Paul Devillers

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, out of deference and respect for the hon. member for Davenport, I agree with all of his statements.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct, there are lots of questions. I will give him several answers. I do not think I will be able to list them all because I could not write them down quickly enough.

In answer to the first question about the government's not ordering independent testing, for a party constantly telling us there should not be government intervention in the business affairs of the country, I find it very difficult to understand. This is an issue motor vehicle manufacturers and petroleum producers have been working on for quite some time. They have not been able to come to an agreement or to an understanding on it. Consequently the government is forced to act and I think that is appropriate.

The hon. member asks why the ministry is acting on a trade basis. It is not. It is on a consumer protection basis. CEPA is not being used. The hon. member is a member of the environment committee and knows the environment committee is completing and will be tabling tomorrow its report on the five year review of CEPA so that it is seen by many to be inadequate for the purpose and a very long and protracted reason. That is why the minister has chosen to take the course she has taken here.

Reference was made to the court case in the District of Columbia, and several speakers have referred to it this evening. The case does not guarantee or permit the reuse of MMT in the United States. That was a decision on a technical basis as it was read from the fax sent from the EPA on the technicality that the EPA could not use health considerations. It could use only the testing of the equipment in refusing to issue that waiver. Under the Clean Air Act there is still much testing to be done on the health issue. It is far from a given that MMT will pass all those tests.

On the question of substitutes, ethanol is a very acceptable substitute to MMT. The government has taken the initiative to assist with some tax considerations with the establishment of ethanol plants throughout the country, including in areas represented by our hon. friends in the Reform Party. That is a very reasonable substitute and the government is acting properly in allowing it.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege to speak to this Chamber about Bill C-94, the Manganese-based Fuel Additives Act.

Before addressing specific elements of Bill C-94, I would like to say a few words about some environmental concerns of mine regarding what the government has already done and, more importantly, what it is going to do in this area.

Allow me to underline a few facts supporting my concerns. World population is increasing at the rate of about 90 million people every year. In the last 150 years, it has climbed from 1 billion to 6 billion. According to projections, it will reach between 10 billion and 14 billion in the years 2000 to 2050. From 1960 to 1990, economic activity grew at a compounded annual rate of 3.8 per cent. The growth rate in any given year exceeded in absolute terms the global economic activity in Europe in 1939.

Clearly at the heart of our environmental concerns lies the historical trend of unprecedented expansion and acceleration of human activities that now threaten vital components of the earth's ecology. Major impacts include forests vanishing at the rate of 17 million hectares per year, 6 million hectares of productive dry land turning to desert each year, 140 plant and animal species becoming extinct each day, and air and water quality on a global scale is declining at an equally alarming rate.

The bottom line of all this is that the combined impacts of population and these other pressures cause environmental capacity limits to be exceeded locally, regionally, and globally. It is now clear that without some major shifts in policies and practices a continuation of these trends is ecologically unsustainable.

Clearly with our current transportation practices we are not winning the war. Canada has launched a number of initiatives to limit pollution from motor vehicles. We have eliminated the use of lead additives in gasoline. No longer will we have to worry about the potential threat to health, especially to the health of our young children, that the presence of lead in gasoline posed.

As of last fall we have reduced the sulphur content of diesel fuel, which when used with more technologically advanced engines will reduce the emission of particulates and black smoke emanating from large trucks and buses.

In the red book, the Prime Minister supported the development of renewable energy technologies. To this end, the government has launched the national bio-ethanol program. Announced last December, this program will support the development of ethanol production through a refundable line of credit to qualified candidates who want to establish bio-ethanol fuel production plants in Canada.

The program, which will be managed by the Farm Credit Corporation, will guarantee up to $70 million in loans between 1999 and 2005. In other words, the government will help only those renewable energy companies that initially invest their own capital and resources. There will be no subsidy, no megaproject. The government will lend its assistance only after the private sector has invested its own capital for five years.

