House of Commons Hansard #255 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex on her debate on this important bill.

I know the member is a nurse by training. I also know she is a member of the important health subcommittee on AIDS. It is an important issue for all members to understand that the federal government has a role to play in terms of major diseases such as AIDS which affect all Canadians.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment on the work she has seen through the subcommittee on AIDS that the federal government has been doing for the benefit of all Canadians.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be one of the members on the subcommittee for HIV-AIDS. It certainly has been a learning experience to say the least, to sit on that committee and hear witnesses.

The ministry has been allocating dollars proportionately to research regarding HIV-AIDS. Many issues have been addressed. This disease certainly is not under control by any means, judging from the stats that come by our desks daily. The dollars that have been funded through the minister have been allocated most effectively. I hope that in the not too distant future we will see positive ramifications from those dollars. There has been very good ongoing research.

Again, sitting on that committee has been a learning experience. I am sure its work will be most valuable to the House.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened a few moments ago to the answer of the hon. member opposite. She said that access to health care should not depend on the wallet, that poor and rich people should have equal access to services. I could not agree more with that.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

I thank the members opposite for applauding these words. However, the question is: What kind of services? I have a problem I want to share with the hon. member. She will probably have an interesting answer and I am eager to listen to it.

Two years ago, former first minister Bourassa had skin cancer. Where did he go for treatment? Washington, D.C. I want to know if people with a fat wallet will have to cross the border to get proper treatment. How come Mr. Bourassa could not be treated either in Quebec or in Canada? What was special? How would health care in Canada be able to cope with such a situation?

I am sure the member has a proper answer and I am eager to hear it.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my hon. colleague with whom I had the pleasure of working on the health committee. I know his question is most sincere.

With respect to that individual, I believe it was freedom of choice. It was his choice to seek medical help elsewhere. I can also relate a story. My husband had a heart attack five years ago. I did not have to go south; I was able to deliver my husband to an emergency room. He was having a heart attack and they did not ask me what my bank account was. I was able to go in there with my only concern being to make sure my husband had the best health care service. I knew he had it because that is Canada's health care system.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

This brings questions and comments to a close. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is the following one: the hon. member for Mackenzie-public works.

We will now move on to the next stage of debate. We have exhausted the five hours of debate with 20-minute speeches and 10-minute questions and comments. We now go to straight 10 minute speeches without questions or comments.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore Ontario

Liberal

Jean Augustine LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to speak to Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts. I want to assure all Canadians who are watching today's debate that this is a housekeeping bill. It is not a bill encroaching on provincial powers. It is not a bill kidnapping powers. It is not a bill discussing a two tier system, one for the rich and one for the poor.

In any of the polls done, it has been shown that 89 per cent of Canadians believe we have the most important and the best health care system in the world. They believe in the principles involved in the health act: universality, portability, accessibility, comprehensiveness, public administration.

Health Canada has certain responsibilities that are implicit in its mandate. Bill C-95 is attempting to make this explicitly acknowledged. Bill C-95 is before the House at a time when so many things within the world of biomedical technology are before us.

Bill C-95 affirms a whole series of things we promised in our red book. Partnership and co-ordination are words that are very important to us as we move on this issue. Those are the reasons for this proposed legislation. It is to confirm the existence of the Department of Health and to specify that mandate working with the provinces, working for a holistic approach to health, taking into consideration the social as well as the physical and mental well-being of our population.

This proposed legislation contains a series of provisions concerning the transfer of responsibility. I want to affirm-I think there was general agreement on all sides-that the history of universal medicare and the health department are intertwined.

The department has played an essential role in the evolution of medicare from its infancy in the 1950s and 1960s to its current status as one of the most respected health systems in the world. Why is Canada's health system so respected? One of the reasons is that it is predominantly a single payer, publicly financed health system. That unique feature of our health system has been there from the beginning.

