House of Commons Hansard #256 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cmhc.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
When Bill C-94 was last before the House, the hon. member for Athabasca had 34 minutes remaining in debate.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Madam Speaker, in resuming my presentation on this topic I should like to briefly review where I was yesterday when I was interrupted by the vote. As I was saying, when thanking the witnesses who appeared before the committee to discuss in all sincerity and earnest the topic before us, trying to influence the government's position on Bill C-94, it was very apparent the members of the committee and the government were not prepared or interested in listening to anything the witnesses had to say simply because their minds had long since been made up to support the minister's political commitment which had long since been bought and paid for.
We went on to talk about the issues the minister had raised in support of her bill. Yesterday the member for York-Simcoe had been babbling on about the Reform Party's being in the pockets of Ethyl Corporation, this evil corporation with its head offices in the U.S. That was absolute rubbish.
Right from the beginning as I met with both sides on this issue and discussed their positions, which was more than the minister was willing to do, it became very clear someone was distorting the facts on the issue. Over the summer months I spent a tremendous amount of time researching the information available and judging the information before us. The more I did that the more I came to believe that the positions of the Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute and Ethyl Corporation were correct and that the motor vehicle manufacturers' position was very flawed.
That was brought to my attention through endless studies done in Canada and the U.S. on the subject. It certainly was the judgment of the Environmental Protection Agency, two courts in the U.S., and a lot of independent testing done on the subject.
I went on yesterday to talk about some of the positions and the flaws in those positions put forward by the government, one of which is that MMT causes damage to the OBD II technology in 1996 cars. The evidence brought forward in the U.S. and Canada in the most extensive series of tests ever done on a fuel additive in the world failed to verify the motor vehicle manufacturers' position on that interference of the OBD II systems.
The issue of sparkplug failure was a favourite issue of the minister in that sparkplugs were failing up to 17 times higher in fuel with MMT than in fuel without MMT. We referred to very extensive testing in the U.S. on the subject, independent testing that failed to find any connection whatsoever between MMT in gasoline and the failure of those sparkplugs. The failure of the sparkplugs was an inherent flaw in that particular brand of sparkplug and had little to do with MMT.
When we were in committee and we asked for evidence to be brought forward from the MVMA to show us where this failure of the sparkplugs was proven, it brought forward a number of pictures of sparkplugs. The first was a picture of a sparkplug that looked almost brand new, which aroused some suspicion. Any sparkplug that has ran 50,000 kilometres or more has some discolouring on the porcelain section and does not look like the sparkplug in the picture.
The other picture was of a sparkplug that was very fouled and in terrible condition. The representative from the MVMA pointed out these two sparkplugs were identical sparkplugs used in identical vehicles, one run with MMT fuel and one without. When we took a closer look at the pictures clearly they were not even the same type of sparkplug. They were different sparkplugs.
Immediately we began to doubt the validity of the evidence being presented when presented as one thing when even laymen like ourselves on the committee could very easily see the evidence was flawed, manipulated and not correct. I do not think the claim of the sparkplug failure had much validity, which raises doubts about the entire evidence.
Then we went on to the issue of tailpipe emissions from the vehicles and how they would affect our environment. In the process of the Environmental Protection Agency study and to satisfy the U.S. clean air act requirements for the reintroduction of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States, Ethyl Corporation conducted the most extensive series of tests ever undertaken on a gasoline additive. The testing program was designed with the assistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. automakers to evaluate and document the effects of MMT performance additives on automobile tailpipe emissions and to determine the implications for air quality if the MMT additives were used in gasoline.
The initial MMT emission test program involved 48 cars, representing a broad cross-section of automobiles driven in North America, operated for a total of more than three million miles. Half of the 1988 cars used a test fuel with additives and the other half used the same fuel without additives. Tailpipe emissions were checked every 5,000 miles.
In committee various witnesses put forth a lot of very technical evidence. I pointed out earlier that the validity of the evidence concerning sparkplug misfiring was suspect and there was also that same suspicion regarding the data concerning tailpipe emissions. I will give the House another example of that suspect evidence.
In committee the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, a member of the government, raised these concerns regarding the data presented concerning tailpipe emissions. From the blues of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of October 24, 1995 he said: "What interests me is that this
chart shows very clearly that Canadian cars using MMT have a significantly lower NOx emission than those used in the United States not using MMT. Am I not seeing improvements with MMT as opposed to the opposite?"
The witness responded by saying: "I think you are seeing a false improvement as a result of MMT".
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth responded by saying: "It is your chart. If that data is false then surely the other data that shows improvements in the emissions of hydrocarbons and CO2s and carbon dioxide, then these other two charts are also suspect. What I am trying to get at is what does any of this data mean? If you say that one is false, are these two therefore right or are they all false?"
In spite of his serious suspicions to the evidence before him this member failed to raise any concerns with the content or validity of the bill in the clause by clause review or at report stage and here we are at third reading. Will the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth now vote to hold the bill until further independent research is done to verify that suspect evidence?
We studied this matter over the summer. The Environmental Protection Agency participated in this test program in determining the test protocols and the definitions involved. Also many independent testing facilities were used to analyse the data using similar protocols and procedures to those laid out by the EPA.
The data were subjected to rigorous, independent statistical analyses to evaluate the impact of the additive over 75,000 miles of vehicle operation.
An additional test fleet of 44 cars of 1992 and 1993 models were tested and yielded similar results to the 1988 fleet. Four models of the 1992-93 test fleet were driven 100,000 miles without any catalytic system problems due to MMT. All the MMT cars met exhaust emission standards at 100,000 miles. Two other 1988 models were also run to 100,000 miles without exhaust failure due to MMT.
These programs took nearly five years and cost millions of dollars. It is the most extensive series of tests ever performed in support of a fuel additive waiver. The evidence is pretty strong as to the effect on tailpipe emissions of MMT.
The next issue in question which has been raised by the minister in the House is health. In committee we heard experts from Health Canada's monitoring and criteria division who presented their conclusions from a December 6, 1994 risk assessment which focused on new epidemiological studies and a Canadian exposure data entitled "Risk Assessment for the Combustion Products of MMT in gasoline". The study concluded that the use of MMT in gasoline does not represent a health risk to any segment of the Canadian population.
