Debates of Nov. 27th, 1995

Department Of Public Works And Government Services

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Motions Nos. 10 and 11 in Group No. 5 will not be moved by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and are therefore withdrawn.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the chief government whip, with the agreement of the whips of all the recognized parties, has asked that the recorded division on the question now before the House be deferred until Tuesday, November 28, after government orders, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from indications given by my colleague, the House leader and his staff earlier, the House would normally proceed to the debate on Bill C-93. However, since report stage motions were filed on Friday, the 48-hour notice rule is not satisfied. We will then have to proceed with the next bill on the Order Paper which is Bill C-94.

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be read the third time and passed.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

On this bill we are now at the five hour stage of debate which has entitlements for members to speak for 20 minutes subject to 10 minutes of questions or comments. Slightly over two hours are left at this stage of the debate.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue in Bill C-94 concerning the removal of MMT from gasoline in Canada.

We have been told that this was a debate between, on the one hand, the automobile industry and, on the other hand, the industry that is making MMT, that is, the Esso company.

For us, on this side of the House, it is not in any way one or the other; it is purely a debate on an environmental issue, on a sustainable development issue resulting from automobile emissions that are the greatest sources of noxious gases that change the climate and against which we are fighting vigorously under the convention on climate change.

For us, the intent and the objective are to reduce as much as possible noxious automobile emissions so that we can reduce greenhouse gases.

The whole debate revolves around what are known as catalytic converters in automobiles. Twenty-five years ago, before catalysts were installed in automobiles, automobile emissions were far more severe than they are today. With the advent of very adverse conditions especially in the heavy automobile states such as California, New York and Pennsylvania, catalytic converters were born. To appreciate the essence of the debate on MMT, we have to appreciate what is the true function of a catalyst in an automobile.

A catalyst in an automobile has two main functions. One is to filter and to deter the emissions of hydrocarbons and deleterious gases. The other is to store oxygen within the converter. In modern automobiles we are now installing onboard detection systems with very sensitive equipment such as computerized sensors which permit the catalytic converters to function at their maximum efficiency.

What happens with the use of the heavy metal MMT in gasoline? It compounds the problems of catalysts in that it produces manganese oxide deposits inside the various elements of the converters. The effect of MMT over time on a catalyst today is to impair its function of providing the maximum input in reducing hydrocarbon emissions and other noxious gases. This happens gradually and increasingly as the catalyst ages.

More oxygen is accumulated inside the converter with the effect that the sensor is completely fooled by MMT in its application. Today's sensors in the onboard detection systems are prevented from working properly. The automobile manufacturers have rightly said that where there is MMT it is impossible for the new type of onboard detection systems to function properly.

Further, a big cold battle has been raging in the United States as to whether MMT should or should not be included. It will follow that even if MMT is permitted in the United States, in several states representing at least one-third of the gasoline purchases in the United States, all the heavy automobile states such as California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York and so forth, it will still be impossible to use MMT because the clean air act provides that these states must use reformulated gasoline.

This means MMT or additives containing heavy metals will not be able to be used, except under very special circumstances. It means that even if MMT were allowed in the United States tomorrow, in the several states which provide for the use of reformulated gasoline, for example, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin, it will be impossible to use MMT because heavy metals cannot be used in reformulated gasoline.

The reason is very simple. When heavy metals are introduced into gasoline it is impossible to gradually change to other formulas which enable other octanes such as ethanol to be used. The quicker we ban MMT in Canada, the faster we can move into the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and others as additives to produce a more environmentally friendly gasoline. It has been said that this debate is the auto industry against MMT, that this side has relied on the automobile industry for its input. I have gone to the trouble of speaking to scientists very far removed from the automobile industry, who have told me that unless we remove MMT from our gasoline it will not be possible for us to move toward reformulated gasoline using additives, such as environmentally friendly ethanol produced from wood and other substances; ethanol which will produce far fewer emissions, which go toward the warming of our climate.

For me this whole question is an environmental issue. It is very much an environmental issue. If tomorrow I have a choice to use a heavy metal, such as manganese as an additive in gasoline, and on the other side to gradually move toward environmentally friendly additives, such as ethanol and others, then for me there is no choice. Unless we take the first step, the second will never happen.

