1996-10-11

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 10, consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak on a bill that I am confident will benefit every Canadian from coast to coast. I am especially honoured to speak on the bill as it directly affects my riding of Kent in Ontario. Next Friday will be the ground breaking day for a world class ethanol plant in Chatham, Ontario.
Alternative fuels are the wave of the future using corn as the base product. Ethanol is an environmentally friendly, cost efficient and job producing substance. It is my hope and belief that some day every vehicle in Canada will run on alternative fuels.
Speaking of the ethanol plant in Chatham, I would like to give a little history of how it came to be. Approximately four years ago I was approached by Doug MacKenzie of Commercial Alcohols to try and promote this to the federal government and get its backing.
Over the years we had a very busy time. We met with every minister and every potential minister at that time to try and sell this project for the county of Kent. Every Wednesday morning at caucus we would present different proposals to all the ministers. Every Wednesday morning it seemed as if I was approaching them with a summons. I showed up every Wednesday with an envelope for every minister which had information and articles on ethanol and how it would benefit the Canadian population.
There are 21 municipalities in Kent, not the riding of Kent but in the county of Kent, of which I had the fortune of being a past warden. All 21 municipalities sent in their support not only once but twice to every member of Parliament.
I remember one cold day in January, in fact I think it was the coldest day we had that year, the administrator of the city of Chatham and the administrator of the county arrived here to meet with the finance department. They were in their raincoats as they were used to the weather in southwestern Ontario which we refer to as the banana belt of Canada. We walked to the minister's office which is approximately five blocks from here and both gentlemen were completely frozen. They were not used to the weather in Ottawa. The administrators met twice in Ottawa with the finance department and the minister.
Over the year we had thousands of petitions from the riding of Kent supporting an ethanol plant in Chatham. Really they were not asking for money; what they were asking for was a tax deferment. Since alcohol is not taxed in Canada they wanted to make sure that it stayed off to give the company a kick off start.
This company is a $153 million project. On next Friday October 18 will be the kick off party to starting to build this project. The ridings of Kent, Essex-Kent and Lambton-Middlesex, the corn belt of Canada, will supply this company. It is another way of people in agriculture being able to utilize their produce. Any commodity that helps agriculture is to the benefit of all.
There will be approximately 90 to 100 jobs within the company and a spinoff of approximately 400 jobs. People who work in agriculture, truckers, labourers and shippers will all be involved with this plant in Chatham. It is not only a benefit to the environment, it is a benefit to the economy.
Over those years we tried every way possible to get the ministers and the members of this party and the other parties to agree to having this tax deferral. I must mention a chap who worked for me by the name of Emery Huszka. Emery drove down to his hometown of Bothwell filled a pickup with a load of corn and drove all the
way back to Ottawa. One weekend he and his wife wrapped ears of corn and our proposal with a ribbon. I must compliment Emery and his wife Julie for all the work they did in such a novel way to get attention. All the offices received an ear of corn with our proposal wrapped by ribbon.
I must thank the member for Halton-Peel and the member for Lambton-Middlesex who co-chaired the ethanol program for the environment here under the former minister, the hon. member for Hamilton East. They worked night and day to get this project off the ground.
I would like to thank all the members of Parliament who supported this. It was almost unanimous. I believe there was only one member who fought me on it, the member for Sarnia-Lambton. I do not blame the member for Sarnia-Lambton one iota. We are very close friends. But living in the chemical valley of Canada he has to stand up for the people who support him.
There were debates in Windsor. I debated along with Robert Wheeler from the city of Chatham who is the head of economic development against the member for Sarnia-Lambton and Ray Curran, the chair of the Lambton industrial society. Our debate was on the pros and cons of ethanol versus MMT. Later Doug MacKenzie and I debated in the city of London against the chemical companies themselves which were there to debate why they felt MMT should not be banned and why we should not go ahead with ethanol.
It was a very busy year and a half. My staff worked night and day. But had it not been for the ministers of our government and the members not only of the government but of the opposition who gave their support, we would never have attained our goals.
Let me now address another important issue. As more and more cars make their way onto our city streets and highways, we face a major environmental problem. Every year the 14 million cars on Canada's roads release about four tonnes of pollutants into the air. Not only do excessive emissions infect the air we breathe but they also pollute our water systems and environment. This is a massive problem that is only getting worse.
I have personal evidence that ethanol is very beneficial as I have used ethanol in my car for some 20 years or more. I drove one car for over 450,000 kilometres without any trouble with its catalytic converter or motor. Ethanol certainly benefits with a cleaner running motor. I still use ethanol today after 20 years. I always pick a gas station that sells ethanol.
I congratulate both the ministers of environment and agriculture for taking hold of this problem, for tightening emissions regulations, for improving fuel compositions and for encouraging Canadians to make careful and environmentally sound transportation choices.
As I mentioned earlier, I come from a rural area. It is the corn capital of Canada. We do not have public transportation. My community relies almost exclusively on automobiles for travel. We do not have bus service or trains in our area so all individuals must use their own transportation.
With the economy the way it is, husbands and wives work, children work. They all have cars and they are all polluting our environment. I am certain this is the case all over Canada. If we accept that people are not going to give up their cars, then we have to accept a cleaner, cheaper and better fuel product. MMT is the exact opposite.
MMT is the gasoline additive that increases octane. It is not essential to the operation of a car and many experts, including automobile manufacturers, say that it causes significant problems with pollution control components. That is why, relating to the car I have, the catalytic converter is the same as the day I bought the car new.
Cars today are very sophisticated with onboard diagnostic systems. These onboard systems are used to help drivers maintain their car's pollution control systems. I understand that if one had to be replaced it would cost approximately $1,000 with labour. Studies have shown that MMT corrupts these systems.
The decision to ban MMT was made after serious consideration. Along with many of my colleagues and the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Environment, I have spent over two years consulting automobile manufacturers, oil companies and environmental groups. We are certain that banning this nasty American fuel additive, and it is not a Canadian additive as it is made in the southern United States, will improve the health and safety standards for all Canadians.
Banning MMT also makes sense when we are already producing better alternative fuels such as ethanol. There are several ethanol plants in Canada. The one in Chatham is not the original as there are several out west and down east.
When ethanol is made I talk of corn but ethanol can be made out of anything: wood, straw, beans. It can be made out of any product that is grown and is renewable.
As I mentioned before, ethanol is a cheaper and cleaner alternative fuel. Banning MMT makes way for corn growers across the country to contribute to the new exciting industry of alternative fuels. I am confident that this bill will benefit all Canadians by improving their health and their environment.
There are questions why Bill C-29 is important. Bill C-29 represents a prudent approach to ensuring that Canadian consumers and the environment are protected in view of uncertainties regarding the long term effect of MMT on advanced emission control
technologies such as the onboard diagnostics that are now only emerging in the motor vehicle fleet on a widespread basis.
Why is it important to have OBD systems in Canadian vehicles? OBD systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution control systems, in particular the catalyst, and alert the driver to a malfunction. This could prevent cases of increasing tailpipe emissions, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, which impact on local air quality, as well as carbon dioxide, the principal contributor to climate change.
Properly functioning OBD systems are in essence an inspection and maintenance tool in the vehicle. Inspection and maintenance programs require vehicles to be emissions tested on a periodic basis. I feel the environment committees and ministries will be doing more of this to improve our society. Successful implementation of properly functioning OBD systems will permit all Canadians to benefit from such an emissions reduction strategy.
For example, an assessment of the emissions benefit attributed to the air care inspection and maintenance program in the Vancouver area, conducted on an annual basis, shows that hydrocarbon emissions have been reduced by 20 per cent, carbon monoxide emissions by 24 per cent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 2.7 per cent and fuel consumption by 5 per cent from the tested fleet.
What are automakers going to do if MMT remains in Canadian fuels? The automakers have indicated that if MMT remains in Canadian gasoline they would take action ranging from disconnecting OBD sensors to removal of the OBD system and decreased warranty provisions for consumers. General Motors of Canada has already advised the government that it has disabled certain functions of the OBD system on 1996 model years.
As I mentioned, by using ethanol these motors can run almost indefinitely. In our positions as members of Parliament we travel many miles in a year. Unfortunately, I must keep a car for a long time because I am not in a position to trade it too often. I put an immense amount of mileage on a vehicle.
How is this action to eliminate MMT from Canadian fuel consistent with what is happening in U.S. fuel? The current Canadian situation is not consistent with the U.S. MMT is permitted up to twice the level in Canada today compared with the level now allowed in conventional U.S. gasoline. When we test gasoline for purities we use American gasoline to check mileage and emissions here in Canada. I think this is wrong. We should be using our own fuel to test.
However, there remains considerable uncertainty about the widespread acceptance and the use of MMT in the U.S. First, there already exists a patchwork of fuels, that is, some that use MMT and some that are MMT-free in the North American market.
MMT is still not allowed in reformulated gasoline in the U.S. which is required in areas that suffer from extreme air pollution. Air pollution is starting to build up in the city of Toronto. Second, the Environmental Protection Agency supported by the Environmental Defence Fund has expressed serious concerns about the lack of data related to the use of MMT in gasoline and consequently has advocated a cautious approach with respect to the use of this additive.
Third, many of the larger petroleum companies in the U.S. have indicated that they do not intend to use MMT. In Canada right now certain service stations use only an ethanol blend. In Chatham three different companies use an ethanol blend.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment task force report on cleaner vehicles and fuels recognized that fuels and emissions control technology should be treated as an integrated system to reduce motor vehicle emissions. The ministers have further agreed to require that cleaner fuels be mandated for use in all Canadian motor vehicles. The MMT initiative is fully consistent with that approach.
I would like to thank all members of Parliament both on the government and opposition sides who supported the ethanol plant for the city of Chatham in the county of Kent. Without your help and the help of the minister it would never have been realized for our area. Chatham is still in a recession and this company will certainly benefit the area. For all the people in the riding of Kent and the county of Kent I wish to thank everyone for the efforts that helped to implement this project. I also wish to thank the Government of Canada for supporting this ethanol plant.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): 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.
Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for her questions and her statements concerning MMT and the studies that have been or have not been done over the years.
I have only been in the House of Commons approximately eight years. The matter of ethanol production was brought up long before I arrived. The feeling was that we should look into ethanol.
I believe hon. members have said that six provinces are not in favour of banning MMT. There are ethanol plants out west, down east, in Quebec. Those are the only plants I know of at the present time, that is, in three different provinces.
I would imagine that Vancouver, and British Columbia in general, would certainly be in support of ethanol over MMT. As far as the safety of ethanol is concerned, whether it has been tested, all I know is if someone can drink it, it cannot be that bad. One thing about ethanol, if your car breaks down, while you are waiting for help which takes a long time to arrive, you can sit there and drink ethanol. You might not be in shape to drive the car afterward, though.
Ethanol has been proven to be very safe. MMT, on the other hand, has been banned in several states. I believe there are 16 states in which there is an outright ban. For areas that have large car populations such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver it is to their benefit to be using ethanol instead of MMT.
There has been what we call evidence, although Ethyl said that it is not evidence, coming from the United States. The United States has studied this for the last 50 years. Ethanol is nothing new. Ethanol has been produced in the United States for over 50 years. In fact, when Henry Ford first came out with the Tin Lizzy, the model-T, long before the hon. member was born, it burned ethanol at that time. I have driven a model-T, but not new.
The evidence over the years in the United States has proven that there are problems with MMT. It is not banning it just for the sake of banning it. It is a very cheap additive. It is banning it because of health reasons.
As far as the $201 million lawsuit, living on the border, I am very familiar with Americans. They sue everyone for anything. It is a good bluff.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, we are now at the next stage of debate. Speakers will have a maximum of 10 minutes without questions or comments.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): 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.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise briefly in the debate on the MMT legislation. I will address some of the points raised by some of the opposition members with regard to this issue.
The first issue is the impact of lobbying. All members must be well aware of the activity of lobby groups from various sectors of business and industry. Lobbyists to a great extent provide an interesting service to members of Parliament in that they bring to our attention their points of view and their interests with regard to proposed legislation. We cannot forget there are lobbyists on both sides of the question and probably on every position in between.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Canadian automobile dealers association. I had a good chat with their chairman, Mr. Douglas Leggat. We talked about a lot of issues. The lobby is not a single issue group. It represents Canadian automobile dealers association and not necessarily the manufacturing sector.
The group has concerns besides banning MMT as an additive in our fuels. Its representatives had concerns about the propriety of banks getting into auto leasing. They had concerns about the GST discrepancy, about whether GST had to be dealt with on their trade-ins, whereas the small independents who apparently deal with the vast majority of used car transactions do not get caught by the GST situation. They are concerned with a broad spectrum of issues.
The fact remains that it is not just the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. Throughout the debate we have heard that virtually every automobile manufacturer has come out in support of the banning of MMT.
MMT is a fuel additive which replaced lead in our gasoline. All members know of the problems we faced when we phased out lead because of the serious health consequences that could be caused over a long period of time. As a result MMT, and I will not even try to pronounce the full name, is a complex chemical additive and replaces the additive lead which was necessary for the configuration of the combustion engines.
A number of the Bloc members have said that they are not sure that it is a dangerous substance. I sense that they are trying to say that until we know it is dangerous, do not do anything. The first thing I thought of when I heard that argument was, is it a good policy to wait until after there is a problem to do something? Maybe it is more prudent and responsible to deal with issues on a preventative basis to make sure that we do not get ourselves into a situation such as we had with lead additives or with ureaformaldehyde insulation. Again, at the time it came out there was a lot of interest. It was a new product recommended by jurisdictional authorities. As everyone knows, serious problems were revealed later.
On the point of not being sure, the issue is that we are not sure. There are no definitive studies that show the significance of the health impacts. There are some indications from some sectors. There is some disagreement and this is the reason that a strong central government is necessary because there is a disagreement among the provinces.
Apparently six of the ten provinces have said they do not think they want to support the banning of MMT. I am not sure of their individual reasons. The fact remains that we are not meddling in provincial jurisdictions. This is a health issue and an environmental issue. The federal government has to be proactive in terms of the protection of the health of Canadians and of Canada's environment.
There was some question about it having been reintroduced in the United States. Even the materials that were provided to members refute that as well. There are no major changes in the position of the U.S. More questions have been raised than answers given, quite frankly.
This piece of legislation calls for the banning of MMT. If we need an additive and MMT is going to be banned, it will have to be replaced by something. Major petroleum industry representatives are looking at ethanol as the additive replacement. When I was with United Co-operatives of Ontario, our petroleum division actually had a test site in the production of ethanol. It could not keep enough of it in stock for consumers who wanted it because of the significant increase in the performance level of automobiles. That was in the Guelph area. As I recall, this was a big breakthrough.
With regard to ethanol, another point that has been made by the opposition is that it is an Ontario issue. That is not quite right because there is an ethanol plant in Quebec and one out west. We now have a new plant in Chatham.
Our thanks go to the leadership of people such as the member for Kent who spoke earlier who have been working for some time to make sure that the facts get on the table. Judging from his speech the member knows what he is talking about. He has been a member of this House for eight years. He has done his work and he has provided leadership within this House to make sure that members know.
In closing I want to reiterate that the purpose of the bill is environmental health and protection. The most efficient way to ensure environmental health and protection is through pollution prevention. We have heard enough already about the impact on catalytic converters and the need for dealing with emissions into our environment.
