Monique Guay

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

Mr. Speaker, a little earlier, the hon. member for Terrebonne tried to table a letter here in the House but was denied permission to do so. I would like to quote a few excerpts from this letter, which was written by the Minister for International Trade on February 23, 1996, and addressed to the Minister of the Environment.

I quote:

"My department continues to have certain reservations concerning this measure which I wish to draw to your attention. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeal overturned the U.S. ban. This has effectively removed harmonization arguments in support of Bill C-94. Indeed, since adding MMT to petroleum products is now permissible in the U.S., harmonization would now be promoted by introducing no new Canadian regulations.

An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligation under the WTO and the NAFTA. The possibility is that the United States could mount a challenge either on USDR's own initiative or pursuant to a section 301 petition. Also Ethyl Corporation may try to advance an argument that such a ban would be a measure tantamount to expropriation of Ethyl's investment in Canada. Thus Canada may also be susceptible to an investor state challenge under chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

In view of the presidential and congressional election this year, American politicians are particularly sensitive to any foreign initiative which might injure their domestic industries.

In conclusion, let me stress my department's belief that Bill C-94 should not be reintroduced, as it could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade without compensating environmental benefits".

Mr. Speaker, for once we agree with the Reform Party, and we repeat our request for a six months' hoist.

We know that today, in fact for the first time, the automobile industry has invested enormous amounts in research and studies to determine if MMT is really harmful to automobiles and to our health.

Let us wait for the results of these studies and have our say at that time, instead of adopting a bill in a terrible rush-because that is what we are doing-without waiting for the findings of these studies. We are not taking sides, not for Ethyl and not for the automobile association, although I am not sure we could afford being sued for $201 million in American currency, considering Canada's financial situation.

I would appreciate the opinion of my Reform colleague on the subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech. Obviously, we are not here to oppose everything systematically.

However, if you read the amendment I put forward in this House a few weeks ago carefully, we were simply asking the government to wait six more months so that we could have conclusive studies, and I stress conclusive, that would prove something to us. The fact is that we have nothing of the sort for the moment; when we asked the automakers to provide us with specific and clear studies, they told us that their studies were confidential. It is rather strange for Parliament to be told that something is confidential.

We asked the health department to confirm whether this substance was dangerous to health. The most recent study confirms that it is not. That is why we are asking the government to wait, to make sure that the right decision is made. As for a North American market, the United States have just reintroduced this product on the market, but we are going contrary to a North American policy.

Ethanol too is an additive. Nothing shows that ethanol will do a better job than MMT. It is a new product on the market. The real solution would be that one day we no longer have to use any additives at all. That is the dream solution. But we are not there yet.

I will tell you something that happened in my riding. The electric car has been launched there. That is the solution of the future. However the technology has not yet been sufficiently developed to commercialize it.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the idea of developing in the near future a different but truly environmentally friendly technology, instead of replacing one additive by another. We are talking about two lobbies.

[The Environment, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister undertake to table as soon as possible all the information pertaining to the analyses carried out on the bottom of the St. Lawrence River?

[The Environment, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

On September 20, the minister told this House he would act quickly to ensure the site of the Irving Whale wreck is decontaminated. He said that, should sediment samples show a high concentration of contaminants, he would give instructions to clean up the area before winter comes.

Since it has been confirmed that only 10 per cent of the 7,200 kilograms of PCBs were recovered, could the minister bring us up to date on the results of the seafloor analyses?

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Mississauga South is really lost today. He definitely has a comprehension problem. I am not here to preach. We are here to discuss concrete issues; we are talking about family, about women with children. Sure, feelings are important for couples. They are important because they affect the whole family, particularly children. When a woman is abused in a home, children often are abused too and the family lives in a violent environment day after day.

The hon. member says we will put a stop to this, no problem. These things are not so easy to stop. Do you know a woman who relishes the idea of getting beat up every day? To be sure some choices and decisions will have to be made. I do not understand

why the hon. member almost sounds like he is opposed to this bill from his own government. There is something wrong somewhere.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there must be a bad connection with the hon. member for Mississauga South's interpretation channel or something because I never said that divorce was normal. It is however an integral part of our culture. It is part of our reality nowadays.

