Karen Kraft Sloan

[Firefighters, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I attended a retirement celebration to honour the 45 years of service by Gord Rolling and 32 years of service by Arnold Smith, more commonly known as Smitty. Both served with distinction and dedication as firefighters on the Mount Albert volunteer fire department.

In celebrating their retirement, it gives us the opportunity to reflect on the contribution of all of our firefighters, particularly the volunteers.

We are all thankful and grateful for the crucial service they provide our communities. However, we may not be fully aware of the hours taken away from families in fighting fires, assisting at accidents, on training courses and other community activities. Nor can any non-firefighter understand what it is like to respond to a call in the middle of the night knowing the potential risk.

We should all remember the extraordinary service these men and women provide our communities and be mindful of the sacrifices their families have made to support their good work.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1996]

I am going to read out all the names, yes, absolutely.

These are signed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They call upon Parliament to enact enforceable legislation that will protect Canada's endangered species.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to present petitions with approximately 10,000 names for a total of 70,000.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

It is good for health.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as always, my hon. colleague has an interesting way of addressing some very complex problems.

One of the things that has been raised in this House, especially by members opposite, is that this will only help the Ontario corn industry. I would suggest that not only ethanol can be used as a replacement for MMT. There are many other substances.

The members from the Bloc forget that there is an ethanol producing organization in Quebec which manufacturers ethanol from wood products.

There are many different opportunities. There are refinery operations in the province of Alberta, the province that many Reform members come from.

When we are talking about banning MMT and replacing it, we are talking about a variety of substances being used in ways that all parts of this country can benefit instead of giving all of the money to an American firm.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member had the misfortune not to hear my speech. I will endeavour to speak a little more slowly.

With respect to the member's first question, in my speech I clearly stated that the case which went before the U.S. Supreme Court was lost on technical grounds. The EPA is going ahead. I also said that Carol Browner, who is head of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, said that the American public should not be used as a laboratory to test the safety of MMT. I further said that California, along with 16 other U.S. states, has banned MMT. Most of the refineries in the United States are not using MMT. They refuse to use MMT.

With respect to the final question of the hon. member opposite, the information that he has relayed to the House comes from a study undertaken by the corporation responsible for the production of MMT and, might I add, the only corporation in the entire world which produces MMT. This information came from the study. This was a study which the University of Waterloo, an internationally renowned institution, debunked.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is just that I have such an incredible passion about this particular issue and I have such a lack of understanding why the opposite side is not getting it.

Health Canada confirmed in July 1996 that it fully supports the proposed ban on MMT. A ban on MMT is also supported by the public health departments of the cities of Toronto and North York. These and other communities are all too familiar with the health problems associated with poor air quality and are anxious to see MMT banned. Very little is known about the long term health effects of chronic low level exposure to manganese compounds that are formed when MMT is used as an additive in gasoline.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the suggestion that we are caving in to one lobby group is totally absurd. When we look at the equation, who is standing on the side of the public interest? On one side are the Bloc and the Reform that have caved in to the lobbying efforts of a single American multinational which I might add fought against the removal of lead in gasoline.

On the other side, the side that is speaking for the public interest, for the health of Canadians, for the environmental protection of Canadians are organizations like the Allergy Asthma Information Association, the Canadian Automobile Association, which is the largest consumer group for Canadians automobile drivers, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Council of Canadians, the Environmental Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the Ontario Public Health Association, Pollution Probe and the Sierra Club of Canada.

I believe I have made my case very clearly and I look forward to a quick resolution of the amendment and the bill.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

He is a Liberal. Absolutely

The hon. member asked a question of the member opposite, why would all of these automotive manufacturers put forward a situation where MMT is bad for their onboard diagnostic systems? We are talking about over 20 automotive manufacturers that are in competition with each other. They have spent millions of dollars conducting scientific tests. Why would they spend this money in a fiercely competitive market if they were not going after the truth?

I want to add a few more truths about Bill C-29 to refute some of the untruths coming from the other side. The truth is that MMT impairs emission control equipment. If you want information on the formulation of fuel you should consult a refinery expert. If you want to understand the impact of that fuel on a vehicle you need to talk to the engineers and scientists who design and test vehicles.

Everyone agrees that more than 80 per cent of the manganese that is added to gasoline stays in the automobile's engine and emissions control system. Guess what happens when it stays there? It gums up the works. It makes those systems inoperable. When those systems do not operate it makes it impossible to monitor all of the other emissions from that automobile.

The member opposite in his speech spoke of the cost to consumers. Taking MMT out of gasoline will result in a $5 cost to the consumer for a year versus thousands and thousands of dollars of cost to their automobile. That is why the Canadian Automobile Association, which is the largest consumer group for the automobile drivers in Canada, is right behind this bill.

