companies in all provinces.

Apart from the fact that once again the federal government is interfering in the field of health, which, according to the Constitution, comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, the creation of this agency promises to be costly and a source of duplication, resulting in delays and inefficiency.

As well, seeing the federal government's inability to apply or obtain compliance for its moratorium on certain reproductive technologies, there are doubts about its ability to enforce its legislation without the support of the provinces, which in their capacity as the administrators of health systems, are in the best position to act.

The confusion we see in this government is reflected in its bill, and it is astonishing that it deals with reproductive techniques, commercial operations, and genetic manipulations on the same footing. It would have been appropriate to make a clear differentiation between assisted procreation, basic research and commercial ventures.

On the one hand, there is the issue of the provision of legitimate care and treatment to people who are merely trying to create life in order to establish a family, but who are unable to do so without the assistance of medical science to overcome the obstacles nature has placed in their way.

On the other hand, there is the issue of medical or scientific research in genetics, perhaps with praiseworthy intent, but raising serious ethical issues, the first of these being whether the end justifies the means, and whether, consequently, all manner of manipulations of living matter may be permitted provided they are for the good of humanity.

Finally, there is the commercial aspect, relating to the sale of products created using the latest scientific techniques, if the word "product" can be used when transmitting life is involved. In our health system, which is public and accessible to all, the underlying concept is still the provision of medical care and services to the public.

Private enterprise can benefit from participation in the provision of this care, but it is difficult to stomach the idea of strictly commercial operations, the principal purpose of which would be profit, without throwing our entire system open to re-examination. The idea of selling human beings, which became obsolete when slavery was abolished, must not be allowed to be revived.

You will have readily understood that the new reproductive techniques can be applied to completely different areas, and that it would be dangerous to liken them without distinction. Yet this is what the government has done. After its initial slowness, now it is acting precipitously and in an atmosphere of confusion.

It is ironic to note that the federal government is creating a new structure to control reproductive technologies, while the successive cuts being applied on the federal level to health transfers, which are disguised under the lengthy title of Canada Health and Social Transfer, have had the effect of placing the provinces in a difficult situation as far as health care funding is concerned.

How can the Liberal government, which is cutting health financing, force new national standards on the provinces for reproductive technologies, which they will have to apply, subject to financial penalties, without even consulting them on the content of those standards, while at the same time imposing a major cut in financing? The explanation is that this government wants to centralize at all cost, and the federal minister want to control everything in order to have greater powers.

This rigid approach, which brings more federal standards and less financing, shows clearly enough that expressions like "flexible federalism" or "profitable federalism" have become futile and outdated.

The whole approach of this bill shows that the health of Canadians and Quebecers is not a priority for this government. Its priority is to control everything from Ottawa and to centralize in an atmosphere of confrontation. Co-operative federalism is gone, welcome to the Liberal kingdom of Plan B.

There are numerous reasons why the Bloc Quebecois cannot support this bill. It is incomplete and does not contain an appropriate definition of the goals of the act and responsibilities for its implementation.

Second, this bill does not amend the Criminal Code as the Opposition had asked, which complicates its implementation. Third, it creates a federal agency in the area of health, which is a provincial jurisdiction, and tries to impose national standards, which will cause more jurisdictional disputes. Finally, this bill imposes national health standards.

[1996 Nobel Economy Prize, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois would like to commend Canadian economist William Vickrey who, along with James Mirrlees, from Great Britain, received the 1996 Nobel Economy Prize.

William Vickrey, born in 1914, is a key figure in contemporary economics. In the last 45 years, he has published several books and some 140 scientific articles in many renowned journals.

The Nobel Prize was awarded to these two researchers for their contribution to the economic theory of incentives under asymmetric information. Professor Vickrey carried out significant studies

on the taxation level taxpayers can bear to finance government expenditures without these taxes having a negative impact on employment and tax revenues.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to congratulate Professor Vickrey for receiving this award. Such an honour reflects on all Quebecers and all Canadians; so, it is in their names that we want to pay tribute to Professor Vickrey today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his speech, but I think it reflects, to some extent, the pressure exercised by lobbies and felt in this House since the bill was first tabled.

