Debates of Nov. 9th, 1995

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group to the interparliamentary union which represented Canada at the 1995 interparliamentary conference held in Bucharest, Romania, from October 7 to 14, 1995.

Committees Of The House

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 5, 1995, the committee has considered Bill C-78, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the standing committee on public accounts. In its sixteenth report, the public accounts committee studied chapter 9 of the auditor general's annual report for 1994 on the overall management of federal science and technology activities, chapter 10 of that same report on the management of departmental science and technology activities, and chapter 11 on the management of scientific personnel in certain federal research establishments.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the government to table a comprehensive response to the report.

Contractors Protection Act

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-356, an act to protect contractors who disclose government wrongdoing.

Mr. Speaker, we know that a number of private companies do business with the government. Contracting out accounts for close to $10 billion of business, and we also know that there are a great many irregularities in contracting with the private sector. There are sometimes illegalities and waste. This bill would protect private contractors who decide to disclose government wrongdoing, waste or other irregularities.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two petitions signed by over 100 residents of Hamilton and nearby towns on the subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The petitioners request Parliament to ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be retained without changes and enforced in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding of suicide or euthanasia.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have thousands of signatures from across Canada on the subject of crimes of violence. The petitions are part of a petition, begun by Mrs. Priscilla de Villiers, which has already collected over three million signatures.

The petitioners ask Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against a person are abhorrent to society and ask the government to continue to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act of Canada accordingly.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 356 persons in my riding of Bourassa and the Montreal region, concerning closure of the Canada Employment Centre on Papineau Street, which services my riding of Bourassa North, as well as neighbouring ridings.

This is a centre providing exceptional service to a very large population. Those working in the centre, along with unemployed persons and community organizations, are therefore petitioning the government not to close this employment centre, and I strongly support this petition. I trust that the government will reconsider its decision and that this centre will be able to continue its operations.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, in accordance with Standing Order 36, on behalf of constituents who say that we should be aiming for a just and safe society, that the safety and protection of the public should precede the protection of dangerous criminals and that the rights of victims should precede the rights of criminals. Many things are listed here.

The petitioners are asking for legislation to reform the justice system and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of the citizens of the community of Athabasca.

The petitioners request that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, that the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code which forbids the counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I ask that the other questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be read the third time and passed.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to speak to Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

The purpose of the bill is to ban the import and interprovincial trade of MMT, an octane enhancer. Essentially MMT reduces emissions from motor vehicles. The government claims that MMT damages the onboard devices in new 1996 cars. It is going to be obligatory for cars used in Canada not to use MMT. This was at the prompting of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association.

The Ethyl corporation that makes MMT and the petroleum products group claim that first, MMT is not a health hazard to Canadians and second, does not damage onboard devices.

If the minister wishes to ban MMT, then she has to prove that MMT is a health hazard to Canadians. The contrary has been proven by the Ministry of Health which has shown that MMT does not damage the health of Canadians. I have heard some spurious allegations by members across the way who have actually claimed that since the health department said what it did, that maybe MMT really does harm Canadians. Those are statements made off the top of their heads without any factual basis. If we look at the facts, MMT does not harm the health of Canadians.

Central to the bill is the question, does or does not MMT damage onboard devices? There is ample evidence showing that onboard devices are not damaged by MMT. It is wise to look at the situation in the United States. We say we want a common gasoline for our vehicles, but the United States is bringing back MMT. It is bringing MMT back for a couple of very important reasons: first, that it is

not a health hazard to people; second, that it does not damage onboard devices; and, third, that if it is removed from gasoline nitrous oxide emissions will be increased by more that 20 per cent. Nitrous oxide is a very important component of smog. Smog exacerbates respiratory problems in people who suffer from asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.

If MMT is to be banned another substance will have to take its place. That will make gasoline more expensive. It will translate into more expense at the pump and in turn will cost to the industry more. It would act as a depressant on the economy, which means fewer jobs.

The minister cannot ban MMT on the basis of health reasons so she is going to try to ban its movement in interprovincial trade and in import and export which, in effect, is a ban on the substance. That is how the minister has managed to get around that.

The real truth behind this is that the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association is looking for a scapegoat because its members know that their onboard devices malfunction. They want to find some other reason for this and have found a handy peg to hang their hat on by claiming that MMT damages the onboard devices. However the facts prove otherwise.

When looking at the situation in the United States which does not use MMT, we find that onboard devices malfunction at exactly the same rate as they do in cars using MMT. This is very conclusive, suggestive and strong evidence that MMT, as a reason for the damage of onboard devices simply does not hold water.

I ask the minister to look at new ways and new energy sources. The transport sector has a 90 per cent plus dependency on fossil fuels. As we all know in the House, fossil fuels are finite and one day they will come to an end.