I know it has been said that the Ministry of Health has not banned MMT, has not found it noxious to health. Yet there are very severe warnings. In the last debate in this House at second reading, I quoted some very severe warnings by leading health specialists and scientists. I will not return to all the quotes I have already read, except to put the accent on one of them.

During the hearings before the United States house of representatives committee on health and environment regarding the EPA, there was one quote: "that like lead, manganese is not new or toxic. It is an element and thus does not degrade or lose its potency with the passage of time. As a result, the manganese released into the environment through the use of MMT in a given year accumulates over time with all the MMT released in the next year and all the subsequent years".

I have recently received a health report written by three scientists. It is a report headed "Developmental Toxicity of Mangafodipir Trisodium and Manganese Chloride in Sprague-Dawley Rats". It is by three scientists, Kimberley Treinen of the Sanofi Research Division of Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Mr. Tim Gray of the Alnwick Research Centre in Alnwick, Northumberland in England and William Blazak of Nycomed, Collegeville, Pennsylvania.

They studied MnDPDP, which is a manganese chelate being developed as a contrast agent for magnet resonance. They say:

A third study, in which 15 rats/group were dosed intravenously with 0, 5, 20 or40 mmol/kg MnCl2 on days 6-17 of gestation, produced identical skeletal malformations to those seen with MnDPDP, indicating that manganese is the active moiety responsible for these specific malformations.

Their summary says:

In summary, the data presented here indicate that a specific syndrome of skeletal malformations in rats was induced by MnDPDP, which occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity at four times the intended clinical dose. The same specific malformations were also seen with intravenous administration of equivalent or lower doses of manganese. Since manganese has been shown to cross the placenta (Jarvinen and Ahlstrom, '75; Koshida et al, '63; Rojas et al., '67), it appears that manganese is the active tertogenic moiety in MnDPDP.

It appears that manganese is the active teratogenic moiety in MnDPDP.

Our health ministry has not accepted and proven conclusively that manganese is a toxic agent that should be banned. At the same time, the whole question is, if we have two alternatives, it is always a question of choice. We have two alternatives, MMT on one side, a heavy metal that is known to affect, to gum up catalytic converters. It is not used in California, which is trying to clean up its air. It is not used in New York state. It is not used in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

If by any chance we move to cleaner additives, to ethanol and others, then the choice is very simple for us. Let us ban MMT so that eventually we are going to produce and use much cleaner fuels.

The world is moving very fast. I am told by various scientists from the automobile side and others that the day is coming very fast when automobile catalysts will be so precise that they will be able to monitor any noxious fumes. There will be far more effective filtering agents that will be used much more effectively with reformulated gasoline, such as is the case in the states that have led the fight on this, California and others.

If MMT continues to be used, then the potential for an improved catalytic converter will not happen. The choice for us is to say let us move on, let us go along, pass Bill C-94 very fast so that Canada joins not only the United States, not only California, not only Pennsylvania but Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, France, England and all the states of the world that do not use MMT. Why should we be the exception?

For me, this is the vote for the environment. We will vote with much conviction for Bill C-94.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member present his case. I want to make a point and ask a question.

The member speaks as if there is absolute, conclusive opinion regarding the detrimental effects of MMT. I listened to the member speak. I believe that he believes that.

The fact is that there are conflicting reports on the effects of MMT. I would like to ask the member if he has read the reports that say that MMT is not the bad additive that the report says. Has the member read both reports? Could he comment on what is his opinion of the report that supports the continued use of MMT and the effectiveness of it as a product that helps the gasoline to burn more clean and effectively? Has he read both reports?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I have read on both sides of the question. Yes, I know it is not a question that is totally black and white. Yes, I know that the makers of MMT can genuinely say that in some sectors it has advantages.

However, in all the decisions we make here nothing is exactly black or white. We have a choice. Of the two choices, one is the choice of a heavy metal with very serious potential health questions attached to it which many scientists have been flagging, as they did about lead. The same debate took place on lead. Should it be taken out of gasoline? Should it be left in because it is a very good octane enhancer? Today we would never go back. If we looked at the debates which took place I am sure there were two sides to the issue.

