Monique Guay

[The Environment, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of the Environment is tabling the OECD's report on Canada's environmental performance.

This report also recognizes the efforts made by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which proved itself to be a useful instrument in several respects. The report highlights the environmental strengths and weaknesses of the federal and provincial governments, which made sustainable development a central theoretical concept but with few concrete applications.

The minister states that, contrary to what the report says, her government was able to translate the concept of sustainable development into a reality. To prove her assertion, she used the example of Bill C-83, which creates the position of commissioner of the environment.

I simply want to point out to her that creating the position of commissioner of the environment is no guarantee of sustainable development for the federal government, let alone for Canadian and Quebec society. On October 3, the auditor general admitted before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that he would have no control over the scope of departmental action plans. The departments themselves will be responsible for setting objectives, which cannot be questioned by anyone. In simple terms, nothing can prevent a minister from setting meaningless or superficial objectives.

More importantly, the auditor general questioned the departments' ability and willingness to find ways to assess the effectiveness of their action plans. On this subject, he said, and I quote: "In an era of downsizing and restructuring, I fear that the challenge will not be taken up. In our experience, in order to take positive action, departments need leadership, support and direction", something that is obviously lacking.

How can the minister come here to brag, when she knows full well that her government was unable to force her colleagues to develop meaningful action plans that could set an example for the private sector?

At report stage and third reading of Bill C-83, I will be pleased to analyze more thoroughly the amendments put forward by the committee, which open the door once again to federal meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The minister admitted today that there is a real need for environmental legislation to be vigorously enforced. I fully agree with her. In this regard, she should be reminded again that Canada is still acting illegally by exporting toxic waste to the third world and that her officials simply cannot afford to put an end to this practice.

The minister is quite right. It is not enough to sign international arrangements such as the Basel convention; we must also enforce them. In that sense, instead of interfering in areas that are no concern of hers, as she keeps doing, the minister should ensure that those acts which are clearly under her responsibility are properly enforced.

Moreover, the minister should also be reminded that, since her government came to office, the number of proceedings under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has clearly dropped compared to previous years.

Similarly, the minister mentioned the CEPA regulations. The report in which the standing committee criticized the fact that there are hardly any regulations respecting the CEPA must have escaped the minister's attention.

The minister also announced that the government's response to the standing committee's report on the CEPA would follow shortly. The minister might be tempted to table a bill reflecting the centralizing designs of the Liberal members of the committee, but I would caution her against it.

In the last referendum, the people of Quebec have clearly indicated that they will no longer tolerate the federal government's highhanded and centralizing approach. The Bloc Quebecois and myself are anxious to see if the minister got the message and acted on it.

I wish to stress the fact that this government's attitude since coming to office and the episode of the Environmental Assessment Act, which raised an outcry, have left a bad taste in the mouth of provincial governments. Co-operation between the various levels of government must not be taken for granted, and the minister has already gone beyond the limit of what can be tolerated in many respects.

As far as air pollution is concerned, it is obvious that the minister is walking on eggs. According to the OECD, Canada's performance is far from enviable. While, clearly, some provinces have simply

not taken their responsibilities, the minister can hardly brag about her own performance.

The minister's proposal at the recent summit in Berlin to literally deliver permits to pollute, as well as her bill on MMT, which could result in a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, are evidence of her poor performance.

I also note that Bill S-7, which seeks to introduce the use of more environment friendly fuels for the federal fleet of vehicles, is not an initiative of this government, but of Senator Colin Kenney.

Finally, I want to point out that the OECD report presented to us today concerns the provincial governments just as much, if not more. Indeed, in its report, the OECD recognizes that the provinces assume most of the responsibilities related to management of the environment. Canada still has a long way to go before it can claim to be a leader in environmental issues.

The OECD's criticisms primarily concern provincial governments. It is up to them to take the initiative and to reduce pollution, improve management of our natural resources, and improve integration of the economy and the environment.

I also think that it would be in the best interests of the provinces to take a direct part in signing international agreements. That way, they would have no excuse for not reaching objectives they themselves have set.

