GOVERNMENT ORDERS

THE OCEANS ACT

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will just take a moment to conclude by reminding this house that the amendment we have brought forward is in keeping not only with Quebec's claims but also with the claims of other provinces.

We will recall that the federal and British Columbia government have agreed, for instance, to a bilateral review of salmon fishing. After British Columbia withdrew from a provincial table where all the provinces were represented, a bilateral relationship was eventually established. The review of the responsibilities should be completed by February 1997, that means in five or six months from now. In the release issued in July, the federal and British Columbia governments announced this as good news.

(1505)

Our amendment goes along the same lines, more or less. Let us take the time, with regard to part II of the act, to clearly define the role of each partner, their responsibilities, and so on. Let us give ourselves a few more months, to ensure that the bill will have the desired effect, as stated at the beginning, and that it goes along the same lines as the claims made by British Columbia and other provinces asking for the same thing, including Quebec, as far as this bill is concerned.

Asking for a six month period as we do in this amendment, which we hope all the hon. members will support when it is put to a vote later today, seems perfectly justified to me. In terms of time frame, of timing, it seems quite reasonable to table this amendment today, since bilateral agreements like this one have already been entered into in relation to a fee structure in similar areas or other areas. Discussions could take place between the provinces to determine what the needs are. Then, as I said earlier, the role of each partner could be established, so that we could achieve a better result and make this bill more useful.

I will close on this, hoping that the government will listen to these legitimate demands of the opposition for a six month extension through this amendment.

[English]

The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Speaker: Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

The Speaker: At the request of the government whip, the vote will be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.

* * *

MANGANESE-BASED FUEL ADDITIVES ACT

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today, like my colleagues did earlier, to oppose Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

This bill, as its title indicates, seeks to prohibit the importation of certain manganese-based substances, specifically MMT, in Canada, and their interprovincial trade.

(1510)

The debate on this bill is very interesting, because this is a rather unusual piece of legislation.

It is unusual in that this government attempts to prohibit the use of MMT, not through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as one would expect, but through a roundabout means, at the commercial level, by using a false pretence, namely the harmful effects of this product on health and on the environment.

Instead of prohibiting the sale of MMT in Canada, or simply saying that this is a toxic or dangerous product, the government is trying to legislate to prohibit the importation of this product and its trade between the provinces. This is a blatant violation of NAFTA and interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. It is strange however that a company could produce and sell MMT in a province without violating in any way the provisions of Bill C-29.

If the government is so afraid of the alleged toxic effects of MMT, why did it not completely prohibit its use, instead of restricting its importation and its interprovincial trade?

If the Minister of the Environment had any proof of MMT's harmful effects on health or on the environment, he would have drafted his bill differently but, unfortunately for him, the minister does not have any such proof. Incidentally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, also tried to prove that MMT is harmful to one's health, but it failed in its attempt to do so.

Until last year, the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline was prohibited in certain American states. However, in April 1995, Ethyl Corporation, won a legal battle against the EPA. The U.S. court of appeal for the district of Columbia ruled that the EPA had not proved its allegations to the effect that MMT is harmful to one's health.

As for the auto industry, it was not able to prove that MMT is harmful to cars' anti-pollution systems. The EPA did not appeal the decision. Therefore MMT is now allowed in some American states. In the circumstances, I wonder why the Minister of the Environment assumes he could prove this product is harmful.

Furthermore, on December 6, 1994, Health Canada published the results of an independent study on the so-called risks connected with the use of MMT. The study concluded that the use of MMT in gas did not constitute a health risk for any section of the Canadian public.

Finally, a number of international and Canadian scientific organizations have all concluded that low levels of manganese, as in the case of MMT in unleaded gas, do not represent a health risk.

Therefore, contrary to what the Minister of the Environment seems to think, for the time being there is no hard evidence for banning MMT. Consequently, Bill C-29 is redundant until such time as respected and serious studies provide evidence of a negative impact of MMT on health and the environment.

To prohibit MMT and replace it with another product such as ethanol, for instance, which does cause environmental problems, is merely deferring the problem. It would be better to do a number of serious studies before passing a bill than to do so after the fact.

The Bloc Quebecois is, of course, very concerned about the health of Quebecers and Canadians, as it is about environmental issues, and that is why we want these studies to be done before prohibiting MMT.

I might as well say right now that the bill in its present form will always be unacceptable, since the Minister of the Environment wants to regulate the market, not the environment.

And in that case we have some serious questions about the real motives of the Minister of the Environment for going ahead with Bill C-29, although he knows perfectly well that the bill will generate considerable costs for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, including a likely increase in the price of gas, loss of jobs in the oil industry and the cost of a possible request for compensation under NAFTA.

(1515)

It may be that privately, and I am sure unconsciously, the present Minister of the Environment, like his predecessor, has realized that the product that would replace MMT-by the way MMT is manufactured exclusively by Ethyl, an American company-is ethanol, which, coincidentally, is manufactured using corn, which is grown mainly in Ontario. We note that ethanol creates environmental problems.

However, there is one aspect the minister has not yet understood, although his colleague for international trade may have tried to explain it to him. Bill C-29 goes counter to a trade agreement we signed with the United States and Mexico: NAFTA. Under this agreement, the Canadian government does not have the right to restrict trade and allow goods to be produced only within its borders, as it intends to do with this bill.

By banning interprovincial trade in and the importation of MMT, the bill before us today requires that all MMT sold in Canada be produced in this country. Furthermore, the minister wants to stop

the importation of a product that is not necessarily harmful to the environment by hindering the free flow of goods. By violating NAFTA, the federal government lays itself open to a compensation claim as provided for in NAFTA.

In a letter dated February 23, the Minister for International Trade warned the Minister of the Environment that Bill C-29 violates some of NAFTA's basic principles and that, if this bill is adopted, Canada might receive a compensation claim under NAFTA. But the Minister of the Environment dug in his heels, preferring to expose the Canadian people to possible, even probable prosecution involving millions of dollars. I feel like quoting an excerpt from this very eloquent letter. The Minister for International Trade feels that, and I quote:

[English]

``An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the WTO and the NAFTA: (1) it would constitute an impermissible prohibition on imports, particularly if domestic production, sale or use is not similarly prohibited; and (2) it could not be justified on health or environmental grounds given current scientific evidence''.

[Translation]

The Minister for International Trade concludes by asking his colleague to drop Bill C-29. The possibility of a lawsuit looms closer every day since a notice of intent to submit a claim was formally filed September 10 by Ethyl Corporation from the U.S. Ethyl is asking for US$201 million in compensation. A claim may be submitted within 90 days of the notice of intent.

This claim process under article 1116 of NAFTA has already been used in the past in two other areas. In fact, two other notices of intent to submit a claim under article 1116 of NAFTA have already been filed against Canada this year and are still pending. One is from a Mexican pharmaceutical company called Signa for $50 million, and the other is from Waste Management Inc. for a secret amount.

The U.S. company feels that its Canadian subsidiary will be hurt by Bill C-29 and that is why it is asking for compensation under article 1116 of NAFTA. This article provides that an investor of a party may submit to arbitration a claim that another party has breached an obligation under NAFTA and that the investor has incurred loss or damage by reason of, or arising out of, that breach.

Some say that NAFTA allows the Canadian government to pass legislation aimed at protecting human, animal or plant life and health. The exception procedure under NAFTA is complex and the Canadian government must at least be able to demonstrate that the substance in question has an adverse effect and that there is indeed a need to restrict this substance. The Canadian government could not do that in the case of MMT.

The tragedy is that, if Ethyl wins and the Canadian government has to pay the company several millions of dollars in compensation, this money will come out of the pockets of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada.

(1520)

Ethyl Corporation, the sole manufacturer of MMT and sole exporter of this substance to Canada, claims that the Canadian government was in breach of its obligations under NAFTA on three counts: article 1110 on expropriation and compensation; article 1106 on performance requirements; and article 1102 on national treatment.

Under the expropriation provisions, Ethyl complained first about a loss of goodwill because Canada tarnished its reputation both nationally and internationally by saying without proving it that MMT is harmful. The American company also complained about the expropriation of its Canadian investments since Bill C-29 would preclude the commercial use of MMT by Ethyl Canada.

Moreover, Ethyl claims that the bill would create a preference for national content by authorizing the production of MMT in Canada, which violates article 1106 of NAFTA. International law requires governments to pay compensation each time they expropriate.

Finally, Ethyl claims that article 1102 dealing with national treatment was violated because it is discriminatory for the Canadian government to prohibit the import of MMT knowing full well that Ethyl is the sole manufacturer of this product.

In closing, how much is the government prepared to pay in compensation? As the Minister of the Environment so eloquently said, in response to a question I asked him on September 25, a U.S. multinational corporation should not dictate what the Government of Canada should do in the best interests of Canadians, both environmentally and healthwise. However, such a corporation has every right to remind the Government of Canada of the trade agreements it has signed.

Considering the enormous cost for Quebec and Canada taxpayers due to the absence of any advantage in prohibiting MMT in the bill proposed by the Minister of the Environment, I can only ask members to vote against Bill C-29, thus avoiding a financial disaster in Canada.

In closing, I would ask unanimous consent of the House to table a letter written by the Minister of International Trade to the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne is asking for permission to table the letter.