Specifically the report states: "Airborne manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline powered vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in quantities or under conditions that may constitute a health risk". The study also concludes there is no connection between levels of ambient respirable manganese and MMT sales or use in unleaded gasoline, whether examined by geographic area or by season.
The last and probably most important issue in the whole debate in the House and in committee was based on the uniformity of gasoline in the North American market. On April 25 of this year the hon. Minister of Industry stated: "It is crucial that we have uniformity standards". The hon. minister is referring to the fact that at the time MMT was not used in the U.S.A. but was in Canada, and for that reason it was important to have the same gasoline in the North American market.
I would like to know now if the minister still agrees with this statement because the U.S. court of appeals has now ordered the U.S. EPA to grant Ethyl Corporation's application for a waiver, paving the way for the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States. The EPA has until early December to appeal. Our sources say that is unlikely.
Several U.S. refiners have provided written notice of their intention to use MMT. Ethyl has received orders pending the appeal date from not only the U.S.A. but from Mexico, Argentina, Russia, Bulgaria, Indonesia and Peru. Most of the rest of the countries of the world are still using leaded gasoline, which makes the issue irrelevant for them.
The uniformity of gasoline additives within North America would now require Canada to maintain rather than restrict the use of MMT. If the Minister of Industry still stands by his statement, I hope to see him vote against the bill in the House on third reading. If he no longer stands by his statement, the House would really like to know why he now believes that uniformity in the North American market is no longer crucial.
With this question of uniformity in mind, why do we not hold the bill on the Order Paper until after the appeal period has expired, particularly now since the American automakers have approached Ethyl to do independent testing in the U.S.? Does the government believe the uniformity of gasoline is no longer crucial in North American markets?
The refineries were among the groups that appeared before the committee to discuss this bill and to lobby in opposition to the bill simply because of the increase costs to the refineries in the event of banning MMT. For the benefit of members opposite who seem to
be in a great frenzy to promote the use of ethanol in gasolines, the refineries clearly stated that should MMT be banned in Canada, ethanol would not be used as a substitute for MMT. Economics would simply dictate that instead of using MMT a much enhanced refining process would be required which would cause greater volumes of crude oil and greater emissions from the refining process of a number of undesirable elements, including carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide.
Also concerning environmental pollution, there were a number of studies by Calgary based T.J. McCann and Associates Limited and Environ International Limited of California-MMT is banned by name in California-showing that the likely range of increase in nitrous oxide emissions if MMT were to be banned would be equivalent of adding 32,000 to 50,000 tonnes per year to the environment, the equivalent of putting over a million additional cars on the road by the year 2000.
Last May Environ of California concluded that Environment Canada in the McCann study underestimated the annual increase in tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions that would result from the removal of MMT, saying it would result in between 49,000 and 62,000 tonnes more nitrous oxide into the environment.
Putting these studies into a non-technical format, removing MMT would increase nitrous oxide levels from automobiles by up to 20 per cent, an action which contradicts Environment Canada's environmental management plan and Canada's signing of a 1998 international treaty promising to freeze nitrous oxide emissions at 1988 levels.
Canada's major cities are faced with increased pollution levels. I find it hard to believe the Minister of the Environment is pushing legislation that would increase pollution. She knows nitrous oxide emissions are the cause of urban smog. Therefore she should be supporting any means to reduce nitrous oxide. Now she will probably tell the House that the new OBDs will reduce pollution and therefore will counteract the increased levels of nitrous oxide.
I remind the minister the OBD systems in no way affect the emission or pollution levels. They are simply a monitoring system and will not therefore affect the emission control systems in the amount of pollution they allow into the environment.
I note there is no support for this bill from the provinces, specifically my province of Alberta as well as Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. I have also in my possession a copy of a letter from the minister of natural resources from Quebec urging the government to reconsider its position on MMT considering recent events in the U.S.A.
Also, what is truly amazing is the complete turnaround of the official opposition, which supported the government's initiative on
second reading. Despite the fact that its members were a rare sight at the committee hearings, on third reading they appear to be supporting our position on the bill and opposing the government.
I and other members of the committee who studied the bill, if open minded, would have to come to these conclusions. The evidence presented as to the effects of MMT on OBD II is at best inconclusive. The use of MMT in gasoline has no detrimental health effect on Canadians, as confirmed by Health Canada. If the use of MMT has any measurable impact on the environment, it would be a positive impact due to the reduction of the smog producing nitrous oxide.
If fuel harmonization in the North American market is crucial, as the Ministry of Industry stated in the House on April 25, in view of recent events in the U.S.A. the bill will not aid in the harmonization but will provide the opposite result.
The bill sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the Canadian environment. If we are to continue the great progress in the reduction of automobile emissions we have seen in the last number of years, we must have a harmonization or a co-operative effort between the auto manufacturing industry and the manufacturers of automobile fuels. If the bill is any indication of the way the auto manufacturers plan to co-operate with the fuel manufacturers, it certainly does not bode well for the future progress in the technology of automobile emissions.
We must postpone passage of the bill while independent testing is conducted on the effects of MMT on OBD II and also to give us time to assess the situation in the USA after the time expires of the appeal court decision.
Therefore I will be voting against the bill at third reading. I certainly will be watching to see how Alberta's only representative in cabinet and the representative for Alberta's resource industries will be voting, as well as the member for Sarnia-Lambton, who has been amazingly silent on this whole issue, considering he represents the constituency where the Ethyl plant is located and where the resulting layoffs from the government's decision will no doubt occur. I will be watching this very closely.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again to speak to Bill C-94, the manganese based fuel additives act.
We have heard all kinds of arguments for and against the legislation now before the House but it is clear there are still misconceptions on the other side.
I will focus on the crucial reasons we seek to ban the use of manganese based fuel additives in Canada. We are doing this
because it is good for the environment, good for Canadian consumers and good for Canadian business and workers.
The ban benefits the environment by supporting the latest development in technology for reducing emissions from motor vehicles. That is significant because vehicles are still the largest single factor contributing to air pollution. In recent decades we have seen major improvements made by vehicle manufacturers and fuel producers. These have certainly lowered the amounts of pollutants released by individual vehicles.
During the same time the number of cars and trucks on the road has grown considerably. As a result, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles are still responsible for 60 per cent of the carbon monoxide emissions in Canada. They are responsible for 35 per cent of the nitrogen oxide emissions. They are responsible for 25 per cent of the hydrocarbon emissions and they are responsible for 20 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions. Given those numbers we must make every effort to lower vehicle emissions for the sake of air quality in Canada.
