Roger Pomerleau

[Irving Whale, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the public is concerned that, in opting for the cheapest solution under the circumstances, without any regard for the safety of the operation, she started a process which could end up costing taxpayers a lot more than anticipated because of the bad decisions she made?

[Irving Whale, November 24th, 1995]

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

Last summer, the federal government wasted several million dollars in a failed attempt to refloat the Irving Whale . We are currently unable to get from the environment department the exact amount spent on that botched operation.

How can the minister justify her department's refusal to reveal the terms of the contracts and the amount spent on the failed attempt to refloat the Irving Whale ?

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.

This bill seeks to achieve five specific objectives:

First, to ensure that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor general's reports to the House of Commons.

Second, to provide for the appointment-as suggested by the Bloc Quebecois-of a Commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

Third, to impose requirements for responding to petitions received by the auditor general about federal environmental matters in the context of sustainable development.

Fourth, to provide for monitoring and reporting to the House of Commons on the activities of departments and the extent to which they have met the objectives and implemented the plans set out in their sustainable development strategies, and for reporting to the House of Commons on petitions.

Fifth, to require that each department's sustainable development strategies be prepared and tabled in the House of Commons.

From a technical point of view, if this bill is passed, a number of measures will have to be taken.

First, an adequate definition of what is meant by "sustainable development" will be necessary.

Second, the mandate of the Commissioner of the environment and sustainable development will have to be properly defined.

Third, we will have to ensure that the process for responding to petitions will adequately meet the requirements of the citizens who submit these petitions.

Finally, we will have to ensure that all departments have sustainable development strategies and that they meet the objectives set therein. This means that a major structure to monitor the activities of all departments will have to be put into place.

I said earlier that the first objective of Bill C-83 was to ensure that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor general's reports to the House of Commons. In order to achieve this goal, all stakeholders must agree on a single definition of what sustainable development really means.

Bill C-83 includes such a definition; it says that sustainable development means "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

It is surprising, to say the least, that the Minister of the Environment decided to include this definition in the bill to amend the Auditor General Act, but that she has not yet included it in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act itself.

In her speech to introduce this bill in the House of Commons on September 18, the Minister of the Environment said this: "[-] one of the first departments the office of the commissioner will be looking at is my department, the Department of the Environment. We welcome the opportunity of independent public review because we believe it will accelerate the integration of the two key objectives of sustainable development and their integration into the economy".

I hope that, during this review of the department's operations, the commissioner will have the opportunity to set the Minister of the Environment straight about this, because it would indeed not make much sense if the basic respecting the environment in Canada was not the first to include a definition of sustainable development.

The only possible explanation for this is the minister's inability to carry out her responsibilities properly. Several examples come to mind. The Irving Whale case is a well-known example, where the minister proved to be unable to deal properly with such a major issue and such a dramatic one, under the circumstances.

In that case, the office of the auditor general would obviously have much to do to meet the first objective of this bill.

The second thing that Bill C-83 does is provide for the appointment of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. To this effect, the duties that the future commissioner to the environment and sustainable development is expected to perform are described in clauses 22 and 23.

The following information can be drawn from reading these sections. First, the commissioner in question will report directly to the auditor general, assist the auditor general in the performance of his duties with respect to the environment and sustainable develop-

ment. For instance, the commissioner will assess the effectiveness of action plans in meeting the objectives set out in departmental sustainable development strategies.

Second, the commissioner will follow up in the prescribed manner any petition received from a resident of Canada about an environmental matter in the context of this so-called sustainable development.

Third, the commissioner will make any examinations and inquiries that he deems necessary to monitor the extent to which each department has met the objectives set out in its own sustainable development strategy.

Finally, he will, on behalf of the auditor general, report annually to the House of Commons on the extent to which each department implemented its sustainable development plan and on anything in relation to the environment that he considers should be brought to the attention of the House.

I think it is important at this juncture to repeat to this House the comments made by Auditor General Denis Desautels when he appeared before the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee on October 3.

At that time he said the following-and I shall quote him extensively because I think that the Auditor General has put his finger right on the fundamental problem in this matter.