[English]

Is there unanimous consent to table this letter here in the House of Commons?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

The Speaker: I hear a no so we will proceed from there.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the member's remarks that his party supports the continuing use of MMT as a gasoline additive? We now understand that this additive contributes to the build up of ozone levels and smog in urban areas. It is suspected but not proven to be a health hazard. It very clearly harms the diagnostic systems of currently built motor vehicles in North America and indirectly contributes to increasing smog if those diagnostic systems are not maintained properly.

Second, he suggested that the replacement additive ethanol was a health hazard. I believe he said that. If he means it I hope he will be in a position to explain why his party believes that ethanol, which is proposed here in Canada to be a replacement additive for MMT, is a health hazard or not a good replacement for MMT.

(1525)

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try to answer the two questions put by the hon. member.

First, I am somewhat surprised that he would ask me to prove that ethanol is a good product, given that he says, without any proof to support his claim, that MMT is not a good product. I should ask you to prove to me that MMT is a good product.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that MMT is harmful to one's health, that it contributes to smog, that it is harmful to the ozone layer and that it creates problems when diagnosing automotive systems. Where does he get his information, regardless of how accurate it may be? Let him prove his claims in this House.

If the EPA came to the conclusion that MMT is not harmful to one's health and to the environment, and if major automakers cannot come up with a sound study confirming that MMT is harmful to the exhaust system of cars, how can the hon. member say that MMT is harmful?

The Bloc Quebecois is only asking the member to prove that he is right. And we are not the only ones. Sometimes, when we form the opposition we may wonder whether we oppose a measure just for the sake of it.

But this time I am not the only one opposing this measure. Even the Minister for International Trade, whose letter I was not allowed to table in the House, wrote to the Minister of the Environment to tell him this: what you are doing is dangerous; first, because it is not a proven fact; second, because this bill is not the appropriate measure, since it deals with trade, not health; and third, because it violates at least four or five articles under NAFTA.

I will reply to the member's question by asking him a question of my own, as the Minister of Finance often does. First: does this bill violate three or four articles under NAFTA, yes or no? Second: can you, or your government, prove to me that MMT is harmful? Third: if you do this, I will answer your question about ethanol.

Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech. Obviously, we are not here to oppose everything systematically.

However, if you read the amendment I put forward in this House a few weeks ago carefully, we were simply asking the government to wait six more months so that we could have conclusive studies, and I stress conclusive, that would prove something to us. The fact is that we have nothing of the sort for the moment; when we asked the automakers to provide us with specific and clear studies, they told us that their studies were confidential. It is rather strange for Parliament to be told that something is confidential.

We asked the health department to confirm whether this substance was dangerous to health. The most recent study confirms that it is not. That is why we are asking the government to wait, to make sure that the right decision is made. As for a North American market, the United States have just reintroduced this product on the market, but we are going contrary to a North American policy.

Ethanol too is an additive. Nothing shows that ethanol will do a better job than MMT. It is a new product on the market. The real solution would be that one day we no longer have to use any additives at all. That is the dream solution. But we are not there yet.

I will tell you something that happened in my riding. The electric car has been launched there. That is the solution of the future. However the technology has not yet been sufficiently developed to commercialize it.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the idea of developing in the near future a different but truly environmentally friendly technology, instead of replacing one additive by another. We are talking about two lobbies.

(1530)

Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I agree with my colleague for Laurentides that we have to choose the lesser of two evils, but we would still be better off trying to find a better alternative.

Obviously, I support all research and development on an electric car or another more environmentally friendly vehicle, but I would also like to comment on the remarks of my hon. friend.

If in fact he is right when he says that MMT is bad for human health, for the environment, for cars and all the rest, why was it not declared a toxic and dangerous substance? What the Liberals are trying to do is simply to prevent the importation of MMT in

Canada, period. We will be able to go on producing it, selling it, using it and what not, but not importing it.

If what the hon. member says is true, he should advocate a total ban on the use and sale of MMT.

As my colleague said, we are suggesting a six month moratorium so they can bring some coherence into what they think and say. After that, we will take concrete and coherent measures.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments about the bill. As he said, this is not the first time we have debated the potential banning of the substance MMT in this Chamber. I am quite appalled, as I am sure he is, that this piece of legislation is back before us in an unamended form.

I would like to quickly point out that it is very unusual for the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada to agree on anything. In this case, we are in agreement that this is a bad piece of legislation. Any time it was to happen that both opposition parties were united in their opposition to a piece of legislation, I would hope the federal government would take note. Maybe some alarm bells would go off and the government would say that maybe there really is something wrong with the legislation. I put that forward for the hon. member's comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, my answer will probably take less than one minute. I am really happy to hear that my Reform colleague is proud we can agree on something. One more step and we can agree on sovereignty and partnership.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental questions we should ask ourselves during this debate on Bill C-29 to ban the use of MMT in Canada.

The first one is: Do the Canadian government and the Minister of the Environment have the authority and the right to pass an environmental act concerning the composition of the gasoline sold in Canada and, by the same token, to promote the use of alternative fuels, or should we give up this right for the sake of an American multinational corporation, that is threatening to take us to court for hundreds of millions of dollars?

I see that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois have entered in a very interesting alliance. The Ethyl Corporation does not even need lobbyists with all the friends it already has on the other side of the House.

The second question is: Is MMT the safest fuel additive we can have or are there other alternatives that present no health hazards to Canadians? These are the two main questions that need to be asked.

In answer to the first one, I want to say that I do not support the Ethyl Corporation, a company that spends all of its time in court in the United States, that has spent years in court in the States to fight the EPA and that is now threatening to take the Minister of the Environment to court for $201 million, hoping that the Canadian government would soon retreat.

(1535)

We are talking about a very powerful American multinational that, up until recently, only sold its product in Canada. Japan was not buying, Germany was not buying, Denmark was not buying, Sweden was not buying, no other country besides Canada uses MMT.

Everybody is wrong, except for us. But we now have come to realize that there are safer, more secure alternatives. In this battle, Canadians do not want to be used as guinea pigs by the Ethyl Corporation.

[English]

We do not want to be the guinea pigs of the Ethyl Corporation. In fact, EPA in the United States lost the battle in the courts but it certainly is still very much of the opinion today that MMT is unfavourable to Americans.

To quote from the head of the EPA, Carol Browner: ``The Environmental Protection Agency believes that the American public should not be used as a laboratory to test the safety of MMT''. Nor do we Canadians want to be the laboratory for the Ethyl Corporation in regard to MMT.

In the United States today, despite the court challenges on MMT and the fact that MMT got a reprieve, it is not allowed as an additive in reformulated gas in California, in New York, in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin. Almost one-third of the United States want nothing to do with MMT. These states use reformulated gas which includes additives which they believe are much safer for the health of Americans.

I hear there has been no conclusive proof that it is harmful to the health of Canadians, yet I have quoted several studies that raise the precaution that MMT can be potentially very dangerous to human health. I will quote again from a study I received before the last debate in November 1995. It was completed by three scientists: Kimberley Treinen of the Sanofi Research Division of Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Tim Gray of the Alnwick Research Centre in Alnwick, Northumberland, England; and William Blazak of Nycomed, Collegeville, Pennsylvania:

In summary, the data presented here indicate that a specific syndrome of skeletal malformation in rats was induced by MnDPDP, which occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity at four times the intended clinical dose. The same specific malformations were also seen with intravenous administration of equivalent or lower doses of manganese. Since manganese has been shown to cross the placenta (Jarvinen and Ahlstrom, '75; Koshida et al, '63; Rojas et al, '67) it appears that manganese is the active teratogenic moeity in MnDPDP.

This is what we used to say about DDT when Rachel Carson wrote her famous book. This is what we used to say about PCBs; they were also safe. This is what we used to say about CFC gases. They were the intended gases that were the purest of gases until we found out they perforated the ozone layer. It is what we used to say about lead. We used lead in gasoline every day of our lives. Many people in the world used lead in gasoline until we found out that it causes cancer.

So do we wait until we have this final and conclusive proof that will satisfy my friends from the Reform Party and my friends from the Bloc Quebecois? When we find out, what happens if it is too late and the effects are irreversible? If there were no alternatives, they would have a case, but we have alternatives.

(1540)

Before going to Montreal from Ottawa I stop at McEwen's gasoline station on Bank Street. It serves an ethanol blend of gasoline. My car runs just as well on that as it does on ordinary gasoline with MMT. In fact, as my colleague says, it runs better.

My friend from the Bloc Quebecois said this was a plug by the Liberals to sell corn in Ontario. I could introduce him to a big firm in Quebec that produces ethanol from wood. Ethanol can be produced from sugar cane remnants, from wood and from all kinds of things. It is not a plug by the Liberals to sell corn.

The time has come to say that manganese is not good for us. In the latest surveys in Canada, surveys about health and the environment, at least 75 per cent of Canadians consistently said that until we are sure, we should not use manganese. They said it should be banned.

The people who are for the banning of MMT are not just those involved with General Motors and Honda. They are those involved in the Asthma Information Association, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the City of North York Public Health Department, the City of Toronto Public Health Department, the Environmental Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the Ontario Public Health Association, Pollution Probe and Sierra Club of Canada. They are not automobile manufacturers. They are all terribly worried about manganese.

I do not care about Ethyl Corporation. I do not care if it loses money, so long as the health of Canadians will be better off.

The challenge is: Do we let Ethyl Corporation threaten us? Do we let Ethyl Corporation dictate the policy of Canada? Why does it not sell its product in Japan, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Holland? Those countries believe in the environment. They do not use it. Why should we be the only guinea pigs in the world? Why should we accede to the threat of an American multinational which uses the courts to browbeat us into a policy that is supposed to be so wonderful? If it is so wonderful, why do so many countries in the world not want it?