When we were putting in place universal hospital insurance coverage under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the federal government cost shared the start up of this component of the health system. The same happened when it came time to establish universal coverage for physician services under the Medical Care Act. Federal cost sharing was essential to assisting provinces and territories in establishing their medical care insurance programs. Medicare as we know it would not have gotten off the ground without the federal role in and commitment to health and its financing.

Cost sharing gave Canada universal hospital and medical care insurance, but cost sharing had its shortcomings. The change in financing arrangements in 1977 to block funding under the EPF, established programs financing, provided the provinces and territories with the flexibility necessary to focus beyond the traditional hospital and medical components of their health systems.

Anyone who says that the federal government is not a financial player in health is not looking at the numbers, which I will provide. In 1995-96, $15.5 billion in EPF health contributions will go to the provinces and territories. The long tradition of block funding and the flexibility it affords provinces and territories in their health programs will continue with the Canada health and social transfer.

Scheduled to begin in 1996-97, the CHST will transfer $26.9 billion to the provinces and territories for their health, post-secondary education and social assistance programs. In 1997-98, the CHST will contribute $25.1 billion. No one is denying the importance of the CHST reductions but let us put these reductions in perspective.

The reduction of $2.5 billion for 1996-97 amounts to less than 3 per cent of total estimated provincial spending on health, post-secondary education and social services and less than 2 per cent of provincial government revenues. The CHST is a balanced and fair approach to dealing with Canada's deficit and debt in making our health system fiscally sustainable.

Federal transfer reductions do not threaten our universal publicly financed health system. The minister has said this over and over in the House. Let us not be fooled by those who say it will and that privatization will save the health system.

The Canadian experience bears out results from studies by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank. Both have said that cost containment is more successful in health systems with a high share of public financing. The public share of health expenditures in Canada was about 72 per cent in 1993. The rest, 28 per cent, came from private sources

ranging from employment based supplementary benefits to individual out of pocket purchases.

In terms of cost control the public sector succeeded in containing the rates of increase to 2 per cent in 1993. Private sector health expenditures grew three times faster, with an increase of 6.4 per cent.

Canada's publicly financed, single payer health system has the built in capability to pull various levers to rein in costs. Global budgets for hospitals and capping payments to physicians are two examples which come to mind. There are many others which provinces and territories can use without resorting to privatization or putting national health principles in jeopardy.

The federal government and the Department of Health played a key and necessary role in building our publicly financed, single payer health system which continues to reflect the values of fairness and equity on which the system was originally built. The need for a strong federal presence and role in health remains important in ensuring that fairness and equity are at the centre of our health system.

I assure all Canadians, especially the seniors in Etobicoke-Lakeshore who are watching the debate in the House, that Bill C-95 is a housekeeping bill and deserves the attention of all members.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill C-95. Health is one of the most important things in Canadian life, if not the most important. The human being is the most valuable resource we have. We can talk about resources, human and natural, but it is our human resources which make Canada the best country in the world.

Today a fundamental piece of legislation for the operation of the federal government is under discussion. Contrary to what has been implied in the House, the role of the federal government in health care is very important. It is crucial for the continued health and well-being of Canadians.

Everyone is familiar with the major role the federal government has played as the architect of a national health insurance system for Canada. Everywhere in the world it is regarded as an excellent example of public sector innovation in a crucial field of service provision. We should not forget what the health system in Canada was like before the advent of national health insurance.

Lack of infrastructure in the health area was highlighted during the Depression when financing was so desperately short that many doctors had to go on relief in the western provinces because patients could not pay their bills. Military recruiting drives for World War II demonstrated the poor health of the overall population, especially military aged males.

Saskatchewan pioneered the national health insurance model, first for hospital services and then for medical services.

The national health system we have today owes its origins to the leadership of consecutive federal governments, first to build infrastructure with hospital grants, with the Hospitals and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medicare Act, and in our own era with the Canada Health Act and established programs financing.