Certainly we have seen progress since the 1970s. One decisive step was the phase out of lead from Canadian gasoline starting in 1977. Another has been the improvement in fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. Still another has been the introduction of emissions control equipment.
Now we are in the midst of taking another major step, the introduction into our cars and trucks of onboard diagnostic systems. These systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution control systems in our cars, in particular to monitor the catalyst, and to alert the driver to malfunctions in those emission control systems.
In essence a properly functioning onboard diagnostic system is a built in inspection and maintenance tool. As we know, inspection and maintenance of a vehicle can greatly reduce vehicle emissions. For proof of this we need only look at programs that require vehicles to be emissions tested from time to time.
For example, the Vancouver area has the air care inspection and maintenance program which is conducted on an annual basis. In the tested fleet of cars the programmers reduced hydrocarbon emissions by 20 per cent, carbon monoxide emissions by 24 per cent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 2.7 per cent and fuel consumption by 5 per cent. That is a municipal, metropolitan emissions monitoring system.
The new onboard diagnostic systems which we will have in our vehicles could allow all Canadians to benefit from such emissions reductions. As I said, they are built in emissions monitoring systems. However, there is one obstacle to this: the continued presence of MMT, an octane enhancer currently used in unleaded gasoline.
The automotive industry is convinced that MMT adversely affects the sophisticated new onboard diagnostic systems. It affects the effectiveness with which those systems can monitor the emissions and warn us when emissions are increasing.
This is not an isolated statement or an assertion on my part but the conclusion of Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Saab, Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai.
General Motors is a major employer in my riding of Peterborough, employing approximately 8,000 people. General Motors employees are concerned that the investment in the new modern onboard diagnostic systems in the 1996 models not be wasted.
The list of supporters I have just cited includes virtually all of Canada's automakers and importers and all of their workers. When they speak with such unanimity, we need to listen to their message carefully. Their opinion is based on hundreds of thousands of vehicles running millions and millions of kilometres on MMT gasoline in Canada, not on 48 vehicles running a few million kilometres in the United States. This opinion is based on the experience of the producers and users of the vehicles of an entire nation, not of a few cars selected by the EPA in the United States.
Suppose the efficiency of the catalyst in our vehicles' pollution control system is reduced by 50 per cent due to abnormal wear or a manufacturing deficiency. The catalyst is one of the key controls of emissions by our vehicles. The result of this reduction of 50 per cent in its efficiency would be a twofold increase in emissions compared with a properly functioning vehicle.
However, at the present time drivers would be unaware of the increase in pollutants as a result of the decline in efficiency of the catalyst in their cars. They would be unaware of the increase of pollutants if MMT interferes with the proper functioning of onboard diagnostic systems, the systems which monitor emissions from vehicle.
The member opposite mentioned the case of sparkplugs. There are real indications that the use of fuel containing MMT causes sparkplug failures. GM Canada, the automotive corporation which is closest to my riding, reports that sparkplug failures for one particular Canadian model are 17 times higher than a comparable U.S. model. Again this is not some laboratory experiment, not some engines running on a bench in a factory or a few vehicles driving around California being monitored by technicians. This is the opinion of one of the major Canadian automobile producers. It is one of the largest employers in the country.
As I mentioned in my previous speech on this legislation, the federal government gave the petroleum and automotive industries
a considerable period of time to get together to sort out this problem. I suggest the federal government has now waited long enough for the fuel producers and the automakers to resolve this dispute between themselves. If we do not act now the federal government's vehicle emissions reduction program will be in jeopardy. We risk missing out on major reductions in smog, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
The time has come to make a decision. Bill C-94 is a decision in favour of Canada's environment.
Members will note the bill helps the environment by improving onboard diagnostic systems and the efficiency of our vehicles. We do not base our argument on environmental improvements simply on the reduction in emissions of MMT. We base them on the affect of MMT on the emission monitoring systems in new models of cars and trucks.
Therefore Bill C-94 is the decision in favour of the environment. It is also a decision in favour of Canadian consumers because it ensures they will have access to state of the art emission reduction technologies. Unless we act now we could face a situation in which automakers will be forced to turn off the onboard diagnostic systems in new models because of the damage MMT causes.
In fact, one manufacturer is already bringing models off the assembly line with the onboard diagnostic systems partially disconnected. Some manufacturers are no longer prepared to pay the substantial warranty costs for damage caused to pollution control equipment. In the end, it is we, the Canadian motorists, who have to pay more to have our cars maintained because of this kind of industry action. The government will not allow the buck to be passed to the Canadian consumer. For their sake we need to move now and pass Bill C-94.
Solving the MMT issue signals the government's desire to ensure that Canadians have access to fuel formulations that will not impede the performance of the vehicle emission control systems. We know that this is only a small step in the process of reducing vehicle pollution.
The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels that automobile engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in vehicle emissions control technologies such as those offered through the onboard diagnostic systems that I have just been discussing.
The government, for its share, must act now to reduce pollution by vehicles. Very recently in Whitehorse the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment which includes our own minister of the environment and sustainable development endorsed a report on cleaner vehicles and fuels. The report calls for reducing pollution from automobiles by means of tougher national for vehicle emissions and fuels.
It also calls for actions to improve fuel efficiency and to promote advanced technology as well as vehicles running on alternative fuels. Further, the CCM report recognizes the importance of inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that emission control systems are in good working order. I have addressed that matter and the way MMT relates to it.
By acting on the report Canada will have a new program for low emission vehicles no later than the year 2001 with an earlier phase-in, in harmony with the United States if feasible. There will be new standards for cleaner gasoline and diesel fuel. The result should be significant health benefits.
This Whitehorse report was prepared through a consultation process involving representatives from industry, environmental groups and other stakeholders. What we are doing here today will help achieve the aims of that report. We need to act now. We cannot, as the member opposite keeps suggesting, afford to wait or delay.
In the past year we have heard a great deal about a much wider atmospheric issue, that of global warning triggered by the greenhouse effect. Scientists have concluded we cannot wait for hard and fast proof that human activities are causing an unprecedented climb in global temperatures because by the time we have the proof, we will be overtaken by climate change of possibly catastrophic dimensions. Instead we need to act now on the precautionary principle. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a danger and action now will be beneficial in any case.