[Intervener Funding Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-339, standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford.

This bill, which is quite straightforward, establishes the principle that a proponent of a project that requires review and approval should assist with funding for interveners who would like to be heard. The hon. member for Oxford suggests adopting the principle that the proponent pays.

On the face of it, we would support the principle of funding groups that want to participate in public hearings, because often, groups that represent less advantaged people in our society cannot afford to go and put forward their views and their interests or pay for scientific studies or even for the transportation to get to the hearings.

Consider the studies required in the far North, for instance, where interveners lack the financial resources to travel, pay for accommodations, and so forth, when defending the interests of the people they represent.

We have seen in the past citizens who were at a distinct disadvantage because they did not have the same resources as large businesses or developers to defend their interests. In fact, these businesses and developers can afford to pay lobbyists on a regular basis to push their projects ahead, while small groups that are not as organized and are not supported by the big guys are always looking for financial support.

In other words, we do support the principle that proponents pay for the administrative costs related to the reviews. However, after examining this bill more thoroughly, we realize it has a much broader scope than it purports and offers few guarantees for the arm's length nature of the process it proposes.

First of all, we should realize that this bill will create funding committees. Some public organizations already have a funding option. One example is the Environmental Assessment Agency established by Bill C-56, which provides for a sort of funding from the government.

How will the new funding panel work with the assessment agency? Naturally the government could save money by having the proponents pay, but why not simply amend Bill C-56 to include the concept of "funding proponent".

We have to ask ourselves whether the panels proposed in Bill C-339 are not another layer of administrative structures and duplication within the federal system. We can also see in this bill the danger of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. For example, in Bill C-56, the Environmental Assessment Act, the federal government is clearly meddling in provincial affairs. We could therefore end up with projects assessed by both levels of government with proponents having to pay twice to fund various interveners.

I do not suppose proponents are interested in this costly duplication, which, moreover, delays the whole process of project approval. It is an obvious hinderance and has an impact on our economy and on job creation.

I would now like to consider the independence of the funding panels. According to subclause 4(2), a review authority that receives an application from an intervener for intervener funding shall appoint a funding panel from its membership.

To my mind, this provision reveals that the funding panel is clearly not independent of the review authority. Indeed, what happens when the authority assigned to review a project comes under the authority of a department that is the project promoter?

The best example is doubtless the case of the refloating of the Irving Whale . Do you think that SVP, the Société pour vaincre la pollution and RMPG, the Regroupement madelinot pour la protection du golfe, could get funding through this bill? I have very strong doubts.

People who will be appointed to the funding panel under the authority of the Minister of the Environment will certainly be under pressure from that same minister not to give groups such as the SVP and the RMPG, which are strongly opposed to her project, an opportunity to be heard.

In other words, I believe that the government will have the power to choose which groups it is willing to listen to, and it will be able to reject those groups that do not share its views.

Transparency and independence are lacking in this bill. The concept of funding proponent is good, but the process proposed in this bill is flawed. Therefore, the bill does not achieve its ultimate goal.

About this process, it is worth noting that it appears to be rather cumbersome and complicated. For one thing, the funding panel will have to determine if the intervener is eligible for funding, and from what we can read in clause 4, the least we can say is that interveners will be scrutinized. Also, the bill provides for an appeal

process to the review authority and ultimately to the Federal Court of Canada if the proponents and the interveners are not satisfied with the funding panel's decisions.

Knowing full well how slow bureaucracy can be, I am sure that some interveners will be left high and dry. Projects will be completed and interveners will still be waiting for the outcome of the appeal process. The same goes for the proponent. In fact, I wonder if projects will be allowed to proceed during the appeal process. I would like the member for Oxford to answer this question.

Finally, we think that this bill contains good ideas and that the principle on which it is based is innovative, but it has serious flaws.

Bill C-339 is off the mark.

[Canadian Armed Forces, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely appalling to make light of such an important issue.

I would like to know why the government disbanded Petawawa's airborne regiment before the inquiry had even begun, but must now wait until the end of the inquiry before suspending the promotions granted to some who were directly involved in such despicable acts?