Who among us doubts the importance of this multi-decade effort to build a national health insurance system, both in terms of nation building and in terms of the security it provides each and every Canadian that their medical needs will be met regardless of their pocketbook.

We should not forget that the Canada Health Act, the last incarnation of this major national effort, is a piece of legislation which received all-party support in 1984.

Since this government was elected it has taken its responsibilities under the Canada Health Act very seriously. Under the private clinics policy a rigorous distinction is being drawn between the public health sector for insured services and entrepreneurial medicine. This is a critical distinction. No Canadian should be able to buy his or her way to the front of a queue for services. Services ought to be rendered on the basis of medical need, not by the pocket book.

As important as the CHA is, however, it is but a small part of the federal role in health. Health Canada is operative across Canada to ensure that the food Canadians eat, the drugs they consume and the medical devices they use are safe. It is important to recognize how much the department is operative behind the scenes to guarantee security in these areas. For example, for well-being during a baby examination, the immunization series is provided by a provincially paid practitioner but the quality of the vaccine and vaccination is ensured by the federal government.

Health Canada also plays a major role in encouraging both the public and private sectors to promote health and prevent illness and accidents.

Whatever the hazard of the day, smoking, AIDS, nuclear fall-out, radon, ebola, the plague, there is a Health Canada employee with direct responsibility for ensuring Canadians have the information they require to reduce their risk and that they are aware of the various protective strategies that exist to combat risk. They can

build on those factors in their social and physical environment which will ensure Canadians are protected now and into the future.

Let us look at an instance of how this works. The ebola scare is fresh in Canadian minds. The Quarantine Act was recently invoked to ensure there was no risk of the ebola virus spreading in Canada. Networks of federal officials from Health Canada and, with Health Canada's lead, many federal departments were mobilized to ensure security was always in place to reduce risk and follow up on any and all suspicious circumstances.

Working with Canadians across this great country of ours, using our public health intelligence of the highest calibre, Canadians acquired worldwide respect for their handling of the ebola crisis and their management of a situation with a high potential for panic and public disorder.

Ebola is but one of the many instances in which Health Canada rolls into action to protect Canadians. Many hazards have less public profile. Many require detailed risk assessment to determine how they should be managed. At all times Health Canada has the responsibility for dealing with the national dimensions of hazards to health and reducing them to ensure the high quality of life Canadians enjoy.

Another key role in the department is in the population health area. Recently we have come to understand the power of taking population and sub-populations as the primary unit of analysis in the development of health policy and programming. The health status of populations is heavily influenced by a number of key health determinants including biology, income, education, environment, to mention a few. The department is now in the process of operationalizing the health determinants perspective on issues with the help of many of the country's most creative thinkers in the health area.

As an illustration, take Canada's children as a key sub-population. Concern is increasing about key social indicators such as rates of youth offences and incarceration. Quite recently there was a study on young women which is very troubling partly because of our poor economy.

The preconditions for these increases in rates are set much earlier in the development of a young person. There are recognized determinants that are predictors of pathways that lead to healthy child development; for example, supportive families, social networks, parental employment and so on. There are others that are strong predictors of difficulties in achieving healthy development; for example, inadequate nutrition, high risk socialization patterns.

Important policy factors in development include developing positive relationships, experiencing success and developing self-esteem.

We need to take these types of development considerations into account if we are to build a society in which all young people are able to thrive.

Health Canada is working to make this possible. Programs such as prenatal nutrition and aboriginal headstart are breaking down many of the barriers to a healthy development.

With a population optic on these issues and key investments targeted early in life, we will achieve much to reverse some of society's most ingrained problems.

Health Canada has therefore a major role to play in improving Canadian society. Proof of these important efforts lies in the high quality of life Canadians continue to enjoy despite the rigours of the economic climate of today, the quality of which is unrivalled in the world and will do much to strengthen the federation as we proceed to implement the important post referendum change agenda.

I come from a rural riding. In that riding medicare is important but with the changes we have, the changes in technology for instance, practitioners and people with experience could use video conferences. We will be recruiting very young, good positions and finding ways to look after rural ridings.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is the House ready for the question?