I shall be quoting from several pages of Mr. Desautels' testimony. He said: "When I last appeared before this Environment Committee, I also spoke of the expectations of the interested parties concerning what it was agreed at that time to call the `auditor general of the environment', as no name had been found at that time. The extent of those expectations continues to be of concern to me" he continued. "I feel that there might be a gap between what interested parties such as the environmentalist groups want the commissioner to do, or hope that he can do, and the reality of the mandate and the available funding. In the coming months, it will be important to take care to reduce that gap as much as possible. I would, however, like to speak briefly of three areas in which such a gap might exist".

"When I came to speak to this Environment Committee in March of 1994, I stressed the importance of the office's independence and objectivity, which have justified its credibility since its creation in 1878".

"I pointed out that the responsibility for issues such as policy examination and environmental conflict resolution ought not to be a mandate of my office, since this might quickly and seriously endanger the long-standing independence, objectivity and credibility of the Auditor General".-I think that we can agree with Mr. Desautels on that.

"It is generally accepted in Canada that legislative auditors do not comment on the justification of policies. They concentrate on the application of policies"-policies defined by others, including this House.

"I might also add that our contacts with other auditor generals throughout the world indicate that the majority of my counterparts elsewhere interpret their mandate in the same way. "The proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act contain no provision authorizing the office to comment on policy, and we will not do so".

I would like to intervene at this point. We see that the auditor general made it clear that he will not be involved in formulating policies but in enforcing policies formulated by others.

Mr. Desautels continued to discuss his role as ombudsman or what that role would be expected to be: "Similarly, neither the proposed amendments nor the current mandate of the office provide that the office should play the role of ombudsman. To play that role would be costly and might have an adverse effect on the credibility of the Auditor General's Office and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development".

He also talked about jurisdictions, saying: "Finally, the mandate of the Auditor General's Office, including the proposed duties of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, is limited to what falls within the purview of the federal government. Neither I nor the commissioner have or will have the authority to deal with matters that are a provincial or municipal responsibility. I think it is important to mention here that the mandate and duties of the office, including those of the commissioner"-and I underlined what Mr. Desautels said in my text- "cannot be a substitute for firm leadership by the government and consistent management and accountability on the part of the department. And this applies both to environmental and non-environmental programs and activities".

"It will be up to the department's senior management to carefully scrutinize programs, and to determine whether they achieve their objectives, whether they remain relevant, and also whether there are more efficient ways to achieve the same results. Such analysis is essential to sound program management and proper communication of audit information".

"A Guide to Green Government' published in June this year indicates that departments are to report annually on progress made on sustainable development in Part III of the Main Estimates. The guide also indicates that this regular progress report in the Main Estimates will require on-going monitoring and self-evaluation. As part of its responsibilities, senior departmental management, will have to monitor and evaluate its own progress. This is a fundamental managerial responsibility, both in the public and private sectors".

"The results of our work assessing programs indicate how hard it is for the government to implement good ways of measuring efficiency and to communicate practical information in this regard".

I think Mr. Desautels explains himself here and will indicate the thrust of his interpretation of this bill: "At a time of employee cuts and restructuring, I fear the challenge may not been taken up". The auditor general goes on to say: "In our experience, for departments to act positively, they must be given leadership, support and direction". "I think there may be some expectation that we will be the ones to establish reference points or criteria on which to measure the government's progress. We would become part of the day to day business of the government, and thus the traditional independence of the legislative auditor from operations would disappear. This could also be seen as a potential conflict of interest, because we would have to audit something we had developed".

This is the end of the auditor general's text. I have taken the liberty of reading much of it, because it is in fact the response of the auditor general to this bill, which establishes his guidelines and determines his responsibility. In his opinion, they do not seem to correspond to people's expectations, and the auditor general himself says in fact: "I fear the challenge may not be taken up".

In short, the auditor general is telling us he cannot meet Parliament's expectations on the monitoring of activities of the departments covered by this bill.

What in fact are these expectations the auditor general refers to? During debate at second reading, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment said the following, and I quote: "Beyond the significant powers of the office, the very existence of the office of a commissioner of environment and sustainable development sends a powerful signal not only within the government itself but beyond the government into the reaches of Canadian society. They now know there will be somebody there, a monitor, an ombudsman, who will devote his or her duties to the environment and sustainable development in making sure the government itself practices what it preaches".

The remarks by the parliamentary secretary are somewhat at odds with those of the auditor general. This is made even more worrisome by the fact that, in the same speech, the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis goes on to say, "The key issue here is if this commissioner of environment and sustainable development will be truly independent and have the necessary powers, autonomy, independence to ensure that he or she is listened to and that the public feels that through this office it has a voice and a say".

