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.