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

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

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the motion before the House stands deferred until 6 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Laval West Québec

Liberal

Michel Dupuy Liberalfor the Minister of the Environment

moved that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be read the third time and passed.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York—Simcoe, ON

Madam Speaker, I will explain to the House what is in Bill C-94 and why we are taking immediate action against MMT. I will also respond to some of the misplaced concerns expressed by members of the opposition as well as identify why the government is addressing the MMT question.

As many members are now aware, MMT is a manganese based fuel additive used to increase the octane rating of gasoline. It has been used in Canada since 1977 as a replacement for lead in unleaded gasoline. Lead was phased out of virtually all Canadian gasoline by 1990. Canada is one of the few countries that use MMT. The United States banned it from unleaded gasoline in 1978.

Gasoline containing MMT adversely impacts the operation of sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems. These OBD systems are important because they monitor the performance of emission control components in vehicles.

The auto industry has made the decision that it will no longer accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs caused by MMT related damage.

Some companies have even indicated they will disconnect the OBD systems in whole or in part and may reduce Canadian vehicle warranty coverage starting with the 1996 model year if MMT continues to be used in Canadian gasoline. That means the increased cost of maintaining these systems would be passed on directly to the Canadian consumer.

The Canadian Automobile Association is a 3.7 million member consumer advocate organization for automobile owners. During its presentation to the standing committee it articulately outlined concerns facing Canadians both environmentally and economically. It stated that MMT is a heavy metal based fuel additive. When the sensors of the OBDs are coated with the heavy metal they cannot properly detect oxygen.

It is easy to see then that when sensors give a false reading, the warning light signals the motorist and the motorist would bring the car in for unnecessary warranty covered repair work. This cost will undoubtedly be transferred to the consumer down the road in the form of higher automobile sale prices, making already difficult car purchases an impossibility for many prospective car buyers.

Because the new OBDs are an advanced system of detection that catches ignition problems as soon as they fall below standard, the CAA states that the new system of OBDs will be one of the best things that could happen to cars from an environmental perspective, and if MMT would reduce its effectiveness, CAA wholeheartedly endorses a ban on the substance.

Consumers will opt not to use MMT in their fuel. The Reform Party is against this ban. The Reform Party should remember to represent its constituents and not take the position of defending a special interest lobby group against the wishes and protection of the people of Canada.

Who is the Reform Party standing up for, Ethyl Corporation, an American based firm which is the sole manufacturer of MMT? Ethyl Corporation manufactures MMT in the U.S. and ships it to Canada.

The Reform Party claims there is no reason for this bill. It says the minister is unilaterally pushing the legislation through. This process began under the previous government, which saw the necessity to examine the MMT question.

Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both the automotive and petroleum producing industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994, otherwise the government would take action. This deadline was subsequently extended into February of this year to review automobile and petroleum industry proposals.

The matter was not resolved and so the federal government has had to step in. The result is Bill C-94. The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute and this is important to understand. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions programs we are putting into place. It could also negatively impact the automotive sector which would pass the newly incurred costs on to the Canadian consumer.

Some members of the House have gone so far as to suggest MMT creates great benefits for Canada's environment. They suggest that nitrous oxide emissions are reduced by 20 per cent when MMT is used. What they do not say is that this claim is based on data collected by Ethyl Corporation, the makers of MMT, from test cars that were driven 50,000 to 110,000 miles. This was then extrapolated to 195,000 miles.

This does not take into consideration the adverse wear and tear of the automobile which is degraded over time. Because of this it has been determined that there has been no rigorous scientific basis for applying the Ethyl Corporation's average emission values to Canada-wide projections.

When examined in the context of the current Canadian fleet, Environment Canada's analysis indicates that NOx reduction would be only about 5 per cent. This has been substantiated by the University of Waterloo institute for improvement in quality and productivity. The report also indicates that the results of a study by Ethyl Corporation on reduction of NOx emissions greatly overestimates the reductions in NOx.