[Canadian Armed Forces, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Last week, we learned that, in addition to the racist and degrading behaviour of members of the former airborne regiment in Petawawa, some of them even organized, on two occasions, parties to celebrate the anniversary of the tragedy which occurred at Montreal's École polytechnique, in which 14 innocent victims lost their lives.

Given the behaviour of these soldiers, will the Minister of National Defence admit that, at this point in time, the least he can do is to immediately suspend the promotions granted to those involved?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will go on until my speech is finished.

Bill C-94-I hope this will please my colleagues-is just one more example of this improper way of doing our best. The minister started out with an idea and she will not change her mind, even if her idea is not the best one. It is impossible to go any further with other studies and analyses. The minister said no, and her no is irrevocable. Yet, there is room for debate on the issue of MMT. Let us look at the arguments both sides are making, and try to find the best route to follow.

First, we will talk about the MMT lobby, which is composed of oil companies and Ethyl Corporation. This lobby came to defend MMT before the standing committee, besides meeting many members of Parliament.

The MMT lobby tells us that by removing this additive from gasoline, we will aggravate the problem of urban smog, since we are increasing the nitrogen oxide emissions by 20 per cent. Health Canada studies indicate that the MMT additive does not constitute a major threat for human health.

Independent laboratory experiments prove that, contrary to the statements made by the automobile lobby, MMT used in Canada is totally compatible with the new onboard diagnostic systems for pollution control, the OBD-II systems.

Also according to the MMT lobby, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should reintroduce this additive very soon in that country. In fact, under an October 20 ruling by the United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, in the case Ethyl v. Browner, chief administrator of the EPA, the EPA has been compelled to register MMT as an additive for unleaded gasoline, something the EPA had refused to do until now. In its ruling, the court stated:

On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that MMT had no adverse effects on automobile emission control systems.

Consequently, the EPA was recognizing de facto that MMT did not adversely affect pollution control systems. At the refining stage, MMT allows to reduce some polluting emissions. It would cost refineries about $100 million in capital and about $10 million in operating expenses to replace MMT. Plants would then have to extend the whole refining process. Extra refining costs more money and pollutes more.

So, these are essentially the arguments made by the MMT lobby. I want to emphasize that, to substantiate its arguments, only Ethyl Corporation made a series of experiments on the effect of MMT on vehicle pollution control devices. You tell us that those tests go back quite some time and that the same components are no longer used? That may be, but Ethyl was the only one to conduct those tests, which seem to prove that MMT does not gum up the systems.

Furthermore, the carmakers' lobby claims that MMT affects the emission control system and more specifically the electronic pollutant detection system. In concrete terms, this system uses a light to indicate that your car's emission control device is defective.

However, there is no scientific evidence to sustain the theory of MMT causing a malfunction of this light. The carmakers' lobby tells us they have evidence, but they have made nothing public to prove it. Besides, the industry in the United States is only just beginning to conduct scientific tests to support its claims.

To bring more pressure to bear, the minister, together with the carmakers' lobby, is claiming that it could cost as much as $3,000 more to buy a car, that guarantees could be reduced, and even that the famous detection device could be disconnected.

After checking recently, we found that the guarantees on 1996 cars have not yet been changed, contrary to what the minister was claiming. This pressure can be seen as a form of blackmail on the part of the industry, but according to the minister, it is serious.

The other major argument used by the minister has to do with the harmonization of fuel standards in Canada with those in the United States. Now, as we saw earlier, the U.S. could very soon have the same MMT rates that we presently have in Canada. Some even talk about next December, when close to 50 per cent of American refineries could use MMT.

If this should happen, the minister, who is now talking about harmonization, would look rather silly. Why not wait a few weeks and see what happens in the United States? This is what both sides are saying.

The minister, who naturally tends to lean towards the car manufacturers' lobbyists, has decided to order this ban, not because of the toxic or polluting effects of the MMT on health, but because of its impact on a new electronic system being used in cars.

MMT in itself is not recognized as a toxic or hazardous product as evidenced by the fact that the minister cannot regulate the use of this product through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, which deals with toxic substances. The minister has no other alternative but to pass a specific act on the sale of this product.