The actions we should take to avoid a possible climate changes are actions which we should be taking anyway to make this planet a healthier place to live.
Of course, and I accept the member's arguments on this point, MMT use in gasoline is not specifically a global warming issue but the same principle applies. There is plenty of evidence to show the danger MMT presents and if we eliminate its use now there are sure to be benefits to Canada's environment, Canadian consumers, Canadian industry and workers.
That is why Bill C-94 makes such eminent sense. That is why I am going to support this legislation and why I urge all members of the House to support it.
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
Madam Speaker, in congratulating the member for Peterborough for his lucid intervention I would like to ask him the following question.
In his view are the interests of consumers, car users and car buyers, in the riding of Athabasca, in the riding of Laurentides or in any other riding of members of Parliament who have expressed
opposition or doubts about the necessity of removing manganese from gasoline, well served by those who oppose this bill?
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He draws attention to the fact that this legislation affects virtually every Canadian. In addition to its improvement of the environment, it affects the health of us all.
Every person who has a car or a truck is affected by this legislation. These onboard diagnostic systems which we are discussing and which manufacturers tell us are directly affected by MMT in gasoline add a great deal to the cost of a car.
If the manufacturers fail to hook up the systems, the cost of the car will be the same but Canadian drivers will not have the benefit of those expensive systems although they have paid for them. Even more, they will not have the benefits of the improvement in the environment which will result from proper monitoring throughout the year, day in, day out, every driving hour, the emissions from their vehicle.
I find it unfortunate, given that the federal government allowed the petroleum industry and the automobile industry a very considerable time to come together and discuss this matter. It is very unfortunate that the member opposite reduces this argument to a battle between the petroleum industry which this government supports and Canadians. This is simply not the case.
The petroleum industry in the United States adapted to the ban on MMT very quickly. It has the technology to do that. The larger part of the petroleum industry on this continent has been producing gasoline without MMT in it.
It is extremely unfortunate that the member opposite makes this argument on the basis of these large petroleum corporations that already have the technology to take the MMT out and simply bring Canada in line with what has been the norm on this continent for many years.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the speaker.
He mentioned that one of the rationales behind banning MMT in Canada is that the North American market, which is much bigger than the Canadian market alone, has been MMT free. The Americans have been MMT free for some time, based on a decision in the United States that prohibited the use of the product.
Now the court decision appears to be allowing MMT to be used in the greater North American market and by far the bigger market will be having MMT starting almost immediately. The EPA has decided not to appeal the decision to allow MMT. Therefore it looks as if the Americans are going to have MMT soon.
None of the quotes from Saab, Honda, GM or other car maker has been tabled in this House. The government will not table them. Rather than forcing this bill, which has no scientific backing, through, would it not be wiser, based on that uncertainty about this greater gasoline market, to hold off on banning MMT in Canada if it is going to be allowed in the United States? I would like the member's opinion on that.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know he has been following this debate very seriously.
First I want to pick up his remark about lack of scientific evidence. His colleague, in the speech which preceded mine, referred to rigorous statistical analysis and phrases of that sort.
Members opposite know that an experiment based on the opinion of 27 million automobile owners is based on a very solid scientific foundation. How much better a foundation scientifically than 48 vehicles that have driven three million miles, which is approximately five million kilometres. On the scientific evidence side, I urge the member to bear in that in mind. We are talking here about manufacturers who have been monitoring hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
Going back to the member's remark and the Reform Party's point that the decision has been made in the United States, we know that the United States has a very legalistic system. All sorts of groups, particularly large corporations, can take advantage of the system to fight decisions they do not like.
I would remind members opposite that MMT is banned in the United States at present. We will see if it is going to come in. The great state of California, which is comparable in population and has more vehicles than our whole country, has enormous automobile problems. It has been trying to tackle them with many of the most stringent regulations in the world. The state of California has banned MMT.
If and when we see the state of California, which is progressive in this regard, acting the way the Reform Party expects then I think the member will have a stronger base to stand on.
In general, I do not think that Canadians should follow the lowest common denominator. We should aim for the highest standards and try to achieve them where we can. That is what we are doing in this case.
Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB
Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to the excellent presentation by hon. member. I have just a quick question.
He mentioned a number of varieties of automobiles. I believe he stated that all automakers in Canada and many of the foreign automakers were supporting this initiative.
Is this something that just evolved in the last month, or two or three months? Or have these studies been ongoing for several months or perhaps years, as the automakers make their plans and directives for new equipment and machinery that will go into their automobiles for future generations?
I wonder if the member could perhaps address that.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I have to compliment my colleague for the best question I have received.
First, this is based on the many years of experience of our auto manufacturers and importers running vehicles on Canadian gasoline with MMT in it. The spark plug point is based on experience over that period of time. However they have been forced to do this by the development of the new onboard diagnostic systems. In the same way we monitor the speed of the vehicle or how much gasoline there is the tank, we can now monitor what emissions are going from the exhaust pipe. Those onboard diagnostic systems are a new, very expensive, exciting innovation in the automobile industry. They have been coming along for some years but in the 1996 models they are particularly sophisticated and expensive and that is what is forcing the issue at the present time.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, a point of order.
The hon. member referred to some studies that included all vehicles in Canada. I wonder if he is willing to table those studies so we can all take a look at them. I am not aware of them and it is very important for the House to have that material available so we can examine the evidence.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I suspect technically the question is out of order, but I am glad to reply.
I was referring to the experience of Canadian manufacturers over many years and to their monitoring of vehicles. That information is readily available from manufacturers.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
For a member to deposit papers with the Chair there must be unanimous consent.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Peterborough mentioned prior to the last intervention that he thought the previous question was the best one of the day. I thought mine was the best one of the day.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
I am sorry but that is not a point of order and the time has expired.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Madam Speaker, I welcome this second opportunity to speak to Bill C-94, a bill that as you can see is extremely technical and extremely controversial.
Perhaps I may remind our listeners that the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of the product MMT in the production of gasoline. Technically, MMT is currently used to shorten the refining process and the time it takes to reach the octane level the oil companies want. Removing MMT will mean the oil companies will have to use a longer refining cycle. The product is a manganese-based additive that has been used in practically all unleaded gasoline in Canada since 1977.