The Ethyl Corporation experiments have not been shown to be representative of field vehicle use, and the scientific rigour of the experiments is uncertain.

Ethyl's research was conducted and presented by a private consultant from the U.S. When I asked about the extreme differences in statistical data between the Ethyl Corporation report and the University of Waterloo analysis, she replied: "Statistics is not an exact science. There isn't only one right way to look at a set of numbers".

As every member of the House knows, the University of Waterloo is a Canadian university whose research is of national and international acclaim. The University of Waterloo does not have a particular vested interest, being a public university. So whose interpretation of the statistics is more likely to be in the public interest?

What would the Reform Party know about scientifically proven environmental concerns? Very little. This is the same Reform Party whose member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia stated earlier in the House: "There is an awful lot of voodoo science around with respect to the effects of man made carbon dioxide on global warming". Can anyone believe this? Voodoo science?

I am continuously shocked by statements made by the Reform members who choose to ignore accepted realities. Ninety-nine of the one hundred and ninety-six living Nobel Laureate scientists along with roughly 2,000 other world scientists jointly signed an urgent warning to humanity. In their declaration they appealed to the people of the world to take immediate action to halt the accelerating damage threatening humanity's global life support systems.

I quote from their media release when I say human activities may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner we know. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided. This kind of consensus is truly unprecedented.

The urgent appeal goes on to say that no more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to revert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

The Reform Party openly scorns the leading scientists of our planet. Voodoo science? Is the Reform Party suggesting the Nobel Prize is a mystical, voodoo award?

To return to the claim by Ethyl Corporation of a 20 per cent reduction of NOx emissions, if this 20 per cent reduction claim were true, why would the people who make cars in this country be working hard to make onboard diagnostic systems so advanced if MMT fuel could do the job by itself? The reason they are working hard is simple. MMT does not provide the answers to NOx reduction that its makers claim. Let us be very clear about this.

Los Angeles has some of the worst pollution problems in North America. California has taken strong action against environmental pollutants, including a ban on the use of MMT. If MMT is what Ethyl Corporation and the Reform Party advocate as a product to reduce NOx emissions, perhaps they should consider why the state of California has acted decisively on the issue.

Canada is one of the few countries that uses MMT. While we are on the topic, some members opposite are citing a recent U.S. court hearing in favour of the Ethyl Corporation, the producers of MMT. MMT will still be banned in California and in those states that require federal reformulated gasolines to be used. That means 30 per cent of the United States will continue with the ban on the use of MMT in fuel.

Furthermore, witnesses have told the committee that given the negative consumer attitudes toward MMT it is very likely consumers will demand to use MMT free gasoline, just as the consumers have chosen to use unleaded gasoline. What is more, we have yet to see if the U.S. government will appeal the decision.

Some members opposite also quite conveniently fail to talk about what the onboard diagnostic system does and what can happen if and when MMT causes the system to fail. Onboard diagnostic systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution control systems, in particular the catalytic converter, and alert the driver to malfunctions.

If the OBD system is not working a 50 per cent reduction in the efficiency of the catalyst translates into a twofold increase in emissions compared with a properly functioning vehicle. What we are talking about is the failure of new emissions technology in automobiles resulting in increased car emissions harmful to our environment.

Let us also be clear about the economic impact of removing MMT. Some members of the House have suggested the cost would be in the billions of dollars. In fact the costs will be small for the entire petroleum industry. Estimates of the costs of MMT removal provided by the industry itself range from $50 million to $83

million per year which means an additional one-tenth to one-quarter of a cent per litre increase at the pumps.

Furthermore, likely alternatives to MMT would be produced in Canada, creating more jobs and opportunities for Canadians, whereas MMT is produced exclusively in the U.S. My question to the members of the Reform Party is why are they opposing this bill? Whose interests are they protecting?