In her press release dated April 5, the minister indicates that this decision follows almost two years of discussions between the oil industry and the automotive industry. One can wonder about the relevancy of these discussions and their true value, since the minister has warned both parties that, if they did not come to an agreement, an act banning MMT would be passed.

In saying so, was the minister not telling the automotive industry: "There is no need to discuss this much further, since I support your position and will legislate on this matter."

Again, the minister was showing her clear support for the automotive industry, which does not want to use MMT anymore and does not seem to support any of the fuel additives. Therefore, I wonder what will happen to ethanol, a favourite among additives, for which the government has recently set up a $70 million investment program.

If the automotive industry does not want to hear about additives, why would the government want to develop such a product? What a blatant inconsistency it is to ban one additive while speaking of developing another one, when the automotive industry does not want any additives at all.

How can we be sure that the automotive industry will not soon ask the government to ban ethanol because of its negative effects on a component or some equipment used in their cars? It is certainly not easy to rule in favour of one side or the other. The arguments used look valid. However, the ball is now obviously in the court of the automotive industry and of the minister who, once again, has not done her homework in a responsible and transparent manner.

Granted, the automotive industry knows these systems well but its concerns about the effects of MMT are not based on scientific studies. It is important to note that the automotive industry has made great progress in the exhaust emission control over the past 25 years. According to a study by the Canadian Automobile Association, the adoption of emission standards has greatly improved air quality. Indeed, the study reveals that, for every kilometre driven, a 1970 model polluted as much as 20 cars made in 1995. As far as I know, all this progress has been made in spite of the presence of MMT in fuel.

One can give the benefit of the doubt to the automotive industry as the minister does, but that does not seem enough. I firmly believe that it would be a great mistake to always give the benefit of the doubt on environmental issues.

One needs accurate information to make the best decisions. One must not to be afraid to ask for more. On environmental issues, asking for too much is better than asking for too little. It is the future of this planet that is in jeopardy, the survival of our children. Care must be taken not to make decisions lightly and without sufficient justification.

The minister has not done so, right from the beginning of her mandate. I would like to quote an article over the byline of Terrence Corcoran in the Globe and Mail of October 21, headlined ``Sheila Galileo meets MMT''. It reads as follows:

Scientific rigour has never been at the heart of the environment movement, nor does it appear to be the first love of Canada's Environment Minister-In a speech last Monday, Ms. Copps demonstrated her scientific flair by accusing all who doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect as "the same kind of people who rejected Galileo".

Now there's nothing deeply offensive about that accusation, except that it came from Ms. Copps midway through a speech in which any kind of science, let alone good science, was totally ignored. Speaking to the international panel on climate change in Montreal, Ms. Copps reviewed a list of "weather events from this summer documented by scientists" to prove the existence of the greenhouse effect.

Space does not permit a full rundown, but here are some of the items identified by Sheila Galileo as evidence for the greenhouse effect: the second worst year in history for forest fires; record rains in Alberta; record electricity production in Ontario; the death of a half million chickens and turkeys on one August weekend; wind damage on every property in Oxbow, Saskatchewan; a record number of

icebergs floating off Newfoundland; a steady stream of migraine sufferers, heart patients and asthmatics admitted to hospital emergency departments.

Ms. Copps said "these are facts provided by Canada's leading scientists". Could be, although the list looks more like the output of a good newspaper clipping service.

There's already evidence that bad science, or no science at all, drives environmental politics in Canada, and Ms. Copps is at the leading edge of the movement. Indeed, her department and the entire Government of Canada are now up to their test tubes in a murky scientific and political game they've been playing over a gasoline additive called MMT. In the wake of a ruling yesterday by a Washington court over MMT use in the United States, there's now a good chance that Ottawa's entire fuel emissions program is about to go up in a cloud of smoke, the victim of scientific and political negligence.

End of quote, Madam Speaker.