Cars are the single largest polluter of our environment. This is one constructive, positive and necessary step to make sure that Canada has a cleaner environment.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in today's debate on Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
The purpose of Bill C-29 is to ban manganese-based products, including MMT, which are suspected by the government and the automobile industry of damaging antipollution devices in cars, although in Canada this substance has been added to most types of unleaded gasolines since 1977. Therefore it follows that MMT is harmful to the environment and to the health of Quebecers and Canadians. However, this is not so.
When added in very small quantities, as it is in gasoline, MMT has been shown not to be harmful either to the environment or to health. Since the conclusions arrived at by Health Canada were not the ones the government expected, it had no other choice but to resort to a special piece of legislation to ban interprovincial trade in and importation for a commercial purpose of certain manganese-based substances, including MMT.
After the auditor general, is it now the turn of Health Canada scientists to be the butt of Liberal wrath? One might wonder.
If the Canadian government wants to legislate in this area, it is not on environmental grounds nor to protect the health of its citizens, but as the result of pressure from various lobbies. If MMT had been proven to be a health hazard, or harmful to the environment and cars, its use would have been banned a long time ago.
To better understand the whole controversy surrounding the use or prohibition of MMT, it might help to mention again who the stakeholders are in this issue.
First there is the Ethyl Corporation. Based in the United States, it manufactures lubricating additives and engine performance enhancing fuels. Moreover, it is the only exporter of MMT to Canada. MMT is added to gasoline in Sarnia, Ontario.
Second, there is the American Environment Protection Agency. For years it has been fighting Ethyl in court to maintain the ban on MMT. On November 30, the EPA regulation was overruled by the US court of appeal in the District of Columbia. The EPA announced it did not intend to appeal the ruling.
Third, there are the car manufacturers. They are against any kind of gasoline additives, including MMT. They are threatening to increase car prices in Canada and limit the warranty coverage on these cars if MMT is not banned. There is as yet no hard proof that MMT actually harms automobile pollution control systems.
Last, there are the oil companies. They are in favour of MMT on technical grounds. Processing MMT is less intensive, therefore oil refinery smoke stacks release smaller quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere.
And finally, ethanol producers are probably opposed to MMT because they believe ethanol would be an excellent alternative to MMT. It is interesting to note that ethanol is produced mainly in the riding of the former Minister of the Environment, the present Deputy Prime Minister.
Therefore the whole issue of banning MMT is resulting in considerable costs for the oil industry. These costs could amount to $7 million in Quebec alone. Furthermore, oil companies could spread a rumour of massive layoffs, or price increases for the consumer, if MMT is not accepted.
We must not forget that Canada is facing a suit for $275 million from Ethyl Corporation, based on the free movement of goods policy included in NAFTA. Personally, I believe the Minister of the Environment is taking a big risk, which could have unforeseeable consequences, on top of all the problems this would cause for the Canadian affiliate of Ethyl Corporation.
Last February, the international trade minister wrote to the environment minister to remind him of that fact. But it seems the environment minister decided to wait and see whether Ethyl or the American government would initiate legal proceedings against the federal government for breach of the free trade agreement.
Furthermore, as I mentioned before, banning MMT would benefit the ethanol industry, which is well developed in Ontario and the West, at the expense of the ethanol industry in Quebec which is barely beginning.
I would like to explain the Bloc Quebecois' position. The Bloc is open to the passing of a bill banning the utilisation and the importation of MMT, provided it is proven that this product poses a threat to the environment and people's health. The Bloc Quebe-
cois even voted in favour of Bill C-29 to allow for a more thorough study in order that light could be shed on the whole issue.
However, I must admit that debate and discussions brought to light not the harmful effects of MMT, but the stubbornness and partisanship of the present Minister of the Environment and of his predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister. The Liberal government is showing no respect for the international trade agreements it signed and disregards the Canadian Constitution as far as provincial jurisdictions are concerned.
When it tabled Bill C-29, the federal government declared it wanted to regulate gasoline distribution essentially for three main reasons, because MMT was hazardous to the health of Canadians and Quebecers, because it could damage pollution control devices and because we should harmonize our policies with the American ones. Unfortunately those arguments are no longer valid. A recent American ruling has shown that MMT has no harmful effects on pollution control systems.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-29 and that is why we shall vote against it.
The Speaker: I am sorry, but this must come to an end, is that not so? We will now move on to members' statements.

Statements By Members
Fire Prevention WeekMr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Fire Prevention Week began October 6. This Saturday, October 12 is Fire Service Recognition Day. This is our chance to honour Canada's 98,000 firefighters, full time and volunteer professionals alike.
As a former volunteer firefighter with Lindsay Ops, I want to emphasize how vital this service is to Canadians and ask you to follow this year's Fire Prevention Week slogan: "Let's hear it for fire safety. Test your detectors". Let us deliver the message on behalf of firefighters across the country to remind people that a fully operational smoke detector will save the lives of you and your neighbour.
This Thanksgiving Day take time to check your detector. If you need assistance, ask any firefighter. They care about your safety.
The Jonquière Seniors AssociationAndré Caron: 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.
Conservative PartyMr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the credibility of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party becomes more and more questionable as each day passes. This is no more evident than in the case of his failure to demand the resignation of the Progressive Conservative second in command in the Senate. This Tory senator refuses to answer a court subpoena in Saskatchewan based on his parliamentary privilege. He is using an archaic, irrelevant, obsolete section of the Constitution to avoid appearing in court. This Tory senator's actions demean the integrity of Parliament and all politicians.
What does the Progressive Conservative leader say for himself? Zilch, zippo, notta, not a peep.
Hopefully this friendly reminder will motivate the Tory leader to stand up for the people of Saskatchewan and demand that the senator come out from behind his self-serving abuse of parliamentary privilege. Anything short of that demand will exhibit the Tory leader's contempt for parliamentarians, the democratic process in Canada, but most especially concerned Canadian citizens.
Goods And Services TaxMr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to hear that the tentative deal to harmonize the GST with provincial sales taxes in three Atlantic provinces appears to be back on track with the so-called Nova Scotia compromise on book sales.
It is obvious from this deal that harmonization negatively affects the province's right to make tax policy sympathetic to local
economies. Under the deal in Nova Scotia books will continue to be taxed by the federal government, which does not seem to understand the growing evidence that the GST harmonization will not benefit consumers, workers or regional economies.
New Democrats across Canada led by Nova Scotia's Alexa McDonough say that the current harmonization proposal is the wrong direction for tax reform since it shifts taxes away from business and corporations and applies them to the poor, middle class and working families.
Harmonization including the Nova Scotia compromise remains unfair and ineffective.
R. W. GanongMr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 2, 1996 hundreds of guests attended a special dinner honouring Mr. R. W. Ganong's 90th birthday celebration.
Mr. Ganong of the famous Ganong Bros. Limited chocolate company of St. Stephen, New Brunswick has a long history in the Canadian confectionery industry, beginning with the Ganong firm in 1927 where he acted as superintendent for 17 years, general manager for 11 years, president for 20 years, chairman of the board for 17 years and since 1994 has acted as chairman emeritus.
In addition to R. W. Ganong's successful career, he served his community, province and our country to the best of his capacity. He was honoured as the first Candy Man, a distinction awarded by the Canadian confectionery industry in June of 1976. In 1982 the University of New Brunswick, Saint John campus, presented Mr. Ganong with an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and in 1989 R. W. Ganong was presented with the Order of Canada.
Congratulations to Mr. R. W. Ganong, 90 years young on October 2, 1996.
Linguistic DualityMr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians share the same values. They are peaceful, generous and united. We are also proud of our cultural diversity and we promote bilingualism from coast to coast.
Thus, the Toronto school board is proposing mandatory French courses to all students, these courses being required by the Department of Education and Training.
Together, public and catholic boards in Toronto have 14 French schools. In fact, French is thriving in Toronto. Many students in my riding even have the opportunity to learn three languages simultaneously.
Obviously, our linguistic duality is dynamic and constitutes an unquestionable asset for Canadians in the global economy.
Mental Illness Awareness WeekMrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week is Mental Illness Awareness Week. One out of five Canadians is affected by mental illness at sometime in their lives. It is time to destigmatize mental illness.
I salute the Canadian Psychiatric Association, its partners and the volunteers in this year's campaign of teamwork in service delivery. I support medical research and urge every Canadian to do so.
Last week in my riding a functional magnetic resonance imaging research facility opened. It is the first of its kind outside the United States. This facility will map brain activity at the cellular level and will contribute to the vital medical research being carried out at the institute. We will gain a greater understanding of Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, vision and other brain related disorders and issues.
To those who continue to work tirelessly on the institute's discovery fund campaign, I offer my thanks and congratulations. I am confident that staff, researchers and the benefactors of this institute will add to their list of accomplishments. Their research will benefit the world and all Canadians. Bravo.
1996 Nobel Economy PrizeMonique Guay: 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.
Reform PartyMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since coming to this House three years ago, I have seen some notable changes. Liberals have taken shaky, tentative steps in trying to implement Reform policies.
The biggest contrast between a Reformer and a Liberal is their vision for the future of Canada. It is appropriate during family week to point out that Reform is the family friendly party because of its concern for children. Reform's fiscal policies are designed to lessen the debt and tax burden on our young people and to give them better jobs and more opportunities.
The Liberal-Tory policies have instead forced our children to pay for government excesses that occurred before they were even born. Overtaxation forces both parents to work outside the home. A weak Young Offenders Act and targeting law-abiding citizens rather than criminals are the Liberal's legacy.
However, the area where the most contrast exists is the Liberal vision for the future, which redefines families. Social engineering does not work. Liberals obviously are not learning their lessons by attending Reform school, so implementation of the Reform vision will have to be left to a Reform government.
Women's History MonthMrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month. As the member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River, I would like to take a moment to speak in appreciation of all of the women of Dauphin-Swan River who make our constituency a wonderful place to live in.
Women's History Month was created by the Government of Canada to encourage the awareness of women's contributions to Canadian society. This year's theme is women and the arts. In Dauphin-Swan River we have many women who have made valuable contributions to our arts community through the years. Right now a group called Friends of the Dauphin Allied Arts Council has the work of 17 local women artists displayed in the Dauphin shopping mall. The works, stained glass, ceramics, water colours and wood carvings, are featured to celebrate this year's Women's History Month.
I applaud the Government of Canada for supporting a valuable and worthwhile initiative like Women's History Month.
The Liberal GovernmentMr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past summer as I travelled through my riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe I had the opportunity to meet with 26 town councils and hundreds of constituents.
The question that was most frequently asked of me was: "What has the Liberal government done for me?" This was my answer: "If I had told you back in the summer of 1993 that in three years our government would achieve the following you probably would not have believed me". The deficit is down from $42.5 billion in 1993 to $17 billion by the end of 1997, a 60 per cent decrease.
Exports are up by over 30 per cent. The prime rate is down to 5.5 per cent. Mortgage rates are down by 4 per cent. On a $100,000 mortgage that gives homeowners an extra $3,000 a year in their pockets, and that is without a tax cut.
This is how far we have come and I strongly believe that we should continue moving in this direction.
Deputy Premier Of QuebecMr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an open letter published earlier this week in the daily Le Devoir , Bernard Landry reacts to an article written by Claude Picher about the likelihood of an independent Quebec entering NAFTA.
True to the PQ theory, Bernard Landry let himself be persuaded that an independent Quebec would have no trouble being accepted within NAFTA. The consensus among international experts is that an independent Quebec would not automatically be part of NAFTA. The United States would certainly not miss such an opportunity.
Instead of losing his time in futile and hypothetical discussions, Mr. Landry should focus on abolishing barriers to interprovincial trade. After all, are the other Canadian provinces not among the major trade partners of Quebec?
GuatemalaMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned recently that a peace agreement could soon put an end to the horrible civil war that has been tearing Guatemala apart for 35 years.
It seems that the peace process officially undertaken in 1991 will soon come to a successful conclusion. The Bloc Quebecois salutes the tenacity and the dedication of the Guatemalan people, of Rigoberta Menchu, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and strong defender of the rights of the native majority, as well as the efforts of all supporters of democracy and the good work of United Nations mediators. These mediators helped find a lasting solution to a brutal armed conflict that has claimed more than 100,000 lives and forced one million Guatemalans into exile.
With the conclusion of this agreement for peace, security and justice between guerillas and the government, we can now hope for lasting peace and a true democracy in that country.
The FamilyMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have spent a lot of time in the bush and, with this being National Family Week, I have to say that animals in the forest treat their young better than we do.
Families are the building blocks of society. But what has this Liberal government done to protect them? Regarding finances, since the Liberals came to power the average annual family income has dropped by about $3,000. The old line parties structured income tax so that families in which one parent stays at home to care for children pay many thousands of dollars more in taxes than families that pay someone else to look after their youngsters.
Regarding safety, the Liberals still put the rights of criminals ahead of society's right for safety. After all, it is the children who are the main victims of young offenders. And kids themselves want the Young Offenders Act made a lot tougher. In many cities today kids dare not wear a favourite T-shirt or sports cap to school for fear they will be mugged or it will be stolen.
It is past time the Liberals acted to support kids and the traditional family.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, this week Canada is celebrating National Family Week to renew our commitment to strong, healthy and happy families.
The family is the basic unit of humanity, without which society as we know it would cease to exist. Family means children, the guardians of our future. Family means unselfishly putting the interests of our children ahead of our own, and family means providing care, support and love to each other for life.
Strong families are less likely to depend on social assistance, less likely to have children living in poverty, less likely to become chronic users of health care and less likely to run afoul of the laws of Canada.
In brief, strong families mean a strong country. If the family is strong, the deficit would be gone and children would have the first call on the resources of the nation.
In this National Family Week my prayer is that all families find the fortitude they need to stay strong, healthy and happy.
The Leader Of The Bloc QuebecoisMr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois does not want hear about a ten-year moratorium on sovereignty and he does not intend to give the Parti Quebecois full responsibility for the sovereignist project.
On this subject he said, and I quote: "The Parti Quebecois does not own sovereignty. The sovereignist project is a shared responsibility and that is exactly why there are partners [. . .]Should there be a ten-year moratorium on sovereignty, it would make a notable difference: I would no longer be a partner in that project".
It becomes increasingly clear that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois belongs to the more radical wing of the separatist movement. For him, the separation of Quebec is the only thing that counts.
Lucien Bouchard really should stay away from this undesirable ally, who could hamper his efforts towards the reunification of Quebec.

Oral Question Period
BroadcastingMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last March, the Minister of Canadian Heritage asked the CRTC to review the licences of Power Music Choice and DMX, because these audio programming businesses were not complying with the Canadian and French language content rules in broadcasting. Last
August, the CRTC maintained its decision and renewed Power's and DMX's licences even though these businesses had not changed their programming one bit.
Does the minister recognize that the conditions that prompted her to return DMX's licence to the CRTC still prevail and that DMX still has a major problem in terms of the Canadian and French language content requirements?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both licensees the hon. member is referring to have agreed to comply with Canadian content requirements. They are also committed to increasing Canadian content by 25 per cent.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, that may have been the case for Power, which, in any case, decided to put its licence on ice. But such is not the case for DMX, which was authorized by the CRTC to carry 17 U.S. channels out of a 110-channel pool.
How can the minister claim there is no problem, since otherwise, the U.S. Trade Secretary would stop writing to his Canadian counterpart, the Minister for International Trade. There is indeed a problem.