Should parents be forced to stay together in this day and age because they have children or because it makes economic sense? What about their feelings? What about those who are really incompatible? What about women battered by their husbands? Should they be told: "You must not leave, stay with your husband, you will be better off"? Come on, Mr. Speaker, let us get real here. In real life, people go through divorces, and no one in this House has the right to pass judgement on a divorce case. Divorce is a decision made by two individuals, and I respect that decision. I did say that we had a frightening high divorce rate, but we are in 1996, not in 1930.

I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Mississauga South has been married for 25 years and that he is happy with his children. That is great, and I congratulate him on that because this really is a rarity today. There is a growing number of single-parent families. Changes should be made to this bill. And I am convinced that, if we come to an agreement, this bill will go a long way to reassure our children, and women in particular, since they are the ones who are home with the kids and have to provide for them after a divorce. They have to go to their ex-husband and beg for money to support the kids.

Having children is a decision we make, a decision parents make together.

I am sorry the hon. member misheard what I said. Perhaps there was a problem with his interpretation channel, but divorce is a fact of life today and we have to live with it.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Reform Party members could stop talking, perhaps we could debate this bill.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-41 regarding child support.

As all the members of this House know, the safety, well-being and health of our children should always come first. As a single parent of two myself, I am qualified to speak on the issue being debated today.

We must realize that things have changed considerably these past few years and that more and more couples divorce; it is a fact of life. I heard my hon. colleague from Mississauga South talk about divorce as if it were inevitable. Personally, I think it is a choice you make.

When two people can no longer live together, they are better off separating than continuing to live under the same roof and putting their children through hell. True, there are more divorces but divorce is a free choice made by the man, the woman or both partners. They decide to go their separate ways for their own good and also for the good of their children. This is 1996, not 1930. This is my personal opinion, but I think that a number of my colleagues may share my views.

We must accept that life has changed a great deal. Divorce already comes as a terrible shock to children. No argument there. Some children even take full responsibility for their parents' decision. They feel responsible for the divorce, which makes their lives terribly difficult.

If, on top of that, these children do not have all the resources they need to grow up in a healthy environment, they end up in the kind of situations we are all familiar with. Juvenile delinquency has reached enormous proportions. The parent, who is generally a woman, does not have enough money and, as a result, she may suffer from depression and make her children's lives miserable.

I have seen cases that were totally unacceptable. One mother of three in my riding found herself without money before Christmas. She was looking for ways to give them presents, to feed them during the holiday season. Such situations occur when the former spouses decide they do not have time to pay child support, because they are too busy or because they are travelling. This is a terrible situation.

I have seen many such cases. One December 24 in my riding, I had to go looking for resources for a mother and her four children as she needed milk, bread and other staples. Her former husband had decided that he would not pay child support, but he had gone to Florida. He saw nothing wrong with this. It is not always like this but in many cases, this is the reality. One must be able to deal with these situations.

I think that all parents have a primary obligation to support their children financially. Last year, Quebec passed legislation to ensure that, as soon as child support is awarded, the court orders for child support are automatically recorded by the clerk of the superior court in which the case is heard. In the case of workers not earning regular salaries, the program requires the deposit of a guarantee equivalent to three months' support. In the case of salaried workers, a deduction is made on their pay cheque. These measures aim to make child support more accessible.

Let me quote an article published in Le Droit , on February 6, 1995, and which concerns Quebec. The minister responsible for the status of women, Jeanne Blackburn, did not wait long to introduce a bill at the National Assembly whereby child support will be directly deducted from the pay cheques of former spouses. This will not happen next year or in six months, but this April. This measure has nothing to do with feminism, machismo or sexism: it has to do with elementary justice and plain common sense.

Only 45 per cent of former spouses-let us not forget that, eight times out of ten, men are the ones who have to pay support-are considered to properly fulfil their obligations. As for the other 55 per cent, it is estimated that they represent about 25,000 deadbeat fathers.

When there is a divorce, more often than not, the mother gets custody of the children. The mother's hard life becomes miserable when her former spouse does not pay support, or only does so on an haphazard basis. Why do so many men become irresponsible, considering that most of them are perfectly able to pay? According to Quebec's council on the status of women, it is primarily for personal reasons. The person providing support lacks interest in a family life he is not involved in; he ignores, or wants to ignore, the reasons why support was awarded; in addition to the deep feeling of resentment generated by the divorce, there is a very tenacious grudge, which is partly due to the conditions applying to visiting rights.