Eventually a choice has to be made. With me the choice is clear. On one side is a heavy metal which has potential health problems. It has been clearly demonstrated to gum up catalytic converters, which are the salvation of tomorrow with respect to the car of the future. I would like to find a way to move much faster in Canada toward other additives. It may be a bit more expensive in the beginning, but eventually we should look to other additives, just as the rest of the world is doing.

If MMT is so beneficial, why do not Scandinavia, a leader in the environmental field, the Netherlands, Germany or Japan use it?

For me the choice is very clear. In the balance of choices I have chosen to go with Bill C-94. It is the fastest way for us to use environmentally friendly fuels in Canada.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the hon. member.

I want to key in on a phrase which he used and that was the phrase "potential health hazards". Either we have a health hazard with the use of MMT or we do not. Surely, with the science which is available to us to study the effects of a fuel product using MMT, we can determine beyond a shadow of a doubt whether there is or is not a health hazard.

The hon. member said that he has read studies which indicate that MMT is fine and that no conclusion has ever been reached that there are health risks involved with it. On the other hand, the reports and studies which came from the auto industry said that there is a health hazard with MMT and that we must stop this devastating product immediately.

I am surprised that the government is ready to jump to a decision to ban MMT without having a conclusive scientific finding. When there are two reports on the product which are at absolute opposites, I wonder what is behind the government's enthusiasm to jump in and ban MMT. It is all right to say that the sky is going to fall, but that might only be opinion. The sky may never fall.

I believe that the Liberals are playing "Chicken Little" with this bill. The sky is falling and MMT is going to pollute the earth. In

fact, the sky has never fallen and there is no scientific evidence that MMT is a health hazard.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the auto industry has never made its case on the health issues. The automobile industry made its case on catalysts and sensors and the onboard detection systems in vehicles. That was its case.

With respect to the case on health, I produced several quotations during second reading and I have them here. I did not obtain them from the automobile industry.

The fact is that several very learned and respected scientists have said beware, there is a potential problem with manganese. To say that it does not exist is to negate some very important opinions that have been expressed.

Following the Earth Summit in Rio, which my friends on the environment committee will know, sanction is now one of the basic principles of any environmental law as a precautionary principle. Do not wait until everything has been proven conclusively before we act.

When Rachel Carson wrote a book about DDT she was thought to be crazy. And look at what DDT has done while we waited for conclusive proof.

At one time we were using PCBs and we thought they were good for the environment and for equipment in transformers. We found out too late how deleterious it is to the environment. We used lead as well, and thought it was great until too late we found out what happened.

As I said to the member, if there is a choice to be made, do we choose a heavy metal that can produce problems or do we use a clean additive? The choice is very clear to me. On the basis of the precautionary principle and on the basis of all I have read, I am voting very convincingly for Bill C-94.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has decided to propose an amendment to Bill C-94 at third reading, because we know that the American agency EPA will table a report on the issue shortly. As my colleague of the Reform Party said earlier, we believe that it is important for us to also look at studies that will be published at the international level, because our friends opposite enjoy saying in committee that the environment knows no boundaries. This is why I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"Bill C-94, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence."

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are verifying the validity of the amendment.

The hon. member has taken debate time. We now have a 10-minute period of questions and comments.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-94, which is now before the House.

In the bill the government is taking a decisive step toward protecting the environment, jobs, consumers, and keeping our country at the leading edge of automobile technology. All are very important goals.

Bill C-94 will prohibit the import and interprovincial trade of MMT, a manganese based fuel additive manufactured in the U.S. The proposed bill, to be known as the manganese based fuel additives act, will come into effect 60 days after it gains assent.

Canada is one of the only countries in the world that use MMT. It is very rare in the world these days. The U.S., for example, banned it from use in unleaded gasoline in 1978. It is remarkable that it did it so long ago and we still have it in Canada.

Some members opposite have cited a recent U.S. court decision in favour of MMT as a reason to stop this legislation. But MMT will still be banned in California and in those states that require federal reformulated gasoline to be used. What is more, we have yet to see whether the U.S. government will repeal this decision.

We are taking this action because we need to protect the latest onboard diagnostic systems that Canada's car makers are installing in their new vehicles. These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle emission controls and for alerting the driver of malfunctions. Without that kind of technology one cannot be aware of how well the car is working or if it is not functioning at all in terms of its emission control processes. They ensure that the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They 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 air pollution, including smog and climate change.