On September 27, in this House, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made a commitment to protect Canadian broadcasting interests. Can the minister confirm today that she is staying on course and that protecting the cultural interests of Canada and Quebec remains her priority?
Sheila Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government is exerting enormous pressure on the Canadian government to make concessions in the DMX matter. The Americans' goal is clear: getting rid of the cultural exemption clause in NAFTA.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage admit today in this House that, if her government makes concessions in the DMX matter, it will be easy for the U.S. to circumvent the cultural exemption clause in NAFTA?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact that, after we decided to return the licence applications filed by Power, DMX, Galaxy and Allegro, both Power and DMX agreed to increase Canadian content by 25 per cent and made a commitment to comply with the French language content requirements set out in the existing legislation.
That is why we have protected Canadian culture and will protect Canadian culture. One thing is clear: a 25 per cent increase in Canadian content cannot be called a loss.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to our knowledge, only Allegro, Galaxie and Power Music Choice have written to the CRTC to refuse to use the license clause allowing for assembly. DMX never wrote to the CRTC to say that it would not use this clause.
In this context, Allegro and Galaxie are Canadian audio services companies whose programming will be done entirely in Canada. The content of their broadcast will be 30 per cent Canadian and 25 per cent French, in accordance with the rules on Canadian content in the broadcasting sector.
Does the minister recognize that Galaxie and Allegro will be the victims of unfair competition by DMX Music, and that DMX will import unauthorized American channels and, more importantly, will be subject to licensing requirements clearly less rigorous as regards Canadian and French content?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, instead of relying on the Globe and Mail , the hon. member should have waited for my department's press release to get the facts. These facts are as follows: DMX and Power Corporation have both agreed to the same conditions.
Gaston Leroux: Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to make a decision in the case of DMX and as regards the licenses obtained from the CRTC. Does the minister recognize that, if she is prepared to protect Canadian content and the interests of the Canadian and Quebec cultures, she has the power, under the CRTC act, to cancel DMX's license?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, Power Corporation and DMX agreed to increase their Canadian content by 25 per cent, following cabinet interventions and decisions-
Suzanne Tremblay: That is not true.
Sheila Copps: The hon. member says it is not true in the case of DMX. I have a written commitment from DMX. This is why I suggest to the hon. member that he should wait for the cabinet decision, instead of getting his information from the Globe and Mail . He will see, in writing, that the commitment made by DMX is the same as that made by Power Corporation.
PipelinesJim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, on July 27 the Minister of Natural Resources wrote the following regarding the route of the Sable Island gas pipeline: "The Government of Canada has no intention of interfering with the regulatory process in favour of one project over another and ultimately market forces will decide which project will succeed".
We note that earlier, on June 7, after a meeting with the premier of Quebec, the Prime Minister had stated: "We will work toward supporting the Quebec proposal". Interestingly, yesterday the Prime Minister said he wanted to see the gas pipeline go through Quebec.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is it she who speaks for the government when saying that the free market will dictate the route of the pipeline, or is it the Prime Minister who says the pipeline must go to Quebec?
Marlene Cowling: Mr. Speaker, the project will require the approval of the National Energy Board on matters of need, financial integrity, of routing and environment and other public interest considerations.
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, that was well read.
The Prime Minister's comments on this issue, both on June 7 and on October 10 have basically compromised the object-
Mr. Volpe: Come on, Jim. Let's see if you can come up with something.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Jim Abbott: The parliamentary secretary and I are going to have a reading contest today.
Obviously, the Prime Minister has learned nothing from the national energy program. I do not have to read about that. The Liberals will remember. That was the program which caused tens of thousands of Albertans to go into personal bankruptcy over the ill-thought out Liberal national energy program. They are doing it again.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to influence the National Energy Board by exerting political pressure to re-route this pipeline through Quebec?
Marlene Cowling: Mr. Speaker, additionally more of the projects will need the approval of the marketplace.
For projects to proceed, they will also need the support of the customers to guarantee the economic feasibility of the pipeline project. Every project will receive the same regulatory treatment from the federal regulatory agencies. The principles of fairness, equity and efficiency will be applied to all proposals.
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this reading contest is becoming fun. On one hand, I have a question, on the other hand, she has an answer to a question that I have not asked. We will have to get on to the same page.
The author of the report on the Sable pipeline route stated that the building of the Sable gas pipeline to the U.S. through Nova Scotia and southern New Brunswick makes the most sense. This proposal is 100 per cent private sector funded. Gaz Metropolitan, on the other hand, is proposing that customers of TransCanada PipeLines subsidize the cost of the Prime Minister's Sable Island-Quebec diversion by a 3 per cent increase in price. This is a 3 per cent tax increase on heating the homes of Canadian families, any way you slice it.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources unequivocally renounce this 3 per cent tax increase on heating Canadian homes?
Marlene Cowling: Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, all the projects are going to require the approval of the National Energy Board.
Job CreationMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Minister of Finance confirmed that he would stick with the policy he began three years ago. While admitting that he found the job situation worrisome, he went on in the same breath to tell us that no additional measure would be necessary to stimulate job creation.
This morning, the wonderful results of the minister's policy were announced. Statistics Canada confirmed that not only is the job situation worrisome, as the minister said, but that it is a veritable disaster, with the unemployment rate on the increase. And we have him to thank for it.
I put the following question to him: Will the minister come to his senses and admit that his government is on the wrong track with its job creation policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the figures we saw this morning are very disappointing. However, sight must not be lost of the fact that the monthly figures are very volatile. We saw this last June and we saw it again this morning. But we also saw that we created 82,000 jobs in Canada last month, twice the number of jobs that unfortunately disappeared today.
This indicates very clearly, and I am certain that the member across the way will agree with me, that this is a very complex problem. We can see this in the discussions at the Quebec summit. It is a problem that will only be solved by expanding our export markets, and providing better manpower training. There is no magic formula. We are working very hard on this. Furthermore, the trend this year is positive; to date, 55,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that the situation is complex, but something must be done. We are 870,000 jobs short of what we had before the recession, and the minister sits back and does nothing but spout lofty speeches about job creation.
I formally ask the minister, on behalf of unemployed workers in Canada, whether he is immediately going to implement a real measure to stimulate employment, in the form of a substantial reduction in employers' and employees' rates of contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. Not the measly 5 cents he told us about yesterday, but a substantial reduction, like the Bloc Quebecois has been asking him for since we first came to this House, and like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce asked him for last week, a full 60 cents less.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that it is certainly a priority for the government to reduce unemployment insurance premiums. Furthermore, we have suited action to word in the past. I must point out that, last year, the decrease in unemployment insurance contributions was, with one exception, the largest decrease since the creation of the unemployment insurance program: $1.8 million.
Second, I told the member that unemployment insurance is not the only drain on payrolls. There are also provincial deductions for health benefits and the CSST. With your permission, I would like to tell you, just to show that there is no magic solution, what the president of the Association des manufacturiers exportateurs du Québec had to say this morning. A survey of its members concerning the decrease in payroll taxes revealed that only 4 per cent of them replied that this measure will lead directly to the creation of jobs.
At the same time, Mr. Ponton said that lowering payroll taxes does not necessarily result in the creation of jobs. This is simply to say that there is no magic solution. Yes, premiums must be lowered, but there is no magic formula.
PipelinesMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Here we go again. The last time the Liberal government told Canadians that oil and gas should be to their benefit the natural resources of the west were pillaged and plundered. Now the Prime Minister is trying to sell this same story to the people of Nova Scotia.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is very succinct. Why is the government caving in to the demands of a separatist government in Quebec instead of defending the rights of loyal people and a loyal government in Nova Scotia?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by the hon. member are a disgrace.
The Prime Minister has stated clearly throughout this process that he intends to respect the commercial viability of any agreement that might be signed. Frankly, I think the intention of the Reform Party to try to create another incident to cut Quebec away from Canada is disgraceful.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think that if this Deputy Prime Minister and this government were to pay attention they would realize that the people at the extreme ends of this country are dissatisfied with the way Ottawa is mismanaging our affairs. That is the message.
There is a very basic principle at stake here and that is the independence of the National Energy Board. Twice the Prime Minister has publicly made statements using his position as Prime Minister to pressure this board. I would think his own invisible guidelines would have rules against that.
Why is the government meddling in the affairs of the independent National Energy Board?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the member will go back to the response of the Prime Minister to a question of a student at an open meeting in Nova Scotia, he said that what is in the best interest of Canada is obviously to have linkages in Canada when it is commercially viable. That is exactly the position that he took in the House of Commons and exactly the position that he took in response to questions from the Reform Party.
Frankly the attempt of the extremists which the member speaks about, the extremists in the Reform Party who want to create a fight with Quebec on every single issue, do not care about building a nation. What they care about is building obstacles to try and tear this country apart. That is not what this Prime Minister and this Liberal government is all about.
Job Creation For Young PeopleMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Youth unemployment has reached unacceptable levels. The statistics confirmed once again this morning that young people are among those most severely affected by job losses. Their official unemployment rate has increased again and is now at 16.6 per cent. More than 400,000 young people are out of work, and we know that out there the situation is actually even worse. However, we know that the Department of Human Resources Development still has $45 million left of the $105 million announced this spring to help develop jobs for youth.
I would appreciate a clear answer to the following question: Can the minister guarantee that the as yet unused amount of $45 million will be spent by the end of the year, in a serious effort to help young people return to the labour market?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to confirm to the hon. member that I will give him a clear reply. The amounts announced in the last budget for youth employment totalled $315 million, to be spent in the next few years.
The unemployment situation among young people is unacceptable, and we are keenly aware of this. This fall we intend to announce a youth initiative. But we are trying to be a responsible government; just because the money is there does not mean we are going to waste it. We will have a youth initiative, to be announced this fall.
I intend to discuss this in cabinet during the next few weeks. I can inform you that this initiative will be used to create durable jobs for young people. We want to give them the kind of experience that will help them become better integrated in the labour market. Young people need experience, and we need their enthusiasm, and we intend to do something about this in the weeks to come.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, when will the minister have some concrete announcements for young people, and when will young people be able to report to their local employment centres to get the practical help they need to re-enter the labour market? That is my question.
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, last summer we doubled the amount of money available for youth employment, and we were delighted with the results.
I will go to cabinet with a comprehensive youth initiative, which will include funding not only from the Department of Human Resources Development, but more, because I know that the Minister responsible for CIDA and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are ready to do their share. Young people will have a better hope of entering our labour market in a variety of areas. The Minister of Industry, who is a great fan of our young people, will urge them to join the technology sector.
EmploymentMr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the unemployment news is out today and it is bad: 86,000 full time jobs disappeared last month. Let there be no doubt the Liberal policy of jobs, jobs, jobs is in the tank.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can this minister say on Wednesday that the future of Canada is fine, but on Friday it is clear that the future of working families is on the line?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been there, he would have noticed a very heavy emphasis being placed on the absolute necessity of focusing on job creation and on the re-establishment of a whole series of programs which the government has brought in on trade and youth employment, as the minister of human resources has just set out.
The basic difference that occurred at that meeting on Wednesday was that we said the deficit reduction was not as the Reform Party would postulate as an end in itself but it was simply a means to greater job creation and that the reduction in interest rates has led to more investment and will lead to more job creation.
The hon. member knows there is a lag time. A year ago interest rates were at 8.5 per cent and are now at 3.5 per cent. There is not an economist across the country who does not say that is the single most important foundation for future jobs.
John Williams: Mr. Speaker, rosy predictions and forecasts do not put a turkey on the table this weekend and that is what Canadians want. Canadians have mortgages to pay. They have rent to pay. They have car loans to pay. They have student loans to pay. They have families to feed.
On Wednesday the Minister of Finance said that if you are sinking below a mountain of debt you will feel better because the
rates are lower. When people lose their jobs they are devastated and this government does not seem to care.
Will the Minister of Finance give Canadians the tax cut they need now so they can save their jobs now and create more jobs now? That requires no bureaucracy, no administration, and that can be in place this weekend.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member been there and had he listened, he would know what was said. When somebody buys a new car today it costs $500 less in interest. That puts money in his pocket. When he has to renew his mortgage it puts $3,000 more in his pocket. That helps the economy.
We keep going back to this new found interest of the Reform Party in job creation. On September 18, 1993 in Penticton, British Columbia the Reform Party leader said that it would take up to three years before any job creation would occur under his party's economic plan. He went on to say that his zero in three plan would actually cost more jobs in the interim.
If his plan had been followed there would be negative job creation in Canada. Under the Liberals there have been over 600,000 new jobs created. We are ahead of them by a lot.
Rail TransportationMr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Since CN has announced it plans to sell or abandon the line between Chandler and Gaspé, no buyer has been found, and this line may disappear altogether. On October 4, the minister told this House that his department was looking into the matter and that the government had not made a decision yet.
Can the minister tell us today whether this decision has now been made and what the government's involvement, if any, will be?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that when we have information to report I will give it to him.
Many of the decisions that are involved in transport issues are complex because we are not dealing with a single mode of transportation but with the impact of one mode against another. When I have the information I will provide it to him.
René Canuel: Mr. Speaker, we always get partial answers. We are told that no decision has been made, and that it will come eventually. In the meantime, people in the Gaspé peninsula are still waiting.
Last summer, when she visited the eastern part of Quebec, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggested on behalf of her government that a transition fund be provided, the same way it has been for ports and wharfs, in order to maintain the Chandler-Gaspé line.
When is the minister going to follow up on his colleague's suggestion?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should correct the impression given in the House that somehow or another these transportation links have been abandoned. They have not.
Naturally we are working to create the type of future system which is competitive, which allows the people of the area a better chance to improve their economy. With the assistance of my friend the hon. minister of immigration and others in this government, we will make sure we have a transportation system that is viable for people in the future, which is not a drain on the economy, which allows them to take advantage of every opportunity they may have for job creation and economic development.
Road SafetyMr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Canada ranks fifth among developed countries in road safety. There are some rather troubling statistics. In 1995, 3,300 people died. Another 250,000 suffered injuries. Forty-five per cent of those who died were driving while drunk.
How will the minister's recently announced road safety strategy achieve the goal of making Canada's roads the safest in the world?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his interest in this extremely important subject. I note the task he has set for us, of being the best in the world in this regard.
I am pleased to report that I met with my provincial colleagues in Charlottetown over the last three days and we now have a new program, Road Safety Vision 2001, which we will implement. The key to the success of the initiative is that we will crack down on impaired driving and high risk drivers. We will work to increase seatbelt use which is now just above 90 per cent. We wish to increase that to over 95 per cent by the year 2001.
I should add that this is an extremely serious matter. If we think back 30 years and use the figures the hon. member has given us, we will realize that the deaths on Canadian roads in the past 30 years are equivalent to the whole population of one of our provinces, the province I was in yesterday, Prince Edward Island. We have to do something about that type of number.
Goods And Services TaxMrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is Family Week and this government is still taxing reading, learning and the future of Canadians, in spite of the Prime Minister's promise to remove the GST on books and in spite of the government's own statistics which state literacy is important. Society rewards individuals who are proficient and penalize those who are not in terms of employment opportunities and job success.
Given this government's own findings and the promise by the Prime Minister, how can the Minister of Finance continue to rationalize the GST on reading materials?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have noticed that in the discussions we are having with Atlantic Canada, the government has made it very clear that there need not be any increase in the tax on books.