The case is: the environment, the health of Canadians, the precautionary principle and the autonomy of the Government of Canada and of the Minister of the Environment to decide that yes, we will ban MMT and use better alternatives. That is the case and I make it today.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments and ask a question to my colleage across the way.

I took some notes during his speech. The member started his speech by saying: ``Does Canada have the power to legislate in this matter?'' His answer was yes. ``Would it be the good solution to ban MMT?'' Yes, he said. He ended his speech by talking about the pressures exerted by American multinationals. However, he said nothing about the pressures exerted by the auto makers lobby, which do want to get rid of MMT.

Is the member across the way saying: ``No, we will not give in to pressures by American multinationals; however, we are ready to give in to pressures exerted by multinationals that build cars here''.

The real point at issue here, and I think the Bloc and the Reform Party made it quite clear, is the amendment of the member for Laurentides to postpone third reading of this bill for six months. Why? And this is where we, of the Bloc, are not giving in to any pressure. We are not giving in to any pressure.

(1545)

We expect impact studies on MMT to be made. We want to know the impacts of this product and we want to know if there are substitute additives that could be used. Those studies are needed. Why does the government want to have its bill adopted so quickly since we could get clear answers to our questions six months from now?

We have to ask ourselves this kind of question. We must ask why the government is so anxious to pass its bill when the Bloc and the Reform Party are making a constructive proposal and asking that passage of the bill be postponed for six months. If the hon. member across the way is truly sincere when he says that health and a clean environment must be considered, that his main concern is the health of Canadians and Quebecers, I think that a six month delay, which would allow us to find out what the alternatives and the

impacts of MMT are, would be an wise, fair and reasonable decision.

I would ask the following question of the hon. member: Considering his concern for the well-being of Quebecers, does he not think that it would be advisable to wait six months and have all the necessary information to make the right decision?

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not think that the member listened carefully to what I said. I was not speaking only about automobile manufacturers. That is their business. They have their lobby, and that is their business. I mentioned companies, health institutions and environmental institutions. I said that a poll showed that 75 per cent of Canadians felt that if MMT and manganese cannot be shown to be 100 per cent safe, they should be banned.

Furthermore, the fundamental issue is this: we are going to wait another six months to please the official opposition. But that is not what we are talking about today. I think that the predecessor of my colleague, the member for Lambton-Middlesex, Ralph Ferguson, had been talking about it since 1988.

If the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are interested in this issue, let them look over the proceedings of the House committees, which have discussed this issue ad infinitum. Mr. Ferguson himself made it a personal crusade here in the House of Commons. The time has come for action.

Manganese is potentially dangerous to the health. Even Mrs. Browner of the EPA says so. We do not want to be guinea pigs for Ethyl corporation. That is not what Canadians want. They can go sell their manganese somewhere else if it is so good. Nobody wants to buy it. Why would we be the only ones in the world to do so?

That is why MMT must be banned now. Enough stalling around. This is a cause that the great majority of Canadians support.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member. I noted that early in his remarks he said that we must not capitulate to Ethyl Corporation. It is threatening to take us to court. He accused the Reform Party and the Bloc of somehow being in cahoots, being lobbyists for this huge multinational.

The member from the Bloc raised a good point. It is not only the lobbyists on one side of the argument who are making points here. If we want to get into throwing accusations across the floor, some Liberal members of Parliament could be accused of being lobbyists for automobile manufacturers. I do not think that would do us any good in the debate today.

I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. I noted that he used the words ``potentially harmful health effects of MMT''. He was very careful to use the word ``potentially''.

Why did the Department of Health not support the findings of this raft of studies he has put forward. If it can be substantiated why did the Department of Health not recommend an outright ban on MMT?

(1550)

The second question is if that is the case, that he truly believes and his government believes that MMT is harmful and has been proven to be harmful, which I do not believe it has been proven to be so, why is his government not moving to completely ban MMT instead of bringing forward this half measure of banning the transportation of MMT across borders?

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health confirmed in July 1996 that he is totally supportive of the ban on MMT. That is the first fact.

The second fact is that the responsibility happens to be that of the Minister of the Environment. It was the minister of the environment in 1988 who proposed the banning of lead from gasoline, not the Minister of Health. That is his prerogative and the Minister of Health is fully supportive as is the total Government of Canada. That is the position. Even the Minister for International Trade, after having issued a caution, has now reversed himself and said: ``Yes, after studying it, I agree there is no problem with NAFTA''.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lincoln: Would you let me speak, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me just see if I can help the hon. member and ask for the House's co-operation that we might be able to resume this debate and facilitate even more questions and consequently more answers.

Mr. Lincoln: My point is I am not a lobbyist for the automobile industry. I do not care about the automobile industry. It is big enough to fend for itself.

I resent the threat of a multinational corporation which sold its product exclusively in Canada, until it won a court case in the United States, to brow beat us into saying: ``If you don't keep MMT, and remain the only territory in the world, the only suckers that sell MMT all over the world, if you don't do it, then I'm going to take you to court for $200 million''. As far as I know the automobile industry is not taking Canada to court or any of the members here for $200 million.

Why do we ban MMT? For my sake, as one member, it is because I think the potential risks-

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lincoln: Will you please allow me to speak. The potential risks to health and the environment are not worth taking the chance. If the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform are so keen about MMT that they want to take a chance, we do not want to take a chance. We think there are severe potential dangers and we want to ban MMT. That is what we are going to do.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out to my hon. colleague for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis that I understand, since he is a former environment minister, that he would get carried away about a bill affecting the environment.

Quite simply, my question is a kind of follow-up to the question asked by our colleague from the Reform Party. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, through you, to point out where in my speech I formally support the sale or production of MMT. That is not what I am saying.

If this product is as toxic or dangerous as he suggests, why is the bill aimed at banning its importation, thus opening the door to actions under NAFTA? The Minister of International Trade has also said this. Why is its importation banned, and why is its production, use and consumption in Canada not banned as well, through another department and another bill?

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister of the Environment, I am not in the Canadian cabinet. The government chooses the alternatives it deems most appropriate in a given circumstance. In this case, it has chosen this bill. What is important is the facts.

What we are aiming at is results, one way or another, and we have chosen this bill as the most expeditious means to an end. We want to ban MMT, no matter what. We do not want it in Canada. Quite simply, that is what we want.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think we are all at the point of exhaustion with this piece of legislation. For a year and a half we have debated the issue of the gasoline additive MMT. To say the least, we have debated the issue enough that by now the Liberals I think should be embarrassed, but we drag along while more pressing issues remain.

(1555 )

Since the bill was first introduced in May 1995 by the former minister of the environment, arguments have been made on both sides of the House, round and round. The government states that MMT should be banned from being used in gasoline in order to protect the environment as well as the health of Canadians. Yet this bill does not directly ban MMT. It merely bans the importation and the interprovincial trade of MMT.

When one bans something from being allowed to enter the country does it necessarily mean that it is harmful? What about prohibiting something from being moved across the country freely? If it is harmful should not banning it once be enough?

When a particular substance is harmful to our health or to the environment there is a regulatory authority in place to take care of such a problem. It is called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, better known as CEPA. Within CEPA there is a schedule of substances that have been deemed to be hazardous either to our health or to the environment. CEPA is in place to protect Canadians. In fact, this government is responsible for making amendments to CEPA in order to place added protection on our already fragile environment.

However, if we take CEPA and look at the back of the act in the schedule section, MMT is not to be found nor will it ever be found in that section. Why? It is not harmful to our health nor is it harmful to the environment.

For a substance to be placed on the schedule under CEPA it must first be declared hazardous by Health Canada. I believe the public has a right to know how Health Canada views MMT. Anyone who has listened to any of the debate on this bill over the last year and half is well aware of the December 6, 1994 Health Canada report entitled ``Risk Assessment for the Combustion Products of MMT''.

Even though the following statement is on the record, I feel it is such an integral part of the issue that it should be read again. The study states:

All analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population.

On October 18, 1995 a Health Canada official appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development and concurred that the 1994 report remained the position of the department.

Therefore I want to urge all members of the House not to include in their speeches during this third reading stage any reference that the removal of MMT will improve health quality. I heard several government members make mention of this during second reading. It is false and inaccurate information. A member may make an unprecedented or unpredicted mistake; however, in this case the evidence gives very clear direction.

I want to bring up one more revelation from Health Canada. It has to do with MTBE, of which Environment Canada officials say could be a replacement for MMT.

On October 18, 1995 Mr. Rod Raphael, the chief of the monitoring and criteria division of Health Canada, appeared before the environment committee with the following revelation about MTBE:

We have concerns with respect to MTBE. MTBE was on the CEPA priority substances list, an evaluation was done under a particular scenario, and that is the present use and containment situation for MTBE. Should MTBE be added to Canadian fuel as a replacement for MMT? That exposure scenario changes for us and we are in the process of evaluating it at the request of the Canadian General Standards Board which is considering MTBE as part of gasoline formulation. We are also concerned about MTBE because of new data that is now available but was not available at the time of the original CEPA evaluation. There is a long term cancer study now available and it needs to be evaluated and brought into the assessment.

Let us talk a bit about these OBDs. Onboard diagnostic systems simply monitor the emission control systems on most late model automobiles. It needs to be reiterated that they do not reduce emissions directly. In fact, if the OBD system were removed from the automobile completely it would make absolutely no difference to the exhaust coming out of the tail pipe.

