House of Commons Hansard #255 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt, but I believe that the hon. member is not dealing with the bill presently before the House, Bill C-94.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I believe you have raised a matter of debate.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

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-

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I recognize the hon. member for Davenport on a point of order.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, I am sorry but again I must remind the member that the bill is about gasoline and the manganese content of gasoline. It is not about the Irving Whale . I invite the member to discuss the bill-

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Again, this is a matter of debate.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

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 ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Order, please. The member for Davenport, on a point of order.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, again I am sorry, but it seems to me that we must adhere to the rule of relevancy. We are debating Bill C-94.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I would ask the member to make a connection between her comments and the bill before us.

The member for Gaspé, on a point of order.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Speaker, currently the Bloc Quebecois is the official opposition in Ottawa. Whether they like it or not, people will have to listen to what we have to say. The member for Davenport is simply filibustering.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

This is not a point of order.

Resuming debate. The member for Laurentides.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

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 ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

It is about time.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

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

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Order, please.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

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 ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The hon. member for Peterborough, on a point of order.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to part of this speech on television and I have just arrived in the House. I was under the impression that we were debating Bill C-94, the Manganese based Fuel Additives Act. I wonder if I have arrived at the wrong time.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I would ask the member to make sure her comments relate to Bill C-94.

The hon. member for Gaspé, on a point of order.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Speaker, two liberal members have now interrupted my colleague. She is doing a good job.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

This is not a point of order either.

The hon. member for Laurentides.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

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 ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise again to take part in the debate on Bill C-94.

First I thank all the witnesses who came before the committee to discuss and make presentations on this subject. It really was unfortunate that it was apparent right from the introduction of the bill and the hearings in committee that members of the government were not really interested in hearing, listening or learning any of the facts behind the issue. They were destined to support the political agenda of the Minister of the Environment or they would face the wrath of the minister. We on this side of the House certainly know how intimidating that can be.

From the very beginning it was apparent to me that either one side or the other on this issue was distorting the facts brought before us. Therefore my staff and I spent the summer doing extensive research into the issue. The more we studied, the more convinced we became that the minister was not so much concerned about protecting the environment as she was about fulfilling a political commitment.

I will review some of the facts that led me to this conclusion. On the issue of the onboard diagnostic computer system, the contention brought out in committee was the question of whether or not MMT gums up the OBD II systems.

In December 1993 following the largest fuel additive testing program in the history of the U.S. EPA, it was concluded that the use of MMT would not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system including onboard diagnostic systems.

The EPA, the U.S. court and subsequently the U.S. Court of Appeal rejected concerns about the impact of MMT on OBD systems as presented by U.S. automakers. U.S. automakers have experienced significant difficulties with the certification of OBD systems in United States where MMT is not currently used in unleaded gasoline.

The U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board have recently changed their regulations to allow for certification of vehicles that do not comply with the OBD II requirements. The U.S. EPA stated in the federal register that automobile manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated difficulty in complying with

every aspect of the OBD requirements. Such difficulty appears likely to continue into 1996 and 1997 model years.

In Canada, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association appears to be blaming OBD II system difficulties on MMT. MVMA members have lobbied the Canadian government threatening to disconnect OBD warning systems and pass costs on to consumers unless the government passes legislation to ban MMT. The Canadian government appears to have responded to the threats without noting that vehicle manufacturers have failed to achieve OBD II certification in the U.S. for most new car models.

Furthermore I should like to know how the minister could explain her statement that if vehicle manufacturers carry through on threats to remove OBD systems it would result in a tenfold increase in vehicle emissions. This is simply representative of the rhetoric coming from the minister and from that side of the House with no real facts to back up those statements. This false claim shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical issues involved and underlines the need for an independent technical assessment of the MVMA claims.

OBD systems do not reduce emissions on vehicles. OBD is a monitoring system designed to notify the driver when emission control equipment does not operate properly. Removal or more likely the disconnection of OBD systems would only serve to prevent a dashboard malfunction indicating light from illuminating, which is exactly what is happening already in the United States without MMT. No emission control equipment would be removed from the vehicle.

The issue of sparkplug failure was used by the minister with great gusto to demonstrate her reason for banning MMT. General Motors Canada has claimed that MMT is responsible for warranty claims for sparkplug failure being 17 times higher in Canada than in the U.S. It is alleged that higher claims are due to manganese deposits on sparkplugs causing the plug to arc under certain conditions from electrode to the outer shell rather than from electrode to electrode.

Arcing leads to sparkplug misfire which can contribute to drivability problems. The Minister of the Environment has cited these claims to help justify her proposed legislation to remove MMT. However she failed to point out that automakers' claims related to one type of platinum tipped sparkplug used primarily in a one-engine version used in GM automobiles. The sparkplug in question was discontinued by GM indicating the problems were related to the design of the plug, not MMT. No casual link was ever established between MMT and sparkplug problems and no warranty data have ever been made public.

To further assess the validity of GM's concerns independent testing was conducted by the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, using the platinum tipped long life plugs used in all 1994 2.2 Chevrolet Cavaliers. The goal of the study initiated with General Motors Corporation in the U.S. was to determine the differences between new sparkplug failures and the plugs were provided by GM.

The sparkplugs were fired under a power supply that increased output to the plugs in a ramped manner. Current leakage until the plugs fired was measured and movies were taken to document whether arcing occurs between electrodes or from electrode to shell.

The sparkplug test program-

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, be read the second time and referred to a committee.