What remains to be determined is what is the best way to promote literacy, what is the best way to promote greater education. If the hon. member will look at what we did in the last budget, the increase in the education credits, the increase in the credits available to allow single mothers to go back to school and take care of their children at the same time, she will notice that this government puts great store in increased education and literacy. What the government is really seeking is the best method to accomplish it with very scarce financial resources.
Daphne Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the minister that the GST is still going to be on the books. The provinces may bite the bullet themselves and take the 8 per cent rebate, but the GST will still be on books and this government promised to remove it. If mothers have to buy a science or medical book which may cost $100 and they are paying an additional 15 per cent, that is just too much money.
I say again the statistics find that an unemployed person is three times more likely to be at the lowest reading level than someone who is employed. I again ask the Minister of Finance to please address this question: When will the government help families, help those mothers at home, keep its election promise and remove the GST on books?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, there are books and there are books. As the Minister of Industry has just said, is the member recommending that we basically take the tax off smut? Is it not worthwhile in this particular society to make sure that in fact we focus that money on learning materials? Is it not worthwhile that we enable the mothers the hon. member referred to, to be able to have decent care at home for their children so that they can go out and increase their capacity to learn?
This government essentially has a restricted budget as indeed the Reform Party I think understands. What we really want to do is to target those moneys where we are going to get the maximum impact. That is what we are in the process of doing.
Air TransportationMr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
We read in this morning's Le Devoir that the Minister of Transport is using a new diversionary tactic in an attempt to reassure his Liberal colleagues about his favouritism for Canadian Airlines. As the article says, the minister's arguments do not bear close scrutiny. The minister does not mention that he is limiting Air Canada's access to Canadian's traditional market, while he is throwing Air Canada's traditional markets wide open to Canadian.
Rather than referring to the policy of the former government, can the minister explain his own double standard policy to us, one which has Air Canada losing Prague after 365 days, while Canadian has nearly two years to provide service to India, the Philippines and Malaysia?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this opportunity to speak on the government's policy on Canadian air carriers. We want travellers to be able to choose between the two carriers, and others in Canada, and we want the Canadian airline industry itself to be strong.
Our policy will support that objective. Our policy on air transportation is focussed on how to make the pie bigger, not just on dividing it up. That is what differentiates us from the Bloc. They just want to divide it up into smaller portions, while we want to make the whole pie bigger.
For example, in the past 14 to 16 months, Air Canada has created a thousand other jobs for its transborder services. Canadian has done the same thing, with 700 new jobs. Bombardier has just got a
billion dollar jet order. What we are trying to do then, is to make the pie bigger, not divide it into smaller portions.
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister's actions speak louder than his words. If the 365 day policy is as rigid as the minister claims it is, how can he justify waiting more than 412 days before imposing his rule and withdrawing the Prague route from Air Canada, on the very day Air Canada was setting the date for service to Prague?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the use it or lose it policy of the government, established by this government was that if an airline did not pick up the route and use it within the required period of time, which is one year, it would be offered to another airline. We do not wait until the exact second of 365 days and then say that it is over. If there was no other airline that wanted to come in, we would probably let the thing slide. But the principle of use it or lose it remains our policy.
Under this policy Air Canada has acquired a substantial number of new routes. It has the majority of the routes which Canadian airlines overall have established with the United States since open skies. It has 60 per cent of the international routes and 70 per cent of the travellers internationally to or from Canada.
If that is mistreatment of Air Canada, and in addition Air Canada has been given rights to markets it never had before, such as Japan and Hong Kong, and if that is mistreatment of Air Canada, I would like to know what the hon. member is suggesting.
HealthMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during this family week the most poignant letters I have received have been from families of AIDS sufferers worrying about health research funding. I also got letters from those with schizophrenic family members who are worried about health research funding. The Liberal solution is to bend to the loudest lobby group. Reform however has a better solution: clear, concise, precise guidelines for apportioning that medical research funding.
Will the Liberals adopt clear, precise, specific guidelines for the apportioning of medical research funding?
Joe Volpe: Mr. Speaker, we already have a very clear funding allocation formula.
I remind the member for Macleod and other members of the House that currently the Government of Canada allocates some $40.7 million per year for AIDS research and treatment. Of this, $17 million is allocated for research and epidemiological monitoring. That includes $5.5 million annually administered through the national health research development program; $1.5 million annually in national welfare grants research; an average of $3 million annually for infrastructure in the Canadian HIV trials network. The remainder of that amount, approximately $8 million, is with the health protection branch. Further, the Medical Research Council contributes a further $2 million for AIDS research. I think that is pretty clear.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary makes my point. Here we have the loudest lobby group with a huge amount of funding and the schizophrenic society literally with nothing. In fact, a triathlete just this last year had to ride across the country to raise the profile of schizophrenia for funding. Researchers are actually out lobbying for funding.
All we ask, and here is the specific question, will this government adopt specific, clear, fair guidelines so that all diseases will be able to get their fair share of funding, not just some disease with a loud lobby group?
Joe Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I have an enormous amount of respect for the member opposite so I am a little confused as to why he would ask this House to mix messages regarding one disease and put it in opposition to another. If people are suffering from diseases, then we treat them individually. We do not try to politicize one in opposition to the other.
As the hon. member well knows, Health Canada is adopting a population health approach to treating diseases. I think he would be more than pleased to see that under that approach the funding for all diseases will be carefully allocated. There is no one sector of society that should be mistreated simply because of one's political views on the issue.
Canada Savings BondsMr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
While most Canadians are pleased to see low interest rates, some seniors have expressed concern about preserving their investment income. Many seniors rely on Canada savings bonds. What can they expect from this year's launch of Canada savings bonds?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, and as the hon. member who has followed this full well knows what they can look forward to is a much improved financial instrument.
The Canada savings bond, as I am sure all members in this House know, and I am sure they are all buyers, is a very safe and secure investment for Canadians.
This year the government is pleased to announce under the new agency that we are introducing a 10-year guaranteed period for those Canadians who are holding a compound CSB. That is to say while the rate in the first year will be 3 per cent, it will rise at a minimum level each and every year to 8.75 per cent over the course of the next nine years.
This is very competitive. Considering that it is cashable at any time, I would recommend to all Canadians and to all members in this House that they rush out tomorrow and buy Canada savings bonds.
Goods And Services TaxMr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This being family week, little Cindy-Lou Martin who is a nine year old in grade 3 at Oakridge elementary school wrote to me and asked: "Will you ask the Minister of Finance why I have to pay GST on the Bible I need for my Sunday school classes?"
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody who would like to see us take the tax off books more than I would. Perhaps there is one other person.
The hon. member will understand that a common base is very important in the application of a tax such as this because it enables us to have substantially lower administrative costs.
The hon. member also knows that there are exemptions on taxes such as this available to certain organizations. He also knows that the tax is not in fact the full 7 per cent, depending upon the institution that is buying the book. Certain institutions have reduced rates.
I understand the tenor of the member's question. I wish I could answer it more positively and perhaps if the country gets into better financial shape I will be able to.
Joffre ShopMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On June 12, in responding to a question of mine, the Minister of Transport refused to impose a moratorium on the closure of the track maintenance equipment repair and overhaul shop at Joffre station, in Charny, claiming that there was no increased risk from a safety point of view. Since then, evidence has shown that these risks have increased 50 per cent.
Before the Joffre shop closes on October 30, will the minister act responsibly and impose a moratorium on this closure, so that a study to estimate the risks involved can be carried out?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I constantly get questions from the other side of the House claiming, quite inaccurately, that there are increases in risk in the railway system in the province of Quebec.
There are from time to time minor variations among all provinces but essentially when we look at accidents in the various categories in which they are analyzed, there has been a slight increase in some of the derailments but not at all untoward and certainly not out of the ordinary with respect to the normal variation statistics.
I find the question very puzzling. The changes have been made and efficiencies have occurred. However, we cannot continue to maintain exactly the previous systems and then expect to get improvements in the future. We have to be willing to make changes to the system that the railways use and in the future we can expect improvements. We cannot have it both ways, as the hon. member seems to think.
Canada PostMr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with the purchase of Purolator Courier, Canada Post has become the largest player in the Canadian courier industry, and allegations of cross-subsidization, overly aggressive business practices and unfair competition in the marketplace are cited throughout the Radwanski report on Canada Post.
The Radwanski report recommends that Canada Post sell Purolator Courier and get out of the courier business altogether. Yet the minister responsible refuses to follow this recommendation.
Why is the minister refusing to take Canada Post out of the courier business?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I want to tell this House that the Radwanski report has been taken very seriously.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: That is a fishy story.
Fred Mifflin: For those members who are laughing, a recommendation was made that the moratorium on rural post offices be continued, and that has been continued.
A recommendation was made regarding the increase in fees for postage for all Canadians. That has not been followed. I am pleased to announce again, as my hon. colleague did, that there will be no increases for mail.
There were other recommendations made in this excellent report that are still being studied.
In response to the hon. member's question, no decision will be made on that until there is financial consultation. However, I have to tell him that at this time there is no intention to get out of the courier service because it is a great service to Canadians.
RacismMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
Yesterday there was a serious issue of racism involving 30 students at Coal Harbour District High School where a robbery is alleged to have evolved into a racially motivated brawl.
Is the secretary aware of the incident and what will she do within federal jurisdiction to redress these racial tensions?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the member asked this question because that is the precise thing that we must continue to monitor in programs of multiculturalism.
Although we do not have the racial tensions that go on in the United States, there are the same tensions in this country. They are low key but they are there. Our programs address the issue. We work with the Canadian Teacher's Federation, the chiefs of police, many community groups and with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to educate and keep a lid on this and a watching brief on it to assure that we who live in this country promote social harmony and deal with the issue of racism head on.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8), I have the honour of tabling the government's response to 38 petitions.
The FamilyDaphne Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some consultation with the other parties. I hope you will find unanimous consent to move the following motion in recognition of family week.
I move:

That this House recognize the family as the building block of society and that the protection and enhancement of the interests of the family be promoted through legislative and administrative actions of the government.

(Motion agreed to.)
John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do we get an opportunity to debate the motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion has been adopted.
PetitionsPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions to the House, the first on taxation of the family which comes from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the home to preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, concerning labelling of alcoholic beverages, comes from Vanderhoof, B.C.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present just over 4,000 petitioners from across Canada, the majority from Burlington, Hamilton, Windsor, Calgary and the great community of Lac-la-Biche, Alberta.
They point out that corporate contributions to public revenues in Canada are already the lowest among the seven major economies, the G-7 countries. They also point out that the share of federal
revenue has risen to 60 per cent from ordinary Canadians while corporations have been reduced to less than 10 per cent.
They make a whole number of other points, but the general thrust is that they are asking the Government of Canada to undertake a fair comprehensive tax reform program so that personal consumers do not suffer even more from financial insecurity and unfair costs at this critical time.
Questions On The Order PaperGarry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the government House leader when I can expect answers to my two questions, Q-4 and Q-52.
I have asked this question previously and have not received an answer as to when the answer is forthcoming. Q-4 has been outstanding now for 227 days and Q-52 for 149 days.
Because I am being refused this information I am prevented as an MP from doing my job properly. If the government does not provide me or other MPs with the information within a reasonable length of time, we as MPs in opposition cannot properly debate and critique government legislation.
I do not know why the government is reluctant to release this information. It should have this information available before it introduces some of the relevant legislation in this House.
When can I get an answer to this? This is of great concern to me. It is incumbent on the government to produce this information.
Ovid Jackson: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked very complex and detailed questions. As I understand it, the questions are being processed and will be here in due time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I have the good fortune of having in my riding an extremely important business: the Ultramar refinery.
I would like to familiarize this House with the views of its executives. I do not feel impertinent in the least; in the past two days, what have we in this House heard from Liberal members, especially those from Ontario? We have heard them defend Ontario's interests with respect to ethanol.
In this debate, the government wants to ban the use of MMT as a fuel additive. I would like us to address this issue, but the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, would defer debate for six months so that a scientific study can be carried out to prove that this product is indeed harmful. This is something that has never been clearly demonstrated.
I am referring to the arguments raised by Ultramar, which is a member of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. I would like to put forward some arguments, since they must be heard in this House.
According to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Ultramar refinery, car manufacturers have never proved clearly and factually that MMT can adversely affect the operation of catalytic converters.
Health Canada formally stated in public and in writing that there was not a shred of evidence that MMT threatened the health of Canadians. This is not insignificant. This statement was made by Health Canada, the federal department of health.
Another argument is that adding MMT to gasoline helps reduce toxic emissions. As we know, since 1976, this much safer additive has been used instead of lead, because something must be added to gasoline. Furthermore, the other elements in gasoline are known to be somewhat toxic. So why MMT? To reduce the impact of toxic emissions.
Another argument is that two federal ministers, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister for International Trade, have expressed reservations in this regard. According to the Minister for International Trade, this bill might violate the NAFTA agreement signed with the U.S. This is not insignificant as we could then be hit by a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
Bill C-29 banning the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT violates NAFTA, a point of view shared also by Gordon Ritchie, the former Canadian negotiator for NAFTA-far from being a nobody, this is the former Canadian negotiator-and for the interprovincial trade agreement.
Another argument we heard is that car manufacturers rejected the proposal of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute to have an independent organization investigate and report on the issue.
They formally committed to act on the conclusions of such an independent study. They really do want an independent study.
The last argument is that banning MMT threatens the competitiveness of the Quebec refinery industry and that would not be in the best interests of Canadian and Quebec consumers. This also is important. As we well know, the government never told us about the costs. They are not mentioned here either, but we know that it adds up to several hundreds of millions of dollars, a significant amount in these hard times.
As a member of the Bloc Quebecois committed to protecting the best interests of Quebec at all times, I want to remind the hon. members of this House that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously approved the following resolution: "That the national assembly request the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning the gasoline additive MMT as long as environmental studies have not been conducted in a conclusive manner".
If Quebec was the only one to make this request, it might not be enough, but at a energy ministers' conference, at least six provinces expressed the same view. Provincial ministers are not alone, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, send a letter to Mr. Chrétien on September 16, asking him the exact same thing. We know that, in 1982, during the Constitutional debate, Mr. Romanow was a very close friend of Mr. Chrétien, who should now listen to him.
I will point out that the Minister of International Trade also wrote, on February 23, stating that he had problems with this bill, and yet the current Minister of the Environment is forging ahead.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I looked more particularly at this aspect. I read the report of a study conducted in 1989 for Health Canada by the University of Montreal. It said: "It is difficult to assess the effects linked to the environmental exposure to Mn-manganese-coming from MMT due to the incomplete nature of toxicological data on long term exposure to small concentrations. Although the emission of Mn coming from MMT can be associated mainly with the inhalation of manganese oxide, a complete assessment of multiple exposure to manganese must take into account all means of absorption, including the oral route. Food accounts for over 90 per cent of all manganese absorbed by humans". We routinely eat manganese and all of a sudden the government is concerned about what can be found in car exhaust.
And this is not all: "With regard to drinking water, although its manganese contribution is less than 3 per cent of that of food, its assessment is critical to an overall evaluation of total exposure". Tests were conducted on animals, and the study points out that as far as they know, in humans, only one case of poisoning due to manganese in rain water is known. This case, involving very high concentrations of Mn, happened in Japan in 1941. The only known case was caused by water, not by an airborne pollutant. The only case was found in Japan in 1941.
