Clifford Lincoln

[Canada Water Export Prohibition Act, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops on this bill concerning our water resources, which are so obviously valuable for our communities and all of Canada.

We wholeheartedly share the hon. member's goal to conserve our water resources and to keep a tight control over the development of these resources. But at the same time, with all due respect, we think that the hon. member's approach is too narrow, and that the whole issue of water resources should be looked at in a much more comprehensive and integrated way.

We think the whole issue should be looked at in the broadest context possible.

Water is our most precious resource. We have the greatest freshwater reserves of the world. It behoves us to use them wisely. Our jobs, our economy, our quality of life, our environment, our farming and our forestry depend on water. All other resources depend on water for sustenance.

It is clear that we have to control our water exports. At the same time we have to do more than look at interbasin transfers or interbasin exports. For instance, today a large part of the water exports are being carried out through supertankers which load water from our coastal areas, lakes, streams and rivers, and carry it to other parts of the continent and beyond. We have to look at that type of export. We also have to look at the draining of water resources such as the mining of our groundwater reserves that might go southward.

I agree with the content of Bill C-202. It is in sync with the present water policy of the federal government which opposes water exports through interbasin transfers. We should look at the whole question of water in a formal, comprehensive manner, looking at not only the exports themselves but the use of water, water conservation and conception, the impacts of the use of water on ecosystems generally and the impacts of various processes such as industrial manufacturing and others on our water. We must also take into account the jurisdictional question, the input of provincial and municipal governments that deliver our water and have much to do with the retailing of water to Canadians from coast to coast.

The government has been looking at the water issue for some time now. For some 10 years there have been consultations and workshops. We have decided to accelerate the process. We are reviewing our water policies and our water legislation. Throughout next year we will consult broadly across Canada to find out from Canadians and various levels of government that have a clear interest in and responsibility for water issues how we should deal with the question of water comprehensively, including the key question of water exports.

We fully back the principle of the bill. At the same time our decision is that a much more comprehensive approach has to be taken. We want to look at the full range of water exports, including supertankers and the mining of groundwater. We do not want to limit the study and future legislation to the question of exports. We must treat water issues much more broadly, look at an ecosystemic approach, treat water as the most precious resource of the 21st century for us and for generations that follow.

To our aboriginal people water is the essence of life. They see streams, lakes and rivers as the veins and the arteries in the body of mother earth. They say that the cleaner the water flows, the cleaner the arteries and the veins in the body of mother earth. They also say that the healthier the veins and arteries, the healthier mother earth.

I thank the member for Kamloops for having brought the subject forward and enabling us to discuss it. I commit myself to the issue being looked at very broadly by the government in an overall consultation next year which hopefully will lead to comprehensive legislation on water for Canada.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First of all, perhaps the member should talk to his leader, who said that there was no difference, describing himself as a separatist in Washington. I think that, in his mind, the words sovereignist and separatist had the same meaning. He boasted about being a separatist in Washington and was very proud of that. So I thought there was no difference, taking the leader of the opposition at his word.

The member talks about Quebec as if he was speaking on behalf of all Quebecers. Let me remind him that, on referendum day, a little over 49 per cent of Quebecers voted in favour of his option, but the majority voted for the other option. So it seems to me that the majority of Quebecers have stated their position. If it changes some day, then so be it. However, for the time being, what counts is that we have won a totally democratic referendum despite a totally vague question.

We won a referendum in which Quebec clearly chose to follow the lead given by the Prime Minister, which is to have recognition of the distinct society, to give a veto to Quebec and to sort out jurisdictions. That is what we will do, and that is what we are in the process of doing.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great conviction that I support the Prime Minister's motion to officially recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, because of its language, culture, tradition and French speaking majority.

I am deeply attached to Canada. But I also freely chose to live in Quebec. I chose to do my best to promote Quebec's society and quality of life. I chose to raise my children in Quebec and make them benefit from what is truly the heart of Canada's history, culture, heritage and duality.

I live in Montreal, the urban gem of Canada. In spite of all the obstacles, constitutional and others, in spite of all the attempts to divide its French and English speaking communities, Montreal remains a city where the Canadian duality is felt daily, but in great harmony. It is a place where francophones and anglophones live and work in peace and real harmony.