The automatic collection system is still the most effective way. One of the advantages is that the person owed money does not have resort to the government's collection service. Although the latter is generally reliable, few women use it: in 1993, fewer than 6 per cent of those owed money used this service. Why? There are probably

many reasons. However, fear of retaliation by an ex-spouse, especially if he is violent, is certainly a factor. The bill will make life easier for women who live in poverty and fear.

Predictable feelings of frustration and anger may arise among those who are forcibly reminded of their responsibilities. These are self-centred individuals who, although they know they are wrong, want to punish their ex-spouse. They tend to forget that in 94 per cent of these cases, children are the only ones to benefit from the support system. And besides, they could hardly demonstrate their disagreement by demonstrating with placards and the rest: they would merely attract the opprobrium of 88 per cent of the population. That is the percentage of respondents to a poll who spoke in favour of the bill.

The new provisions will not be sufficient to catch all individuals who default on their payments. But they will increase the effectiveness of a system which women were afraid to use. Besides, the new legislation should modify the behaviour of these new debtors. This change in course is not revolutionary at all: three other provinces in Canada, including Ontario, have also introduced a deduction at source system.

The reason this bill has become so urgent is above all because of the children. It will give thousands of children a chance to have better health, better food and, in a word, receive all the necessities of which they are deprived. Too many children live on the margins of society in sometimes sordid conditions. Without being a cure-all, the new legislation should improve their situation.

This is the provincial legislation we have in Quebec.

I have another report here which appeared in La pauvreté des enfants au Canada , and I would like to read a few excerpts.

It says here that the number of poor children has increased 55 per cent. A record number of children in Canada, 1.47 million, live below the poverty line. Today, more than one child out of five lives in a poor family. [-]

[-]With a poverty rate of 60.8 per cent, children in single parent families are four times as likely to be poor as children in families with two parents. [-]

[-]In more than 70 per cent of the cases, women become single parents as a result of separation or the decease of their spouse.

The number of children living in families that need social assistance has increased 69 per cent.

More than 1.1 million children live in families that at some time or other in 1994 needed social assistance. The increase of 69 per cent since 1989 can be explained by higher unemployment rates and an increase in the number of poor workers. The number of families with an income below $40,000 per year has increased by 26 per cent.

Looking at all that, and saying "jobs, jobs, jobs" does nothing for the cause of the children, who are again paying the price.

We are therefore in agreement with the principle of the bill, but again existing provincial legislation must be taken into account, in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick among others.

The federal government has brought in this bill in order to, if I may put it that way, complement the actions of other governments in the battle against poverty.

In 1990, there were 78,152 divorce decrees in Canada, which gave rise to 48,525 judgments concerning child custody. In 1988, 98 per cent of those receiving child support payments were women. Two thirds of divorced women with three children live below the poverty line. One child in five does not have enough to eat. I could go on and on.

I have said we are in agreement with the substance of this bill, but-and I must emphasize this, and hope I have time to do so-there are some negative aspects to it as well. I feel this needs to be pointed out. There ought to be amendments made to it, if we can reach agreement with the government. It might be worthwhile to have an act which, one day, just for once, would work for everyone. But of course I doubt that is possible.

First of all, if a provincial government decides to put guidelines in place for its province, these would take precedence over the federal ones only if the governor-in-council designates by order that the provincial guidelines are the applicable guidelines.

Subclause 1(4) reads as follows:

The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of the definition of "applicable guidelines" in subsection (1)-

What I wish to point out here is that "may" ought to be changed to "shall". When the word may is used, this does not mean it is absolute, whereas when an order is involved, there is a notion of "shall", or an obligation, if you prefer.

The provinces therefore will have to meet the criteria designated by the federal government in clause 26.1, if their guidelines are to be accepted as the applicable guidelines. In this way, the government retains an absolute discretionary power as to the acceptance or non-acceptance of the order. Once again, the usual paternalism of the federal government is evident. Great care must be taken here.

In conclusion, as I said, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill at second reading. However, some major amendments are required to bring the bill in line with what they call flexible federalism, as usual, and with existing provincial legislation.

