My hon. colleague mentions they cannot make it in the United States where MMT is already banned. However, still they enter into the fray and say MMT must be banned.
The article continues: "Not much else is happening within the environment department apart from downsizing, leaving the MMT ban as the high point of Ms. Copps' reign as minister". This is it. We are seeing the high point of the environmental agenda for 1995. This is as good as it gets. We cannot do the Irving Whale . We cannot do anything of substance so we will get on the MMT bandwagon.
The conclusion of the article states MMT might be approved in the United States later this year. My hon. colleague from Athabasca mentioned it is now 70 per cent likely that this will occur. The article reads: "Ms. Copps' ban could become a major embarrassment. It will be even more of an embarrassment if she goes down in history as the environment minister who introduced legislation that increased ground level ozone layers".
What is happening here? What is the motivation here? I walked to work this morning with a member from the government side. I mentioned that in opposition certain members seem to rise to a level of rhetorical flights of fancy, kind of a high octane, wild spree. However when they get on the government side they become a tremendous disappointment. They do not seem to have a handle on their portfolio. They do not seem to take initiatives. They do not seem to have the gumption to step forward and be bold in their initiatives. Near as I can tell that is what has happened.
We have had nothing of substance from the environment minister. The few things she has ventured into she has blundered into rather than gone through them on a scientific basis. She seems to be intent on somehow raising her profile, which has been pitifully low. If we waited six months our arguments would be proved out. If not, she could reintroduce it at that time.
I certainly concur with this motion and ask that the government wait six months so we can have a proper scientific study.