The auditor general's own description clearly shows that his role depends essentially on the government's real leadership and not on his own qualifications.

But, as we heard, the auditor general did say that playing the role of ombudsman could have a negative impact on the credibility of the auditor general's office and of the sustainable environment commissioner. During the same debate, the hon. member for Davenport had this to say about Bill C-83: "This is not a minor step. It is a remarkable one. It inserts in the mandate of the auditor general the importance of monitoring sustainable development strategy and implementing the meaning, significance and the interpretation of sustainable development. That is no minor feat".

Yet, the auditor general himself went to the trouble of toning down this interpretation of the role that will be played by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The auditor general himself said that the proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act contained no provisions allowing the auditor general's office to comment on the validity of policies, and that they would not do so. That is what Mr. Desautels said.

I also want to point out that, in his September 18 speech, the member for Davenport said: "The role and the funding of the commissioner must be ensured so that they do not suffer in times of budget cuts. I am certain that this matter will be taken into account fully".

Let us hope that the reassuring words of the member for Davenport, who is surely full of good intentions, will be heard by the Treasury Board Secretariat, because the auditor general expressed concern in that regard, following his discussions with TBS. Mr. Desautels said: "I want to point out that, in spite of the additional resources made necessary by the amendments to the Auditor General Act, in 1997-98, the office will have reduced its budget by some $7 million per year". Again, there is a contradiction.

There is another provision in the bill which should be looked at, namely the requirements to be imposed for responding to petitions received by the auditor general about federal environmental matters in the context of sustainable development. Clause 22 of the bill states how these petitions will be dealt with. That clause reads as follows:

(1) Where the Auditor General receives a petition in writing from a resident of Canada about an environmental matter in the context of sustainable development that is the responsibility of a category I department, the Auditor General shall make a record of the petition and forward the petition within fifteen days after the day on which it is received to the appropriate Minister for the department.

(2) Within fifteen days after the day on which the Minister receives the petition from the Auditor General, the Minister shall send to the person who made the petition an

acknowledgment of receipt of the petition and shall send a copy of the acknowledgment to the Auditor General.

(3) The Minister shall consider the petition and send to the person who made it a reply that responds to it, and shall send a copy of the reply to the Auditor General, within

(a) one hundred and twenty days after the day on which the Minister receives the petition from the Auditor General; or

(b) any longer time, when the Minister personally, within those one hundred and twenty days, notifies the person who made the petition that it is not possible to reply within those one hundred and twenty days and sends a copy of that notification to the Auditor General.

(4) Where the petition is from more than one person, it is sufficient for the Minister to send the acknowledgment and reply, and the notification, if any, to one or more of the petitioners rather than to all of them.

I would have much more to say on petitions, Madam Speaker, but you are signalling that my time is up.

To sum up, I would like to say this. We will be voting against this bill for very specific reasons, in spite of the fact that we had originally requested that a position of commissioner to the environment be established.

The auditor general tells us that his basic problem is that he does not believe that he will be able to fulfil this mandate adequately. He also tells us that the government's leadership in this matter is more important that his. And so far, on every issue-whether it is the Irving Whale or the Berlin agreements on greenhouse effect-the Minister of the Environment has failed to show the leadership required to allow us to believe with any degree of certainly that the commissioner of the environment would have any real power.

Third and last, I note also the very clear picture that my colleague the hon. member for Laurentides has painted for us in her quite accurate analysis of clause 21.1, which does invade areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[Cp Rail, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a shameful remark, taking dangerous liberties with reality.

By linking the departure of CP Rail from Montreal with the sovereignist movement, and even having the colossal nerve to state that the sovereignists are intolerant of cultural minorities in Quebec, the Prime Minister sidestepped the question and added fuel to the fire.

If the Prime Minister listened to CBC a little more often, he would have known that Mr. Ritchie, the President of CP Rail, has denied any connection between moving the headquarters and Quebec's move toward sovereignty. Mr. Ritchie simply pointed out that 80 per cent of CP activities were in the west. And this is the result of federal policies.

Rather than seeking to exacerbate the differences between the various groups making up Quebec society, the Prime Minister ought to be working to bring them closer together. This is another of the real problems the Prime Minister ought to be addressing.