This should lead government members to think it over and to track down other cases. I will not imitate Reform members who had horrible stories to tell. If they had any today, they could tell us about them, but only one case is known throughout the whole world, and it happened in Japan, back in 1941. The United States apparently had the same problem, the very same doubts, and we all know how they solved it recently. The issue was appealed and people who, like the present Liberal Party, tried to demonstrate the risk of MMT failed.
There is now an interest here in ethanol. We do not question its value, its importance, but we feel that, under the circumstances, a six month postponement would allow the government to establish its position more strongly, especially, as I said at the beginning, since the proposed amendment will lead to expenses of hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.

Routine Proceedings
Committees Of The HouseMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask for it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and relative to its study concerning rural economic development, that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to travel to western Canada during the week of October 27 to November 1, and to eastern Canada during the week of November 3 to November 9, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to.)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this closing debate on the bill dealing with manganese-based additives.
It is important to clearly understand the objectives of this bill. Manganese is one of the elements found in MMT, which is added to gasoline. The bill seeks to ensure that manganese can no longer be added to gasoline.
When we hear names of chemical products like this one, our initial reaction is often that we must absolutely eliminate all dangerous elements. In this particular case, the government originally had three arguments to support its bill.
First, it claimed that MMT was a threat to health. However, this argument was rebutted by Health Canada and is no longer valid.
Second, the government said manganese was also harmful to the anti-pollution systems in automobiles. This claim is no longer valid either, since it was contradicted by the ruling of a U.S. court. Indeed, the same issue surfaced in the United States and, following a court ruling, it was realized there was no evidence supporting the claim that manganese was dangerous.
The third claim, which is the really trickiest one, is that the bill to prohibit manganese would help harmonize our policies with those of the Americans. In fact, it will have precisely the opposite effect.
The manganese currently found in gasoline is produced by Ethyl, a U.S.-based corporation which, following the introduction of this bill, instituted proceedings against the Government of Canada, something which could end up costing close to $300 million to the Canadian government, under specific NAFTA provisions. As you know, NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement that binds Canada, the United States and Mexico.
So, the Government of Canada knows that, by passing this bill, it will put itself in a difficult position, given this court action, which is definitely not frivolous in nature. This is an action being brought under NAFTA sections 1110, 1106 and 1102 and, moreover, supported by a letter from this Liberal government's international trade minister to the environment minister advising that it would be better not to follow through with this legislation because the action against us is very risky. Odds are that we lose in the end.
It is obvious that if Parliament does pass this bill, that would amount to deciding to invest that sum of money and this would lead to expenditures that could have been avoided. These are mistakes the government should not make.
I do not think that we are in a position to pour $300 million down the drain, saying odds are that we will lose but that we are going ahead, nevertheless. Why? Why, when the argument that this threatens health has been refuted by Health Canada, when the argument about the antipollution systems has been dismissed by an U.S. court ruling on the issue, and when it has been established that there is no danger for pollution control equipment.
Instead, we will have a legislation which will aggravate the relationships between Canada and the United States. Why then is the government still going ahead with this legislation?
The answer is an old answer in Canada, it has been there for a very long time. This government has a strong majority from Ontario, and its aim is to foster the economic development of that province at the expense of the six other provincial governments, including Quebec National Assembly, which has unanimously called for the postponement of this bill.
The ministers involved, the Deputy Prime Minister and the present environment minister, are all from Ontario, and they have decided, come hell or high water, to have the government endorse that view even if it is not a good bill for all Canadians. It is a bad bill, because it is going to poison relations between Canada and the United States.
In the context of NAFTA, when countries have to negotiate, there is always give and take. When our case is not good, as with this bill on MMT, we have to give the Americans something in exchange.
Proceedings could be initiated against us, and we would perhaps have something to pay if the American company maintains that Canada is in breach of NAFTA. We will have to pay that money and give something in exchange to the Americans. What will be the target of these concessions? Will it be like in the softwood issue? Will we lose as much in another area? All in all, the present government is not acting responsibly in pushing this bill through.
All the arguments have been presented. They have been repeated in the House, and they have been made by the six provinces that condemn this bill. Unfortunately, there is a huge representation of Liberals from Ontario, who ensure that the interests of the province take precedence over the interests of the whole country. That also creates environmental concerns.
It is important to realize that banning manganese would increase the emissions of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere by 5 to 20 per cent. This is being avoided thanks to the presence of manganese in MMT, but if we ban this substance, there will be a significant increase.
There is something else that defies all logic; this bill will create a lot of problems throughout the years. The government has decided to go ahead with this bill even if there is no health hazard, even if it does not improve anti-pollution systems, even if it could cause trouble with the United States, even if it could cause environmental problems, because the Ontario Liberal majority has managed to impose their position on their caucus.
In conclusion, we have before us a bill which, at first glance, did not seem to create any problems, but upon closer examination, we have come to realize that the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, would, by passing this bill, make a decision that would undermine the Canadian economy and cost taxpayers a lot of money.
The next time the people will be asked to tighten their belts for cuts in UI benefits, we will have yet another example of $100 million, $150 million, $200 million, $300 million, we do not know how much for sure, spent on legal opinions. We have received opinions that clearly indicated Canada's position is not very tenable under NAFTA.
For all these reasons, I will again urge the members of this House to vote against this bill, because it is not in the best interests of all Canadians.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate on what I feel is a very important topic. I would like to add a few words of insight to this particular issue.
This debate illustrates, among other things, what is wrong with this Parliament and the process. We end up with certain lobby groups making strong presentations to those people who are in the decision making loop of the government. We stand here in the House and debate these issues. I know that members on both sides have entered into the debate, but those on this side of the House who have tried to appeal for an independent scientific inquiry are really not getting anywhere. We can keep debating and putting words on the record, but they will not be heard because those who are making the decisions are not hearing the words of the debate. They are not paying attention and probably will not respond to the reasoned arguments.
I would also like to use this opportunity to appeal once again to the members of the governing party, the Liberals, to simply vote the way they believe they ought to vote on this. Perhaps on this issue they should reject the party discipline to which they always bow down. It seems reasonable to me that what we ought to do in this instance is to have some truly independent scientific studies done and find the results of those.
Right now, the messages we are hearing from the opposing lobby groups are not defensible on either side; that is, both of the sides are presenting data but it is very biased because it comes from those who have a large and vested interest in it.
What we need is an independent study from someone who has no vested interest in the outcome at all to decide whether or not the use of MMT in fuels is dangerous to health and damaging to vehicles.
I want to relate a story because of my own experience. I happen to be one who works with people all the time. In my previous life I was an instructor working with fellow instructors and students. My recreation on Saturday included putting on my work clothes and doing my own mechanical work. Over the years I always did my own vehicle servicing: oil changes, lube jobs, and some minor and sometimes major mechanical work. I used to love getting out my tools on Saturday and doing mechanical work.
I need to tell members that two days after the vote on the Charlottetown accord, a day I will never forget, I was in my vehicle, a miniature car, and was in a bone-crunching accident. Fortunately all the factors came out right and I was not seriously injured. However, my mini vehicle was totalled. I guess I could use the name because I am not going to say anything bad about it. I am very grateful that it collapsed in the front and in the rear and because I was in the middle, as snug as a bug in the rug, I was unharmed.
Just in case anyone thinks I am a dangerous driver, I was stopped at stop light in a line of vehicles and the person behind me hit my car at some 70 kilometres an hour and jammed my car into the vehicles in front of me. I was just sitting in the line and totally innocent of the accident. However, I was saved because of various factors which I will not go into.
However, as a result of that accident I went to purchase a replacement vehicle. I bought a small vehicle again because of their economy and low fuel usage. I always argued that if I put a small amount of fuel into the tank because the vehicle is very fuel efficient, then I produce less polluting elements into the atmosphere and thus I am doing my part as a citizen.
I purchased that vehicle new in the fall of 1992. I drove it for a long time. It was an excellent vehicle. I only changed the oil, added gasoline and occasionally washed it. I had 75,000 kilometres on that car without ever having touched the motor.
Just as a matter of course I thought that I should change the spark plugs in the vehicle. I never had a vehicle that went that long without changing the spark plugs. I purchased a new set of spark plugs and on a Saturday morning I pulled out the old ones and I was going to replace them. After 75,000 kilometres of travel on that vehicle those spark plugs looked like new. I merely scraped them a little, regapped them and put them back into the motor and ran them until 100,000 kilometres at which time I did change them just because it was time. Even then they were not fouled.
That is a single example, but logically speaking that example is sufficient. If someone makes the declaration that the presence of MMT fouls up spark plugs, then for spark plugs to remained unfouled would be an exceptional instance. We have MMT in our fuel right now. In the Edmonton area we have had it for years. I have used that additive and this has been my experience. I know of no one who has complained of fouled up spark plugs. Consequently, I can only argue logically that if a statement is made it is sufficient to show but one counter example to refute the argument.
As a result of this and because of personal experience, I have very serious questions about the validity of the so-called scientific studies which say that spark plugs will foul. I have seen the pictures. I have seen the same presentations where it is claimed that after 20,000 kilometres the plugs are so fouled up that they no long function. That is certainly the opposite of my experience.
I appeal to members of the government. We are merely bowing to lobby and pressure groups. That is not the correct way to make decision. Decisions ought to be made on clearly demonstrable, independently provable scientific evidence. We need to get those with a vested interest out of it, even though they are certainly entitled to present their studies and conclusions. We need to make our decisions based on independent scientific studies. I call for that.
It is most important that this bill be defeated at this time until there is actual reliable evidence received. At that time the decision can be made wisely, not just on emotional reactions based on which lobby group speaks the loudest. That is my submission to this debate. I think it is an important one. I appeal to members to hear what I have said and pass it along to the decision-makers who will soon be calling on members to stand and vote on call.
I am speaking collectively here. Why not make our decisions logically instead of simply obeying, on command, what we are told to do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred to Monday, October 21, 1996, at the usual adjournment time.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Fred Mifflin: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Fred Mifflin: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. I am pleased to speak in support of this legislation.
With this legislation we have a rare window of opportunity to establish environmental conditions in which mining in Yukon can take place. I urge hon. member to take advantage of this opportunity to support the bill currently before the House.
Bill C-6 is a compromise, a made in Yukon solution to a unique Yukon situation. I would like to take a few minutes of the House's time to explain how this legislation came about and to highlight the extensive consultations that have resulted in a consensus to proceed at this time.
I am sure hon. members of the aboriginal affairs and northern development standing committee would agree that consensus is the key word. They heard from many witnesses about the compromises that were reached in this bill. Witnesses included the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee, known as Y-MAC; the Yukon Chamber of Commerce; the mayor of the village of Mayo; the Yukon Placer Miners Association; and the Yukon Chamber of Mines.
This bill is not being imposed on an unsuspecting public or industry. There is clearly a recognized need for the environmental
regulation of mining in Yukon, both to ensure protection of the environment and to provide certainty for industry.
Yukon is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not currently have land use regulations that apply to mining claims, although the environmental record of the territory's mining industry is good.
Some of the problems we have today could have been avoided with proper regulation.
The YMAC Committee, a group created in 1990 to bring the stakeholders together, was asked to develop an acceptable environmentally friendly system. I would like to join the minister in congratulating the YMAC for its good work. Bill C-6 is the direct result of this committee's work and of the determination of its members to find compromises that would benefit the Yukon economy and environment.
Without their dedication, we would not have reached a global agreement on the way to proceed. And, without such a significant agreement, it would have been extremely difficult if not utterly impossible to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
We must also recognize the contribution of the Yukon First Nations to reaching a consensus. The Yukon First Nations are not against development; in fact, they often support it, because they recognize that resource development projects can benefit their members.
However, the First Nations are also deeply attached to the environment. By taking part in the works of the YMAC, the Yukon First Nations Council made sure that native concerns were considered.
Finally, the representatives of the federal and territorial governments who sat on the YMAC Committee contributed to ensuring a balance between the interests at stake and a land use system that will support mining exploration and development without threatening the environment.
Bill C-6 was the result of a report prepared in April 1992 by the YMAC. The underlying object of this report was, and I quote, "to ensure the development of a healthy, durable and competitive mining industry, whose operations support the fundamental social, economic and environmental values of the Yukon".
When the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received cabinet approval to draft Bill C-6, special arrangements were made to consult with YMAC throughout the drafting of the bill and the accompanying regulations. Such arrangements are extremely unusual, however, without them it would not have been possible to reach the general consensus on this legislation.
Beginning in early 1994, YMAC initiated a series of meetings to discuss drafts of the proposed legislation and regulations. The committee met as a group more than 10 times during 1994 and 1995 specifically to discuss this issue. Also over the past years, these legislative proposals have been reviewed and discussed at such mining industry forums as the Geoscience Forum in Whitehorse, the Cordilleran Roundup in Vancouver, the Prospectors and Developers Convention in Toronto and the Gold Show in Dawson.
In July 1995 with the endorsement of this government, YMAC took its consultation to another level by mailing out a summary of the legislative proposals and regulations to more than 600 individuals, organizations and companies. Public information sessions were subsequently held in four Yukon communities: Dawson City, Mayo, Watson Lake and Whitehorse.
Close to 150 people attended the hearings announced in the newspapers, on the radio and on posters in the offices of the mining companies and other public buildings. The committee as well as the federal government and the government of the Yukon also received a certain number of written comments on the proposed statute.
We especially tried to get the First Nations to participate, at the grass roots level, in the consultation process.
In addition to being represented on the YMAC, the 14 First Nations of the Yukon received a summary of the bill and the related regulations before public information meetings were held in July 1995.
The hon. members of the House should know that the minister initiated discussions on an even broader range of issues regarding First Nations during the consultations conducted by his department on the regulations on the use of mining property, which is being developed.
In October 1995, two dozen First Nations groups and organizations received a copy of the summary of the bill and the proposed regulations with a request for comments.
Officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have contacted these groups directly to arrange meetings to discuss the proposals and receive feedback. At least one meeting has been held with representatives from each Yukon First Nation. The minister is very interested in hearing aboriginal people's views on the proposed regulations, in particular whether the First Nations want their own legislation or this act to apply to their settlement lands.
Once the draft regulations are finalized, the government will follow the normal process of publishing them in the
Canada
Gazette at least 60 days prior to their proclamation. This will provide a further opportunity for public input into the mining land use regime.
Also, in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders, separate regulations are now being developed for hard rock production and mine site reclamation. These will be brought into effect after the land use regulations are promulgated, which is expected to occur at the same time or shortly after Bill C-6 is proclaimed.
Based on the wide ranging and extensive consultation that has been undertaken, we have before us a bill which reflects a broad consensus of the key stakeholders connected to the Yukon mining industry. Although there are some issues on which YMAC could not reach an agreement, all stakeholders have demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to compromise. Hon. members should be aware that Bill C-6 is very much in keeping with the YMAC report of April 1992.
As recommended by the committee, the government is proposing to establish a multi-tiered classification system for land use operations. The government has also accepted the committee's recommendation for a completely separate set of regulations from the territorial land use regulations so as to better reflect the unique operating requirements of the mining industry in Yukon.
Another characteristic of the proposed program is the short delays given the government to make decisions concerning mining activity applications. This is in accordance with a committee recommendation taking into account the short placer exploration and development season in Yukon.
The bill also proposes a well defined responsibility and accountability framework. The chief of placer land use will administer the regulations and will make decisions concerning most of the projects. The only exception will be for projects concerning hard rock, which will require a permit issued by the minister. The decisions of the chief of placer land use will be subject to appeals to the minister.