The OBDs were set to be installed in the 1996 line-up of automobiles. The former environment minister had assured the automakers that this bill we are talking about today would be quickly passed in 1995 in time for manuals to be printed up and the OBDs to be hooked up. Well, such was not the case.

(1600 )

Within the auto industry it is no secret that the technology surrounding the OBD systems is new and full of bugs. In the United States where MMT is not currently being used widely in gasoline-although I might add that a recent court decision has allowed MMT to be sold-OBDs have been found to malfunction.

This poses the question: Is it MMT that is causing the problem or is it simply the fault of the new technology malfunctions? If I happened to be a betting man I would go with the latter.

In response to these malfunctions in the U.S., automakers have a bevy of scapegoats that they are using to justify the problems: altitude, temperature, sulphur, poor fuel quality, road conditions, customer driving habits and extreme weather conditions. However, in Canada according to the automakers, there is only one reason for the OBD malfunctions, namely, MMT.

What is wrong with this picture? The government and our two environment ministers have been hoodwinked into believing that keeping MMT will cause catastrophic events to occur. Sadly they have convinced many of their colleagues into thinking the same. However, what is interesting is to see how the Liberal cabinet is split on this whole issue.

The Minister of Industry stated that he hoped for a uniform standard in fuels between the U.S. and Canada only to see this all crushed with a U.S. court decision permitting the sale of MMT. The Minister of Natural Resources has been particularly quiet on this whole issue because she knows what the costs will be to refineries in her Edmonton riding should the bill pass.

Then there is the Minister for International Trade who on February 23 of this year wrote a strong letter to the Minister of the Environment urging him to put the bill on the shelf for good. The trade minister stated ``the claims of the automotive and petroleum industries conflict markedly with common ground between them''. The minister went on to say that the bill ``could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade, without compensating environmental benefits''.

These are only three ministers that have declared their frustrations publicly. It would not surprise me if many more ministers are expressing doubts about the validity of this legislation behind closed cabinet doors.

The Reform Party's position is very solid. We want protection for Canadians with respect to their health. We also want to keep our environment clean and free from harmful pollutants. The Reform Party will support this legislation if the government can prove that MMT is harmful to our health and to our environment. Otherwise we are totally opposed. Ours is a reasonable approach as there are environmental benefits for the use of MMT.

The Minister of the Environment has a choice and the choice is rather simple. Withdraw the bill from the Order Paper and conduct a series of third party independent tests to prove without a shadow of a doubt the effects of MMT. Canadians do not want to see tests from the automakers nor do they want to see tests from the oil companies. We know how tests can be skewed to reflect the views of those paying to have the tests done and I think this is what has happened so far. There needs to be a fair process and it needs to be done by someone not connected with either of the interested parties.

The minister is going to have MMT as his political legacy and the legacy will not be favourable. He inherited the environment portfolio from a minister who acts before she thinks. Bill C-94 came into being because the Deputy Prime Minister reacted to one lobby group without knowing all the facts. Now the same minister has covered herself in the flag, not realizing how much trouble she is in.

I want to encourage the environment minister to do the right thing, withdraw the bill and instead proceed with tabling legislation that will really bring protection to our environment, namely, changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and bring forward a new federal endangered species act.

In closing I want to read two letters that pertain to Bill C-29. My colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca recently read to this House several letters from provincial environment ministers who opposed the passage of Bill C-29. Further to this I want to read a letter

written to the Prime Minister from the chairman of the board of the Federated Co-operatives Limited based in Saskatchewan. It was addressed to the Prime Minister with copies to three cabinet ministers on September 23 of this year:

We were very disappointed to learn that Bill C-29, an act effectively banning the use of MMT in gasoline in Canada is again being considered.

Federated Co-operative Limited (FCL) owns Consumers' Co-operative Refineries Limited (CCRL), which operates a petroleum refinery in Regina. CCRL produces gasoline and diesel fuel for co-op members and other customers.

On behalf of our members, we oppose any legislation that would ban the use of MMT as a gasoline additive until an adequate technical evaluation has taken place. We have used MMT for 18 years with no consumer complaints. MMT has allowed the production of high quality gasolines from our refinery at a lower cost and with lower environmental emissions that would have been required without MMT.

We do not believe the petroleum refining industry, and ultimately our members and other customers, should bear the costs of MMT elimination unless it can be shown conclusively that there is a legitimate need.

We had believed that if MMT were approved for use in the United States that, in the interests of harmonization of gasoline qualities, the proposed Bill C-29 would no longer be considered necessary. Certainly, a substantial amount of fleet testing and study took place prior to the approval of MMT in gasoline in the U.S.

If further scientific study and testing is to be carried out in Canada, we suggest that it be done in conjunction with the petroleum industry (CPPI), and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, (MVMA), under the auspices of the CCME task force on cleaner vehicles and fuels. We believe the banning of MMT without scientific evidence of negative effects due to the use of this additive is premature.

We also wish to emphasize that there is no relationship between the banning of MMT and increased utilization of ethanol. MMT is an octane-enhancing additive and ethanol is a high octane blending material that has both positive and negative effects when blended in gasolines. The refiners preferred route to offset this proposed ban on MMT would be to increase the severity of gasoline processing (at an increased cost). Ethanol considerations are a totally separate issue that our organization is very familiar with.

FCL provides central wholesaling, manufacturing and administrative services to more than 800 locally-owned retail co-operatives across western Canada and western Ontario. FCL is owned by its member retailers, which are in turn owned by an estimated 750,000 individual co-op members. Together, FCL and its member co-operatives are known as the Co-operative Retailing System in western Canada.

(1605)

Last, I want to read a letter that was sent to the Minister of Natural Resources from the co-chair of the Council of Energy Ministers. It is dated September 20, 1996. It is addressed to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of the Environment:

Dear Minister:

During the 1996 meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, ministers discussed the federal Bill C-29, the Manganese-based Fuel Additives Act, the bill to eliminate import and trade of MMT.

During the meeting, concern was expressed about the lack of effective consultation of both industry and provinces on a proposal which will impose direct costs on industry and consumers and will directly affect provincial jurisdiction.

Additionally, it is apparent that there is no clear consensus from a technical point of view concerning the impact of MMT, and whether or not MMT is, in fact, a significant problem for vehicle diagnostic systems.

Ministers are aware of the very helpful September 11, 1996 proposal to the Prime Minister from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and would like to recommend it to the federal government.

In brief, the CPPI has offered that ``CPPI member companies will stop using MMT if an impartial review process involving ourselves, the federal government, and any other stakeholders you deem should participate, determine that the product is flawed in terms of impact on human health, air quality, or vehicle compatibility''. The CPPI suggests that a credible evaluation process could be completed within a matter of three months.

The CPPI proposal is very constructive. Provincial and territorial ministers in attendance at the Council meeting (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta) and the Deputy Ministers and officials on behalf of Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Yukon urge the federal government to immediately announce delay in passage of Bill C-29 to enable the time limited evaluation process suggested by CPPI to be convened to report on technical related issues.

Canadians expect government legislation to be drafted following extensive study and scientific reasoning. Canadians expect the best from their government. Passage of Bill C-29 will only show Canadians that changes to regulations can be bought if the price is right. Passage of Bill C-29 will surely be a sad day for the democratic process of this country.

Delay the bill and let the independent science come in. Let the government demonstrate, then legislate, and then we will support to do the right thing, rather than the bidding of special interests. As a country, let us be good neighbours and not violate our international trade promises and also the goal of complete economic union within our Canadian borders.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised a number of good points, particularly around the issue of independent science. However, this seems to be a game of whose science is on whose side.

We have studies that indicate that MMT can cause neurological damage, both in terms of speech and physical movements in humans. I would like to know what side the Reform and Bloc parties stand on? Do they stand on the side of public interest and public good, or do they stand on the side of CPPI, the refineries.

(1610)

I would like to ask the member why he would side against the majority of Canadians when it is his party that purports to be a party of the people. The majority of Canadians overwhelmingly support our initiatives on this matter.

I would also like to ask him why he would stand against the Allergy Asthma Association, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the city of North York public health, the city of Toronto public health, the Council of Canadians, the Environmental Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the Ontario Public Health Association, Pollution Probe and Sierra Club when these organization quite clearly are not asking in the name of any particular vested interest other than the public good?

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, that comment just highlights what I have been trying to point out, that the comments are all over the map. We have been proposing conclusive independent evidence. To say that my list of lobby groups is longer than your list of lobby groups really does not add anything to the debate.

The issue is that all the scientific material was taken into account by Health Canada and it was determined that the use of MMT in a vehicle was no more harmful than dust on the ground. We do not recommend that people eat the dust from the ground, however, Health Canada stated MMT is essentially benign and not relevant to the previous problem of lead in gasoline.

The lead in gasoline was a health issue. Scientists were very clear on that point and Parliament finally moved on it. But the science on MMT is completely different. We take no position on one side or the other.

We challenged the government that it had better demonstrate scientifically before it legislates. Because it has not done that and has gone the trade route, it is now in trouble as being a bad neighbour under NAFTA and it will be challenged. We have been warning about this for quite some time.

We say that we are not in support of one side or the other. Let the true scientific evidence come forward and then we will do the right thing.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a little earlier, the hon. member for Terrebonne tried to table a letter here in the House but was denied permission to do so. I would like to quote a few excerpts from this letter, which was written by the Minister for International Trade on February 23, 1996, and addressed to the Minister of the Environment.