There are a number of issues at stake here which we should examine very closely. First of all, we have the automobile manufacturers' lobby which, as was pointed out earlier-and most of our colleagues did so-supports the minister's bill. They claim that the MMT in gasoline will clog and cause malfunctions in the so-called OBD II anti-pollution devices that will be installed in cars very shortly, and this is already the case for 1996 models. MMT would be indirectly harmful to the environment, because if the OBD II anti-pollution device does not work properly, cars will pollute more than they should, since with this device they would otherwise run very efficiently.
So MMT is not in itself harmful but, according to automobile manufacturers, it would indirectly harm the environment by impeding the effectiveness of a device installed in automobiles to control pollution.
According to a press release issued by the Canadian Automobile Association on June 12 this year, in 1996 all cars sold in the United States will have to be fitted with a new kind of detection device. This "green" mechanism will ensure that the vehicle's anti-pollution devices remain fully effective over the years. However, if gasoline sold in Canada still contains MMT, these new devices will not function properly, as tests have proven.
I will continue this text later on, but I just want to say that like my Reform Party friends, I also more or less joined in the demonstration given by automobile manufacturers of the tests they had done. I also thought it was rather inconclusive, and I have the same reservations as the hon. member for Athabasca who referred to the spark plugs he had examined. I was not convinced by this demonstration.
Second, we asked, and my Reform colleagues are now asking for more serious tests to be tabled in the House, and they have a very good reason for doing so, because we have seen no serious tests to prove these allegations, and I do not think we will.
According to the text provided by the automobile manufacturers, they have decided not to make this new equipment available to
Canadians if we continue to add MMT to gasoline. In the final analysis, Canadians will be the ones to suffer, both economically and environmentally, because their vehicles will pollute more than anyone else's.
On the other hand, last spring, I demonstrated to this House that it would be in the interest of the major oil companies primarily if this bill were not passed. They in fact allege that MMT permits gasoline to be produced with a significant reduction in environmental costs at the refining stage. We can readily imagine this: longer refining without the MMT additive means more pollution from the process.
If we believe the figures given my office by the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, these environmental costs should go up by at least $50 million at the refining stage for these companies.
According to representatives from the oil industry as well, MMT requires less intensive treatment, which means less carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide from the stacks of plants producing gasoline. Furthermore, MMT allows refineries to reduce the aromatic cycles of gasolines and thus benzene emissions.
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute also mentioned that, according to its members, the decision to prohibit the addition of MMT to gasoline must be made on a sound scientific basis, and this is the request being made. They therefore examined MMT from three standpoints: the environment, health and its actual effect on car emission systems.
From an environmental standpoint, according to the companies, the addition of MMT clearly protects the environment. It cuts nitrous oxide emissions by between 15 and 20 per cent, thus cutting smog in cities. There is complete agreement on this point in both Canada and the United States.
From a health standpoint, here in Canada, Health and Welfare Canada has published two reports indicating that MMT in gasoline represents no health risk for Canadians. In the United States, a very decisive decision by the court of appeal confirms it.
Thirdly, from a vehicle emission control standpoint, the United States environmental protection agency has always maintained there was not the slightest evidence that MMT had any damaging effect on the equipment.
So we can understand, when we contemplate the issue before us, in connection with Bill C-94, that, regardless of the fate of the bill, Canada's pollution levels will inevitably increase. We are therefore not faced with a choice between good and evil, we really have to choose between two evils, if I may put it that way. If we remove MMT, the production of gasoline will cause more pollution; if we keep MMT, and if indeed it does inhibit the functioning of vehicle anti pollution devices, we will also increase pollution.
So we are faced with two cases of increased pollution. The question is to decide logically and scientifically which is the better choice. It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment is not usually supposed to choose solutions that increase pollution; it should be the other way around.
Under the circumstances, what is leading the Minister of the Environment to actually decide which of the two solutions is less polluting? The answer to that is: nothing. When you really look at the issue, it does not matter whether you are the petroleum industry, the members of the Reform Party or the Bloc, it is clear that there are no basically independent and scientific data to provide the proof.
We only have to look at what happened with this in the United States to be convinced. On October 20, the United States appeal court for the District of Columbia-we quoted from the text in second reading, I think-decided to oblige the United States environmental protection agency to register MMT as an additive for unleaded gasoline. To date, the EPA has refused. In its decision, the court stated:
"On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that MMT had no adverse effects on automobile emission control systems".
Of course, we looked at what we had before us at the time. It does not mean that more detailed studies would not prove the opposite, but studies showed that MMT had no real effect. The EPA recognized de facto that MMT did not have a harmful effect on antipollution systems according to the tests which were done before them at the time.
I submit to this House that the Minister of the Environment is supposed to be aware of these facts since-as her Quebec counterpart and our friends from the Reform Party pointed out earlier-several provinces, including Quebec, are now moving in the direction advocated by Reform members. As my colleague from the Reform Party mentioned, the Government of Quebec did send the minister a letter clearly explaining in detail its position on this matter.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeal I just referred to goes on to say, and I quote:
"For purposes of the resubmitted application EPA determined Ethyl had demonstrated that use of MMT at the specified concentration will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission
control device or system to achieve compliance with the emission standards".
The few tests that were done and submitted to the court show no effects. And we have not heard of any tests that would point to a different conclusion.
It is therefore increasingly evident that MMT will be reintroduced in the making of gas in the U.S.; in any case, there is a chance that it will be. Yet, the Minister of the Environment spends her time in this House talking about harmonizing Canada's environmental decisions with those made in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Under the circumstances, by proposing and defending Bill C-94, the Minister of the Environment is contradicting herself somewhat because if we ban MMT and if the U.S. approves this additive within a year, we will then have to reharmonize all these decisions.
The bottom line is that if independent scientific tests showed conclusively that MMT is harmful, I think the House would vote unanimously to ban MMT. But not enough tests have been done.
Given these facts, we have a right to question the environment minister's real motives in introducing this bill and trying to ram it through.
On the one hand, it is obvious that the minister is trying to accommodate the interests of the powerful Canadian automobile manufacturers' lobby which happen to be located for the most part in her riding. On the other hand, the hike in gasoline prices resulting from this legislation, if passed, might prompt many consumers to try alternative fuels, such as ethanol, whose major producers also happen to be in the Hamilton area.