Any overlap between a federal law on child support and existing provincial legislation would penalize women, children and families because we will end up fighting over whether it is a federal or a provincial jurisdiction. This will create confusion.

I would like to close on this and say that I am happy to see that the federal government has taken such an important initiative. As I said earlier, if we can come up with amendments that satisfy all the parties in this House, we may be taking a big step for the future of our children and women, as well as their safety and everyone's well-being.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, once again we are considering the bill to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of MMT as a fuel additive.

Bill C-29 before the House today is a reincarnation of Bill C-94, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued. The government nevertheless found a way to resurrect a number of bills, including Bill C-29, which has now come back to us for third reading. Bill C-94 did not make it through all stages during the previous Parliament because someone put on the brakes. For some rather vague, unspecified reasons, the Liberals decided not to pass this bill at the time. Today, the Liberals, headed by the Minister of the Environment, have brought the bill back to the House without providing any further clarification of those reasons. The same doubts remain, the same questions persist and the same issues are being raised.

One wonders about the real reason why the Minister of the Environment insists on passing a bill that arouses such controversy. You may be sure that the lobbies from Ontario are a major factor in the minister's decision. If that is not the case, he should come out and say so.

This bill has two major industries warring against each other. On one side we have the Ethyl Corporation, which produces MMT, supported by the oil industry, and on the other side the association of automobile manufacturers.

The lobbying done by these two players is considerable and unceasing. Both groups are leaving no stone unturned to win their case. The minister was exposed to all this lobbying and seemed to be at a loss at what to do so far. And today, he brings back C-29. The minister probably feels he should show up from time to time. So far, however, his legislative menu has been pretty meagre, and the same applies to what he has achieved.

We can hardly say the present minister is handling major issues these days. The environment is losing popularity, and the minister seems to be increasingly isolated within cabinet. Aside from a short visit to the Gulf of St. Lawrence this summer to watch the refloating of the Irving Whale , the minister is not seen very often, because he has no important issues on his plate. So to make an appearance in Parliament and not disappear altogether, the minister brings back Bill C-29.

If you ask me, this is not the way to go about increasing one's visibility. The minister would do well to go back to the drawing board and do his homework on the whole MMT issue.

The former Minister of the Environment, which she was in name only, in my opinion, if we consider her very mediocre record, made a present of this rather hot potato to her successor.

And he is no surer of his fact than his predecessor. That is the problem with this bill.

The government is not sure that banning MMT is a good thing, whether in environment, economic or legal terms.

The fault here rests mainly with the former minister, the minister of broken promises. At the time, the minister had asked both industries to work together to find a solution to the MMT problem, indicating-which was not very clever-that in the event a basis of agreement could not be found, she would put forward a bill to ban MMT.

From then on, it was clear that the negotiations were strongly biased and would be unproductive. So much for the former minister's fantastic skills as a maestro.

Another rather surprising aspect of this issue is the need for a Minister of the Environment to pass legislation regarding a given commercial product, in this case MMT.

If the minister firmly believes that MMT is a health hazard, why does he not just ban this substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Why take this roundabout way, through commercial or trade legislation?

There is no scientific evidence that MMT in fuel constitutes a health hazard. Studies on the neurotoxicity of manganese have been conducted and indeed show that a health risk exists. However, these results were obtained for major exposure to manganese, for workers exposed to very large concentrations and for prolonged periods.

It is therefore difficult to see the connection between the effect of overexposure and the effect of manganese emissions from car exhaust, the amount and concentration of which are not comparable.

The former Minister of the Environment, whose departure was noted-almost as a relief-by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, had used harmonization with the U.S. as an argument to justify introducing this bill. Since then, and as early as first and second reading, this argument has taken a dive. While the product had been banned for more than 15 years south of our border, the Ethyl Corporation, involved in a long-standing battle over this issue, was winning its case to have the product reintroduced in several American states. All this to say that harmonization with our neighbours to the south does not weigh very much in the balance.

We could ask ourselves the following question: What would happen if MMT was produced in Canada? What would happen with Bill C-29, which does not ban the use of MMT per se, but does ban its import? If MMT were produced, say in Ontario, would the

minister take the same action? He could certainly not ban the import of MMT. Would he then prohibit the product itself?