This government will not allow MMT to get in the way of the automobile industry's effort to make cars cleaner and more efficient and less polluting. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to the best anti-pollution technology possible. Yet Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT through its subsidiary Ethyl Canada, denies the vehicle industry allegation about the ill effects of MMT on the vehicle emissions control

systems. In fact it makes a counter claim that MMT is environmentally beneficial.

All this is somewhat fuzzy. What is certain is that efforts to reduce motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just the petroleum industry, the auto industry, or the federal government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution requires simultaneous action by all. The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in the vehicle emissions control systems and technologies, such as those offered through onboard diagnostic systems. The government needs to take decisive action in Bill C-94, which removes a major obstacle to the introduction of these technologies. That obstacle is MMT.

Our strategy to reduce vehicle pollution goes beyond just taking action on MMT. The government is doing its part because we know that automobiles are a major contributor to climate change and urban smog as well as some toxic pollutants like benzene. In fact in a recently released task force report done by Canada's deputy ministers of environment it is noted that even with the improvements in emissions technology, vehicles are still the largest contributors to air pollution.

I must say that troubles me. I as a member of Parliament, and I am sure many of my colleagues, have to travel a great deal throughout my riding and often I am the only person in the vehicle. There are times when I feel uncomfortable about that. I know that it is important that I get around my riding, get around to different events, be seen and hear people's concerns. Yet I also know that I am driving a vehicle a lot more than I would like to be driving it. Unfortunately, my riding is too big to go by bicycle. It would take me forever, but it would certainly be great for my health. This issue does trouble me. We should be concerned about the impact of automobile emissions as they impact on the environment and air pollution.

On a national basis, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles still contribute some 60 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions, 35 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions or smog, 25 per cent of our hydrocarbon emissions, and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. These vehicles, gasoline and diesel powered, are very big contributors to our smog and pollution problems.

This report I just referred to stresses the need to proceed on all fronts at the same time in all of these areas. It states the following: "Vehicle technology and fuel composition, although two separate industry sectors, must be treated as an integrated system in the development of policies and programs in order to successfully reduce emissions from motor vehicles". This is good advice. It should complement our work in preparing our comprehensive motor vehicle exhaust emission standards.

To meet these standards, we are counting on integrating improvements achieved in emission control technologies and fuels. However, clearly we cannot hope to meet these standards without the kind of action we are taking against MMT in Bill C-94. And it is not simply an act of impatience. Since 1985 the federal government has waited for the automotive and petroleum industries to resolve this situation without legislation. It was not resolved. The time for waiting is over. It is now time for the government to act.

Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both the petroleum and automotive industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994; otherwise, the government would take action. This deadline was subsequently extended in February of this year to review automobile and petroleum industry proposals. The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions programs we are putting into place. In the long term it could also negatively impact on the automotive sector. Successful resolution of the MMT issue will ensure that environmental benefits are realized through the use of the most advanced emission control technologies. We have to move in this direction.

Members opposite have claimed that this legislation will have an enormous financial impact on the petroleum sector. However, let us be prudent and realistic. The economic impact of removing MMT will be small, not enormous. Estimates for the industry, an industry that involves many billions of dollars, range from $50 million to $83 million per year, which means an additional cost to consumers of 0.1 cents to 0.24 cents per litre at the pump. This is less than one-quarter of a cent per litre at the pump.

Some have said that taking MMT out of our fuel will increase benzene. That is not so. It is nonsense. Gasoline can be refined without MMT and without increasing levels of benzene. Any effort to increase benzene levels or benzene precursors will not be tolerated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In fact this past summer the Minister of the Environment announced that benzene levels would be regulated at a maximum of one per cent per volume. So there is nothing to fear. Let us move ahead. Let us do it, because we need new emission control technologies like the onboard diagnostic systems. We need them to help achieve reductions in smog, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. We need to reduce these kinds of emissions because they have an influence on climate change and urban air quality.

This is good legislation. It is good for consumers and good for the environment. All 18 automobile companies in Canada agree, even if the Reform Party does not, that we are moving in the right direction.