[Bosnia, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes the historic peace accord signed yesterday in Dayton, Ohio by the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. After four years of multilateral efforts to restore peace in the former Yugoslavia and end a bloody war that has claimed more than 250,000 lives, today there is hope that this accord will lead to a lasting peace.

Enormous challenges remain, however, and the international community will be asked to continue to provide not only humanitarian aid but also a 60,000 strong implementation force through NATO. This accord demonstrates that we were right to stay over there to protect the civilian population and take part in peacekeeping operations. We also believe we have a duty to take an active part in the peace process and the reconstruction which is about to begin.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying I have a particular interest in this topic, because the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, which I have the privilege to represent in this House, happens to have one of the largest waste water treatment plants in Canada.

Officially opened on November 2, 1987, the Montreal Urban Community waste water treatment plant today has an average capacity of more than 23 cubic metres per second, so that between January 1, 1995 and October 15, and this is just an example, the plant processed about 578 million cubic metres of waste water. To give you a better idea of what is involved, this is the equivalent of the volume of the Olympic stadium.

And to give you some idea of the amount of sludge left after this process, imagine a line of 25 tonne trucks all the way from Montreal to Ottawa, in other words, it is a plant operating at full capacity.

I may add that to carry out these operations, the plant in my riding has a total budget of about $43 million, in fact slightly more, and employs a total of 290 people in treatment operations, maintenance, engineering, mechanical engineering and data processing, in other words, all the people who work in this plant. Generally speaking, waste water treatment plants have become indispensable in our modern cities.

That being said, the Bloc Quebecois takes the position that we support the principle of protecting the environment, but to us it is obvious that the environment is better protected when each government does what it is supposed to do.

That is why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Laurentides is so important, since if motion M-425 presented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni were adopted in its present form, without any changes, this would give the Liberal government, the present government, further opportunities to do what it always has done, which is to invade jurisdictions that are not its responsibility. Basically, that is the reasoning behind the motion of the hon. member for Laurentides.

Motion M-425 before the House today asks this House to support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at

least that of primary treatment facilities, in other words, facilities that will eliminate phosphorus deposits.

Currently, managing the environment is largely a municipal responsibility. Municipalities are responsible for supplying clean water, as we said previously, for sewage treatment and garbage collection and disposal.

Under the Constitution, and that is the crux of the matter, municipalities are administrative units that receive their powers from the provincial legislatures. Consequently, the federal government has no legitimate right to deal directly with municipalities.

Of course, in Quebec we are accustomed to seeing the federal government proceed in this way. I may recall that it was this kind of behaviour by the federal government that caused nearly half the population of Quebec, nearly 50 per cent, to vote yes on October 30, and it will certainly be a little more than 50 per cent next time.

Since this government has shown it has no intention of changing any of the bad habits we have been criticizing for the past 30 years, we can assume that, at the time of the next referendum on Quebec, more and more Quebecers will understand they have only two choices left: become a majority with full control over their destiny or remain a minority, with their interests subjugated to those of the majority to which they will not belong.

To say the least, it is disappointing, but nevertheless, quite incredible, that this motion is being proposed in this House by a member of the Reform Party. We all know our friends in the Reform Party claim to want to decentralize Canada. They see it as the likely solution to our political problems. It might not be constitutional decentralization, but a real decentralization of powers to the provinces. Obviously this bill invades provincial jurisdictions.

I find it unfortunate that the Reform Party is sponsoring this bill. This party, it must be remembered, initially set itself up as the alternative to the impasse Canada found itself in federally following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and all that followed. The text of the motion before us, however, shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same. They are still talking about more centralization, as if nothing happened in Quebec.

As we know, and as the English language papers pointed out, our Prime Minister succeeded to some extent in lulling Canada into a bit of a stupor over what was actually happening in Quebec.

Events in Quebec woke people up somewhat. Now they are trying to pretend nothing happened and settle everyone down again, while they go on centralizing in Ottawa, as if nothing has changed.

By voting in favour of this motion without the necessary amendments-one of which has been proposed by my colleague for Laurentides-the federalist parties in this House will simply confirm to Quebec voters that the no side did not favour change, despite what they hoped and continue to hope.

That is why my colleague from Laurentides put forward an amendment to this motion that would give all provinces the right to opt out with full financial compensation, so that they themselves could spend the money on the environment and not on anything else.