So much for the scientific rigour of the Minister. In light of the information available at this time, and recent developments in the US, I feel that delaying adoption of this bill is mandatory. It seems vital for studies by independent experts to be carried out to set us completely straight, so that we will have a clear idea of the impact of MMT-and why not of any other additive such as ethanol-on pollution control systems. This would be a more appropriate and more reasonable approach as things stand at the present time.

When the Minister of the Environment is constantly speaking of harmonization, bragging that this is what her policy is all about, a lot of questions come to mind. Canada is composed of provinces, each of which has an environmental policy, each of which has different needs depending on its industries. Our environment must be constantly improved, and I am convinced they are all aware of that.

In Quebec, the environment is the third-ranking priority after jobs and health. The minister must learn how to listen to people instead of stubbornly dictating her philosophies to them. The mistakes in the Department of the Environment have done nothing but constantly increase under her leadership. Her reputation as a brawler was normal when she was in the opposition. But now that she is in power, it is her duty to examine issues thoroughly, carry out studies when uncertain, and harmonize with the provinces, in other words forget all that stuff about sustainable development and the environment.

Let the minister show us, and prove to us, her true desire to make positive and realistic pro-environment decisions, not politically dictated ones. It is obvious that she seems determined to move this bill through at any price. We cannot support it, therefore, because we feel it lacks a large number of elements for banning MMT in Canada. In the aftermath of the American decision of October 20, we find it extremely difficult to support a bill that will no longer harmonize in the least with the US decisions.

Madam Minister, get back to your books, and you can write a makeup test later on.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

I can go on then. I asked the minister another question concerning the ban on PCB exports to the United States. The minister said in this House that she was making representations to the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A few days later, we received confirmation from the chair of the hearings on the PCB issue that the EPA had never heard from our environment minister on that issue, in spite of the invitation

extended by the EPA to the minister. Just smoke and mirrors once again, Madam Speaker.

Why is the minister saying such poppycock? Does she really think Canadians are that naive?

It is easy to see that environmental stakeholders are disenchanted with the minister's performance. She who was to be the great champion of the environment became the great speechmaker on the environment instead. As we say in Quebec, she is all talk and no action.

Bill C-94 follows this erroneous way of-

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, could you call the member to order and ask him to show some respect?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if I was allowed to make my speech, the connection with Bill C-94 would become obvious; I would ask the member for Davenport to listen for once and stop his filibustering during my speech. I will respect his to the extent he will respect mine. Allow me to continue.

To another question I was asking him regarding-

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as for the Irving Whale , the minister says she rejects the solution recommended in the Marex study, although it was commissioned by her department and the Coast Guard, because, according to her, this firm has financial interests in the pumping method it recommended.

Last week, after last summer's failed refloating attempt that cost us $12 million, the minister said she was rejecting the offer to strike an expert panel to review the issue, made by the Société pour vaincre la pollution, or SVP, on account of Daniel Green's financial interest in this proposal. I recall that, last year, the minister went as far as claiming in this House that SVP had gone bankrupt. She has some nerve. What is obvious is that the minister is always trying to discredit those who think differently from her in order to compensate for and hide her incompetence and lack of action in several areas

Discrediting is what the minister does best. On another-

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, there are facts which have to be brought to light and this is part of the bill. The minister does not want to go further on this issue as in the case of the bill we are debating today. She stubbornly refuses to be further advised on such important decisions that have to be taken. Her reasons for refusing any new course of action clearly appear to be unfounded.

I would even go further and say that the minister definitely shows her bad faith on many issues, as we saw during Question Period in recent days. Her answers to questions relating to the environment showed her ignorance and incompetence. All she tells us, and I think it is totally childish and silly, is that, when he was Minister of the Environment, Mr. Bouchard, our leader, said this and that, did this, did not do that, and so on. This is how the minister has been answering our questions for the last two years.

Come on. Let us be serious and exercise a little intellectual rigor. On any other question, she is big on quotes, which proves that she is no authority and misinformed on important issues. Frankly, I think that such behaviour from a deputy prime minister is quite alarming.

As for the Irving Whale , she rejects the solution recommended in the Marex study, although it was commissioned by her department and the Coast Guard-