I urge all members to give their support and swift passage to this bill.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we said in the motion, we are not asking for the bill to be withdrawn altogether but to be postponed for six months. The environment is of course a very important matter, and we support any measures that have a positive impact on the environment and that are environmentally viable.

However, as far as Bill C-94 on the abolition of MMT is concerned, we are not convinced it is a good bill. If we consider what has been done with respect to manganese, including tests by the automotive industry, the tests now being done by independent laboratories were ordered strictly by Ethyl Corporation which, on the basis of its tests, has demonstrated that MMT does not in any way affect the components of the antipollution system in automobiles.

I also wonder what the automotive industry is doing in this respect. If studies have already found that MMT causes pollution in the components of the antipollution system, why have these tests not been published? Did they actually do any tests? Do they intend to or did they never do any at all?

When I look at the government's position in this respect, is it possible that the government was pressured by the automotive industry lobby to the extent that it felt obliged to table this bill? It is quite possible. I do not want to accuse anybody, but we all know that there are two major lobbies here in Canada. The oil company lobby and the automotive lobby. As it happens, all the automotive industries are in Ontario, not far from the environment minister's riding. Maybe that should give rise to some questions.

However, the U.S. automotive industry is only beginning to test this product. The purpose of our amendment is for us to wait until they get the results of those tests before we make a final and definitive decision, because legislation is definitive. We must have some kind of proof and nobody has proven anything yet, not even Health Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said earlier-he read it, by the way, because it is in Hansard -that as far as health is concerned, tests have shown that there is no threat whatsoever to health.

I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment made a mistake a while ago when he mentioned that manganese was a toxin. I am sorry, but if it were considered a toxic product, we would not be here considering a special piece of legislation such as Bill C-94 to ban it, because it would be covered under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This means that any product considered toxic is automatically included under CEPA. This is not the case here. Manganese is not a toxic product since we have to enact a specific legislation to ban it. There has been a slight error which I wanted to point out and correct.

We have heard about a recent ruling in the United States, which I believe to be very important. The Ethyl corporation has been working for years to keep on manufacturing and marketing its product. Very recently, a few weeks ago, a ruling ordered the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American equivalent of our Department of the Environment, to lift the ban on MMT.

In the United States, even the Environmental Protection Agency tells us when we call that it does not know if it is going to appeal, that it does not think so. We are told that this product could be reintroduced in the United States as early as the beginning of December. So what is the rationale behind Bill C-94?

We are also told that 50 per cent of American refineries are ready to use this product and cannot wait to do so. So if 50 per cent of these industries are ready to use MMT, again what is the rationale behind Bill C-94?

In the environment committee, we are always talking about harmonization, about trying to make the environment an international concern. I totally agree with that. Yes, I said many times that we have to avoid duplication and conflict and yet, with Bill C-94, we are creating a conflict with our neighbours, the Americans, who are a bit more powerful than we are.

So we are going to eliminate MMT from the market and ask all our refineries to transform their system, at a cost of several million dollars, because they will not be able to use MMT any more, and we may well have to reintroduce it in six months. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

What we are asking is not that the bill be withdrawn, but that we wait and see what happens in the United States. We are also asking to see the tests being done right now by the U.S. automotive industry, and I have the feeling that these tests will be performed a little bit faster than the ones scheduled to be done in Canada, because we will not be able to watch them. Once we have these results, we will have a complete, concrete and logical overview of the issue, and in six months' time, we can revisit the bill and make a decision based on logical arguments.

We are going through tough a period, in our economy, where we cannot afford to make mistakes. We are out of money. We are going through some hard times. Are we going to ask refineries to completely modify their process simply to achieve what we set to do as far as MMT is concerned? I know that MMT is an additive. But we are also talking about other additives now available on the market, such as ethanol. As you know, we have yet to see complete and concrete evidence that ethanol is neither toxic nor hazardous.

We may realize one day that ethanol is not that good for the environment.

I am not against the introduction of products like ethanol, but why should we replace manganese, MMT, which has been thoroughly analyzed for 15 years and has not been proven to be dangerous? On the contrary, it even helps to reduce the greenhouse effect by 20 per cent.

I am not saying that we should keep this product forever or that the bill is not good. What I am saying is that the product is now being reintroduced on the American market and that we should wait six months to see what the EPA will do or what studies the U.S. automotive industry will produce on this product before we make a logical and reasonable decision on this issue.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the minister is lucky, her Bill C-94 banning gas additives will stall before it backfires.