Montreal is unique because of its cultural and linguistic duality, but also because of the contribution made by so many other communities which have given Montreal its unique character as a cosmopolitan, friendly, warm and extraordinary city.

I had the privilege, after a business career, to enter politics and begin my political life in Quebec's National Assembly. I wanted to do my best to make a contribution and help Quebec fulfil its goals.

While an MNA, I worked with two persons who are now members of this House, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, and the hon. member for Roberval. We did not agree and we did not see things the same way, but we all worked to promote the well-being of Quebecers, because we felt that it was our common objective.

It was during my term as a member of the Quebec National Assembly that I had the opportunity to defend the Meech Lake Accord, to vote for the Meech Lake Accord which was supposed to include for the first time in the Canadian Constitution the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, which would make Quebec a part of the Constitution of 1982.

I listened to the leader of the Opposition with a great deal of respect, with all the respect he is due, as he explained to us how and why he and the Parti québécois had not supported the Meech Lake Accord, why they had voted against the Meech Lake Accord and, after that, against the Charlottetown Accord.

Despite all these explanations, I am convinced that the fundamental reason is that, whatever the accord, whatever the proposal that is made to either party, the Parti québécois or the Bloc, which are fundamentally dedicated to Quebec's independence, will reject it. Whatever the proposal that is put to the sovereignists in order to make Canada work better, to rebuild Canada, to renew Canada, it is logical that these parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti québécois, will reject it because, fundamentally, as the leader of the Opposition himself emphasized before the media, he is not interested in receiving proposals because, he said: "I am a sovereignist."

That is fair enough, but they should not try to delude us into believing that they considered these proposals objectively because, fundamentally, they do not believe in them, they do not want them.

I found it quite ironic that the Leader of the Opposition should give lessons to the Prime Minister telling him: "While you will take care of the Constitution, I will be doing something else, I will be putting Quebec's financial house in order". How ironical. We all know very well that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' purpose when he created this party involved the constitutional issue of separating Quebec from Canada.

Since his election, before his election, every day in the House of Commons, the constitutional issue has been the principal subject of debate. The Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois' ally in Quebec City, naturally spoke about the constitutional issue and the separation of Quebec throughout the electoral campaign. That is what happened before and during the election of the Parti Quebecois and throughout its life in government up until the referendum.

All they talked about was the Constitution, separation and independence.

Today, the Leader of the Opposition has the gall to tell us: "We will set the Constitution aside and we will deal with public affairs". Yet, it was the Parti Quebecois government that said, during the election campaign, it would choose another way of governing, of managing public affairs more efficiently. All that has happened in Quebec, all that the Bloc Quebecois has done since its election, has been to talk about the independence of Quebec. According to them, nothing is working in the federal government or in Canada, naturally.

Every day in the House, it is the same thing.

Montreal, the economic motor of Quebec and 50 per cent of its population, is severely sick. In many quarters of Montreal the economy is dying. Investment is drying up. Leases are being curtailed or cancelled. Anybody who knows and follows what is going on in Montreal today will say that it is a sick city. The economy of Montreal is in desperate straits.

Meanwhile, what have we done? We have spent time and money on commissions, studies and propaganda instead of looking after the well-being of the citizens of Quebec. Today we are told that at last this is what they are going to be doing.

I will vote with conviction for this motion because I firmly believe that the place of Quebec, which is the heart and soul of Canada, is within Canada and that its destiny and that of Canada are intertwined forever. That is why, on the day the vote is taken, I will proudly stand and vote with conviction in favour of the prime minister's motion. I invite all hon. members to give it strong support.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to rectify a few things that have been said by previous speakers.

I think reading from a newspaper article to show that the minister is only pushing Bill C-94 forward as a project to save face is nonsense. The minister believes, as I and the Liberal government do, after much thinking and cogitation and the several weeks of discussion the bill has undergone, that for us it is the best choice.

There are two choices. MMT could be left in, riding on the back of the Ethyl Corporation which both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party quote very extensively. The Ethyl Corporation has done a great lobbying job with the members. I am happy for the Ethyl Corporation that some members are convinced. At the same time, there is an issue of choice, an issue of whether we keep a heavy metal, which is what MMT is, in our future gasolines and cars, or whether we try to move toward more environmentally sound fuels.

