[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 26, 1995
.0846 
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning to everybody. We are here because of Bill C-94, which has about 21 clauses to go through. Before starting the process, I understand the Reform Party has a motion or wishes to make a specific intervention. I therefore recognize Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would certainly like to make a very specific motion. I don't believe we need any long, protracted debate about the concept. The wording is simply this: I move that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese substances, be postponed until December 5, 1995.
I have about 90 seconds to make an explanation.
Over the past two weeks we've heard various testimony from witnesses representing the refineries, the automobile manufacturers, Ethyl Corporation, as well as officials from both Environment Canada and Health Canada. I think you'll agree with me that a great deal of discussion heard in this committee centred around the implication of the decision made by the United States Court of Appeals on Friday, October 20, 1995.
Environment Canada officials appeared before this committee on Wednesday, October 18, two days before the decision was handed down in the United States. An official stated at that meeting:
- The fact of the matter is we don't know exactly what would happen even, say, in the event of a
negative decision against EPA....
- Key to that is uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada.... It is crucial that we have
uniformity of standards.
The motion I have moved today would postpone the clause-by-clause consideration until Tuesday, December 5, 1995, one day after the final date the EPA has to appeal.
Mr. Chairman, the environment minister has said on many occasions that her reason for banning MMT was because it was banned in the U.S., and if the EPA does not appeal by December 4, we know for a fact that MMT will be sold in the U.S. to refineries for use in unleaded gasoline.
I want to urge members of this committee to vote in favour of this motion. It makes eminent practical sense. This motion does not kill the bill. Rather, it simply puts it on hold until it is completely clear what exactly the EPA in the United States plans to do.
Please understand that if the government passes this bill and the EPA does not appeal the decision, the government clearly displays the position that it is opposed to fuel harmonization with the United States.
Those are my rationales, Mr. Chairman. Would you like me to read the motion again?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
.0850
Mr. Forseth: I move that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be postponed until December 5, 1995.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.
Now we have Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Contrary to what the Reform may think, we're not part of the United States - yet.
I think in terms of what's going on the United States, the decision that was encountered recently regarding MMT was based on some technicality. We also have to give consideration to the fact that MMT is banned in California and in some of the high-ozone states. And it was made very clear through a number of witnesses we had at this committee that there would be a competition in the United States vis-à-vis MMT being in gasoline or not being in gasoline.
So any kind of justification for the fact that 100% of the United States is not going to be using MMT is simply just not acceptable because it is not true. At least 30% of the country will not be having MMT usage at all. It's hard to say what percentage actually will, because consumers are aware of the concerns around MMT. They are not going to want to damage their automobiles and they are not going to want to take any kind of other actions that might affect the environment or their health.
The Chairman: Thank you.
I don't see any further speakers, so I will call the motion.
Motion negatived
The Chairman: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), we postpone the consideration of clause 1 and we start with clause 2. Since we have many clauses, from clause 2 to clause 21, I believe, I'm informed by the clerk that these clauses could be considered in a whole rather than calling them one by one, if there is unanimous consent to do that.
There isn't unanimous consent. Then I will have to call them one by one.
Clause 2 agreed on division
On clause 3 - Binding on Her Majesty
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, I would like some explanation from the ministry on this clause.
The clause is very short. It says:
- This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Ms Ellen Fry (General Counsel, Legal Services, Environment Canada): Sure. It's a very standard clause. Obviously, the objective is to make sure that this law is binding on everybody. In fact, if you were to look at section 4 of CEPA, it's the identical wording. It's just standard wording to make sure that the law is binding on everybody.
Mr. Forseth: Okay, so there's no historical objection...? You're saying that it's parallel to what's in CEPA.
Ms Fry: It's identical.
Mr. Forseth: Identical - and there's no historical objection around that wording from the provinces?
Ms Fry: I'm not sure I understand the question.
The Chairman: Are you aware of any historical objection you're referring to, Mr. Forseth?
Mr. Forseth: Yes. There's always this controversy about what is provincial jurisdiction and what isn't. You're saying that this clause in CEPA has not been an issue of contention in the past concerning jurisdiction?
Ms Fry: I'm not aware of any -
Mr. Forseth: You're not aware of any.
Ms Fry: - recent contention. Obviously I can't claim perfect knowledge of these things. Certainly, we are well within federal jurisdiction in this bill, if that's your concern.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Clause 3 agreed to on division
.0855
Clauses 4 to 21 inclusive agreed to on division
Schedule agreed to on division
Clause 1 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chairman: That will conclude the committee work on Bill C-94.
I would like to thank the members from all sides of the House for their participation. The participation of the members in the hearings was very helpful. It certainly produced a phenomenal amount of evidence.
I hope the record is such that it will permit use of it in the months ahead despite the restrictive budgetary measures on committee reporting. In other words, I hope that the record of the blues, at least, is kept for future reference if necessary, since it will not make its way into the regular type of committee report.
I'm making this point because I would like you to realize what consequences some budgetary measures have on the record of committee hearings, which at the present time, as you know, are extremely limited in their content in the House of Commons but not in the Senate. In this case in particular, because of the technical richness of what was said in reply to questions, it would certainly have been extremely helpful to have maintained the rules we had in the past in committee reporting and the rules thereof.
Having said that, I want to thank you again and indicate that we will meet again next week on Bill C-83. A meeting is being organized for Wednesday, November 1, and the clerk will send appropriate notice to your offices in a short while. On that day we will examine a number of changes that have been proposed in consultations with officials of the Auditor General's office and the like.
This meeting stands adjourned.