I heard a lot about the ethanol plant, which is located in Ontario. The hon. member is from that region, and I do not blame him for his position, however, I would like to go back to some important facts.

First, we asked the auto lobby and Ethyl corporation to submit studies.

Ethyl Corporation provided independent studies confirming that MMT is not harmful to health, and that it is not harmful to automobiles either. We asked auto dealers to do the same, but were told: "No, these are confidential studies. We cannot release them. It would be dangerous from a competition point of view".

The point is that six provinces out of ten oppose this bill. Once again, the federal government is getting involved in a field of provincial jurisdiction. It will even prohibit the interprovincial trade of manganese. This is another reason why we will vote against the bill.

In our amendment, we simply asked that the bill be read the third time six months from now. Again, we cannot be opposed to virtue. We ask that independent studies be done, so as to check the version of both sides and see if MMT is indeed dangerous and harmful, as claimed by some Mps and others, even though no conclusive studies support such claims.

All we have is a 1994 study from the health department itself, which concludes there is no evidence that manganese is dangerous or harmful to health.

There is another important point: manganese was just reintroduced into the U.S. market. The government talks about the North American market, but it wants to pass a bill to prohibit this product at home.

The result is that this government is now being sued by Ethyl corporation, to the tune of $201 million, in U.S. dollars, for presumably violating certain NAFTA provisions. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have $201 million to invest in this bill, but I feel that, before making a decision like this one, we should do some thinking.

In conclusion, we know that an ethanol plant was built. We have nothing against ethanol, but who knows, maybe in five or ten years, this product will be considered dangerous. After all, it is also an additive. We are talking about additives. This may not be the best solution to eliminate environmental problems caused by greenhouse gases generated by automobiles.

Why not invest in a lasting technology such as the electric car? I discussed this option the other day. To replace an additive with another additive looks a lot like a response to big lobbies.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about public interest right now, we are talking about commercial interests. On one side of the House, some members have automakers in their riding, while on the other side, some members have refineries in their riding. Since there are no automakers or refineries in my riding, I feel I can be relatively objective regarding this issue.

What we are asking is simple: if the automobile industry has real, independent studies, and I am not talking about lobbying, then let us see these studies so we can be convinced that this is indeed the right thing to do. We have asked time and again for such studies to be tabled.

We also asked Ethyl Corporation to do the same. It did so. It did its homework. It asked independent firms to conduct studies which have shown that MMT is not harmful to the environment or to one's health.

We want automakers to do the same. Let them do their homework and let us wait six months, as we are asking, to take a look at these studies in an objective manner, with no bias towards refineries or automakers. This is what we ask.

It seems very complicated for the government, and when I see Liberal members rise, I find it strange that they all represent Ontario, where ethanol is produced.

I would like to hear the Reform Party member elaborate on this.

[English]

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House of a few facts. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who sits on the environment committee with me, is fully aware of the work we did in committee. However, when there is a need for the Minister of the Environment to do something, nothing happens.

We spent a year and a few months reviewing the CEPA with no results. Nothing came out of the department. We are supposed to review a bill on endangered species. Despite the urgency, nothing is moving at Environment Canada.

The Minister of the Environment even told me the other day he thought we did not ask him enough questions. The environment committee does not even have a legislative agenda. Instead of steamrolling bills like C-29 in order to satisfy Ontario, the ethanol plant announced by the former Minister of the Environment, which is currently under construction, as well as Ontario farmers-as we know, 75 per cent of Canadian corn comes from Ontario-we should perhaps think about this and, as we requested and as I will never stop saying, wait long enough for concrete studies to be carried out before we make a real decision.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that six out of ten provinces are opposed to Bill C-29. Once again, the federal government has interfered by deciding to go ahead with this bill. It wants to replace MMT with ethanol. I do not know if studies have been done on ethanol production, but we have received nothing so far. Ethanol production is very expensive and its environmental impact is unknown.

We know that ethanol production causes considerable soil pollution. Ethanol is made with corn. Is ethanol production viable? It is highly subsidized by the government, but will this product

eventually become viable? Will we have to switch back to MMT five years from now?

Can the government not wait six months as we requested? Six months is not the end of the world. Can the government not wait six months for independent researchers, not lobby groups, to carry out conclusive studies so we can find out if MMT is really dangerous?