An innocuous-sounding piece of federal legislation supposedly aimed at reducing auto emissions has left critics wondering whether the Liberal government hasn't inhaled one noxious substance too many.

The bill we are debating, the manganese based fuel additive bill, would ban a gasoline additive called MMT.

Environment Minister Sheila Copps has made the rather dramatic claims that the move will make auto emissions 600 percent cleaner, while saving car buyers an average of $3,000 on the next family clunker. Unfortunately for all, there is considerable evidence that the issue is made up of equal parts of clean air and the hot variety.

A growing number of critics of the legislation-including provincial environment ministers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-fear a ban on MMT may actually cause a dramatic increase in choking tailpipe filth, while causing higher gas prices.

MMT has been added to Canadian gasoline since 1977, primarily to increase octane levels.

It was mentioned that it was banned in the United States. That is not particularly the case. It was never really approved because of some early concerns and then it got involved in extensive court battles. Specifically, it was never banned because it was seen as a dangerous substance; it just never received approval.

The alternative is enhanced oil-refining, at greater cost to the petroleum companies and, inevitably, consumers.

Of course that would involve other additives, which may also prove eventually much more harmful than MMT was ever contemplated to be. There is also evidence that MMT may significantly cut smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, or what we commonly call NOx.

But the automobile companies claim MMT gums up their emission-control warning systems, possibly causing the malfunction indicator lights on the dashboard to malfunction. If drivers don't know they have a problem with

emission control, the industry argues, they will unwittingly be poisoning the air even more than usual.

The alternative of fixing the cars instead of the fuel, according to the federal environment minister, would increase the average car price by $3,000.

One official spokesman for the minister said that "On this particular issue, the evidence she has seen-has provided her with enough to get this bill through cabinet and the House". The cabinet dealt with this in a far too cursory manner.

That so-called "evidence" is contained in four separate reports-three written by various automobile lobby organizations, the fourth at the request of General Motors. No surprise; all concluded MMT was pretty terrible stuff.

As it happens, there are a few other studies floating around. Health Canada, for instance, concluded MMT poses no particular health risk.

I recall looking at my vitamin bottle, and manganese is on the vitamin pill list. It is a matter of trace amounts or whatever. The studies that were quoted by the parliamentary secretary talk about giving rats an unusual amount of the concentrated substance. I would think that any vitamin given in a disproportionate amount is going to cause some deleterious effects to a living organism.

Another mega-study was conducted over a five-year period for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which, until recently, had placed a total ban on MMT additives in gasoline. It was not permitted. The results of the study, in part, last month led the U.S. Court of Appeals to order the environmental agency to approve the use of MMT in unleaded gas.

We are waiting for December 5, which is the cut-off date for any filing of appeals. Certainly the motion before the House today would accommodate that wait and see approach to see how the world is generally going to move on this item.

The U.S. court ruling also blew the engine on the minister's argument that, as a trade issue, it was vital to harmonize Canadian and U.S. standards on MMT.

One effect of the U.S. court ruling is that it compelled the American automakers and petroleum industry to launch a new joint study into MMT and the whacky warning lights.

Given the amount of conflicting evidence presented by both sides, the five provincial environment ministers have suggested Copps put the brakes on her pet legislation, at least until the U.S. joint study has been completed.

Even within the Liberal cabinet, we are told, some ministers seem concerned that Copps' determination to ram the MMT legislation through has more to do with her personal political agenda (e.g., saving face) than practical environmental considerations.

Copps's rhetoric on this issue has been so forceful, retreating from the legislation now would produce more political egg than she has face to wear.

Fortunately for her, there is a graceful way out. The Commons is expected to prorogue some time next month, meaning this session of Parliament will be officially declared dead, along with all unpassed bills. In the meantime, the bill still has to go to the Senate, which, if Copps is really lucky, will tie up the bill till prorogation do it part.

This anti free trade bill should die. I think MMT is about to be used around the world. Many countries are not using it now because it is not being used in the United States. They are watching what will happen in the United States. If the American industry begins to use it, many countries are ready to follow suit.