I quote:

[English]

``My department continues to have certain reservations concerning this measure which I wish to draw to your attention. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeal overturned the U.S. ban. This has effectively removed harmonization arguments in support of Bill C-94. Indeed, since adding MMT to petroleum products is now permissible in the U.S., harmonization would now be promoted by introducing no new Canadian regulations.

An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligation under the WTO and the NAFTA. The possibility is that the United States could mount a challenge either on USDR's own initiative or pursuant to a section 301 petition. Also Ethyl Corporation may try to advance an argument that such a ban would be a measure tantamount to expropriation of Ethyl's investment in Canada. Thus Canada may also be susceptible to an investor state challenge under chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

In view of the presidential and congressional election this year, American politicians are particularly sensitive to any foreign initiative which might injure their domestic industries.

In conclusion, let me stress my department's belief that Bill C-94 should not be reintroduced, as it could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade without compensating environmental benefits''.

[Translation]

Mr. Speaker, for once we agree with the Reform Party, and we repeat our request for a six months' hoist.

(1615)

We know that today, in fact for the first time, the automobile industry has invested enormous amounts in research and studies to determine if MMT is really harmful to automobiles and to our health.

Let us wait for the results of these studies and have our say at that time, instead of adopting a bill in a terrible rush-because that is what we are doing-without waiting for the findings of these studies. We are not taking sides, not for Ethyl and not for the automobile association, although I am not sure we could afford being sued for $201 million in American currency, considering Canada's financial situation.

I would appreciate the opinion of my Reform colleague on the subject.

[English]

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, it is good that we were able to put the letter on the record. It indicates that the Liberal cabinet is split on this issue. There is not conclusive scientific evidence to do what is being proposed by the bill.

In view of the long debate in which we have been involved on this matter, one begins to wonder who really is in charge. Is the minister in charge, or is the bureaucracy in charge? We can change ministers but the same unsubstantiated stuff still comes forward. Sometimes departments develop a life of their own. I am wondering who is in charge in the government. Is it the minister and the cabinet, or is it the bureaucrats who, once they get an agenda, are going to drive it home?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the third reading and final debate on Bill C-29, formerly Bill C-94. The primary purpose of the bill is to ban the additive MMT from gasoline in Canada. As hon. members are well aware, this debate has been going on in the House since May 19, 1995 when Bill C-94 was tabled and read for the first time. It is time for the House to make a decision on the bill.

The bill has been characterized as a war of interests between two powerful groups: the automobile manufacturers who want the ban, and the manufacturer of MMT, Ethyl Corporation, and its oil industry allies, that want MMT to remain in Canadian gasoline. For us on this side of the House it is not one way or the other; it is purely a debate on environmental and health issues, on sustainable development issues resulting from automobile emissions that are the greatest source of noxious gases in the atmosphere.

We are taking this action because we need to protect the latest onboard diagnostic systems that North American car manufacturers are installing in their vehicles. These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle emissions controls and for alerting the driver of malfunctions. Without this kind of technology one cannot be aware of how well the car is working or if it is functioning at all in terms of its emissions control processes.

These systems ensure that the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They ensure that automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy. In other words, this new technology is one more important tool to help us address air pollution, smog and climate change.

This government will not allow MMT to get in the way of the automobile industry's efforts to make cars cleaner, more efficient and less polluting. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to the best anti-pollution technology possible. In fact, it is our duty as parliamentarians to do all we can to maximize environmental conditions through the legislation we pass in the House.

Yet Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT, through its subsidiary Ethyl Canada, denies the vehicle industry's conclusions regarding the ill effects of MMT on vehicle emissions control systems. In fact, it makes the counterclaim that MMT is environmentally beneficial. Whom do we believe?

What is certain is that the efforts to reduce motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just the petroleum industry, the auto industry or the federal government. Progress in reducing vehicle pollution requires simultaneous action by all. The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and the properties of the fuels that engines burn. The automobile industry needs to keep making improvements in the vehicle emissions control systems, such as those offered by onboard diagnostic systems. The government needs to take decisive action in Bill C-29 which will remove a major obstacle to the introduction of these technologies. That obstacle is MMT.

(1620 )

An Environment Canada report states that on a national basis, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles still contribute some 60 per cent of the carbon monoxide emissions that are present in the atmosphere, 35 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions or smog, 25 per cent of our hydrocarbon emissions and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. Obviously these vehicles, both gasoline and diesel powered, are very big contributors to our smog and pollution problems.

The same report stresses the need to proceed on all fronts at the same time in all these areas. It states:

Vehicle technology and fuel composition, although two separate industry sectors, must be treated as an integrated system in the development of policies and programs in order to successfully reduce emissions from motor vehicles.

This is not an act of impatience as some members opposite have suggested. On the contrary. Since 1985 the federal government has waited for the automotive and petroleum industries to resolve the situation without legislation. It has not been resolved. The time for waiting is over. It is now time for the government to act.

In October 1994 the former Minister of the Environment gave a final warning to both the petroleum and automotive industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994, otherwise the government would take action. The deadline was subsequently extended to February 1995 with no resolution in

sight. Therefore the government tabled Bill C-94 in May 1995 and we have been debating it and its successor, Bill C-29, ever since.

The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions program which we as a government are putting into place, such as the new emissions standards recently announced by the Minister of the Environment for the cars in the 1998 model year. Part of these new emissions standards will include mandatory testing which will ensure that the only automobiles allowed on the road will be those that are equipped with proper emissions systems.

As was recently pointed out to me by one of my constituents, a retired zone service manager for Ford Motor Company of Canada, one of the main reasons for vehicles pumping huge amounts of pollutants into the air is that many cars have been equipped with cheaper but inferior after market exhaust systems. Mandatory testing would ensure that these inferior exhaust systems are replaced by the latest systems.

However, all these efforts will go for naught if they are not accompanied by laws that require cleaner burning fuels. That is what Bill C-29 is all about. In the long term, failure to take action could also negatively impact on the entire automotive sector.

Canadians are ready for this legislative action. The results of a poll conducted last May by Compas Incorporated show that Canadians have some clearly defined opinions on this issue. The most revealing finding from the survey reflects Canadians' preference to exercise caution when asked to choose between two potential approaches of dealing with MMT.

The question was: In assessing whether MMT should be used in Canada, which one of the following two points of view best reflects your own: MMT should be banned unless it is proven that it does not have any negative effects on people's health; or, MMT should be allowed to be used unless it is proven to have negative effects on people's health?

The survey showed that 64 per cent of Canadians believed MMT should be banned unless it is proven that it does not have any negative effects on people's health. In other words, approximately two out of three Canadians are concerned enough about the potential health effects associated with MMT that they would prefer to have it banned.

Canadians do not want to be used as laboratory rats. They have heard enough evidence regarding the toxic effects of manganese. Canadians remember hearing the argument from oil companies concerning the use of lead in gasoline. We were all told not to worry about it. Manganese, like lead, is also a heavy metal and like lead, manganese definitely acts as a neurotoxin.

A full 75 per cent of the respondents to the survey said that the argument that MMT should be banned in Canada because scientific evidence suggests airborne manganese has adverse effects on people is at the very least a good argument in support of a ban. Somewhat fewer but still a strong 65 per cent also said this about the argument: ``MMT should be banned in Canada because it harms emissions control components in automobiles which monitor and reduce automobile air emissions''.

(1625 )

I believe the jury is out concerning the reactions of the Canadian people to the legislative initiatives before us today. It is quite clear to me that the Canadian people support us in our desire to finally remove MMT from Canadian gasoline.

Passing this legislation will accomplish a number of important things. It will deliver a long standing commitment to ban MMT in Canadian automotive fuels. It will advance efforts to reduce vehicle emissions and to contribute to air quality improvement in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment in its October 1995 report. It will minimize the potential risk to the health of current and future generations of Canadians by taking a precautionary approach until the effects of chronic low level exposure are fully understood. It will defend the interests of consumers by ensuring that gasoline free of MMT is available across Canada. It will expand existing and new market opportunities for acceptable alternatives to manganese based gasoline additives, such as renewable fuels like ethanol which are already widely available in Canada.

I urge my colleagues in this House to support the bill. Ensuring that fuels free of MMT are available means that Canadian consumers will receive the emissions reductions and air quality they have demanded and have every right to expect. As their representatives, we owe it to the Canadian people to pass this bill.

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

[English]

Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a great concern in this House as to whether ethanol is a pollutant and to its cost.

I would strongly encourage members to take the time to read the information on ethanol to see how cost effective it is. Burning wood, using corn, as pollutants I can hardly see that being a heavy metal. I would strongly encourage members to read that information.

There is ethanol, there is MTBE, there is ETBE, but there seems to be a red flag in this House when we mention ethanol. It is not a polluting agent when we use a byproduct such as wood shavings and corn to produce a product like this. It is an environmental concern that helps all Canadians to breathe cleaner air.

All of us should be on the bandwagon to support this issue.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened, as I always do, very attentively to the hon. member's dialogue on Bill C-29.

During her speech she referred to the fact that the government had been hoping that the automobile industry and the oil industry, and specifically Ethyl Canada as a subsidiary of Ethyl Corporation of the United States, would have come to some voluntary arrangement on the issue of MMT. That is what she said during her discourse.

(1630 )

What I found interesting in that is that 1984 to 1996, by my calculation, is 12 years. I would have thought that in 12 years, if this government and the government before had really wanted to do something to drive this to resolution, as she said, they would have insisted that these two opposing factions would have got together and had an independent study done, which is what the Bloc and the Reform have been calling for for a year and a half. Clearly we have had 12 years where we have had conflicting testimony and studies.