This is the point I made earlier about the strange way the environment minister is targeting this additive. He is attacking the sale of the product, not the product itself. And what about the prohibition against provincial trade in this product?

You will agree that the minister is acting in a strange manner on this issue. His predecessor did the same and she goofed in many other issues.

This bill is clearly in response to the representations made by the automobile industry, which claims that the MMT additive hinders the functioning of anti-pollution systems, including the OBD-2 system. The purpose of the OBD-2 is to detect any malfunctioning in the exhaust systems. The automobile industry claims that MMT can trigger the illumination of a red light on the panel, thus indicating the existence of a problem, when in fact there is no problem.

Consequently, the car owner would have to go to a garage to have a non-existent problem corrected, which has generated unnecessary costs to the consumer. The red light that comes on for no reason was one of the automobile industry's last arguments. Before that, the industry had claimed that MMT had an adverse effect on oxygen probes, spark plugs, catalysts, etc.

In fact, none of the points raised by the automobile lobby are supported by scientific evidence. The auto industry was never able to come up with serious studies supporting its claims.

Based on our information, the automobile industry is currently conducting tests to see if, indeed, MMT has all these negative consequences for anti-pollution systems. Would it not be better for the minister to wait for the results of these tests, so that car makers can finally support their claims?

Car makers have also threatened to impose on Canadian consumers a $3,000 increase in the cost of automobiles, to reduce the coverage provided by the warranty, and to simply disconnect the OBD-2 detection device. This pressure exerted on the minister has paid off. However, it should be noted that they have more to do with economics than with health or environment concerns.

Ethyl Corp. is the only one to have provided the results of tests conducted on its product. The company conducted serious, independent tests, in co-operation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. The results of these tests totally contradict the claims made by car makers. In fact, the EPA itself recognized that the concerns of the automobile industry regarding the clogging of anti-pollution systems are not justified.

Given the results of serious tests conducted by one party and the unfounded claims made by the other, you will agree that it is difficult to support this bill. The MMT lobby was the only to provide data. We are anxiously waiting for the automobile lobby to do the same. In the meantime, is it appropriate to pass this bill? If the tests of the auto lobby revealed that MMT does not cause the claimed effects, will the environment minister change course and remove the ban on MMT?

The Bloc Quebecois is definitely concerned about this metal that is being added to gasoline. We are not indifferent to the issue. We too, of course, want to see 100 per cent clean fuel and cars that do not release emissions into the air we all breathe. In this regard, if the automobile industry truly wants to produce cars that are 100 per cent clean and emission free, why does it not build cars that use electricity or, better yet, water?

You will agree that it is somewhat difficult to follow the logic of the automobile industry regarding MMT when the automobile itself uses fossil fuels and is therefore one of the greatest sources of pollution on the planet. While we are at it, the automobile industry should be true to its own logic and also ban the use of gasoline in cars.

I would just like to digress briefly at this point to talk about the Liberals' failure in this area. Members will recall that in 1994 Senator Kenny introduced a bill to reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions. This bill was passed in June 1995 and concerned the entire government fleet of vehicles.

The bill requires the government to phase out these vehicles with vehicles using an alternative fuel, such as propane or natural gas, and, by April 1997, that half of new vehicles bought must use alternative fuels.

The results to date are nonexistent. The Liberal government has not implemented this bill. Furthermore, the Senate recently denounced the government's slow progress in converting its vehicles. What is the environment minister doing about this? Can he not get his own government to do its duty and thus set an example?

I would like, if I may, to cite a passage from the report of the Senate committee that looked at the progress made in the implementation of Bill S-7. I quote: "The committee is of the opinion that one of the obstacles to the rapid conversion to vehicles using alternative fuels in automobile fleets is that members of the federal cabinet do not seem to be leading the way. Ministers should preach by example and have their cars converted. In fact, all ministers received offers of conversion from methane and propane suppliers. To date, only three have taken advantage of these offers. The

committee urges the others to follow their example in order to underscore the importance the government attaches to this bill".

In light of such comments, it is difficult to detect any real resolve on the part of the Liberals with respect to air pollution. I find it paradoxical to say that MMT must be banned because it is a source of pollution, and yet do nothing oneself to reduce this same source of pollution. That is Liberal logic for you. Hard to follow, you will agree.