Inspectors will have clear, reasonable and effective powers allowing them to give regulatory approvals. They will have the power to enter any mining site or building, except dwelling places.
They will also have the power to take samples and to examine books, records or documents and make copies thereof.
The inspectors will also have the power to order the cessation or modification of any activity, when it results or may result in danger to persons or the environment. The inspectors' orders will be subject to an appeal to the chief of placer land use.
Hon. members will be pleased to learn that this bill should not increase costs for operators using approved mining practices that are safe and respectful of the environment. In fact, the additional administrative costs that could result from the regime will be only minimal.
Bill C-6 also provides for mechanisms to ensure maximum harmonization and co-ordination with other statutes, such as the Yukon Waters Act and the Territorial Lands Act. Hon. members are aware that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act contains provisions for co-ordinating the efforts of all federal bodies taking part in an environmental screening and assessment. This would have the effect of further reducing duplication and overlap in the administration of the regime.
The mining industry has a long and proud history in Yukon, a history of contributing to economic development, income generation and job creation. By putting in place environmental regulations that have already been accepted in the rest of Canada, this legislation will ensure that the industry can continue to make these vital contributions for many years to come.
Bill C-6 is the latest in a series of initiatives undertaken by this government to ensure the viability of the mining industry and economic growth and security in Yukon. In February 1995 the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act were proclaimed.
These acts were required to implement the Council for Yukon Indians umbrella final agreement and the four Yukon First Nations final agreements that have been negotiated to date. These acts establish certainty of land ownership and rights so the resource development can go forward. Decades of uncertainty concerning land title and rights will continue to disappear as each one of the outstanding claims is resolved.
Bill C-6 will add to the legal certainty that has been put in place through the land claims settlement process. These amendments are consistent with the umbrella final agreement and will compel decision makers to ensure that projects are properly reviewed and assessed and that mitigative measures are in place.
The development assessment process, DAP, legislation which we intend to introduce to the House in 1997 is now being developed in consultation with Yukon First Nations. Bill C-6 which fills a gap in the regulatory system will facilitate the objectives of the development assessment process.
Already, we are seeing the positive results of the land claims settlement process. The signing of definitive agreements has raised new interest in the Yukon's mineral resources. Some 13,000 mining claims were staked in 1995, raising the number of duly registered
claims in the area to over 55,000. The amount spent on exploration should exceed $40 million this year, and spending on development could exceed $60 million, a high for the decade.
At least five companies have expressed their firm intention to open, re-open or expand mining sites in the Yukon in the next two years. Several others have indicated that they would be interested in operations if they would come up with the necessary capital and if feasibility studies are favourable.
The introduction of the amendments in Bill-C-6 will allow us, where necessary, to put these proposals for mining sites through a complete environmental screening, and to ensure that these sites are operated using safe environmental practices, in accordance with the regulations for the sound and effective use of mineral lands. In the long term, this should be in the best interests of the industry, of all Yukoners and of all Canadians.
Given the opposing points of view on mining and the environment, it is quite remarkable that we have achieved such a degree of consensus and reached such a compromise, as evidenced by Bill C-6. We must not miss this opportunity to regulate the development of mineral lands in the Yukon and I urge hon. members in this House to vote in favour of this bill.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning the extraordinary participation by a variety of organizations during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on the Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Through their testimony and their involvement in the consultation process, they defended their interests against the government and thus the merits of this legislation.
I am referring to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Government of the Yukon, the Klondike Placer Miners, the North Slope Wildlife Management Advisory Council, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the village of Mayo, Wesmin Resources Limited, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Yukon Conservation Society, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee, the Yukon Prospectors Association, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, the Yukon Outfitters Association, and finally the Teelit Gwich'in Council.
That made a rather long list, but I needed to demonstrate that Bill C-6 is a general reflection of the concerns expressed in committee. Of course, some wanted more, some, less. The bill we have before us now in third reading is characterized by a series of technical details on the environment and natural resources. It brings mining operations in line with today's concerns.
What is more, it confers upon the Yukon territorial government and the First Nations the responsibility for proper resource management, and for implementing standards in keeping with their lifestyle and with respect the environment.
As you are aware, this is not a bill that dropped out of the blue, or just appeared overnight. We took the trouble to find out what type of consultations had gone before. In 1990, an advisory committee on the Yukon mining industry was set up, and we in the standing committee recently heard comments from people in the north, as well as from some fifteen different organizations.
No one in this House will be able to accuse us of saying: "This is the way it is going to be". Not only does this bill amend legislation, which dates back to 1906, in the case of placer mining, and to 1924, in the case of quartz mining, but it also provides the Yukon Territory with new regulatory powers.
Perhaps we should know more about this territory, which seems so far away.
The name Yukon was used for the first time in 1846 by a Hudson's Bay Company trader, John Bell, from the Indian word Yuchoo which means ``the biggest river''. The Yukon river is the fifth longest river in North America.
The first European visitors in modern times were Russian explorers, who sailed up and down the coast in the 18th century and traded with the Indians. The Hudson's Bay Company penetrated into the interior in the 1840s. With the discovery of gold near Dawson City in 1896, the Klondike became one of the most populated regions in the Canadian Northwest. The sudden population explosion during the gold rush led the federal government to give the Yukon more political power. In 1898, the Yukon was officially constituted to ensure Canadian jurisdiction. The Yukon Act provided for the appointment of a commissioner and the creation of an elected legislative assembly.
As a territory, Yukon does not have provincial status, although it did acquire a similar form of government in 1979. This means the Canadian government maintains its authority over bodies of water, land, forests and non-renewable resources.
How could someone be against a bill which reduces the paternalistic authority of the federal government and provides for a partial decentralisation and environmental standards which, by the way, were almost or totally non existent before.
How could we disagree, knowing that the Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act is the result of a long negotiation and consultation process?
Our only comment is that this act will have to be reviewed in a few years from now in order to adjust its environmental standards to those of other provinces, such as Quebec and Ontario. However, we are fully confident that the Government of the Yukon and the native communities are capable of establishing their own standards according to their needs.
The present population of the Yukon is close to 28,000, of which 23 per cent are natives and 60 per cent live in Whitehorse.
Mining, which accounts for 30 per cent of the Yukon's economic activity, is by far its main industry. Tourism, which offers an opportunity to live in a wild area with a unique and relatively intact environment, is an equally important source of jobs and services. Fur trade is practised by about 3 per cent of the population, mainly native people. Dawson City also has a small fishing industry, exporting salmon and selling other species of fish to local consumers.
In short, the consensus, or should I rather say the compromise, proposed by the Act to Amend the Yukon Quarts Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act will allow the territory greater autonomy in the management of its resources.
The Bill under consideration is rather like a collective agreement, in the sense that if a new amendment or a new change to this bill was to be approved, another group would ask for more or would totally disagree with it.
This is why we support the implementation of this bill in its form at second reading. I have been talking to you all this time about Bill C-6 without having explained what it is about. I am sure a brief summary of the different parts of this bill will benefit the honourable Mps here in this House and the audience.
The Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, Bill C-6, is the result of representations made by the Government of the Yukon in order to find a solution to the environmental problems generated by mining activities.
The Yukon government wanted this solution to be developed and implemented by the Yukon community. This new bill now provides for environmental protection since, in addition to the requirements applicable to licenses and to levels of activity, it will also be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
By the way, it should be understood that, in the past, environmental concerns came far behind economic concerns. At the time, gold mining was almost a cottage industry. People would enter the streams, shake their sieves, collect a nugget and throw the gravel over their shoulders.
The countryside there is extraordinary. As you know, it is the land of the midnight sun. However, when you look down you also see a lunar landscape around the Midnight Dome. It was caused by reckless development. Piles of earth were left there and completely spoil the scenery. It is easy to see that, at the time, the environment was not at all a concern, unlike today.
The bill before us seeks to promote a behaviour that is more respectful of nature than in those days. At the time, people were just not concerned about the environment. They were concerned about finding gold. The land was so vast and so sparsely populated that people did not care. Today, we have to care. But we would certainly say that on the whole, this piece of legislation is a worthwhile effort. There is a system to approve various classes.
I mentioned that there was no environmental protection, but there are indeed now various classes which will require some approval and help discipline the operation as such for a better protection of the environment.
Thus, class I activities require no preliminary approval but must comply with existing regulation. So the principle is the following: when you go from class I to class II, the regulations get a little stricter. Also, class II activities require prior notification being given to a federal authority.
As for class III activities, they require the advance submission and approval of an operating plan. So, as you can see, the bigger the operations are, the stricter the regulations become.
Class IV is certainly the more stringent because not only is an operating plan required to be presented and approved, but it must be subjected to public consultations. For those who are less environment-orientated and more economy-orientated, this has become something of a pain, because it only takes a couple of people opposed to the project to jeopardize it.
In class IV, we will certainly be dealing with large scale projects requiring public consultations, therefore a lot more preparation on the part of those who want to develop the resources, to provide environmental data to the groups and individuals who will scrutinize class IV projects.
According to the minister, the regulations under the proposed legislation define various levels of activity. The result of compromises in committee, and the subject of many observations, these levels relate to the size of mining exploration projects, in terms of how many people will be in a camp, how many square meters of trenches will be dug, how many square meters of top soil will be removed, how many kilometres of road will be built, how heavy
vehicles will be and how many kilometres will they cover, how many litres of fuel will be stockpiled, etc.
For example, a camp for five individuals for 150 person-days could be in class I and one for the same number of people but for more than 150 person-days could fall into class II, III or IV. The digging or the ditches could not exceed 400 cubic metres per claim per year in class I, whereas the number of cubic metres could reach 1,000 in class II, 5,000 in class III and more than 5,000 in class IV. All terrain vehicles would be allowed depending on the period of the year, the weight of the vehicle and the distance to be covered. During summertime, only low ground pressure vehicles would be in class I, a 30-tonne vehicle covering a maximum distance of 15 kilometres could be in class II and if the distances were to exceed 15 or 40 kilometres, the project would then fall into classes III or IV respectively. No road construction would be allowed in class I and the class would depend on the number of kilometres of road or trail built.
If all activities in a project qualify for class I except one, for example a fuel stockpile of 30,000 litres, then the project will be put in class II.
The proposed legislation will require all applicants to supply a security that could equal the approximate cost of redressing all adverse environmental effects. It also provides for the modification and transfer of operating plans and licenses.
It establishes an application and inspection system for the provisions of the legislation itself and of the related regulations, and it defines offences and penalties.
Naturally, the legislation grants powers to make regulations for its enforcement. The regulations on the utilisation of mineral lands for quartz mining and placer mining will take effect whenever the proposed legislation is passed or shortly thereafter. Regulations on the reclamation of quartz mine sites that are already in operation under the Quartz Mining Act will be made at a later date. Regulations development is in consultation with interested parties.
In a different connection, officials did everything in their power to reassure us by saying: "Indeed, what we are looking at in terms of the environment, categories and operations, is not in contradiction with what has already been granted to Yukon's first nations in connection with self-government or land claims".
So, we must say this act is the result of a great compromise among highly varied groups, from environmentalists to mine operators. Furthermore, we can also say we did our utmost in the consultation process so that native bands had their say.
The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development set up teleconferences in Whitehorse, Ottawa and so on.
Speaking of consultation, I would like to define for the government what consultation really is, something it often confuses with what may be called the "lobby power".
Indeed, consultation is really effective when, first of all, the people affected by this bill also have equal opportunity to express their opinions and defend their rights.
Second, when the government does not put the people before a fait accompli and tell them at the last minute: ``You can always talk, but it will not change much''. Lastly, when the government clearly indicates what it intends to do as a legislator and provides all the appropriate information to the public so that the people can make up their own minds about the bill.
Before supporting this bill, we checked if every individual and every organization who wanted to give evidence had the opportunity to do so. In fact, I gave you the list earlier on. Also, we support Bill C-6 because the situation in the Yukon is quite urgent. Estimates for 1995 show that mineral production in the Yukon generated $185 million, an increase of around 115 per cent over 1994. Production from more than 200 placer deposits increased in value by 38.2 per cent to reach some $78 million.
According to the Yukon Chamber of Mines, exploration expenses in the Yukon came to a little under $40 million in 1995, almost double the $21 million reported in 1994. Expenses for development purposes rose from $11 million in 1994 to $57 million in 1995, reflecting the development of new gold mines in Brewery Creek and Nansen Mount. For a fourth consecutive year, exploration and development expenses have gone up in the Yukon.
Six other mining projects are currently the subject of environmental impact studies. If the results are positive, development on these projects should start in 1996 or 1997.
Upset because the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee was taking too long to make environmental changes to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, the environmental community challenged the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's environmental assessment and licensing process. In December, the courts ruled in favour of the department.
This is a matter of urgency for the environment. Area wildlife, which is important not only to the aboriginal people but also to hunters, tourists and the population at large, includes moose, caribou, mountain goats, bighorns, bears and other furbearers. The
passing of Bill C-6 is essential to the conservation of these resources.
Finally, I wish to reiterate my support and the support of the Bloc Quebecois for Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, which, I remind the House, reflects a broad consensus among the various stakeholders. This is why I propose that this bill be adopted as is by the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I note the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap is seeking the floor. I will make a suggestion to the member and to the House. Almost every time, members are reluctant to speak when there are only a few minutes left in the debate. I will leave it to the member if he wishes to speak for the remainder of the five minutes before we go to private members' hour or, if he wishes, I can ask the House if there is unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. and to go to private members' hour.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Seniors' Bill Of RightsMrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): moved:

That in the opinion of this House, seniors play a vital role in our country, and therefore the government should direct that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs proceed with the drafting of a Seniors' Bill of Rights, aimed at acknowledging the rights of seniors to live full and protected lives in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to speak to my Motion No. 265 which calls on the standing committee on justice to draft a seniors' bill of rights.
While I am disappointed that this is not a votable motion, I remain optimistic that this effort will raise awareness of seniors issues in Guelph-Wellington all across Canada.
In a recent Ottawa Sun article, reporter Jacki Leroux posed as a senior. She offered this observation about the experience: ``Perhaps most annoying were the assumptions that were made about my mind. Whether it was buying something in a store, giving directions to a cab driver, ordering lunch or using a bank machine, the message from most people was clear. All people with grey hair must have Alzheimers''. Those comments are frightening.
I hope the discussion that begins today with this motion helps to eliminate those assumptions and reminds each and every Canadian that seniors play an active role in our society and deserve our support and our appreciation.
We are all aware that our population is aging. In Ontario, for example, it is expected that there will be a 55 per cent increase in the senior population in the next 15 years. That includes a 132 per cent increase in the 85 and up age group. An obvious question comes to mind. Are we prepared for an aging population? However, I think there is something even more profound. How we treat our seniors today will be the road map for how they are treated tomorrow. Ignoring issues that are important to our seniors will not make them go away. Instead, as our population ages those issues will become more intense.
In preparation for this debate I asked my constituents and other Canadians to provide their suggestions, their insights and concerns regarding seniors' issues to me. Not surprisingly, personal finance and health were the two biggest concerns. This corresponds with a survey published in Today's Seniors in June of this year. Cuts to health care, the future of the Canada pension plan, concerns regarding increased costs of prescription drugs and the future of public pensions were discussed most often.
