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.