I draw your attention to the environment minister's press release from last April 18, in which he announces that the bill will be tabled again. In the fourth paragraph, the minister states, and I quote: "Of importance to me, as the Minister of the Environment, are the potential harmful effects on air quality of the interference of MMT with automobile diagnostic systems monitoring exhaust emissions".

What strikes me in this paragraph are the words "potential harmful effects". Let us admit that it is hardly a strong case for legislation. Can a bill seriously be tabled using words like "potential"?

In this business of MMT, where we must base our decisions on scientific data, the minister's choice of words is vague to say the least. This shows the government's spinelessness and hesitation where this bill is concerned.

This press release goes along with an information sheet in which we are informed of the five key points on which the minister has based his decision. The first concerns the automotive industry. Of course, the minister rehashes all the same old stuff from the automotive lobby about the harmful effects of MMT on pollution control devices, particularly the diagnostic systems commonly called OBDs, and about how this in turn results in increased atmospheric pollution and health hazards.

All of these real impacts end up as mere statements. At the end it is written down in black and white that the automotive industry is so convinced of the negative effects of MMT that it is currently involved in a test program in the U.S. at the cost of $10 million, in order to obtain definitive proof to back their position.

That statement takes some of the wind out of the sails of the auto lobby, and of the minister as well. No test completed as yet, no definitive proof either. I am not the one saying this, the Minister himself is. How, then, can the minister table Bill C-29 while the auto lobby cannot as yet, as I have just said, prove its argument? We must admit that this is not a very effective approach for a Minister of the Environment to take.

This is a source of concern, for the minister and the government are showing that lobbies hold more weight for them than concrete evidence, verified facts, and definite results. That is not, however, any real surprise. We all know how those people across the way operate, and where their motivation comes from.

We have seen how, in many other sectors, the most powerful lobbies gain the upper hand over their little Liberal buddies. The minister has also been pressured by another group in this matter: the Ontario Corn Producers Association. This group wrote to the minister on April 24, as follows:

"The Ontario Corn Producers Association with a membership of 21,000 Ontario farm families congratulates you for your decision to reintroduce proposed legislation to ban the importation of MMT for use in Canadian gasoline".

Further on we read that other, more environmental octane enhancers exist, including ethanol. As you know, ethanol is now being used and is produced from corn, hence Ontario's eagerness to congratulate the minister and to see MMT prohibited. Imagine the size of the new market for ethanol if MMT were to disappear.

I would say this is of major importance for Ontario farmers and the processing industry that would develop as a result.

If I remember correctly, in December 1994, the former Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture launched a development program to encourage the production of ethanol from biomass material. In fact, the major projects for the construction of plants to produce ethanol from corn are all in Ontario, if I am not mistaken. And as the ministers said on December 21, 1994, in a press release, ethanol offers an excellent opportunity to diversify the economy and stimulate economic growth. It opens up a vast market for agricultural products, thereby increasing the incomes of farmers and making them less dependent on farm income protection programs.

I would not want to question the motives of the present minister nor those of the former minister, who resigned and has just returned to the House, saved by the voters of Hamilton East, but there are some strange coincidences in this dossier. The two main economic lobbies, automobile manufacturers and corn ethanol manufacturers, are from Ontario, and the two ministers who have been involved in this issue happen to be from Ontario as well.

Is there a connection? As I said earlier, the Liberals are very sensitive to lobbying. Unfortunately, there is still no product like SPF 35 sun cream, for instance, to protect us from lobbying. Also it is becoming increasingly clear that both ministers have met the expectations of lobbies from their own province. We need look no further.

For instance, under key item 5 of the minister's information sheet, which is headed: "Possibilities for cleaner fuels", it says that the withdrawal of MMT from gasoline will create opportunities for the introduction and use of ethanol and other substitutes that may become a major component of a comprehensive national policy on the nationwide production and use of renewable energy sources. This policy, we read, would reflect the commitment made in the red book of the Liberal Party of Canada to an agricultural policy that would eliminate MMT, and it would be in line with U.S. federal policy designed to create new markets for renewable fuels such as ethanol.

No need to look any further to see what the Liberals have in mind. Ontario will be the great beneficiary of the withdrawal of MMT. That is crystal clear. The minister also indicated that this will be in line with the promises made in the red book. So now we have a political decision.

