Karen Kraft Sloan

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

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.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

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?

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

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.

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?

[Petitions, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which states that there is an unequal division of federal subsidies between non-renewable and renewable energy generating sectors.

The petitioners state that an immediate shift of a major portion of funds from AECL to the renewable energy sector would stimulate this industry thereby making it able to meet a huge pent up demand from consumers for domestically produced photovoltaic and wind turbine components. Coupled with tax incentives, this would help create uncounted thousands of new long term jobs.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to realize the immediate benefit of clean energy generation and job creation in light of Canada's commitment to agenda 21 and to act in this regard without further delay.

[The Environment, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are three forms of wealth in society: material, cultural and biological.

Unfortunately, we often take our biological wealth for granted. Through perverse practices, we degrade our natural riches. We consume at faster rates than biological material can be restored. We dump waste back into natural systems faster than it can be assimilated.

Climate change is real. Its negative effects have been clearly documented. Ozone depletion will allow harmful UV rays to destroy the foundation of our food chain. Our biological wealth is the basis for all other wealth. This relationship is very clear, direct and simple. We ignore it at our peril.

[The Environment, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the northern river basins study has very clearly indicated that climate change is happening now. All of the research and data in this study will help us move forward on this very important agenda.

[Irving Whale, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this with the minister.

[Irving Whale, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions for contracting was the insurer would have adequate insurance in the event of a PCB or oil spill.

In this situation the insurer has $10 million in the event of a PCB spill and $100 million in the event of an oil spill. That is over $110 million.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition calling on Parliament to urge the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to commit to renewal of the national AIDS strategy for at least the current level of funding.

[Endangered Species, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister remains committed to introducing federal legislation relating to endangered species in the House. As the member has pointed out, it is a throne speech commitment. If we are to have effective endangered species legislation, then we have to factor in habitat as well.