The bill has a number of important improvements for Canadians. here are some of the key highlights of the bill. It will prohibit the import or interprovincial trade for a commercial purpose of MMT or anything containing MMT. It will give the minister the power to authorize exceptions for MMT that will not be used in unleaded gasoline subject to a monitoring requirement. Coverage of the act can be expanded by order in council to cover other manganese based substances used in automotive fuel.

The act is binding on all persons and entities including the federal and provincial governments. The enforcement tools are similar to those in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The penalties are strict. For the unauthorized import or interprovincial trade of MMT the maximum penalty on summary conviction is a $300,000 fine and/or six months in jail, and on indictment the maximum fine is $1 million and/or three years in jail. For knowingly providing false or misleading information on the importation or interprovincial trade of MMT the penalties are the same but with a maximum of five years in jail instead of three on indictment.

On conviction, as in CEPA, the court can also order an additional fine equal to the monetary benefits resulting from the offence, prohibit conduct that may lead to a repeat offence and direct the offender to notify third parties about the conviction.

In summary, we have two polarized positions on this issue. On one hand, over 20 automotive manufacturers, competitors, independently came to the same conclusion that MMT is harmful to OBD systems on their cars, OBD systems that are necessary to reduce emissions. The CAA, a consumer advocate organization, supports this position. A report from the University of Waterloo supports its claims with regard to NOx emissions. It has undertaken a considerable amount of work to prepare its support of the ban. If MMT really reduced NOx in the quantities suggested by Ethyl Corporation it could reduce emissions for the automotive manufacturers for free.

On the other hand, we have an American company, the sole manufacturer of MMT, holding an opposing position. I remind the House that Ethyl Corporation fought against the reduction of lead in gasoline in 1984.

This legislation is for Canadians. It is to protect Canadians from increases in automobile prices. It is legislation to protect our environment by ensuring the effective use of new, advanced onboard diagnostic systems for cleaner exhaust emissions. It is my commitment to the people of York-Simcoe for a better community.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Madam Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

This bill is more directly aimed at prohibiting the commercial use of MMT in Canada. MMT is added to gasoline to raise its octane level, and, consequently, to improve engine performance. The Minister of the Environment reached this decision on April 5, and today we are being asked to vote on the decision to ban the use of MMT in Canada.

But the minister has not been very convincing in this matter. Indeed, there are many questions on this bill, which remain unanswered, and the minister totally refuses to look at them. She is dismissing all other analyses, studies and solutions put forward. It cannot be said that open-mindedness and a sense of conciliation are the strongest qualities of the Minister of the Environment, who is also Deputy Prime Minister.

In this case, as in many others, the minister has decided and stands firm, in spite of the strong opposition of the petroleum industry and Ethyl, the company producing MMT. The minister is closing her eyes and seems to be simply responding to the carmakers' lobby which, strange coincidence, is concentrated in her part of the country.

I am not saying that the automotive industry does not have valid reasons or arguments for not wanting MMT in its vehicles. I am simply saying that the minister is leaning to one side and that she does not listen to the arguments of the other side. But this attitude on the part of the Minister of the Environment is not new. In many other instances, she has acted the same way.

There is, among others, the ongoing and very disturbing case of the Irving Whale . Once more, the minister, through her lack of openness which, in my opinion, looks more and more like a lack of competence, is creating very serious problems that threaten the environment. The issue of the Irving Whale , a total fiasco, is a case in point.

By refusing to take into account studies made by Marex and CEF, the minister has embarked on an adventure which is dangerous for the environment of the gulf and which has already cost $12 million. This amount represents the total cost initially forecasted and the barge still lies on the bottom of the gulf.

It must be pointed out that the method chosen is not the safest one. The operations we saw this summer proved it and smacked of amateurism. I would also underline that the barge is still leaking, now more than ever. According to a report of the Canadian Coast Guard, more than 500 litrres have recently leaked from the wreck.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The hon. member for Davenport on a point of order.