If this interpretation is not accurate, then there is only one explanation. Quite simply, the minister is doing, with respect to the MMT issue, the same thing she did about the Irving Whale : she is improvising. Members will recall that, on many occasions in dealing with the latter issue-and I will not dwell on this either-the minister has shown that she was not qualified to deal with the situation.
I suggest that, then too, the minister claimed to have at hand a load of studies which enabled her to send all other stakeholders about their business, at the risk of causing an environmental disaster. We know what this lead to: $12 million were spent for absolutely nothing, to refloat a ship that is still sitting on the bottom of the river. And these $12 million are coming out of the taxpayers' pockets, and not the Irving's pockets. The problem still remains unsolved as we speak. This ship is leaking and Greenpeace is about to get involved. Nothing has been settled. The whole thing will have to be done all over again. What we are requesting are studies to tell us what is the best way of going about this.
We are confronted with a similar situation in Bill C-94. In order to avoid an environmental disaster, you have to do a minimum of scientific studies to assess the environmental impact of the contemplated measures. Otherwise, you are merely improvising.
As regards the environmental impact studies on MMT, it is increasingly obvious that the rigour of these studies leaves something to be desired. Under the circumstances, I agree with the hon. member for Laurentides, who spoke on this issue yesterday and asked that the bill be deferred to a later date, when more comprehensive studies can establish beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the addition of MMT to gas creates a dangerous source of pollution.
The provinces pretty well agree that we should wait a little and do the required studies before making a final decision. I am talking here about independent scientific studies which would be public in nature.
Oil companies also support that position. They have been telling us from the beginning: "If there is conclusive evidence that the use of MMT in automobiles is harmful, we will change our whole system". We should wait, as pointed out by our Reform Party colleagues, for the results of the tests being conducted in the United States, before making a decision.
For all these reasons, we feel that we do not have all the required information to make an informed decision. Consequently, we will not support this bill.
Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, my good friend from the Bloc made some good points. The jury is still out and the evolution of fuels will continue. We have taken lead out of fuels. We can look at the MMT situation. We have to look at our colleagues in California. The member for Peterborough was right. They are leaders in this field.
I will be speaking to this bill and directly concerning the onboard diagnostic equipment. Vehicles have new onboard diagnostic equipment systems. They are monitoring devices which feed back to the engine to make the engine control the emissions. Coming out of the tailpipe are oxides of nitrogen, unburned hydrocarbons, oil, carbon and water. Every time one gallon of gasoline is burned it produces one gallon of water. If we look at the tailpipe of any vehicle we will see water coming out of it. The use of a three way catalytic converter can control a lot of these things.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member is the next speaker. He is certainly entitled to use up the time for questions or comments if he wishes, but he is the next speaker on debate.
Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question. I understand what the hon. member is saying but there is a point to be made about the onboard diagnostic equipment systems
in cars because they could counteract the effects of what comes out of the tailpipe.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Mr. Speaker, how appropriate. I went to California during the summer break and I was able to see, as the Liberal member pointed out, how terrible the smog situation is in that state, whose population is as large as the whole population of Canada.
What we are saying is that, to the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to back up what is implied in this bill, which is that MMT will in fact damage the pollution control system. If indeed California has made its choices a long time ago, it must have relied on some kind of test, and not only on vague ideas. If we could have access to these tests, we would readily admit that we have to ban the use of MMT in gasoline. Passing this bill is not a matter of principle, but a matter of pollution.
If the use of MMT is banned, I know some people believe that it will be replaced by ethanol, but the oil companies have clearly stated that they would not use ethanol as a substitute for MMT. Instead of using MMT, they would require a more enhanced and a longer refining process.
This would automatically lead to an increase in pollution. We are faced with two options: if we ban the use of MMT, we increase pollution due to the gasoline refining process, but, according to the auto industry, if we do not ban the use of MMT, we will damage the pollution control equipment, which will also lead to an increase in pollution.
If we could have some concrete evidence, we would be in a better position to make up our minds and vote immediately on this issue. But we do not have any, we have no scientific data, which is why we stand by the position we have taken.
Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about the environment. In the natural environment everything is related to everything else. Looking at the hydrostatic cycle for instance, when water evaporates and goes up in the atmosphere, it mixes with all kinds of contaminants and then comes back to earth.
Photochemical smog is caused by the reaction of sunlight with nitrogen oxide, particularly in Los Angeles which is in a valley. Los Angeles is a good example because it has more cars than any other place. I am not sure exactly why it does not have any mass transit systems. I have visited Los Angeles quite often and I know the damage to the environment is bad. It is broadcast over the radio every day that there is eye irritation from smog, or that people with respiratory problems should stay off the streets.
I am going to address the onboard diagnostic equipment. Most members probably do not have the technical knowledge I have. I understand what they are saying about MMT, that an infinitesimal amount of nitrogen oxide will be emitted. However, I make the case that it could be controlled by installing devices on the vehicles.
I will begin by speaking about what happens in a car. A person gets in a car and turns it on which uses gasoline. Gasoline has potential energy of 19,000 British thermal units per pound or per pint, depending on the kind it is. The gasoline is control burned in a vehicle resulting in pressure, forcing a piston down, turning the crankshaft, making a circular motion to the power take-off to drive the wheels which propel us along the road.
In a four stroke cycle engine the air comes into the engine through an intake manifold with the intake valve and opens the piston moving down to the bottom of the cylinder, causing a vacuum in the cylinder. Injectors in this case, or if it is a carburetted engine a venturi effect would cause aspirated air in a stoichiometric ratio, which is about 14 parts of air to one part of gasoline by weight, or 9,000 parts of air to one part of gasoline by volume. That is what the computer will try to monitor by what is called a map sensor. Placed somewhere in the intake system of the vehicle is a piece of foil which takes a certain amount of temperature. That foil knows exactly the volume of air which is going into the engine. The injectors are monitored by a computer which says: "I have this amount of cubic feet of air. Give me this amount of gasoline".
During deceleration periods, for instance on old carburetted engines coming down the hill with the throttle closed, a very large vacuum is created and the gasoline gets very rich. Those kinds of cars create a lot of pollution. On a modern car the system shuts off completely because of the onboard diagnostic system. There is absolutely no gasoline getting in, so it works quite well.