I agree that ethanol seems to be a useful additive. But ethanol produced from corn also bears a major economic and environmental cost. From the environmental point of view, corn is a crop that causes considerable pollution and soil depletion. Economically speaking, the cost of production is high. Consider that today, the federal government provides an excise tax exemption of 8.5 cents per litre on ethanol sold on the market to make this product competitive. Some provinces have followed suit, including Onta-rio.

These negative aspects are never mentioned by the Minister of the Environment. A crop that causes pollution and depletes the soil should give the Minister of the Environment some cause for alarm. I think the minister should consult people on these negative aspects of using corn. Can you imagine a Minister of the Environment being in favour of a crop that pollutes?

This bill still raises a number of questions. But instead of finding the answer to these questions, the minister prefers to blindly accommodate the lobbies from his province. What will the minister do when automobile manufacturers who, I may remind him, want gas that is 100 per cent pure, ask him to prohibit ethanol as an additive? Will he come and tell us that ethanol is a hazard to our health and that it contaminates antipollution systems in cars? The withdrawal of MMT as an additive will indeed have certain consequences.

According to the Ethyl Corporation and the oil industry, there will be three major consequences, which I will list for you without blindly considering them. We in the official opposition have some reservations about the lobby group's arguments. We certainly would not want to fall in the same trap as the minister, who, influenced by the other lobby group, has lacked foresight and rigour in this matter.

First of all, according to Ethyl, MMT reduces smog-causing nitrogen dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. If MMT really reduces urban smog, why would we want to remove it from gasoline?

Of course, the auto industry tells us that cars will pollute even less in the future and that improved performances will more than make up for the loss of current MMT benefits. Of course, department officials told us that the urban smog problem was not as bad in Canadian cities. But who is telling the truth?

Another consequence of MMT's removal is that refineries will require costly modifications. According to the oil companies, these adjustment costs combined with other operating costs will raise the price of gas at the pumps. The oil companies' assessments show some $100 million in capital costs and tens of millions of dollars in operating costs. Can we ask the oil industry to make such changes to their refineries to respond to the other party's claims, which are not based on any scientific evidence?

Can the minister seriously initiate all these changes simply to increase his visibility and respond to the pressures exerted by his province? I know that the Minister of the Environment and his Liberal colleagues, who are blindly following him in this matter, will accuse us of being impertinent, of being anti-health, of objecting to the reduction of air pollution. They can shout themselves hoarse and say whatever they want about us, we do not care.

If MMT is so harmful, the Liberals should ban it as a hazardous product. The Liberals are saying that MMT is harmful so they should act accordingly and ban the product itself.

The third consequence we must look at has to do with the oil refining process. MMT increases the octane level in gas, thus requiring less oil refining. We know that refining causes pollution. So, if MMT is removed, the oil companies will have to do more refining in order to increase the octane level and will therefore cause more pollution. Is the minister ready to contribute to the increase in direct pollution caused by refineries? Are the Liberals, who are trumpeting their health concerns, ready to increase pollution?

The question the Liberals should ask themselves is whether it is more important to create a market for Ontario corn or to consider the economic, agricultural and environmental impact of this bill seriously and rigorously. They should carefully determine if the expected benefits will indeed be achieved, check and quantify these benefits, and align them in two columns for comparison purposes. At present, the Liberals are going nowhere. It may be for the best, but it is not very responsible.

These are claims made by the MMT lobby that still raise questions, and these questions warrant the minister's undivided attention. But the minister prefers to bury his head in the sand, just like the Deputy Prime Minister did before him. The minister keeps

repeating that MMT is a health hazard, while Health Canada assures us that it does not represent a significant hazard to human health.

In the September 12 issue of La Presse , the Minister of the Environment was quoted as saying the following. But the Government of Canada can act as well to protect the environment and public heath.'' I will remind the minister that, on December 6, 1994, Health Canada published the results of an independent risk assessment based on new epidemiological studies and data on exposure in Canada entitled:Risk assessment for the combustion products of MMT in gasoline''.

Health Canada's study concluded that there was no health risk for any segment of the Canadian population associated with the use of MMT in fuel. More specifically, it was reported that: "Airborne manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline-powered vehicles is not introduced in the Canadian environment in amounts or under conditions that would pose a health risk."