This is the fiscally responsible way to help turn wood chips, straw, grain, and other biomass waste into energy that can be used to fuel our vehicles.

Properly blended ethanol gasoline can reduce carbon monoxide emissions, which degrade urban air quality, can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are the primary source of greenhouse gases, and can also reduce benzene emissions, a substance declared toxic under CEPA, into the atmosphere. The program is targeted to encourage ethanol production in every region of the country.

This is a sound example of the concept of sustainable development. We can deal with an environmental problem and create jobs at the same time.

Our standards for exhaust coming out of the tailpipes of our cars and trucks are among the most stringent in the world. These standards set strict limits of nitrogen oxides which contribute to acid rain and are a key component in the formation of smog. They also set limits on the amount of hydrocarbons, another major contributor to smog, cars can emit and on carbon monoxide.

While pollution created by individual cars and trucks has gone down significantly, these vehicles are still a major source of air pollution, since their number has increased considerably. They are said to be responsible for 60 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions in Canada, 35 per cent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 20 per cent of emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for climatic changes.

This is why my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, is going ahead with a number of initiatives, including a comprehensive program designed to control pollution caused by motor vehicles. To that end, the federal government is pursuing a strategy to control motor vehicle emissions. That strategy includes, among other measures, the implementation of more rigorous standards to control exhaust emissions. This requires advanced technology, such as the sophisticated systems developed by Diagnostic Inc.

[E nglish ]

However there remains one obstacle to the introduction in Canada of the next generation of emission control technologies, the continued presence of MMT, an octane enhancer presently used in unleaded gasoline. Bill C-94 calls for a ban on the import and interprovincial trade of MMT. MMT is not manufactured in Canada but imported from the U.S.

In Canada the use of MMT as an octane enhancer is allowed in unleaded gasoline up to the maximum of 18 milligrams of manganese per litre. In the United States the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline has not been allowed since 1978. We have heard much discussion this evening about the case in the District of Columbia where the waiver has been ordered to be issued by the EPA to the manufacturers of MMT, but this does not allow the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States.

The automobile industry is convinced MMT adversely affects the operation of these advanced emission control technologies. All the domestic manufacturers and automobile importers agree that MMT adversely affects their sophisticated on board diagnostic systems.

These systems are planned for introduction on new Canadian vehicles starting in the 1996 model year vehicles. On board diagnostic systems will monitor the emission control components and alert the driver to a malfunction. This equipment could ensure that automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy. In other words this is one more important tool to help us address pollution, including urban smog and climate change.

Clearly, reducing motor vehicle pollution requires a concerted effort on two fronts: first, improvements in motor vehicle emission control technology such as those allowed by the advanced systems used by Diagnostic Incorporated, and second, improvements in the composition and properties of fuels.

Therefore the government cannot allow MMT to compromise the ability of Canada's auto industry to design and deliver vehicles to Canadians that can achieve important pollution reductions. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to the latest emission control technology available. This is especially apparent when this same technology will be offered to American consumers starting with the 1996 model year because the United States presently has MMT free fuel.

To repeat what the Deputy Prime Minister stated, we cannot wait any longer. It is now time for action. Any additional delay would threaten the federal emission control programs.

In summary, this action is pro-consumer, pro-business and pro-environment. Therefore, I urge all members to support this action.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. The hon. member for Westminster-Burnaby before him made the allegation that the minister is in the pocket of the motor vehicle manufacturers.

If that is the case, I would like to ask the hon. member why it is that MMT has been disallowed for use in leaded gasoline in the United States since 1978? Was the EPA in the pocket of the motor vehicle manufacturers as well?

Did he not hear the statement that was read containing the facts from the EPA to the effect that the granting of the waiver does not permit the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline? It was simply a technical decision made by the District of Columbia circuit court to the effect that the EPA could not consider health effects in deciding whether or not to grant these waivers. The issue of using MMT still will be the subject matter of extensive testing on health effects.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made reference to the District of Columbia circuit court decision, as have previous speakers.