I heard the Bloc Quebecois member question whether ethanol will one day be found to be just as bad for the environment as lead or something else is today. I would suggest that she read the testimony made before many committees of the House on ethanol and that she consult with people involved in the ethanol industry. Perhaps she should consult with those who crafted the clean air act in the United States. It was amended so that in the future more and more ethanol would be used because of its cleaner properties. The scientists are very clear that ethanol is a cleaner fuel because it is derived from natural, biological properties. Obviously, it is not a heavy metal.

When I referred to manganese as a toxin I was quoting from studies of scientists who referred to it. A statement was made by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Health and Environment at the EPA hearing on June 22, 1990. Reference was made that like lead, manganese is not only neurotoxic, it is an element, et cetera. We are talking about neurotoxic in the generic sense, not in the sense of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are talking in a generic sense.

I will quote other scientists from the University of Pittsburgh, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at the same hearings: "The page 15 appendix to their waiver application"-talking about Ethyl Corporation-"that deals with health nowhere mentions the neurotoxic properties of manganese".

The Department of Health and Human Services in the United States stated: "MMT can be absorbed through the skin and probably readily by the nose and lungs". Obviously they are talking in a generic sense about a heavy metal.

Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois critic should check with the deputy minister of the Department of the Environment who in a letter to our deputy minister in the Department of the Environment said:

In a letter dated July 7, 1995, the minister said that they were thinking of supporting the Canadian position on MMT in order to maintain the uniformity of car fleets and to take advantage of the environmental gains that will be made possible by the new motor vehicle emission control technologies.

The Quebec Deputy Minister of the Environment wrote to his federal counterpart that they were thinking of supporting the Canadian position on MMT in order to maintain the uniformity of car fleets and to take advantage of the environmental gains that will be made possible by the new motor vehicle emission control technologies.

This, of course, was denied in a November 2, 1995 letter from the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, who disagrees. In any case, it is interesting to note that they agreed from an environmental point of view. It is clear that this issue has two components. We could argue, like the Reform critic, that once MMT is accepted in the U.S., the rest of the world will follow.

There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence that the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark or Japan, environmentally conscious countries, would join in because a court case was won by the Ethyl corporation in the United States.

Certainly the EPA opposed the court case all the way along. The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States also pointed out that several states of the United States would not be able to use MMT because they were using reformulated gasoline so that they could clean up their own air emissions faster.

It is a stalling tactic to try to kill the bill, to produce another amendment that is exactly the same as the amendment we defeated very fairly the other day. There was a similar amendment on second reading to defer it for six months and we defeated it. That is the democratic process. I am sure the same result will greet this amendment.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the auto industry has never made its case on the health issues. The automobile industry made its case on catalysts and sensors and the onboard detection systems in vehicles. That was its case.

With respect to the case on health, I produced several quotations during second reading and I have them here. I did not obtain them from the automobile industry.

The fact is that several very learned and respected scientists have said beware, there is a potential problem with manganese. To say that it does not exist is to negate some very important opinions that have been expressed.

Following the Earth Summit in Rio, which my friends on the environment committee will know, sanction is now one of the basic principles of any environmental law as a precautionary principle. Do not wait until everything has been proven conclusively before we act.

When Rachel Carson wrote a book about DDT she was thought to be crazy. And look at what DDT has done while we waited for conclusive proof.

At one time we were using PCBs and we thought they were good for the environment and for equipment in transformers. We found out too late how deleterious it is to the environment. We used lead as well, and thought it was great until too late we found out what happened.

As I said to the member, if there is a choice to be made, do we choose a heavy metal that can produce problems or do we use a clean additive? The choice is very clear to me. On the basis of the precautionary principle and on the basis of all I have read, I am voting very convincingly for Bill C-94.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I have read on both sides of the question. Yes, I know it is not a question that is totally black and white. Yes, I know that the makers of MMT can genuinely say that in some sectors it has advantages.

However, in all the decisions we make here nothing is exactly black or white. We have a choice. Of the two choices, one is the choice of a heavy metal with very serious potential health questions attached to it which many scientists have been flagging, as they did about lead. The same debate took place on lead. Should it be taken out of gasoline? Should it be left in because it is a very good octane enhancer? Today we would never go back. If we looked at the debates which took place I am sure there were two sides to the issue.