The study also concluded that no relationship exists between ambient air manganese levels and MMT sales or its use in unleaded fuel, regardless of the region or the time of year.

What else does the Minister of the Environment want to tell us about the adverse health effects of MMT, when Health Canada says that there are no adverse effects? He should consult his colleague, the health minister, provided of course he is not even more isolated than he is believed to be in Cabinet. The Minister of Health could run over the findings of theses studies for him, to refresh his memory so that he can finally tell us why he really wants this bill passed.

There is no shame in backtracking for a minister. Again, his colleague could remind him of his own experience with the famous issue of cheese made from raw milk.

To fuel the controversy about this bill, on September 10, the American parent company Ethyl Corporation gave notice of its intention to file a complaint and have the Government of Canada pay the company US$200 million under NAFTA for damages sustained by its subsidiary Ethyl Canada.

Ethyl argues that Canada is not fulfilling its obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement. According to Ethyl Corp., Canada does not comply with Articles 1110, 1106 and 1102, which deal respectively with expropriation, compensation, performance requirements and national treatment.

Ethyl Corp. is seeking US$200 million US in compensation, and the minister seems to take it lightly, saying that the government of Canada has the right to take measures to protect the environment and public health and that the company is entitled to its opinion. If I were the minister I would quickly put Bill C-29 on hold, at least for a while, and I would have in-depth discussions with my legal advisors, to make sure that Canada is in a strong bargaining position and can win its case.

The minister seems rather casual and nonchalant about the company's intention to sue. At a time when cuts are being made to the health, welfare and UI sectors, the minister should ask himself whether Canada has the means to throw away US$200 million. Should Canada lose its case before the arbitration tribunal, how would the minister justify his bill, which looks more and more like a measure designed to favour a specific interest group? Would he send the bill to car makers, or to corn producers in his province?

Canadian taxpayers have a right to expect fair and rigorous decisions on the part of their ministers, not partisan choices that could cost them a great deal.

NAFTA is not the only agreement that would be violated by Bill C-29. The whole issue of interprovincial trade is also affected, since Bill C-29 prohibits such trade. Some provincial ministers feel this is a case of federal interference. Bill C-29 would also contravene the federal-provincial agreement on trade in Canada.

In fact, no less than six provinces openly oppose this measure. Can the minister turn a blind eye to the provinces' appeals, when his cabinet colleagues are extolling the virtues of the federation and of co-operation in this country? Is the Minister of the Environment that isolated in cabinet, when it comes to this issue?

The minister's decision to go ahead with Bill C-29 has no solid basis. His arguments are not supported by any scientific evidence. The minister naively but willingly relies on the claims made by car makers, and on the hope that the anticipated income growth of his province's corn producers who, coincidentally, account for three quarters of Canada's corn production, will materialize. The minister's decision is also a source of concern for the future. It is not reassuring, for the future and for the environment, when an environment minister who has access to all the tools of a department is so lax regarding a major issue.

I will conclude by tabling an amendment to the bill. I propose:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence."

[The Death Of Ludmilla Chiriaeff, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the grand old lady of dance died yesterday. A leader in the development of dance in Quebec and the founder of the Grands Ballets Canadiens, Ludmilla Chiriaeff has been an inspiration to all young modern dance groups that make Quebec an outstanding centre for artistic expression through dance.

Throughout her career, Ms. Chiriaeff believed in the talent of Quebecers. Referring to her contribution to dance in Quebec, Ms. Chiriaeff said, and I quote: "We worked together to be creative, not to be different from others, but to be who we are".

Ms. Chiriaeff believed and invested in our homegrown talent. Today, other creative artists continue this legacy to ensure that dance maintains its special place in Quebec. Many thanks to Ms. Chiriaeff for bringing us her talent, her energy and her creative spirit.

[The Irving Whale, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The operation carried out this summer to raise the Irving Whale will cost taxpayers in Quebec and Canada over $31 million.

At a time when the federal government is slashing health care, education and unemployment insurance, is it not absurd to take $31 million out of taxpayers' pockets to clean up the damage done by the multi-billion-dollar Irving corporation and, to add insult to injury, to give them back the Irving Whale, which they are thinking of using again? Will the Liberal government make Irving pay for the operation, yes or no?