It is interesting to note, as an hon. Bloc member did before, that the automobile industry has been very reluctant to bring forward any proof of its studies and its findings. All they say is that they do find that MMT is harmful to the onboard diagnostic systems and to health.

I have two quick points. In the hon. member's speech she said, as did a preceding Liberal member, that MMT is harmful to the health of Canadians. Yet Health Canada does not support that, as the hon. member from Burnaby stated earlier in his remarks.

The second point is whether the hon. member is aware, when she makes the point about how MMT gums up the onboard diagnostic systems in new automobiles, that it is claimed by the automobile manufacturers that they are experiencing just as many problems with the onboard diagnostic systems in the new automobiles in the United States. In the United States MMT has not been in fuel for some years now. What is the problem down there?

If this government is going to blame the malfunctioning of onboard diagnostic systems on the use of MMT in Canadian gasoline, then clearly there should not be a problem in the United States. However, my information is that there is. Does the member know that?

Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

As to knowing the concerns of the automobile diagnostic systems in the United States, I am not totally aware of that. I am going by the recommendation of one of my constituents, whose party partisans I do not know, who told me emphatically that it was my duty as a Canadian, because of the knowledge he had working in the industry, to come to this House and support Bill C-29 because of information he had at his fingertips.

I am not a service manager. I do not know the components, but he told me that once MMT was in the gasoline, all kinds of cases with spark plugs in the mobile service managers' cars or vans and catalytic converters rose in numbers because of the MMT. He feels that banning MMT would certainly be the right approach for this government to move forward with.

The statement was made that MMT was not used in the United States. Actually 85 per cent of U.S. oil refineries have confirmed they are not currently using MMT. Obviously they have inside knowledge not to promote MMT in their fuels because of what the hon. member is talking about. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to put those two things together.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Unemployment insurance; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Canadian Wheat Board; the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 would prohibit the importation of the manganese-based

gasoline additive methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, a chemical expression that sounds complicated but is sometimes more straightforward than the government's logic.

When the people of my riding chose a young person to represent them in this House, I think they were fully aware of the fact that one of the benefits of electing young politicians is to be able to plan ahead, 30 years ahead maybe.

The environment is an issue very close to my heart because decisions made today might have disastrous effects 30 years down the road. I hope that I will still be around in 30 years. There is a fairly good chance of that. At least, I hope so.

(1635)

Carbon monoxide emissions must be reduced to an absolute minimum. Studies show that there is a gasoline additive that helps reduce by up to 20 per cent these carbon monoxide emissions which are so harmful to our environment and to our health.

This additive is manganese, or MMT if you prefer. Even those who oppose the use of MMT agree that using this substance helps cut carbon monoxide emissions by approximately 5 per cent.

So, if we try to understand the reasoning of the Liberal government, something not always easy to do, it agrees and even seeks to let our atmosphere get polluted even more than it already is. Once again, the government wants the public to believe that the environment a priority. However, this bill is proof that it is really not the case.

When I talk about the environment, I always feel a twinge of sorrow because, in spite of what some may claim, the current situation is not pretty. There are problems with the ozone layer in the north, and the smog is everywhere in the south. Our water is highly polluted. We can no longer drink the water of our lakes and, in some places, we cannot even swim or fish any more. Clear-cutting is also a widespread phenomenon.

Recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development said I was a frustrated young person. He was right, because it is not always easy for an environmentalist to speak in this House.

Indeed, I am somewhat frustrated because the previous generations were a bit careless and now we have to pay the price. With bills like this one, it is hard to say: ``Yes, we know what is going on and this is where we are headed''. I feel this bill is a step backward. It is disappointing.

Hubert Reeves said: ``The universe gives rise to complexity. Complexity gives rise to efficiency, but does efficiency make sense?'' Looking at all the pollution created worldwide, I think that efficiency does not necessarily make sense.

Unfortunately, a lot remains to be done in the environmental sector. I sometimes have the impression that we have been mistaken in a number of areas, but the time has now come to take concrete action, and I think it is still taking too long. There is a tendency to stick one's head in the sand, to try to show that things are just fine.

I cannot overlook the fact that last week I heard a very influential minister in the government saying that things were going well in Canada. It is unbelievable, when we know that the unemployment rate is over 10 per cent, that young people are fed up. Even when they graduate with a university degree, there are almost no jobs. Canada has the highest rate of suicide in the world. The debt is over $600 billion, but things are going well. It is too bad, but it is an indication of where we are headed.

I see that some members of this House are reacting, and I am glad, because they should. You will tell me that you find me rather pessimistic, but what I want to be is realistic. The bottom line is that I was recently reading in a Quebec publication that 50 species disappear every day worldwide. The bottom line is that we are destroying the habitats of these species every day, by destroying our soil, our waterways and our air. The bottom line is that it is the air we breathe that we are talking about today.

When all is said and done, what must be understood is that this will probably have repercussions 20 years from now. The food chain being what it is, when something happens to the smallest components, the effect continues on up the chain. When I speak of the smallest components, I am speaking of species that many people have still never heard of today. Unfortunately, ecologists are still misunderstood.

When Galileo said the earth was round, people laughed at him for years. Many ecologists today are raising the alarm and there are still too many people on this planet laughing at them, and at the rate things are going, I am very worried. When we see that countries like those in Asia are modernizing and that soon everyone will have his own car, as we do here, I think we should be worried. But let us limit ourselves to the smaller picture.

(1640)

I said earlier that the fringe elements and ecologists are misunderstood. Which reminds me a little of the plan for sovereignty. When all is said and done, it is about taking a different route, a new route, which is something that scares people or for which they are not yet ready. It takes several years before people can support this kind of thing. But the environment is an issue that has to be settled now. It takes concrete action.

There are still fringe elements, as I said before. The other day I heard someone in my riding saying we should not eat meat more than once a day. This is the kind of thing even I have trouble with. But we must listen to the environmentalists. I think there is hope. I know I seem rather pessimistic, but I am not that pessimistic. I would say I am a realist and a reasonable person. I am an optimist, but I do not want to bury my head in the sand. I want to face the facts. I want to see the kind of problems we have, but I also realize

that good work is being done today, which gives me hope for the future.

I will first give an example from my riding, and I will then look at all this globally. Not long ago this year, we stopped the practice of log drives, which were polluting our rivers to a tremendous extent. The Péribonka river which flows along the north side of my riding may be developed for tourism in a dozen years or so. We would even be able to swim in the river. In my riding we also have a ZIP committee, Zone d'intervention prioritaire, which is supposed to raise public awareness of environmental problems. A river flows near my town, and I hope that someday we will be able to swim or fish in the river. I know I am talking about just one river in my riding, but it is not the only one. I have travelled across Canada, and there is pollution everywhere.

I have further cause for hope. The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region is a laboratory for sustainable development. You can see progress has been made. There are people who opposed plans to develop the Chamouchouane, a river in my riding, which we decided to keep in its natural state-one of the few rivers in Quebec where that is the case.

We even have town councillors involved in politics, and I am thinking of one in particular, Gérald Scullion, of the Town of Alma. He is probably the first ``green'' councillor in Quebec to be involved in the ``negawatts'' project of Métabetchouan. A village decided to set up the ``negawatts'' project. It decided to raise public awareness, and all energy savings would be reinvested. This project is headed by Mr. Paradis from Lac-Saint-Jean. At the regional level, I think we should pay tribute to these attempts to build a better world.

Of course there is all the recycling as well. Whether we like it or not, we are increasingly seeing blue boxes next to the garbage cans. There is also the electric car, which is quietly making its way. In fact, not long ago a research centre was set up in the riding of the hon. member for Laurentides. These projects give me cause for hope. And there are of course movements like Greenpeace.

Slowly but surely, we can come up for air. Except that when you do come up for air and go to Parliament and see what is going on-They try to act like environmentalists, although direct action, which was one of my slogans when I entered politics, is what makes lobbying a powerful force.

The government says it is going to be more environmentally conscious by replacing MMT with ethanol. In fact, when I did my research for this speech, I found there were no specific studies that said that ethanol was safer for the environment. Well, perhaps in the combustion process, ethanol leaves fewer residues in the air, but look at all the consequences. When you grow corn, which is used to manufacture ethanol, you have the whole ethanol production process. That is the problem. That is where we see that in the end, we lose out.

Actually, all this is pretty useless since we have no studies on the subject, and this bill is taking us down an uncertain path. We can no longer afford to play around with the environment. There is too much at stake, and this worries me. When I an ordinary bill like this one, it is just one of many things people can do. Much remains to be done.

(1645)

In concluding, I will say that what saddens me is these short term policies. There is no long term view. Everything is short term. People build big stacks so the smoke will go to the village next door. It is really too bad, but that is how some people still think.

In concluding, I would like to say the following: We do not inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean has a catch in his throat when he talks about the environment.

It is wonderful to know that we have an ally on the other side of the House. However, I am a little troubled in understanding why he is against Bill C-29. And perhaps the people in his riding would like to know why this member is going against the direction of the former leader of his party, the new premier of Quebec.

This talk about politics, I am wondering where the politics is really coming from, if we are really concerned about the environment.

I would like to quote a former minister of the environment on April 21, 1989. Maybe this was such a long time ago that the members of the Bloc have forgotten these things. The minister said he was aiming for the toughest regulations that technology can provide.