Eventually a choice has to be made. With me the choice is clear. On one side is a heavy metal which has potential health problems. It has been clearly demonstrated to gum up catalytic converters, which are the salvation of tomorrow with respect to the car of the future. I would like to find a way to move much faster in Canada toward other additives. It may be a bit more expensive in the beginning, but eventually we should look to other additives, just as the rest of the world is doing.

If MMT is so beneficial, why do not Scandinavia, a leader in the environmental field, the Netherlands, Germany or Japan use it?

For me the choice is very clear. In the balance of choices I have chosen to go with Bill C-94. It is the fastest way for us to use environmentally friendly fuels in Canada.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue in Bill C-94 concerning the removal of MMT from gasoline in Canada.

We have been told that this was a debate between, on the one hand, the automobile industry and, on the other hand, the industry that is making MMT, that is, the Esso company.

For us, on this side of the House, it is not in any way one or the other; it is purely a debate on an environmental issue, on a sustainable development issue resulting from automobile emissions that are the greatest sources of noxious gases that change the climate and against which we are fighting vigorously under the convention on climate change.

For us, the intent and the objective are to reduce as much as possible noxious automobile emissions so that we can reduce greenhouse gases.

The whole debate revolves around what are known as catalytic converters in automobiles. Twenty-five years ago, before catalysts were installed in automobiles, automobile emissions were far more severe than they are today. With the advent of very adverse conditions especially in the heavy automobile states such as California, New York and Pennsylvania, catalytic converters were born. To appreciate the essence of the debate on MMT, we have to appreciate what is the true function of a catalyst in an automobile.

A catalyst in an automobile has two main functions. One is to filter and to deter the emissions of hydrocarbons and deleterious gases. The other is to store oxygen within the converter. In modern automobiles we are now installing onboard detection systems with very sensitive equipment such as computerized sensors which permit the catalytic converters to function at their maximum efficiency.

What happens with the use of the heavy metal MMT in gasoline? It compounds the problems of catalysts in that it produces manganese oxide deposits inside the various elements of the converters. The effect of MMT over time on a catalyst today is to impair its function of providing the maximum input in reducing hydrocarbon emissions and other noxious gases. This happens gradually and increasingly as the catalyst ages.

More oxygen is accumulated inside the converter with the effect that the sensor is completely fooled by MMT in its application. Today's sensors in the onboard detection systems are prevented from working properly. The automobile manufacturers have rightly said that where there is MMT it is impossible for the new type of onboard detection systems to function properly.

Further, a big cold battle has been raging in the United States as to whether MMT should or should not be included. It will follow that even if MMT is permitted in the United States, in several states representing at least one-third of the gasoline purchases in the United States, all the heavy automobile states such as California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York and so forth, it will still be impossible to use MMT because the clean air act provides that these states must use reformulated gasoline.

This means MMT or additives containing heavy metals will not be able to be used, except under very special circumstances. It means that even if MMT were allowed in the United States tomorrow, in the several states which provide for the use of reformulated gasoline, for example, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin, it will be impossible to use MMT because heavy metals cannot be used in reformulated gasoline.

The reason is very simple. When heavy metals are introduced into gasoline it is impossible to gradually change to other formulas which enable other octanes such as ethanol to be used. The quicker we ban MMT in Canada, the faster we can move into the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and others as additives to produce a more environmentally friendly gasoline. It has been said that this debate is the auto industry against MMT, that this side has relied on the automobile industry for its input. I have gone to the trouble of speaking to scientists very far removed from the automobile industry, who have told me that unless we remove MMT from our gasoline it will not be possible for us to move toward reformulated gasoline using additives, such as environmentally friendly ethanol produced from wood and other substances; ethanol which will produce far fewer emissions, which go toward the warming of our climate.

For me this whole question is an environmental issue. It is very much an environmental issue. If tomorrow I have a choice to use a heavy metal, such as manganese as an additive in gasoline, and on the other side to gradually move toward environmentally friendly additives, such as ethanol and others, then for me there is no choice. Unless we take the first step, the second will never happen.

I know it has been said that the Ministry of Health has not banned MMT, has not found it noxious to health. Yet there are very severe warnings. In the last debate in this House at second reading, I quoted some very severe warnings by leading health specialists and scientists. I will not return to all the quotes I have already read, except to put the accent on one of them.