But many seniors face concerns that go beyond discussions of public policy. They face problems every day. Rita Lovelock wrote to me a few weeks ago: "I live in a house and think about everyday bills, hydro, gas, cable, telephone, the daily newspaper. My husband worked long hours for low wages. We never received any government handouts. We raised our six children to be upright citizens. Why make things so tough for the people who helped build this country?" That is the question that needs our response.
Guelph-Wellington is fortunate to have many volunteers and agencies which help make it the best community in Canada. From individuals like David Ing who manages Norfolk Manor, to John O'Connor, president of Senior Peer Advisory Group, to Carrie Fisk, editor of the newsletter published by the Evergreen Seniors Centre, we are truly fortunate for the many people dedicated to making the lives of our seniors richer and more fulfilled.
They are joined by St. Joseph's Hospital, Eden House facility, the Guelph-Wellington Seniors Association and many others who assist seniors in living in today's society. All of these organizations and the countless volunteers cannot do it alone. We must work to improve attitudes and stereotypes and protect those most in need.
I am grateful to a number of national and provincial organizations which have offered their support for this initiative. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons has offered these suggestions for a seniors' bill of rights. A general statement guaranteeing the rights of liberties of seniors against discrimination based on their age. A guarantee to the right of a safe and secure old age. A guarantee of public pensions for seniors. A guarantee of equal access to health care and social services regardless of income or geographical residency. Freedom from elder abuse in all of its
forms including physical, financial, economic, psychological, emotional and social, including neglect. CARP has called this a starting point and I am grateful for their suggestions.
I want to share with this House the suggestions offered by the Prince Edward Island Seniors Federation: The right to be treated as important human beings with unique feelings, ideas and desires. The right to a sense of security and belonging derived from a loving safe environment. The right to a continuing relationship with their children, grandchildren and other family members. The right to live and be content in an atmosphere free of abuse, neglect and exploitation. The right to have a relaxed secure relationship with all family members and to not be placed in a manipulative atmosphere. The right to participate in their own destiny. The right to good and appropriate health care. The right to comfortable, affordable and secure housing. The right to clean air and a clean environment. The right to dignity in life and in death. The right to religious freedom. The right to freedom from violence.
Finally, there are the observations from Seniors Power in Regina, Saskatchewan: The right to be heard on all matters of general public interest. The right to have freedom from want in old age, to live independently as one chooses. The right to a fair share of the community's recreational, educational and medical resources. The right to obtain decent housing suited to the needs of later years. The right to live and to die with dignity. The right to be able to access all knowledge available on how to improve the later years of life.
Some have argued that a seniors bill of rights is not necessary. Some people believe that seniors enjoy all the rights guaranteed to all Canadians. Ray Snowdon of Guelph wrote to me: "I doubt whether there are many seniors who want special interest. We are being systematically robbed of the benefits we worked, paid and fought for, and only ask for what was promised".
I cannot argue with Mr. Snowdon and others who have told me that seniors enjoy the rights and privileges of all Canadians. However, I must ask these fundamental questions: What good are rights if they are ignored by others around you? If Jacki Leroux is right about the observations she experienced while posing as a senior, what good are privileges when they are forgotten by members of society because a person is judged by their age and not their ability?
Jo Zettle, a constituent, wrote to me and reminded me that seniors should not be treated as second class citizens because of their age. She said: "Many seniors love to talk about the past but they are also very now people".
It is true that there are a good number of seniors that have worked hard to enjoy their retirement. They have the ability to travel and while they are concerned about provincial cutbacks to the number of days that they can remain abroad, they are free from many of the concerns facing other seniors. They are concerned about property taxes, increases in the cost of living and crime.
There are also many seniors living in difficult and sometimes in dangerous situations. Many of these seniors worked hard also but could not enjoy company pension plans or worked with little income or benefits. Many come from families where the woman stayed home to care for the children and therefore benefited from only one income.
From Guelph, Cal Christie wrote: "Older people have a feeling of vulnerability. Since most senior people are no longer able to earn their income through work, they need protection against wild swings in factors that have an effect on their income, such things as low interest rates on investment certificates, sharp rises in property tax on their dwelling places, legislation that claws back their pension and or removes health care benefits".
This sense of vulnerability was echoed by Mrs. Jean Marshall also from Guelph who wrote: "When people are old and ill and less able to deal with illness, it is sad that it is more difficult to get the care needed". She also wrote: "There is a growing fear among older people regarding safety".
Many people who wrote to me or spoke with me on this idea also suggested the idea of a list of responsibilities and obligations that should be included along with a bill of rights. These responsibilities include: preparation for retirement; reporting of any abuse; and maintaining relationships with family and with friends. Those who suggested these are concerned that with rights also come obligations. This is an interesting argument, and one that deserves our attention as well.
As elected representatives, we are responsible to the people of our community. Most important, we have an obligation to those who need our help the most.
Governments across Canada are currently debating the division of powers, levels of responsibility, savings in administration and cuts to programs and services. There is probably no group more supportive of deficit reduction efforts than seniors. However, in discussing the future of public policy, we must always remember that the decisions we make here and those made in provincial legislatures and in town and city councils affect first and foremost, people. Often it is those most in need, those less able to speak for themselves who are affected the most and are hurt the greatest.
We must remember that seniors remain a group which is often affected by changes in social policies. We must always keep in mind those who need us the most. As A.A. McIntosh of Guelph wrote: "We do not want any elaborate window dressing, just the basics".
I often talk here in the House and elsewhere about how all of us in this great country are connected. Lower interest rates are welcomed by the young couple buying their first house. They are good news for the car dealer in Guelph-Wellington. They help our economy. But for those seniors who live on investment income, lower interest rates mean doing less with less. That does not mean we should raise interest rates, but it is a reminder that what benefits some of us hurts others.
Cuts to health care may make the system more efficient. They may end duplication and waste, but this probably means longer waits for seniors who because of their age require more medical attention than they did when they were younger.
We need to remember that all of our decisions as public policy leaders have implications. We cannot forget that our seniors are often most affected by even the smallest change. We owe it to them to be ever watchful, that not even one segment of society is forgotten while we do what we are here to do: balance the budget while never forgetting the human element.
As I said earlier, I am grateful to the hundreds of constituents and other Canadians who have offered advice and suggestions. Not all comments were supportive of this initiative. However all brought home the need to encourage, respect and protect Canada's seniors.
There were many heart warming comments. Elma Loeb from Bradford, Ontario shared with me this comment she read from a 70-year old Canadian woman in 1980: "Being old means shopping at the discount table for the mouldy fruits and vegetables wrapped in cellophane". Mrs. Ivan Morphy from Pembroke, Ontario stated: "Any Canadian citizen has earned the right in their senior years to live in peace and safety and be protected from violence". Her husband added: "The cost of living is the cost of keeping you from dying".
The main themes that have arisen from this consultation are fairness, understanding and dignity. We know the Prime Minister often referred to the dignity of work during the last campaign. We know when an individual earns a salary and provides for his or herself and their family, there is a satisfaction which is difficult to describe.
So too when a person reaches their senior years, these should be enjoyed because they have been earned. The very least that society can provide is respect, freedom from abuse and concern. The very most we can do is to ensure that the senior years are spent with the dignity that is deserved for the individuals who have contributed to help make this the very best country in the world. Many seniors just want the basics. Vic Galliford of Guelph offered the simple comment of "the right to food, health, housing and dignity".
The reason for this bill of rights is not complicated. Many seniors face poverty, violence, fear and lack of financial resources. I hope this discussion raises awareness to these concerns. Most important, I hope we can also raise sensitivities. Many Canadians lack concern because they do not understand the issues which face many of our seniors. Government cannot and should not do it alone.
In this House on October 25, 1951, almost 45 years ago, the Hon. Paul Martin Senior spoke these words which I hope summarize what we are attempting to do with this bill of rights: "This measure marks our resolute determination to give new meaning and value to cherished concepts and to press forward toward our ideals of social betterment". He went on to say: "Our objective is to build for our people a secure and free way of life, which will enable them to live with their neighbours in peace and enjoy the fruits of their own industry". Mr. Martin was speaking to a motion which would give Canadians reaching age 70 a pension of $40 a month.
Since those words were spoken, we have faced the challenge of debt and deficit reduction. This has caused us to also challenge some of the principles of universality but not of protection. However, I am proud that our new seniors benefit provides support and protection for those most in need. As Mr. Martin said about the old age security in 1951, I believe that our seniors benefit is "manifested in the formulation of legislation responsibly conceived and designed to meet the social needs of the times in which we live".
John O'Connor of the Senior Peer Advisory Service in Guelph is quoted in the Guelph Mercury as saying about this initiative: ``We would like to be recognized as vital human beings at an age when we can give back to society the things society has given to us''. And at the very least, he says that the opportunity to talk about seniors is good.
I believe that a seniors bill of rights should be enacted by Parliament if only to remind us that seniors have rights and obligations. I cared for my parents as they grew older and I now understand how much life changes for people who can no longer look after themselves. It is our obligation as leaders in Canada to look after those who need our help. Seniors need our care and protection. They need our help to live their lives with dignity, respect and peace.
Some day we will look back to see what we could have done to make our situations better. It has been said that a society is judged by the way it treats the most vulnerable of its citizens. It is what the Liberal Party stands for. Let us work together for those who need our help now, and for us, and for our children who will need our help in the future. For some day we will be them.
Maurice Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support Motion M-265 standing in the name of my colleague for Guelph-Wellington, which reads as follows:

That in the opinion of this House, seniors play a vital role in our country, and therefore the government should direct that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs proceed with the drafting of a Seniors' Bill of Rights, aimed at acknowledging the rights of seniors to live full and protected lives in Canada.

Our society's dominant values focus primarily on productivity and the importance of youth. Older people are, unfortunately, often vulnerable. Solitude, isolation, financial insecurity, and various types of dependency make them so. They are most certainly entitled to lead full and protected lives. It is absolutely vital to do away with prejudices about seniors.
Although there is a broad range of programs and benefits for seniors, there are many challenges which need to be overcome if they are to enjoy those full lives.
Being a retired teacher myself, I have represented seniors' organizations on a number of occasions, defending seniors and protecting their rights. I have been particularly involved in working to gain recognition for Grandparents Day.
Recently, I brought to the attention of this House that the United Nations had designated October 1 as international senior citizens day. In fact, the UN General Assembly has already drafted principles specifically designed to help senior citizens live better during the years they have gained.
These principles are as follows: independence, participation, care, personal development and dignity. The United Nations believes, for instance, that senior citizens should be able to live in a secure environment which can be adapted to their personal preference and their changing capabilities.
Furthermore, there is general agreement that senior citizens should be able to live in their own homes as long as possible. As for participation, it is desirable that senior citizens be able to join movements or associations for senior citizens.
In Canada, there are many senior citizens associations, and their opinions are important. They have at times influenced, and often have the power to influence, controversial political decisions.
There are several associations for senior citizens in Quebec, and I will name a few: l'Association québécoise de défense des droits des retraités (AQDR), le Regroupement des personnes à la retraite (CTM-FTQ), la Coalition des aînés du Québec, la Fédération de l'Âge d'or du Québec (FADOQ), l'Association des retraités en enseignement du Québec (AREQ), of which I am also a member.
These associations represent a host of senior citizens who stand up for their rights while finding ways to improve their quality of life.
I am always delighted to be a guest speaker at meetings of these associations, because I support their desire for and their interest in having an active and rewarding life.
Recently, at the beginning of September, I was invited to be the guest speaker by a senior citizens group in the riding of Bourassa in Montreal North. At this meeting, I quoted some excerpts from the Pelletier report, Vers un nouvel équilibre des âges: Rapport du groupe d'experts sur les personnes âgées , tabled at the end of 1991. Here is excerpt: ``The most important part of any strategy and action aimed at improving the well-being of senior citizens is that they should have a chance to go on living in the manner to which they have become accustomed during most of their lives, if that is what they prefer''.
Obviously, making constant cuts in the social programs that protect the most vulnerable, including senior citizens, is not the way to achieve the objective of a full and rewarding life.
A seniors' bill of rights is valid as such, but it is not the only way to improve their quality of life. All the criteria established by the United Nations should be applied. These criteria will be discussed later on.
Recently, the third international seminar of the Petits frères des pauvres was held, organized jointly with the centre Berthiaume-Du Tremblay and l'Association québécoise de gérontologie in Montreal, under the theme: The courage to age.
Seniors found original ways of expressing themselves, using short plays for inter-active theatre, workshops, discussion groups and intervention groups. In this way they expressed their views on aging and tried to find new ways of coping with old age.
Another example shows how important it is to form associations or committees. In Montreal, mayor Pierre Bourque used the occasion of international seniors day to announce the setting up of a seniors committee which will make sure that seniors are listened to and respected and that they have a say in the way the affairs of the city are managed.
He mentioned that Montreal has the highest percentage of seniors in all of Quebec, and that the worst is yet to come, since the average age in Quebec, which was 29 in 1981, is now 35.
Another criterion mentioned by the United Nations involves health care. Seniors should have access to the kind of health care which will help them maintain or recover optimum physical mental
and emotional well-being, which in turn will prevent or delay the onset of disease.
The other criterion mentioned by the United Nations deals with personal growth. Seniors should be able to fully develop their potential, and have access to the educational, cultural, spiritual, and leisure resources society has to offer.
The last criterion is also very important. Seniors should be able to live with dignity and be safe from exploitation, as well as physical or psychological abuse. They should be treated fairly, regardless of their age, sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, handicap or other characteristics, and be appreciated regardless of their contribution to the economy.
Through these criteria, we realize seniors have their place in the world. However, for them to live full and protected lives, we must change attitudes by not considering them as a burden anymore.
Canada also took a stand to protect them. For instance, in section 15, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on age. Thus, the Supreme Court has already indicated that some forms of discrimination may be justified by higher considerations. The government also abolished mandatory retirement more than ten years ago.
However, the government seems to be casting some doubt on this by imitating the American policy, whereby, for purposes of security benefits, the age of retirement will go from 65 to 67 years in 2024.
We must first eliminate prejudice against seniors by educating the public in order to change negative attitudes on aging. Seniors are not a burden on society but a great wealth. I have indicated the main criteria underlying approaches taken by the United Nations because seniors make a substantial contribution on a global scale.
I will continue to defend seniors' interests and endeavour to always intervene so they can live full and safe lives throughout Canada and in Quebec, as Motion M-265 provides.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate all seniors on their contribution to our society.
Daphne Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the member for Guelph-Wellington is very sincere in putting forward this private member's bill. I know she has senior's issues at heart and she wishes nothing but the best for them.
In recognizing me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to let you and members know that I have been speaking on senior's issues since I came to this House. In fact, I have spent the last three years talking to more seniors probably than anyone else in the House. My time has been mainly spent working for their rights.
As many members here know, I took up the cause of access of grandparents, our seniors, to their grandchildren shortly after I was sworn in as an MP. The issue had been the subject of private members' bills in previous Parliaments. In fact, the member for Nepean had a bill which basically made similar changes to the Divorce Act as the one I proposed.
My bill, having been chosen as votable, gave me the opportunity to meet and talk with many of Canada's senior citizens from all parts of Canada. I have often marvelled at the tenacity of this group, our seniors, and their ability to organize in support of issues of which they approve.
I have enjoyed every minute of my contacts with grandparents' associations across the country. I have had many conversations with them about seniors' issues and how they should be approached. This is a segment of our society which is very vulnerable: vulnerable to abuse, vulnerable to poverty and vulnerable to poor health. These are the issues we should be addressing. This vulnerability will be neither addressed nor resolved by a bill of rights. The seniors of our country need to have these issues addressed in a positive fashion by the government. They need legislation and they need laws.