I have a fax statement I would like to read and ask the member a question. It is fax from the EPA to Environment Canada that reads:

EPA has just learned of the D.C. circuit's decision requiring the agency to grant a fuel additive waiver for the manganese-based gasoline additive MMT. The agency is disappointed in the court's decision that EPA cannot consider health effects in deciding whether or not to grant these waivers.

This decision does not mean that unleaded gasoline containing MMT can now be sold. The Clean Air Act also requires that all new fuel additives, including MMT, must be tested and their health effects studied before they can be registered for use.

In 1994 EPA issued rules implementing this requirement that will govern the testing of MMT. MMT is not currently registered for use in unleaded gasoline. The agency will therefore require the testing concerning potential health effects of MMT be completed prior to its approval for this use.

I would like to know whether the hon. member is aware that tests will have to be completed before MMT can be used in the United States.

[Industrial Research And Development Institute, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on June 1 the finance minister officially opened the Industrial Research and Development Institute in Midland, Ontario, in my riding of Simcoe North.

The IRDI epitomizes the approach to research and development needed in the new economy and reflects the strategy called for in the red book.

The IRDI is a partnership between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, industry and universities. From the work done at IRDI Canada will derive major benefits that will help make our manufacturers more competitive on the international market.

I congratulate Mr. Robbert Hartog and Mr. Reinhart Weber, two industrialists in Midland whose vision was the genesis of the IRDI concept and whose hard work made it a reality.

Support for Messrs. Hartog and Weber represents an important investment in Canada's future.

[Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, June 5 marked the 25th anniversary of the opening of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre in Midland, Ontario, in my riding of Simcoe North. The centre was opened by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Over the 25 years it has existed, Wye Marsh has overcome many obstacles and has established itself as a world leader in the area of heightening awareness of the importance of ecology, wetlands and wildlife.

In 1984, when the government of the time cut its funding, the Friends of Wye Marsh took over the operation of the centre. This organization was able to rally an entire community and to encourage that community to sacrifice time and money for the purpose of conserving this national treasure.

In the past few years the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre has been instrumental in the fight to implement a ban on lead shot and sinkers and more importantly to preserve the trumpeter swan.

Congratulations to the friends of Wye Marsh for continuing these important environmental programs. Canadians everywhere benefit from your conservation and education work. We wish you every success in the future.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am amazed at the interest our hon. colleagues from the Reform Party have taken in the provincial election in Ontario. They do not seem to miss any opportunity to discuss it. I have the impression that there is perhaps, as we have heard in the media, some possibility of a merger with the Tory government. They seem to be very concerned with the fortunes of the Tories in Ontario.

To answer his downloading question, the information I have is that in fact there is the same amount of money, if not more, being transferred to the provinces today as there was prior to this government's taking office.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The simple answer is I cannot explain it. I certainly do not agree with it. Obviously the electorate in the last election did not agree with it. As I previously pointed out, they rejected that Reform plan of eliminating the deficit within three years. Anyone could understand that could not be done without creating tremendous hardship. As has been stated previously in the House this evening, there would be blood in the streets if any government attempted to put those kinds of cuts onto the population. That is clearly why that plan was rejected by the electorate in 1993.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The question of maintaining social programs is very crucial and of much concern to the government. That is what the social program review initiated by the Minister of Human Resources Development was designed to address.

The deficit is being addressed by reducing it to 3 per cent of GDP. That is a minimum interim target. The finance minister stated many times in the House and outside the House that it is just that, a minimum interim target. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the deficit and repay the debt, leaving more money available to put into social programs.

Social programs are in need of review. They were designed several decades ago and have not been brought up to date. There is wide consensus among Canadians that they are in need of a review and an update and it is a question of which approach we will take.

Hon. members across have difficulty 20 months after the 1993 election still accepting that the Liberal platform clearly set out the deficit reduction goal was 3 per cent GDP in three years. That is one of the main reasons we were successful in the election. It is a concept they have difficulty accepting.