This amendment would have two advantages among other things. First, from a constitutional point of view, it would allow all levels of government to exercise their powers properly in their respective areas of jurisdiction, contrary to what is now the case. I would like to remind you that the environment is not among the areas of jurisdiction explicitly assigned by the constitution. It has often been said that the environment was not on the agenda when the constitution was drafted, but still. This is a so-called ancillary power deriving from the areas of jurisdiction explicitly mentioned in the Canadian constitution.

Before the mid-1980s, the Quebec government, which has jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a key role in assuming most environmental responsibilities. As provided for in the constitution, the federal government was happy to get involved in areas complementary to its jurisdiction, and everything was just fine.

In 1985, the federal government started to become much more involved in environmental matters. It did so mostly by using its spending power and the new powers it had been granted by the courts. This has led to many cases of overlap and duplication. This situation has gotten worse since the election of the present Liberal government, which is trying to further centralize decision making in Ottawa.

If there is one thing that is perfectly clear about the bills that I have seen tabled in this House, it is that almost every bill introduced to amend other bills or to encroach on areas of jurisdiction that may previously not have been clearly defined gives ever more authority to the ministers.

At present, there is a great deal of duplication and overlap in federal and provincial environmental regulations. Therefore, private sector enterprises often have to spend time, energy and money on gathering information on a large number of programs, answering inquiries from both levels of government, attending numerous committee meetings, preparing for inspections that are often conducted by both levels, meeting requirements that are often different depending on the level of government involved, and the list goes on ad infinitum.

For instance, there are currently eight federal regulations overlapping existing Quebec regulations on the same subject. Yet, they keep wanting to make more regulations and centralizing more and more. Cases in point are the storage of PCB material regulations and pulp and paper effluent regulations.

There are also environmental benefits, since appropriate solutions to problems to be dealt with locally will be easier to find. You will no doubt agree, Mr. Speaker, that local authorities are in a better position than anyone else to find solutions suited to the particular circumstances of their respective communities. As far as the environment is concerned, government's ability to understand local problems and challenges depends on how far removed it is from the field. The further it is, the less it is able to find practical solutions likely to gain acceptance and generate co-operation within local communities. That is the spirit behind the amendment moved by my hon. colleague for Laurentides, which we support.

[Intercultural Week, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the start in Quebec of intercultural week, this year organized around the theme of "Living together". This will afford us a new opportunity to forge solid links between Quebecers of all origins, and to encourage understanding, dialogue and rapprochement. This year, the emphasis of intercultural week will be on Quebecers' belonging to a common culture, and on making Quebec, its history and its culture better known, as well as the important contribution the cultural communities have made to its development.

Numerous community groups, schools, businesses, private and public organizations and agencies are involved in organizing hundreds of big and small events throughout Quebec. On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to wish all of them an enriching intercultural week of exchanges and discoveries.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how appropriate. I went to California during the summer break and I was able to see, as the Liberal member pointed out, how terrible the smog situation is in that state, whose population is as large as the whole population of Canada.

What we are saying is that, to the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to back up what is implied in this bill, which is that MMT will in fact damage the pollution control system. If indeed California has made its choices a long time ago, it must have relied on some kind of test, and not only on vague ideas. If we could have access to these tests, we would readily admit that we have to ban the use of MMT in gasoline. Passing this bill is not a matter of principle, but a matter of pollution.

If the use of MMT is banned, I know some people believe that it will be replaced by ethanol, but the oil companies have clearly stated that they would not use ethanol as a substitute for MMT. Instead of using MMT, they would require a more enhanced and a longer refining process.

This would automatically lead to an increase in pollution. We are faced with two options: if we ban the use of MMT, we increase pollution due to the gasoline refining process, but, according to the auto industry, if we do not ban the use of MMT, we will damage the pollution control equipment, which will also lead to an increase in pollution.

If we could have some concrete evidence, we would be in a better position to make up our minds and vote immediately on this issue. But we do not have any, we have no scientific data, which is why we stand by the position we have taken.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this second opportunity to speak to Bill C-94, a bill that as you can see is extremely technical and extremely controversial.

Perhaps I may remind our listeners that the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of the product MMT in the production of gasoline. Technically, MMT is currently used to shorten the refining process and the time it takes to reach the octane level the oil companies want. Removing MMT will mean the oil companies will have to use a longer refining cycle. The product is a manganese-based additive that has been used in practically all unleaded gasoline in Canada since 1977.

