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-