On the intake stroke, the piston moves down and the cylinder is charged. The next stroke is the compression stroke. Both valves are closed, the piston moves up and it compresses the thing to about a tenth of its value. Because we are trying to get rid of nitrogen oxide, we have had to lower the compression ratio of engines. By lowering the compression ratio and bringing the temperature up, we can control nitrogen oxide as well.
The piston comes up and compresses the gas into 10 per cent of its original volume. A sparkplug triggers it at a particular time. The timing is changed depending on the rate of speed in order to ensure that when the actual expansion of the gasoline occurs, when the pressure builds up, it reaches a certain angle on the crank. If it happens before or after, the engine fights against itself and it
actually loses its power. The sparkplug is triggered to fire at a precise time, again by a computer.
The process takes place very quickly. An engine running at 4,000 RPM has 2,000 power strokes per RPM. If we divide that by 60, we will get about 33 sparks per second. The process would last for maybe one-thirtieth of a second. We can see the process happening very quickly. What happens is that all of that stuff escapes and goes into the exhaust system. It has to be monitored by a three way muffler, which I will talk about in a minute.
The last stroke is the exhaust stroke. The piston moves from the bottom to the centre, coming up with the intake valve closed and the exhaust valve open. The piston pushes the gasoline out of the tailpipe.
In the tailpipe there is a catalytic converter. In that catalytic converter is rhodium. Rhodium actually removes oxygen. There is platinum and palladium. Palladium actually adds oxygen. If we had H2 coming out and we wanted to change it to something else, we would add O. We could add O by using an air pump, which is seen on some cars, or we could add O by using a computer triggered diverter to pass the exhaust gases over the platinum, adding oxygen, and now we would have H2O. We have two sets of oxygen instead of one, which changes it into water. If we have CO, for instance, which is carbon monoxide and we want to change it to harmless carbon dioxide, we add O and get CO2. We have two Os.
This is what the diagnostic pieces of equipment are doing. These speak in hertz. They go back and forth and report to the computer exactly what is happening. If there is a knock in the engine, then the computer knows and it will trigger the spark and retard or advance the spark.
If the contaminants coming from the tailpipe are one thing or another, the oxygen sensor in this particular case will pick it up, tell the computer it is getting too many hydrocarbons and the computer will tell the injector to shut off. That is what we are talking about when we talk about onboard diagnostics.
In the onboard diagnostics, there are things like an EGR valve. An EGR valve is used particularly to control nitrogen oxide. As I have said before, nitrogen oxide is the thing we talk about a lot. We say it is the main smog producer.
One of the ways manufacturers get rid of nitrogen oxide is by using exhaust gas recirculation. The unburned gas out of the engine is recycled back through some mechanisms inside the engine and are burned again. The effect of burning it with the rest of the fuel that is in the engine drops the combustion chamber temperature. By dropping the combustion chamber temperature, it reduces the oxides of nitrogen.
The NOx is also reduced from earlier emissions by using a heat stove. You might have seen on cars where there is an intake manifold and there is actually a heat stove. The heat stove allows either hot air to come off the exhaust pipe directly into the engine or it may mix. At some point in time hot air comes up past the exhaust pipe because it gets some heat off of it and some of it comes in through the snorkel. The two are mixed before the air gets into the engine. On a cold engine it makes the engine warm up very quickly.
On modern cars, the onboard diagnostics trigger what is called an open loop system. Most everyone knows that when you get in a car, you do not pump the gas and do all those kinds of things we did with older cars which had carburettors on them. The reason we do not do that is that the computer and the onboard diagnostics monitor everything. It monitors the temperature. It knows if the engine is cold. If you come out and it is minus 20 degrees, it knows that the crankshaft is not turning because it is not picking up any RPM due to a magnetic device which is triggering it.
The oxygen sensor indicates it has pure oxygen and the computer reports back in hertz very quickly, the same as brand new computers here, where the speed gets quicker. On these cars the onboard diagnostics are getting very, very quick in corresponding with one another. That is why there is talk about the effects of this onboard diagnostics.
Imagine an exhaust sensor for instance in the exhaust system. If certain kinds of additives are used in the gasoline and it catches and interferes with the way it records or sends the information back to the computer, it would affect the way the car works. Of course, if it affects it then it triggers other things. What would happen is we would actually get more pollution than if we were using MMT because the thing is not working right.
The onboard diagnostic equipment is very important to us. Onboard diagnostic equipment must be added to cars.
I recently purchased a new car and I have a book here to monitor it. We have to closely monitor the new equipment. Instead of miles per gallon we are getting litres per kilometre. We have to get the amount of kilometres and divide it by 100. For instance, on my new car I am getting about 10.5 litres per 100 kilometres, which is about 27 miles to the gallon. If I am getting 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres, I am getting something like 33 miles per gallon.
We will find that the new vehicles are more fuel efficient than the old ones. The consumer will benefit with onboard diagnostic equipment. Canadians need to have the onboard diagnostic equipment. We do have this argument with fuels, but that argument should be between the automotive manufacturers and the fuel companies, and not this House.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
The House resumed consideration from November 1, 1995, of the motion that Bill C-339, an act to provide for funding of interveners in hearings before certain boards and agencies, be now read a second time and referred to a committee.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-339, standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford.
This bill, which is quite straightforward, establishes the principle that a proponent of a project that requires review and approval should assist with funding for interveners who would like to be heard. The hon. member for Oxford suggests adopting the principle that the proponent pays.
On the face of it, we would support the principle of funding groups that want to participate in public hearings, because often, groups that represent less advantaged people in our society cannot afford to go and put forward their views and their interests or pay for scientific studies or even for the transportation to get to the hearings.
Consider the studies required in the far North, for instance, where interveners lack the financial resources to travel, pay for accommodations, and so forth, when defending the interests of the people they represent.
We have seen in the past citizens who were at a distinct disadvantage because they did not have the same resources as large businesses or developers to defend their interests. In fact, these businesses and developers can afford to pay lobbyists on a regular basis to push their projects ahead, while small groups that are not as organized and are not supported by the big guys are always looking for financial support.
In other words, we do support the principle that proponents pay for the administrative costs related to the reviews. However, after examining this bill more thoroughly, we realize it has a much broader scope than it purports and offers few guarantees for the arm's length nature of the process it proposes.