During the hearings before the United States house of representatives committee on health and environment regarding the EPA, there was one quote: "that like lead, manganese is not new or toxic. It is an element and thus does not degrade or lose its potency with the passage of time. As a result, the manganese released into the environment through the use of MMT in a given year accumulates over time with all the MMT released in the next year and all the subsequent years".

I have recently received a health report written by three scientists. It is a report headed "Developmental Toxicity of Mangafodipir Trisodium and Manganese Chloride in Sprague-Dawley Rats". It is by three scientists, Kimberley Treinen of the Sanofi Research Division of Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Mr. Tim Gray of the Alnwick Research Centre in Alnwick, Northumberland in England and William Blazak of Nycomed, Collegeville, Pennsylvania.

They studied MnDPDP, which is a manganese chelate being developed as a contrast agent for magnet resonance. They say:

A third study, in which 15 rats/group were dosed intravenously with 0, 5, 20 or40 mmol/kg MnCl2 on days 6-17 of gestation, produced identical skeletal malformations to those seen with MnDPDP, indicating that manganese is the active moiety responsible for these specific malformations.

Their summary says:

In summary, the data presented here indicate that a specific syndrome of skeletal malformations 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 tertogenic moiety in MnDPDP.

It appears that manganese is the active teratogenic moiety in MnDPDP.

Our health ministry has not accepted and proven conclusively that manganese is a toxic agent that should be banned. At the same time, the whole question is, if we have two alternatives, it is always a question of choice. We have two alternatives, MMT on one side, a heavy metal that is known to affect, to gum up catalytic converters. It is not used in California, which is trying to clean up its air. It is not used in New York state. It is not used in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

If by any chance we move to cleaner additives, to ethanol and others, then the choice is very simple for us. Let us ban MMT so that eventually we are going to produce and use much cleaner fuels.

The world is moving very fast. I am told by various scientists from the automobile side and others that the day is coming very fast when automobile catalysts will be so precise that they will be able to monitor any noxious fumes. There will be far more effective filtering agents that will be used much more effectively with reformulated gasoline, such as is the case in the states that have led the fight on this, California and others.

If MMT continues to be used, then the potential for an improved catalytic converter will not happen. The choice for us is to say let us move on, let us go along, pass Bill C-94 very fast so that Canada joins not only the United States, not only California, not only Pennsylvania but Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, France, England and all the states of the world that do not use MMT. Why should we be the exception?

For me, this is the vote for the environment. We will vote with much conviction for Bill C-94.

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of the political parties represented in the House of Commons will consider this bill a positive, constructive and trail-blazing piece of legislation.

We may not have gone as far as the committee wanted to go at first, but I do think that our final resolution, the conclusion we have come to, is realistic and constructive, and is a huge step forward, not only for the federal government, but for all of Canada. This bill will show that the government is now firmly committed to sustainable development, not only through its environment department, but through all of its departments, all of the machinery of government. It will be up to us, as members of Parliament, and up to the people to ensure that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development not only follows up on the sustainable development strategies, but also voices our concerns and puts pressure on all the governments, the current one, the next one and all the others after that. All this will mean that, for the government and the population, sustainable development will become one of our concerns and part of our daily lives.

I think Bill C-83 is a big step in the right direction for all of us. I am pleased to see today that it has come so far and that it will become a reality very soon, and I hope it will be passed by the Senate very fast so that it can come into effect as soon as possible.

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-83 at third reading and to support this legislation which will establish for the first time within the federal government the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Not so long ago, maybe 20 to 25 years ago, the environment was not among the major concerns of the government. In fact, most of the environment departments, at the federal and the provincial levels, were only set up during the 1970s. At that time, the environment was considered a self-contained issue. It was dealt with within one department, as were all the other areas, such as health, education, finance or revenue. Each department saw to its own business, without thinking about integrating elements from other departments.

Little by little, we realized over the last 25 years that everything that relates to one area, such as environment, taxation, transporta-

tion, health, is also interrelated with other areas. Nowadays, we cannot talk about the environment without addressing the issues of health, economy, energy, taxation, public transportation. Everything is linked together.