Quite frankly, after the way the members of the government voted against a private member's bill which would put in place a mechanism to allow easier access for grandparents to their grandchildren, I have no faith in the government to address seniors' issues. Liberal members opposite had the chance in the justice committee just a few weeks ago to support the seniors of Canada by voting in favour of a grandparents right of access to their grandchildren. It was a special bill. They voted against each and every clause and then they voted not to return it to the House of Commons for third reading.
The member for Guelph-Wellington spoke of the right to food, health, housing and dignity. A very major part of the equation is missing: the right of access to one's family. I have visited a number of care homes and hospitals. Each Christmas I go to the hospitals, unannounced, no press or anything, and I visit the terminally ill. What I notice most is the absence of family members.
If we in the House of Commons really care about our seniors and if we really want to address their rights, a bill of rights is not the way to do it. Make people more aware of how important it is for seniors to have family members visit them when they are sick and dying. Let members of the House realize and support how important it is that they see their grandchildren before they die.
The government had a chance to help seniors and its members took the opportunity to heap more abuse on our seniors, on our grandparents, by defeating that bill. All the bill asked for was the
right to go to the courts to ask to see their grandchildren. What a terrible thing to have to ask for.
How dare members of the government propose a seniors' bill of rights when in the committee rooms of this place they voted against the legitimate aspirations of our seniors, of our grandparents.
What else have government members done for seniors? Have they resolved the CPP problem so those collecting it now can look forward to collecting it in the future? The answer is, of course, no. Have they looked seriously at the problems of old age security payments and the income supplement? The answer again is no. There was a promise in the last budget that these issues would be addressed, but only after the next election. What has been done with health care for seniors? Again, the answer is nothing.
If the seniors of Canada needed a bill of rights it would only be to protect them from the arrogance and the inaction of this Liberal government.
What do our seniors need? What are the issues that we should be addressing? In June 1993 the subcommittee on senior citizens' health issues of the House standing committee on health and welfare issued a report entitled "Breaking the silence on the abuse of older Canadians: Everyone's concern". It starts with the phrase: "Abuse thrives in secrecy". If you can break the silence you can often break the abuse. Let us try to break this silence.
This report breaks abuse down into four categories. Physical abuse includes the wilful, direct infliction of physical pain or injury, rough handling, shoving, slapping, pinching, hitting, kicking, restriction of freedom of movement and sexual abuse.
Let us look at psychological abuse, which refers to socially isolating, threatening, yelling at, infantizing or withholding affection or denying privileges to a person. That happens often.
Financial or material exploitation is another abuse. It is involved in the theft or conversion of money or objects of value belonging to the senior by a relative or caretaker. How often do those pension cheques go into the hands of some member of the family? Once a month they come to visit the elder, pick up the pension cheque and are gone. That is happening in Canada today all too often.
Neglect is another abuse. It involves failing to provide the necessities of life including adequate heat, clothing, hygienic conditions and the denial of social interaction. For those seniors whom I see so much on their own, there is no social interaction unless they are in a seniors' home where they can interact with each other. That is the only opportunity.
I believe these categories of abuse can be addressed in many varied ways. Financial abuse, which also means uncertainty of income would be addressed through the Canada pension plan, old age security and income supplement; real legislation to make real laws, not a plaque to hang on the wall. That is not going to help them at all in their old age and when they need money. Let us ensure that the elderly of our country who need assistance from the state get it. It is not any more complicated than that.
With regard to neglect, let us look at our health care system to ensure that it meets the needs of our seniors. We must ensure that inequities in the system do not appear and rob seniors of needed care. We must look at prevention of illness rather than just treating the sick. We must look at enhancing people's capacity to cope.
In this regard emphasis should be placed on treating our elderly where they live, home care that takes place in surroundings that are familiar to our seniors. We all know that when seniors leave their own homes often they die much quicker.
We should also address the issues that confront those who provide care to the elderly. We all can recite stories of families we know who are stressed to the limit as they look after their own children as well as aging parents. The demands on this type of family situation are enormous. They must be addressed as part of our health care issues.
We also should do more to educate all members of the public, but especially seniors, that elder abuse is a crime. It should be punished. Whether somebody is 20 years old or 80 years old, theft is theft. We should tighten the rules by which powers of attorney are obtained from seniors. We should make sure by passing laws to make it more difficult to get a power of attorney. We should ensure that their consent is given freely and legitimately.
Physical abuse or assault, or sexual assault is punishable under the Criminal Code and should be treated as such. Psychological abuses could be addressed by sections of the code on assault by means of threats and intimidation. Neglect could be provided for by the section imposing a duty to provide necessities of life to a person under one's charge if that person is disabled by virtue of age, illness or other cause.
The issues affecting our seniors are many and they are serious. They will be solved by action, not by writing a bill of rights, not by putting another piece of paper on the wall. Discrimination on the basis of age is protected under the charter of rights and freedoms. Action is needed on the fronts that I have listed, action which I am afraid will not be forthcoming from this government, given its track record to date.
Harold Culbert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the motion M-265, the seniors' bill of rights.
Since the origins of the baby boom, the number of prospective seniors has been increasing. Our population is aging. As a country we must face new concerns and new issues regarding the care and the management of an increasing aging population.
In light of these new concerns, Canadians must seriously consider the implications that a greatly increasing number of seniors will have on our country. This concern is manageable so long as proper planning and thought are initiated in order to protect the quality of life of seniors in Canada as more baby boomers enter the retirement age.
As a management tool or guideline my colleague, the hon.member for Guelph-Wellington, has drafted motion M-265 detailing a seniors' bill of rights to acknowledge the rights of seniors to live a full and proactive life. I congratulate the member for Guelph-Wellington on this initiative and I assure her of my support in order to move this initiative forward.
Today seniors are concerned about health care, personal finances, discrimination based on age and abuse. Many feel overwhelmed with the new information technology and the fast pace today's society maintains. However, seniors are a wealth of information and knowledge, particularly due to the fact that most of their insights are based on firsthand personal experience.
There must be a balance between the vigour, the enthusiasm and the vitality of today's youth and the firsthand experience and knowledge of our seniors. While our society expands and grows through technology, it is still only as good as the knowledge, the insight and the expertise of those operating it. An ideal community would have a balance between the technical training of youth and the knowledge and wisdom of our seniors.
The issues seniors face today will not be foreign to any of us at some point in our lives. Whether we like it or not, we are all aging. We can all look forward to seniorhood, in many cases in the not too distant future.
When I think of seniors, a well known individual in my riding of Carleton-Charlotte comes to mind. I often refer to him as my fisheries historian. His name is Floyd Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins has contributed a great deal to Carleton-Charlotte and to the fishing industry through his experience and his expertise working in the fishery.
Throughout his senior years he has continued to provide a vast amount of helpful direction, input and wisdom, all based on firsthand experience. From issues detailing fish stocks to species behavioural patterns to the mentality behind a traditional fishery, Mr. Hawkins' knowledge, based on firsthand experience, cannot be matched.
Canadians must recognize the contributions seniors can make to society on every level. Seniors must not be overlooked simply because they have become older. They have too much to offer Canada.
In conclusion, Motion M-265, the seniors' bill of rights, is a step in the right direction. It is necessary to create awareness of the needs of an aging population and for all of us to enjoy the advantages of the knowledge and experience of our Canadian seniors population.
Jean H. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to this motion concerning the drafting a seniors' bill of rights. You know, seniors represent three phases in our lives. The first one is when they are our grandparents. The second one is when they are our parents. And finally, if you and I are lucky, the third one is when we ourselves become grandparents one day.
In my riding, there are people who work very hard. They have reached a certain age, an honourable age, have retired and have been working for all kinds of organizations ever since. For example, in Granby, the Club du lundi is chaired by Marcel Maheu, who is over 70 years old. He has also founded a group called Civisme Granby, which tries, through various means, to bring people to be more civil. Mr. Maheu has also been co-chairman of the committee for the monument that was unveiled last week in memory of Horace Boivin, former mayor of Granby who remained the city's ambassador until he was 89.
I would also like to mention Jeannot Tremblay-Bergeron, a woman who for a number of years has served meals to people in need in Granby. She is in her sixties and, everyday, with a group of volunteers, she serves meals to the disadvantaged. There is also Roger Charbonneau. If the Bloc Quebecois is doing well in my riding, it is thanks to the chairman of the Bloc association, who will turn 75 on his next birthday.
When I was first elected, a group of seniors came to see me. They were led by Léonard Viens, chairman of the seniors association in Granby. They wanted to build a centre where they could get together. During the last election campaign, the Liberal candidate had promised them a hefty grant.
Shortly after I was elected, these people came to my office and I had to tell them that unfortunately there were no longer any grants for this type of construction. They were not discouraged, although perhaps a little disappointed. They rolled up their sleeves and they built their centre. And it is a very fine centre. I had the pleasure of attending the opening, and there were over 500 people present. All this is to say that when senior citizens have the health and the means, they have the time and they can achieve great things.
The situation now is that there are over 500,000 older Canadians living in poverty. Most of them are women. Some studies show conclusively a link between poverty and health in old age. Documentation submitted by seniors groups says, and I quote: "We question the appropriateness of placing more restrictions on seniors in the next federal budget, such as an old age security clawback based on family income rather than on individual income. This last proposal is an attack against senior women and violates all principles of gender equality".
We know there have been battles in the history of Quebec and Canada. Women have asked for and even demanded equality and I believe we would regress if we were to talk about family income rather that individual income. Those women are among the poor in our society.
Just because one has spent a life time raising children and working very hard sometimes for not much money, that is no reason to have to be poor as one grows older. We only have to think of our parents and grand-parents, who worked very hard to raise their family and may have lived in poverty all their life.
If the government wants to be consistent with the motion, it must make sure that seniors in our society live with dignity till the end of their days.
I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, who is the seniors critic for the Bloc Quebecois. He does a fantastic job and is forever making us, in the Bloc Quebecois, aware of how important it is to take seniors into account and to treat them well.
In the last budget and in the finance minister's proposals, it is mentioned that, until the next election, pensions will be left alone.
If we really believe in the distribution of wealth, I think we are not giving enough to the have nots. These people have worked all their lives, and have earned the right to some financial security.
Let me tell you about an incident that took place in my riding, which I am sure you have seen in your riding too, Mr. Speaker. An elderly woman came to my office. I would say she was 70 although it is hard to know exactly. She had not filed an application to receive increased benefits. She was there, sitting in front of me and I was deeply touched. We often see cases like that in our offices and, even though people think we are heartless, you will agree that this is not the case. I was deeply moved when this lady showed me her bank book and said: "Look, this is all I have left". She had practically nothing left in her bank account. She had not received her cheque.
Of course, we fixed the problem, but it took a few days, perhaps even two weeks. This very poor woman-and there are many like her in each of our ridings-was feeling insecure, which is a frequent cause of illness.
We must simplify procedures and cut as much red tape as possible so that when these people forget to fill out a form, for example at the beginning of the year, they are not left out in the cold.
As the hon. member who put forward the motion was saying, a society is judged on how it treats its poorest and weakest members, that is to say, its young people and its senior citizens. I think starting out in life is an extraordinary thing. But, as a people, we in Quebec are working hard to achieve this goal, and in Canada, too, to allow these people to maintain their dignity.
I support the motion and I think there should be a seniors' bill of rights. This government should be a little more generous with these people so they can enjoy full lives in our society.
Joe Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I too want to state my firm support for the intent of this motion, namely that we acknowledge the vital role that seniors play in the life of our families, our communities and in society.
It is important for us to keep in mind the government's commitment in this area as well. The government has demonstrated this commitment and maintains it to ensure that federal programs and services both meet seniors' changing needs and are co-ordinated across government.
First and foremost in this regard is the development of a national framework on aging which will deal with the current and future needs of seniors in an aging society. The national framework is based on a vision statement and a set of principles to guide policy development. The vision statement and principles were approved by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for seniors at a recent meeting in June.
At that same meeting, ministers responsible for seniors also directed their officials to collaborate on several other issues of immediate concern to seniors. These included the provision of continuing care for seniors, support for caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease, palliative care and the risks involved in the inappropriate use of medication.
At the federal level we have established an interdepartmental committee on seniors issues comprising 15 departments and six agencies that serve seniors directly or for whom seniors are a major client group. The committee meets to review policy directions relating to seniors issues and to act as an early detection device for emerging trends and pressures. It builds on some of the input that members, like my colleague from Victoria-Haliburton who has been anxious to intervene on this debate and who has ceded his position to me, have been promoting in our caucus.
We are also focusing our attention on seniors in situations of risk, those who are already at risk and those who are likely to become so through our New Horizons: Partners in Aging program. Through this program, the federal government has supported many community based projects which are attempting to address risk situations related to care giving, abuse, neglect, isolation and palliative care.
Improving the health outlook for Canadian seniors is also a key priority for Health Canada. With regard to one of the fundamental rights of seniors of all age groups, the right to quality health care, I want to assure this House of the government's commitment to maintaining the principles of the Canada Health Act and renewal of the health care system so that it remains responsive to the health needs of seniors.
For example, the federal government contributed $2.5 million to the Canadian multi-centre osteoporosis study. This study will provide better insight into the causes and prevention of this disease which affects some 1.4 million Canadians over the age of 50.
In addition, the National Advisory Council on Aging reports directly to the minister of health and responds to expressed priorities and concerns related to aging and seniors by providing policy advice based on research and consultations with seniors across Canada.
I want to assure all members in the House that this government is taking a proactive approach to addressing the priority concerns of seniors. As our society continues to evolve, I hope we can remember the increasingly important role that senior Canadians play.
In closing, let me say that this government has moved to acknowledge and underscore the vital role played by seniors in our country. It is undertaking activity on a number of fronts to ensure that government policy is sensitive to seniors issues.
John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for shortening his time in order to allow me to speak on Motion No. 265 of the member for Guelph-Wellington on the seniors bill of rights. This motion to direct the justice committee to draft a seniors bill of rights is very timely.
My riding of Victoria-Haliburton is very influenced by the constant rise in the number of seniors, some very young seniors by the way, who are retiring in beautiful rural ridings to enjoy the tranquil settings, pristine lakes, nature trails and the many advantages to living in rural Canada. The riding of Victoria-Haliburton is experiencing a boom from the Toronto area in the seniors market. The growing market is a knowledge based group with much to offer the communities they retire in.
Bobcaygeon village situated on three islands between Sturgeon Lake and Pigeon Lake with the busiest lock on the Trent canal system and about 750 miles of inland fresh water is experiencing the fastest growth in the seniors market in Ontario.
The residents of Bobcaygeon and area lead all other areas in responding to my surveys of constituents. The advice they forward to me and my colleagues is based on a very thorough understanding of the issues of the day and a great understanding of history.
With this in mind, the seniors bill of rights would be very welcome in my riding and other areas of similar nature, like Guelph-Wellington.
The Canadian Association of Retired Persons sent suggestions. We all agree with them.
I want to support the member for Guelph-Wellington in her efforts to establish a seniors bill of rights and encourage all members to lend their support.
Mr. Speaker, may you and all members and staff of the House of Commons have a joyous Thanksgiving.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped from the Order Paper.
I also join in in wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving weekend to all of you.
It being 2.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 21, 1996, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.27 p.m.)