Another truth is that if MMT was really as great as the corporation that produces it claims for vehicle performance and emission control, it would have been embraced by the automotive manufacturers in jurisdictions like California as part of their emission control standard. MMT is banned in California. If anyone in the House has been to California you know the kinds of problems it has with smog.

The organizations that have been held accountable for achieving measures for emissions reductions have worked with leading academics, scientists and engineers around the world to find a way to reduce the pollution from vehicles. No jurisdiction or corporation has found MMT to be part of the solution.

The truth is that Canada is the only jurisdiction in the developed world in which MMT is used on a national basis. In spite of the recent narrow technical decision of a U.S. court that forced the Environmental Protection Agency to grant Ethyl a waiver, MMT is still prohibited for use in over one-third of the U.S. states. A number of refineries do not allow MMT as part of their reformulation program.

There is another truth which I would like to use to debunk opinions expressed by members of the House. The Government of Canada has the authority under NAFTA to pass legislation like Bill C-29. I guess the members opposite are running like scared little chickens, afraid of this giant American multinational company. They are afraid to promote their sovereignty. I find it very interesting when we hear a lot of debate about sovereignty in this House.

NAFTA has a safeguard that allows us to protect human, animal or plant life and health. This safeguard was enshrined in NAFTA to allow the federal government the ability to protect the environment and the health of Canadians without fear of having these efforts blocked by frivolous trade actions like the one recently announced.

I have another truth. It is that the U.S. wants to ban MMT as badly as Canada. The proposed challenge being brought by the corporation is a private challenge against Bill C-29. This is a clear signal that its position is not supported by the American government. The American government has not hestitated to launch complaints under NAFTA in the past but in this case the U.S. EPA has taken a leadership role, which is what the Government of Canada is doing in opposing the use of this fuel additive.

Carol Browner who is the head of the EPA in the United States said earlier this year, and I would like to say this loudly, clearly and perhaps slowly so that it might sink into the member's opposite, that the EPA, believes that the American public should not be used as a laboratory to test the safety of MMT.

I applaud the efforts of the government which makes a similar stand. Canadians will not be a testing ground for MMT. Would you like me to repeat that? Canadians will not be-

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to suggest that the scientificstudies the hon. member from the Bloc was referring to are studies that have been developed by the corporation in question which is producing MMT. One might try to understand whether these would be unbiased studies.

Studies were conducted by the University of Waterloo, which is a very fine Canadian university with international and national reputation. The university has suggested that the studies that were conducted by Ethyl Corporation were not valid and were not conducted in a rigorous scientific way. I would suggest that the studies that the hon. member has brought forward are not entirely correct.

The member talks about a lot of things in his speech. The debate right now is on the amendment, which is to postpone a vote on this bill for another six months. I find this amendment to be totally intolerable and unacceptable. I think Canadians who are watching us today also find this intolerable.

Canadians find it intolerable that the Bloc and the Reform are colluding on this and are falling prey to a lobbying effort by an American multinational firm. If we are going to stand up for Canada, if we are going to stand up for the health of Canadians, if we are going to stand up for a clean environment for Canadians, we are not going to pander to the desires and needs of an American multinational. I say shame to them.

I would point out in reference to the concerns the member opposite has raised, that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment task force, which represents ministers from all the provinces in Canada, in its report on cleaner vehicles and fuels recognizes that fuels and emissions control technology should be treated as an integrated system to reduce motor vehicle emissions. The ministers have further agreed to require that cleaner fuels be mandated for use in all motor vehicles. The MMT initiative is fully consistent with this approach.

I was in committee and there were witnesses from Ethyl Corporation. I asked the witness from Ethyl: Whose responsibility is it to ensure that we reduce unacceptable emissions? Is it the public? Is it the government? Is it the automotive industry? Is it the refinery? His answer to me was that all those other people had a responsibility but that the refineries and the producers of MMT had no responsibility. I think Canadians would find that absolutely unacceptable. The arguments that are put forward by both the Bloc and Reform support unacceptable arguments.

The hon. member from my side of the House who has a little bit of sense around this issue, I would suggest a lot of sense around this issue-

[The Environment, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie basin impact study released last spring documents irrefutable evidence that the impacts of climate change are happening in the area now.

Some of the study's results show that the permafrost is thawing, landslides and forest fires are increasing, caribou are subjected to rising levels of disease and more insect pests. Communities will suffer from negative economic and social consequences as these impacts grow in severity.

Nations from around the world agree that human interventions create conditions that cause global warming and climate change. We all share in creating this problem. We must all take responsibility in solving it.