In fact, all things are interdependent. The whole environmental issue hinges on ecosystems and biodiversity. We need something to support all forms of life, our natural resources and everything that is essential to the wealth of any country, of any community.

We realize today that the only way for us to protect the environment and to ensure that sustainable development is a constant concern in our lives is to integrate the environment with all other aspects of government. That is why it is becoming increasingly important to talk not only about the environment, but also about sustainable development, biodiversity and interdependence.

That is why, in an ideal world, we would not even need an environment department. In an ideal world, such a department would not be needed because every department, whether it be the Department of Health, Finance, Transport or Fisheries, would in itself be a sustainable development department, an environment department.

But we are far from this ideal world. We still need a Department of the Environment to act as a watchdog and to ensure that environmental protection becomes an integral part of the agenda of all other departments.

This is the central objective of Bill C-83. The central objective is to ensure that each ministry of the government, whether it be finance, transportation, health, or any other ministry, will be convinced that the way to promote the environmental cause is to make each ministry's activities and actions sustainable in the long term.

The reason for the bill is to ensure sustainable development strategies within the aegis of each ministry of the federal government. We have now constituted Bill C-83 to install a commissioner of environment and sustainable development within the office of the auditor general to monitor and inspire sustainable development strategies to be installed in each ministry of government, subject to public scrutiny through the office of the commissioner; the commissioner being installed within the office of the auditor general with all the autonomy and independence the office implies and sanctions.

The idea will be for these sustainable development strategies to be public in scope and accountable to the people of Canada through Parliament. They will have to be filed in Parliament and will be monitored by the commissioner who will have to report on them.

Bill C-83 will require the sustainable development strategies to be upgraded on a systematic basis so that the commissioner will have a benchmark starting in two years on the progress of these sustainable development strategies, considering the evolution of society in all its forms.

The office of the commissioner for environment and sustainable development is a key development in the governance of federal institutions. Besides the very important task of monitoring the sustainable development strategies of the ministries, another extremely important element of the commissioner's duties will be to be accountable to the public at large so that the public will have access to the commissioner's office to inquire, to complain if necessary, about the activities of the various ministries with regard to their sustainable development strategies and their environmental consciences.

The second element of public participation, that of accountability to the public, is a feature of the act which is almost if not as important as the first because the two are intertwined. This will provoke a transparent act, a bill that opens the scope of government to the public to ensure the government not only preach the preservation and enhancement of natural resources and the ecosystems that sustain all activities, but put the theory, the concept and the principles into practice in the every day governing of the various ministries of government.

Bill C-83 in that sense is a great step forward for the government, a clear achievement for the Minister of the Environment, in having recognized the necessity for the office in the red book which was the flag ship of the Liberal Party of Canada during the last election and, more important, to have carried out this key commitment at an early stage in its evolution as a government.

I am very pleased to have been part of the standing committee that examined and reported on the concept and office of a commissioner of environment and sustainable development. We are the first industrialized country of our size to have implemented such an office. We followed the lead of a very small country, a leading country of the world in this sense, New Zealand, which seven years ago installed an office of commissioner of sustainable development.

During the course of our hearings we were fortunate to have had the benefit of the experience and the advice of the commissioner for New Zealand, whose trail blazing work today has been the source of inspiration for ourselves. It is our hope that now that Canada has gone forward with the red book commitment and installed a commissioner for environment and sustainable development, this will become a practice that hopefully will be followed by the other nations of the world.

All of us are in this together. The environment is the most global issue of them all. Today we are committed as a nation to many international treaties such as the conventions on climate change and on biodiversity.

We are committed to the commission on sustainable development. We are committed to so many international instruments concerning environment and sustainable development that as we act, as we move forward, we set a tone, a benchmark which I firmly hope in this case will be followed by others in Canada and beyond.

I think Bill C-83-Could we ask these gentlemen to let me conclude my remarks?

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I will concur with the first motion made by the member for Huron-Bruce. The addition of

the words he has suggested puts in a much clearer perspective the issue of the 30 days authorization.

In regard to the second amendment, it would have been the position of the government to refuse the amendment the way it was previously phrased. Now that it has been changed by making much more precise reference to each transaction authorized, we feel much more at ease with the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

To sum up, the government will concur with both the first amendment and also the revised second amendment. This is going to be our position.