There are a number of issues at stake here which we should examine very closely. First of all, we have the automobile manufacturers' lobby which, as was pointed out earlier-and most of our colleagues did so-supports the minister's bill. They claim that the MMT in gasoline will clog and cause malfunctions in the so-called OBD II anti-pollution devices that will be installed in cars very shortly, and this is already the case for 1996 models. MMT would be indirectly harmful to the environment, because if the OBD II anti-pollution device does not work properly, cars will pollute more than they should, since with this device they would otherwise run very efficiently.

So MMT is not in itself harmful but, according to automobile manufacturers, it would indirectly harm the environment by impeding the effectiveness of a device installed in automobiles to control pollution.

According to a press release issued by the Canadian Automobile Association on June 12 this year, in 1996 all cars sold in the United States will have to be fitted with a new kind of detection device. This "green" mechanism will ensure that the vehicle's anti-pollution devices remain fully effective over the years. However, if gasoline sold in Canada still contains MMT, these new devices will not function properly, as tests have proven.

I will continue this text later on, but I just want to say that like my Reform Party friends, I also more or less joined in the demonstration given by automobile manufacturers of the tests they had done. I also thought it was rather inconclusive, and I have the same reservations as the hon. member for Athabasca who referred to the spark plugs he had examined. I was not convinced by this demonstration.

Second, we asked, and my Reform colleagues are now asking for more serious tests to be tabled in the House, and they have a very good reason for doing so, because we have seen no serious tests to prove these allegations, and I do not think we will.

According to the text provided by the automobile manufacturers, they have decided not to make this new equipment available to

Canadians if we continue to add MMT to gasoline. In the final analysis, Canadians will be the ones to suffer, both economically and environmentally, because their vehicles will pollute more than anyone else's.

On the other hand, last spring, I demonstrated to this House that it would be in the interest of the major oil companies primarily if this bill were not passed. They in fact allege that MMT permits gasoline to be produced with a significant reduction in environmental costs at the refining stage. We can readily imagine this: longer refining without the MMT additive means more pollution from the process.

If we believe the figures given my office by the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, these environmental costs should go up by at least $50 million at the refining stage for these companies.

According to representatives from the oil industry as well, MMT requires less intensive treatment, which means less carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide from the stacks of plants producing gasoline. Furthermore, MMT allows refineries to reduce the aromatic cycles of gasolines and thus benzene emissions.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute also mentioned that, according to its members, the decision to prohibit the addition of MMT to gasoline must be made on a sound scientific basis, and this is the request being made. They therefore examined MMT from three standpoints: the environment, health and its actual effect on car emission systems.

From an environmental standpoint, according to the companies, the addition of MMT clearly protects the environment. It cuts nitrous oxide emissions by between 15 and 20 per cent, thus cutting smog in cities. There is complete agreement on this point in both Canada and the United States.

From a health standpoint, here in Canada, Health and Welfare Canada has published two reports indicating that MMT in gasoline represents no health risk for Canadians. In the United States, a very decisive decision by the court of appeal confirms it.

Thirdly, from a vehicle emission control standpoint, the United States environmental protection agency has always maintained there was not the slightest evidence that MMT had any damaging effect on the equipment.

So we can understand, when we contemplate the issue before us, in connection with Bill C-94, that, regardless of the fate of the bill, Canada's pollution levels will inevitably increase. We are therefore not faced with a choice between good and evil, we really have to choose between two evils, if I may put it that way. If we remove MMT, the production of gasoline will cause more pollution; if we keep MMT, and if indeed it does inhibit the functioning of vehicle anti pollution devices, we will also increase pollution.

So we are faced with two cases of increased pollution. The question is to decide logically and scientifically which is the better choice. It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment is not usually supposed to choose solutions that increase pollution; it should be the other way around.

Under the circumstances, what is leading the Minister of the Environment to actually decide which of the two solutions is less polluting? The answer to that is: nothing. When you really look at the issue, it does not matter whether you are the petroleum industry, the members of the Reform Party or the Bloc, it is clear that there are no basically independent and scientific data to provide the proof.