The EPA will be completely out of the picture on December 5. The government should be embarrassed about this bill. It knows it and we know it. Let common sense prevail.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I want to rectify a few things that have been said by previous speakers.

I think reading from a newspaper article to show that the minister is only pushing Bill C-94 forward as a project to save face is nonsense. The minister believes, as I and the Liberal government do, after much thinking and cogitation and the several weeks of discussion the bill has undergone, that for us it is the best choice.

There are two choices. MMT could be left in, riding on the back of the Ethyl Corporation which both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party quote very extensively. The Ethyl Corporation has done a great lobbying job with the members. I am happy for the Ethyl Corporation that some members are convinced. At the same time, there is an issue of choice, an issue of whether we keep a heavy metal, which is what MMT is, in our future gasolines and cars, or whether we try to move toward more environmentally sound fuels.

I heard the Bloc Quebecois member question whether ethanol will one day be found to be just as bad for the environment as lead or something else is today. I would suggest that she read the testimony made before many committees of the House on ethanol and that she consult with people involved in the ethanol industry. Perhaps she should consult with those who crafted the clean air act in the United States. It was amended so that in the future more and more ethanol would be used because of its cleaner properties. The scientists are very clear that ethanol is a cleaner fuel because it is derived from natural, biological properties. Obviously, it is not a heavy metal.

When I referred to manganese as a toxin I was quoting from studies of scientists who referred to it. A statement was made by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Health and Environment at the EPA hearing on June 22, 1990. Reference was made that like lead, manganese is not only neurotoxic, it is an element, et cetera. We are talking about neurotoxic in the generic sense, not in the sense of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are talking in a generic sense.

I will quote other scientists from the University of Pittsburgh, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at the same hearings: "The page 15 appendix to their waiver application"-talking about Ethyl Corporation-"that deals with health nowhere mentions the neurotoxic properties of manganese".

The Department of Health and Human Services in the United States stated: "MMT can be absorbed through the skin and probably readily by the nose and lungs". Obviously they are talking in a generic sense about a heavy metal.

Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois critic should check with the deputy minister of the Department of the Environment who in a letter to our deputy minister in the Department of the Environment said:

In a letter dated July 7, 1995, the minister said that they were thinking of supporting the Canadian position on MMT in order to maintain the uniformity of car fleets and to take advantage of the environmental gains that will be made possible by the new motor vehicle emission control technologies.

The Quebec Deputy Minister of the Environment wrote to his federal counterpart that they were thinking of supporting the Canadian position on MMT in order to maintain the uniformity of car fleets and to take advantage of the environmental gains that will be made possible by the new motor vehicle emission control technologies.

This, of course, was denied in a November 2, 1995 letter from the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, who disagrees. In any case, it is interesting to note that they agreed from an environmental point of view. It is clear that this issue has two components. We could argue, like the Reform critic, that once MMT is accepted in the U.S., the rest of the world will follow.

There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence that the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark or Japan, environmentally conscious countries, would join in because a court case was won by the Ethyl corporation in the United States.

Certainly the EPA opposed the court case all the way along. The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States also pointed out that several states of the United States would not be able to use MMT because they were using reformulated gasoline so that they could clean up their own air emissions faster.

It is a stalling tactic to try to kill the bill, to produce another amendment that is exactly the same as the amendment we defeated very fairly the other day. There was a similar amendment on second reading to defer it for six months and we defeated it. That is the democratic process. I am sure the same result will greet this amendment.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly stalling has been basically our position all along because of the appeal situation in the United States. Our position, which was purported to support the MMT bill, has been well pointed out in the House and at committee.

When I began to cross-examine some of the evidence at committee, for instance the sparkplug evidence, it turned out to be fake. I demolished the testimony of the person who had the nerve to come to the table and put forward evidence that turned out to be completely erroneous.

That is why the government has been very reluctant to agree to independent third party testing. It has rejected that down the line. However I understand some groups are getting together in the United States to have independent third party testing to be able to remove the pressure of lobby groups.

Certainly our party has not been siding with any particular lobby group. Right from the beginning we have been asking for independent third party tests. My colleague asks who stands up for science. We wonder about the government and what lobby groups it is supporting.

The delay is to see what will happen in the United States and certainly this is an ill advised bill that should die.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.