The regulations he was referring to were the tough new standards for emission control technology on new model cars, which is the OBD-II system that we are talking about. We will not have effective operation of those OBD-II systems on our cars unless MMT is taken out of gasoline.

I would like to ask the member opposite if, indeed, his throat catches when he talks about the environment and his love and his concern. How can he be so against what the previous member for his riding was advocating?

[Translation]

Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the province of Quebec, of which Lucien Bouchard is the premier, is against this bill. I am not referring to when the Conservatives were in power, I am talking about the present.

I think my colleague across the way has not properly understood where my disagreement lies. Perhaps I digressed. Concretely, in short, imports of a product are banned without any certainty that it is harmful for the environment.

In reality, we are well aware that interprovincial trade will not occur. The provinces are entitled to produce manganese, no problem with that. Yet we know that they will not. We know that the Ontario lobby has said that, if the government were to ban manganese, that would make it possible to add ethanol to gas, and ethanol is produced in Ontario. As I have just said, there are not even any studies available to demonstrate that ethanol is environmentally any cleaner.

As my colleague has just pointed out, I am asking for a six month hoist to find out where we are at with this. I get the impression that a bill is being introduced just for the pleasure of introducing a bill, in order to show they are looking after the environment by passing some wonderful bill.

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

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

(1650)

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

Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I will speak along the same lines as my colleague. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a letter I have here that was sent by the Minister for International Trade to the Minister of the Environment, asking him to wait. Once again, we see a lack of consistency even within the government.

As far as I am concerned, all I said today sums up the matter well.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks made by the opposition critic, who said that this bill was of interest to Ontario manufacturers, who were pushing for it.

It think there is something else at stake here: the health of Canadians, Ontarians, Quebecers, everyone. I do not think that health issues know boundaries and stop at the Quebec or Ontario border.

I would simply like to ask my hon. colleague who raised the issue of the environment a moment ago a short question. How can he justify something like this going on for so long? The facts speak for themselves. Even manufacturers outside of Ontario, those for whom I worked many years ago, are concerned not only about what will happen to their product but also about the health of the public.

There are many people asking this House to pass this bill. How can the hon. member turn his back on people and their health?

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): This is quite unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member opposite is giving us this rhetoric about his bill preserving life on this planet, when there are no studies backing his claims.

Here is a member's statement under Standing Order 31, announcing the opening of a $153 million ethanol plant in Chatham, Ontario. The debate today is not about the environment, it is about patronage and lobbying.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the statement which was just made by the hon. member for Ontario. He stated that it really comes down to a health issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. If it is a health issue, why has Health Canada not recommended that MMT be banned? It does not support all of the so-called studies that the Liberal members are bringing up today. It simply does not support those studies. If Health Canada cannot find reasons to proceed with the banning, then I would say that hon. members opposite are simply puffing hot air on the issue. It certainly is not a health issue.

Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they would try to use scare tactics, as they have so many times on other issues, to scare Canadians into believing that what the government is doing is really in their best interests. I find that quite despicable.

(1655)

As said by a number of individuals who spoke this afternoon, Bill C-29 goes back a long way. The thrust of this bill will be to impose a ban on trans-border transportation of MMT.

It is somewhat ironic that the government would not impose an outright ban if it truly believes that this is in the best interests of the health of Canadians. It is not only harmful to the health but it is going to follow the onboard diagnostic systems in new automo--

biles and all sorts of other issues that it believes are attributable to the burning of MMT in gasoline. If the government truly believes that why would it not just outright ban it, ban the use of MMT in Canada instead of simply banning the transportation of it?

As said by one of my hon. colleagues, I think the House and individual members are reaching a point of exhaustion with this legislation. As an hon. Liberal member noted earlier, it dates back to May 1995 when the previous environment minister brought forward Bill C-94, before Parliament subsequently prorogued in January of this year, and that died on the Order Paper.

I, along with a number of others, had hoped that when Bill C-94 died on the Order Paper the new environment minister, following a cabinet shuffle, would not have seen fit to bring this bill back unamended, despite all the debate that had taken place in the House on Bill C-94, all the points that had been brought forward by a wide ranging number of speakers both in opposition and in government, as well as witnesses and, admittedly, the lobbying efforts on both sides of this argument. Despite all that information being brought forward, the new Minister of the Environment saw fit to bring in Bill C-29 which in reality is the old Bill C-94 virtually unchanged.

It brings into question what exactly is the role to be debated in this House of Commons. Regardless of political stripes, if members bring forward points in debate in the House and they simply fall on deaf ears, what is the point to debate in the House at all when we see a minister bring back a piece of legislation unchanged despite some serious reservations being expressed by a lot of people?

I believe quite strongly that this government with Bill C-29 has fallen prey to the lobbying efforts of the very powerful Canadian automobile industry. I know we have been accused on this side of the House of being in the pockets of the oil industry, which is on the other side of the argument.

While we can defend what we have been saying, it is very difficult for the government to defend the real thrust of why it is bringing in this legislation if it is not to appease the automobile industry. It is bringing in a piece of legislation that will see the banning of a product used by the oil industry.

The Reform position on this is and always has been that we would support an independent comprehensive third party study. When we see that this issue goes back to 1984, some 12 years ago, surely to goodness the two sides could have been brought together and forced by government legislation rather than imposing a ban and taking one side of the argument with what we believe is not substantive evidence against the use of MMT.

Rather than taking one side of the argument surely the government could have brought legislation forward to have an independent study done to substantiate who is right in this argument. We believe quite simply that the whole issue of the banning of the transportation of MMT is one built on fallacy. It is built on scare tactics. When we look at the evidence that is provided by the two sides in the argument, it certainly supports what both opposition parties have been calling for, an independent study. That is why I find myself speaking in support of the hoist motion of the Bloc Quebecois to see this bill put off for six months. That is what we are debating here. It is not specifically Bill C-29 but the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois to see the bill delayed for six months in yet again the hope that a study could be done in the intervening time to bring forward evidence on one side or the other.

(1700)

If the evidence, clearly supported, is what the government has been saying on this issue, I know all members of the House would support what the government has been endeavouring to do. Currently there is no studies or evidence before us to allow us to make that decision.

I find it quite ironic that when I questioned the previous Liberal speaker during questions and comments she said that her constituent had brought forward information which she listened to and he said there was overwhelming evidence that MMT was harmful to vehicle emission systems, and therefore she was going to support the bill.

I find it interesting that an MP would rise and say that one person had brought forward one side of an argument and therefore that is why she was going to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation. I would hope that all MPs of all parties would be much more comprehensive in studying an issue and looking at both sides of it before they cast their vote. At least that is how I approach this issue.

I want to bring to the attention of the House something that is of importance to me as the member representing Prince George-Peace River. I want to take this whole argument about Bill C-29 and the banning of the transportation of MMT to the level of my riding of Prince George-Peace River which I am pleased to represent in this House.

There is a refinery currently operating in the city of Prince George. This refinery produces some 10,000 barrels per day of gasoline. It is therefore the smallest fully integrated Canadian refinery. It is owned by Husky Oil.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): I hear all sorts of heckling. Is the issue here really that we are supposed to try to represent the interests of our constituents or not? Is that the issue?

It has been said that the hon. members across the way are supporting the interests of a certain side of this argument. I want to repeat, because of the heckling coming from the other side of the House, that I am not supporting the continuation of the use of MMT, although it would be very appropriate for me to do so in support of the refinery that exists in Prince George.

Quite the contrary, what I am saying is that we need further study. We need a comprehensive study. After 12 years I do not think it is too much for Canadians to expect that the government would conduct such a study instead of going with one side of the argument, as I have already stated.

This refinery, although it is quite small, employs some 80 people.

An hon. member: Eighty people.

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Yes, it is a very small number. The hon. member says: ``Oh, 80 people''. What is 80 people? They are potentially out of work. It does not really matter to him, no doubt. It matters to me. It matters to those 80 people who are concerned about their jobs. The whole point is that it is so needless to bring in something like this without proper study.

Those people would support the banning of MMT if it could be conclusively shown that it was either harmful to the health of Canadians or that it was creating some sort of substantive problems for the automobile manufacturers that could not be overcome in some other way. Other members earlier said that they did not want to see the Canadian government browbeaten with the threat of legal action by Ethyl Corporation.

(1705)

What about the threats that came from the automobile industry over the last year and half suggesting that if the government did not put this in maybe the price of cars would go up by some $3,000? If that is not a threat I do not know what is. It is inappropriate to listen to one side of the argument. None of us want to see the price of cars go up. I keep returning to the fact that the conclusive evidence is not there so how can the government arrive at a decision to simply ban this product on the basis of available information?

We could go on and on debating this. I spoke for some 20 minutes in June 1995 on this issue, as did a lot of other members. I find it incredible that a year and a half later we are still debating the same issue. The government has refused to listen to any of the arguments put forward by members in debate. It is simply bringing back the bill to appease the automobile industry. It will force it through and it will get its backbench members to vote along party lines to force this through. I find it disgusting.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the comments of my hon. colleague for Prince George-Peace River. However, I thought I was probably at a meeting of the flat earth society when I heard what he had to say.

I realize and understand that the hon. member has the interests of a refinery in his riding in mind. I do not blame the refinery nor do I think it is fair to trade off the interests of eight people who happen to work at that refinery. After all, they have health concerns and concerns about the environment just like everyone else.