First of all, we should realize that this bill will create funding committees. Some public organizations already have a funding option. One example is the Environmental Assessment Agency established by Bill C-56, which provides for a sort of funding from the government.
How will the new funding panel work with the assessment agency? Naturally the government could save money by having the proponents pay, but why not simply amend Bill C-56 to include the concept of "funding proponent".
We have to ask ourselves whether the panels proposed in Bill C-339 are not another layer of administrative structures and duplication within the federal system. We can also see in this bill the danger of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. For example, in Bill C-56, the Environmental Assessment Act, the federal government is clearly meddling in provincial affairs. We could therefore end up with projects assessed by both levels of government with proponents having to pay twice to fund various interveners.
I do not suppose proponents are interested in this costly duplication, which, moreover, delays the whole process of project approval. It is an obvious hinderance and has an impact on our economy and on job creation.
I would now like to consider the independence of the funding panels. According to subclause 4(2), a review authority that receives an application from an intervener for intervener funding shall appoint a funding panel from its membership.
To my mind, this provision reveals that the funding panel is clearly not independent of the review authority. Indeed, what happens when the authority assigned to review a project comes under the authority of a department that is the project promoter?
The best example is doubtless the case of the refloating of the Irving Whale . Do you think that SVP, the Société pour vaincre la pollution and RMPG, the Regroupement madelinot pour la protection du golfe, could get funding through this bill? I have very strong doubts.
People who will be appointed to the funding panel under the authority of the Minister of the Environment will certainly be under pressure from that same minister not to give groups such as the SVP and the RMPG, which are strongly opposed to her project, an opportunity to be heard.
In other words, I believe that the government will have the power to choose which groups it is willing to listen to, and it will be able to reject those groups that do not share its views.
Transparency and independence are lacking in this bill. The concept of funding proponent is good, but the process proposed in this bill is flawed. Therefore, the bill does not achieve its ultimate goal.
About this process, it is worth noting that it appears to be rather cumbersome and complicated. For one thing, the funding panel will have to determine if the intervener is eligible for funding, and from what we can read in clause 4, the least we can say is that interveners will be scrutinized. Also, the bill provides for an appeal
process to the review authority and ultimately to the Federal Court of Canada if the proponents and the interveners are not satisfied with the funding panel's decisions.
Knowing full well how slow bureaucracy can be, I am sure that some interveners will be left high and dry. Projects will be completed and interveners will still be waiting for the outcome of the appeal process. The same goes for the proponent. In fact, I wonder if projects will be allowed to proceed during the appeal process. I would like the member for Oxford to answer this question.
Finally, we think that this bill contains good ideas and that the principle on which it is based is innovative, but it has serious flaws.
Bill C-339 is off the mark.
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-339, an act to provide for funding for interveners in hearings before certain boards and agencies.
I think we all know that politicians at all levels of government are suffering from a serious lack of credibility right now. People feel politicians are not listening to what they have to say and are refusing to tackle the very real concerns that touch their daily lives. They have the perception that government is selling out to the interests of big business. It may well be they are right, but for the wrong reasons. It may well be that the voices of the people are not being heard in many instances because they just do not have the funds to travel across the country to make their views known. They just do not have the money to hire lawyers, experts, researchers, and writers to present their point of view. The interests of the little guy are in fact getting lost in the shuffle.
Over and over people have been saying that they want to have an input into government decision-making. We, as a government, have told them that we agree. However, as the Minister of the Environment said during the debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, "It is one thing to say that people have a say; it is another thing to give them the tools to exercise their right."
Bill C-339 addresses this problem in a concrete way. By ensuring funding, it provides the tools necessary for the average citizen, regardless of his or her financial assets, to be heard in the decision-making process. Intervener funding will assure the public that those with a valid interest will be heard at future hearings and that the public will have input into government decisions.
It is important to note that in drafting this excellent piece of legislation the member for Oxford was able to draw upon legislation that already exists in the province of Ontario. He was not reinventing the wheel. The Ontario government proclaimed the Intervenor Funding Project Act in 1989 as a three-year pilot project. In 1992 the province of Ontario conducted a review of the Intervenor Funding Project Act. This review, entitled "Access and Impact: An Evaluation of the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988", showed broad support for the objectives of the legislation. The project was extended to the spring of 1996. I would like to quote from this report, as I think the experience in the province of Ontario is very close to that in the entire country:
The manner in which many administrative decisions were made in the 1960s and 1970s excluded members of the public, even though many decisions were required to be made in the public interest.
Too often, agencies and tribunals were only presented with the view of the regulated industry or the applicant for an approval. As agencies are now faced with a bewildering array of social, economic, and moral questions, a critical view is that excluding diverse interests is no longer appropriate.
Increasing public access to administrative decision-making is important for several reasons, first of which is fairness. Decisions regulating the conduct of businesses affect small or large segments of the public. Sometimes individuals are financially affected, each to a small degree, as with telephone or utility rates. Sometimes an individual's health and well-being are affected, as with environmental and food and drug regulation. In principle, if people are affected by decisions they should have the right to be heard.
Second is quality of decisions. Where regulatory decisions affect the public and are required to be made in the public interest the quality of those decisions is improved when members of the affected public participate. They apprise the tribunal of facts that might not otherwise come to its attention. They assert different perspectives and opinions about the consequences of the decision to counter the assertions of the regulated industry. In this way the tribunal gains a better understanding of the range of dimensions of the public interest it is charged with serving. Better decisions result.
Third is accountability. When members of the public participate in administrative decisions they gain an understanding of the balance that is struck between competing interests in reaching a decision. This process improves the accountability of the decision-maker and legitimizes the decisions for those who participate.
I believe these statements fairly sum up the reasons in favour of the bill.
During earlier debate there was some question of the fairness of requiring a private company to finance the group that may kill its application as well as some question of what would happen if the company were financially unable to fund the interveners. Again I would like to quote from the access and impact study:
We believe that more effective monitoring of the costs and benefits of the process will be achieved if those who are the focus of these decisions, the proponents, are made to bear the costs. It is they who are the centrepiece of the regulated activity. A critical aspect of that role requires effective participation by other interests while ensuring that participation is responsible.
I think it is obvious that a proponent who has to pay for this intervention will suddenly realize that consultation and co-operation and compromise are in their best interest, thus reducing or even eliminating the need for the intervention and confrontation.
I urge all members to support this legislation.