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.