We only have to look at what happened with this in the United States to be convinced. On October 20, the United States appeal court for the District of Columbia-we quoted from the text in second reading, I think-decided to oblige the United States environmental protection agency to register MMT as an additive for unleaded gasoline. To date, the EPA has refused. In its decision, the court stated:

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

Of course, we looked at what we had before us at the time. It does not mean that more detailed studies would not prove the opposite, but studies showed that MMT had no real effect. The EPA recognized de facto that MMT did not have a harmful effect on antipollution systems according to the tests which were done before them at the time.

I submit to this House that the Minister of the Environment is supposed to be aware of these facts since-as her Quebec counterpart and our friends from the Reform Party pointed out earlier-several provinces, including Quebec, are now moving in the direction advocated by Reform members. As my colleague from the Reform Party mentioned, the Government of Quebec did send the minister a letter clearly explaining in detail its position on this matter.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeal I just referred to goes on to say, and I quote:

"For purposes of the resubmitted application EPA determined Ethyl had demonstrated that use of MMT at the specified concentration will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission

control device or system to achieve compliance with the emission standards".

The few tests that were done and submitted to the court show no effects. And we have not heard of any tests that would point to a different conclusion.

It is therefore increasingly evident that MMT will be reintroduced in the making of gas in the U.S.; in any case, there is a chance that it will be. Yet, the Minister of the Environment spends her time in this House talking about harmonizing Canada's environmental decisions with those made in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Under the circumstances, by proposing and defending Bill C-94, the Minister of the Environment is contradicting herself somewhat because if we ban MMT and if the U.S. approves this additive within a year, we will then have to reharmonize all these decisions.

The bottom line is that if independent scientific tests showed conclusively that MMT is harmful, I think the House would vote unanimously to ban MMT. But not enough tests have been done.

Given these facts, we have a right to question the environment minister's real motives in introducing this bill and trying to ram it through.

On the one hand, it is obvious that the minister is trying to accommodate the interests of the powerful Canadian automobile manufacturers' lobby which happen to be located for the most part in her riding. On the other hand, the hike in gasoline prices resulting from this legislation, if passed, might prompt many consumers to try alternative fuels, such as ethanol, whose major producers also happen to be in the Hamilton area.

If this interpretation is not accurate, then there is only one explanation. Quite simply, the minister is doing, with respect to the MMT issue, the same thing she did about the Irving Whale : she is improvising. Members will recall that, on many occasions in dealing with the latter issue-and I will not dwell on this either-the minister has shown that she was not qualified to deal with the situation.

I suggest that, then too, the minister claimed to have at hand a load of studies which enabled her to send all other stakeholders about their business, at the risk of causing an environmental disaster. We know what this lead to: $12 million were spent for absolutely nothing, to refloat a ship that is still sitting on the bottom of the river. And these $12 million are coming out of the taxpayers' pockets, and not the Irving's pockets. The problem still remains unsolved as we speak. This ship is leaking and Greenpeace is about to get involved. Nothing has been settled. The whole thing will have to be done all over again. What we are requesting are studies to tell us what is the best way of going about this.

We are confronted with a similar situation in Bill C-94. In order to avoid an environmental disaster, you have to do a minimum of scientific studies to assess the environmental impact of the contemplated measures. Otherwise, you are merely improvising.

As regards the environmental impact studies on MMT, it is increasingly obvious that the rigour of these studies leaves something to be desired. Under the circumstances, I agree with the hon. member for Laurentides, who spoke on this issue yesterday and asked that the bill be deferred to a later date, when more comprehensive studies can establish beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the addition of MMT to gas creates a dangerous source of pollution.

The provinces pretty well agree that we should wait a little and do the required studies before making a final decision. I am talking here about independent scientific studies which would be public in nature.

Oil companies also support that position. They have been telling us from the beginning: "If there is conclusive evidence that the use of MMT in automobiles is harmful, we will change our whole system". We should wait, as pointed out by our Reform Party colleagues, for the results of the tests being conducted in the United States, before making a decision.

For all these reasons, we feel that we do not have all the required information to make an informed decision. Consequently, we will not support this bill.

[Refloating The Irving Whale, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have just spent $12 million for absolutely nothing. This is money citizens will have to pay.

Will the minister admit that the reason she is faced today with a worldwide campaign by Greenpeace, not just Greenpeace Canada but Greenpeace International, which has condemned her incompetence in this matter, the reason is she is incapable of considering an alternative to the least costly solution, which will cost twice as much as initially estimated and which is also the most dangerous one?