I should point out to the hon. member that I know a little bit about the automotive industry. I know that there are several Toyota dealerships in his riding, each having 20, 30 and even 40 employees whose livelihood and jobs are at stake simply because the new vehicles that are coming in, not made in Ontario, not made in Quebec which is, of course, the pretext by which the member of the Reform Party likes to side with the Bloc Quebecois. Obviously, Reform members find themselves in a very interesting position. It must be an election year and they are desperate to find any issue, even at the expense of someone's health.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to resolve this question. According to the B.C. motor vehicle emission control warranty regulations by this time next year, for the 1998 models, it will probably be that the emissions, which is what we are speaking about here, will not meet the standards set by his own province. How is he going to resolve this dilemma for his own constituents and for the sake of the car dealers there who are creating jobs and who are trying to make ends meet? He knows this is an important issue that will have to be met, particularly from the health and environmental standpoint.

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Ontario.

With his extensive background of working for Toyota he would be an unbiased source to make the points for the automobile industry. I appreciate his enlightening me on how many Toyota dealerships there are in my riding. It certainly is of importance as well.

Mr. McTeague: That is a small number too. More than eight.

(1710 )

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): If the hon. member is not too busy heckling, I wonder if he would listen to another point? With a nuclear power plant in his riding, would he be so concerned about the environmental issues with nuclear power that perhaps we should just pass a quick piece of legislation this afternoon to shut down the power plant, just on the evidence we have before us today, which admittedly is not very substantive?

I know, for example, that the industry and refineries in the province of British Columbia are working extensively with the province to move toward stricter environmental standards. The hon. member mentioned them. From what I can understand, in speaking with members of the industry not only from my riding but from the province of British Columbia, they have a good working relationship with the Government of British Columbia. They are working toward adhering to those new guidelines and regulations when they come down the pipe.

I do not think the comment made by the hon. member is appropriate in the sense of again trying to throw out the scare tactic that somehow the industry is resisting, all the way down the line, making the necessary changes to make Canada, environmentally, a safer place in which to live.

As the member pointed out, the people who work in the oil and gas industries, be it exploration, production or refining, all breathe the same air and drink the same water as the rest of Canadians do. Therefore, it is certainly paramount to them to ensure that we have an environmentally sustainable country and a province of British Columbia in which to live.

I believe that using scare tactics and trying to paint one side of the argument as the bad boys in this dispute is not going to do anyone any good. That is why the common sense approach, the approach that is supported by the majority of Canadians where they can have all of the evidence in front them, would be to support the position of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada on this; which we have been demanding for a year and a half to have a comprehensive study done of this issue and have those results made known to the public.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has talked about public support. First, the overwhelming majority of Canadians support the ban on MMT. Perhaps the member should be aware of that point.

Second, the member also has been talking about an independent voice. I believe the member might be considering the public interest. I do not know how many times I have to go over this in the House, but I will try yet again.

When we talk for the public interest, I would suggest that the Allergy Asthma Information Association spoke in the public interest. I would suggest that the Canadian Institute of Child Health spoke in the public interest. I would suggest that the Environmental Defence Fund, the Sierra Club of Canada and the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada have spoken in the public interest. I would suggest that all of these associations and organizations spoke in the public interest.

I would like to know why this member is speaking against the public interest and against the Canadian people on this issue.

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): I would think, Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet enough today that we would not have any problem recalling my riding at this point.

I thank the hon. member for her question and comments about my presentation. On the issue of Canadians and whether they support the banning of MMT, I would like to know who conducted that study, how comprehensive it was, how much information was made available to the Canadians who were actually polled, how many were polled, where they were polled and what background they were given. We can all play with statistics. We have done that all day long in this place. Anyone can conduct a poll and get the results they want. If they ask the right question they will get the answer they want. That addresses the issue of the poll to which the hon. member referred.

(1715)

She also mentioned the need for an independent voice. As I said earlier, and I am getting tired of saying it, that is what we have been calling for. When we consider that this issue has been around for as long as it has, surely to goodness some government at some time could have undertaken a comprehensive study of this issue so that we as parliamentarians would have had enough evidence in front of us to make a decision one way or the other without there being a big question mark.

As to her statement about being on the wrong side of Canadians, when she read off a list of people who made presentations and who have made their views known, certainly those people and those organizations are representing a certain point of view. They are speaking in support of what they feel is in the best interests of the health of Canadians.

What I cannot understand is despite the representations which were made before the committee, the fact is Health Canada did not support the recommendation that MMT is harmful.

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[English]

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and her question, but I honestly do not know how I could possibly elaborate any further on what has been said over the past year and a half on this issue.

I would, however, question her statement about the objectivity of a member who happens to have a small oil refinery in their riding. The reason I say that is I have been very careful not to come down on the side of the oil industry or Ethyl Corp. to say that MMT is not harmful and that we should proceed full bore and forever use MMT in gasoline. I have not said that. The Reform Party has not said that. In its defence, the Bloc as well has not said that.

(1720)

What we have said repeatedly is that we need this independent study to see which side of the argument holds the most water.

Without using any more time of the House-time is of the essence-we have only debated this for some year and a half, I am sure all of us are hoping to be finished with this.

My only hope is that the government members will break with party discipline and on this issue at least will vote with common sense and support the motion to hoist this for six months to allow a study so that we can really have the evidence placed before parliamentarians.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak in this House to Bill C-29 banning the use of MMT. First of all, I would like to say that I feel like I am trapped in a bad movie. Admittedly, back home in the Gaspé, the air is pure, we do not really have any problems with the environment as such, and given that I come from that area of the country, the fisheries are more up my line.

When I listen in the House today to all the efforts of the Liberal Party to justify its bill C-29, I want to get up and ask them what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, you will tell me if I have misunderstood. The Bloc Quebecois amendment proposes a six month delay because no study has been done. We would like to know why manganese is being banned, but we would also like to know what will replace it. When I say it is like being trapped in a bad movie, as the member for Laurentides said a few minutes ago, it is more like a trade war we are engaged in here.

I hear people who seem to be caving in to the automobile lobby and I hear people who seem to be caving in to the ethanol lobby. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has a popcorn solution to the ban on MMT. As you know, popcorn is another way of using corn. As my colleague on the backbench mentioned, it creates energy. When corn pops, it causes movement. But where are they headed with this bill? They have lost me.

Have they a viable alternative in mind? I do not think so. In the case of ethanol production, what are the other negative impacts that have not been studied? I am told that if we launch blindly into large scale production of corn on the same acreage, the soil will be impoverished.

I tell myself that maybe there is enough land in Ontario, in Canada, to rotate crops. Farmers always like to limit their risks. Is there a risk of ethanol pollution? I am told that perhaps not from ethanol as such, but if insecticides are used on corn crops, then there is a risk of pollution. I know that farmers will be tempted to use insecticides.

As you can see, there is no clear solution to these questions, and I am only looking at something that would give the government an opportunity to find an alternate solution. That is why I like the popcorn image. They are looking for an easy solution, but they are not just going to pop this problem away with a poof.

The other questions we might have about MMT concern the studies on the real impact on people's health.

(1725)

Yes, I too am aware of that, but no one has yet confronted us with any direct cause and effect relationship. You will reply: yes, but as soon as there is any danger perhaps it will be wise to be a little more careful. There are no other solutions. Will any attempts to save money, maybe with impact on people's health, be done away with completely because the next solution has not been worked out properly? I think that the proposal by the hon. member for Laurentides is a very good solution, namely to take another six months, at least.

I wondered whether we were not in a league by ourselves, since the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who spoke just now, was telling us that MMT was banned virtually everywhere. I

am told that it has just been reintroduced in some states in the U.S.A. That opens the door. I am trying to see whether the Americans have made a mistake. We are 25 or 30 million Canadians, while they are 250 million, 250 million Americans who may be wrong. I think the solution to give ourselves another six months is reasonable.

While my colleague for Laurentides was speaking just now, with her numerous questions, for which I congratulate her-someone has to stir up the government, and she does an excellent job of it-I heard some of the Liberals saying: Yes, and if ever that study is done, it will never come out until after the elections. Once again, we understand the spin the government is trying to put on the debate on Bill C-29-it is pure vote-chasing. On the one hand, if they do want a study, it will be released only afterward, so why are they talking about it now? Because of the automotive lobby, the ethanol producers' lobby, wanting to get its share of the pie-a trade war pure and simple.

I was just thinking that we have been here three years now, and how can it be that the government has nothing better to offer on the environment? A good question, and I would like to hear the Liberal members, the Minister of the Environment, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment give us the answer. What is the story on PCBs in the Magdalen Islands?

Those islands are just across from us in the Gaspé. From what I hear, there was a PCB problem relating to the wreck of the barge Irving Whale. PCBs escaped on the ocean floor. Tests were done and, perhaps as in the popcorn solution-poof-the Minister of the Environment sees no more trace of PCBs on the ocean floor.

This is something tangible. The danger relating to contact with PCBs has been proven. As for MMT, there is not yet any scientific proof.

You will understand my surprise, will understand that I am wondering how much the speeches of the government side are based in fact, and you will understand that there is good reason to listen open-mouthed.

The hon. member for Lachine has also asked whether Canada is really entitled to legislate on this. I think the answer is yes, we are.

It is not because we have the right to pass legislation that we have the right to ruin people's lives, because we have no alternative solution to offer. If we really want to act intelligently in this area, I believe that we must stack the decks in our favour as far as possible. That would mean adopting the member for Laurentides' amendment, a six month hoist, and to do the necessary work during that time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

_____________________________________________