We must also look globally. By the year 2025, 11 billion plus people will be living on this planet or twice as many as lives on it today. Therefore, energy consumption will double or, as many people believe, will increase even more than that.

Another reason is that in developing nations people are actually consuming energy at a far greater rate than they have in previous years. Through industrialization and manufacturing the demands for energy and fossil fuels increase.

I ask the minister to work with the minister of science and technology and the Minister of Transport and look at different ways we can work on new and more environmentally sound alternatives to fossil fuels in the future. One alternative is electrically powered cars. We cannot provide energy now at the low cost that we have with fossil fuels but in the future this will be an important alternative for powering vehicles. While we cannot do it now, we must look to the future and develop the research and technology so that we can do that.

Another interesting concept is the hydrogen fuel cell which works on the electrolysis of hydrogen sulphide or water. Although these systems are too bulky right now to use this might be an alternative form of power for vehicles in the future. Another is photovoltaic cells which take energy from the sun. The Holy Grail of all energy sources is the concept of fusion.

As a country we do not have the finances to engage in extensive projects in this area. By working with our neighbours to the south and some Europeans that are doing some fascinating work on fusion technology, we can provide our scientific expertise to them to try to make this into a reality in the future. While it may not be practical for the transport sector, there are many other energy sectors for which this technology will have to be used.

Although these alternatives cannot replace fossil fuels right now, we do not see enough of working together between ministries. In this instance the Ministry of the Environment has logical partners in the ministry of science and technology and the Ministry of Transport. They are intimately entwined. It would serve Canada well if these ministers got together with their staffs and determined areas where they could work together in an efficient fashion.

I suggest the minister look at some other areas in the transportation sector and work with the Minister of Transport, as I said before. It costs about $7,000 a year to operate a car, with high social and environmental costs. It is very expensive. Canadians should look at the European model and extract from that more environmentally sound measures on the transportation of people, paying particular attention to bicycles and rail travel.

There is a very important issue in my riding. The E & N railway runs north-south on Vancouver Island. It can be a very potent and environmentally sound mover of goods, services and people. This railway has been lying idle for many years and is highly unproductive. I hope the Minister of the Environment will work with the Minister of Transport to try to make this railway a reality, not in the public domain but in the private domain; ownership being retained in the public domain but management and functioning in the private sector.

Vancouver Island is an area where the population is growing at perhaps the fastest rate in all of Canada. Unfortunately we are seeing the southern California syndrome where we have urban sprawl at its worst. We can look at Vancouver to see what happened there.

With that growth in population will come transport and energy demands. These must be met by looking toward the future by determining ways in which we can provide this transportation

without damaging and destroying the pristine environment that the island affords.

In conclusion, with respect to MMT our role in the House is to determine the truth. The minister acknowledges the conclusive evidence that first, MMT does not damage people's health. Second, there is conclusive evidence within our own country and even south of the border to show that MMT does not damage onboard devices.

We need to determine the truth. I ask the minister to review the relevant data and rethink this issue. Clearly there is no reason to ban MMT in Canada now. If the minister has to have an independent study to determine once and for all whether MMT actually does damage onboard devices then she ought to do that.

Again I hope the minister would work with the minister of science and technology and the Minister of Transport to look at new and improved ways of meeting the energy needs of Canadians in the future.

I wish to move the following motion to Bill C-94. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:

"This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, since among other things the bill does not take measures to compensate for the fact that MMT free gasoline would cause the fuel industry to burn more crude oil, causing greater emissions into the atmosphere while at the same time increasing tailpipe nitrous oxide emissions".

[The Speaker]

The motion is in order. Is the hon. member rising on debate?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are still in the 10-minute phase which would permit a question or a comment.

[The Speaker]

Because the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca moved an amendment we now move to debate on the amendment. There will be no questions or comments. That is how we will proceed.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many questions have been raised about the legislation now before the House. In some cases the debate has obscured what really is at stake. I would like therefore to try to answer some of the questions to give members a clear picture of the issue.

First, we have heard about the harm MMT causes to pollution control equipment in vehicles. Does this not have a plus side? Ethyl corporation is the producer of MMT. According to this company the use of MMT allows less intensive refining, thereby reducing emissions from the refineries. Ethyl corporation also maintains that MMT reduces tailpipe emissions of nitrogen oxide by up to 20 per cent and lowers toxic benzene emissions. If so, what is the point of banning such a useful additive?

Let us take the question of refining. It is true that MMT allows less intensive refining. In 1992 a report was prepared for Ethyl Canada. It indicated that if the additive were banned Canadian refineries would emit 40 to 50 tonnes more of nitrogen oxide per annum and 34 to 43 more kilotonnes of carbon dioxide. Those amounts represent 0.0025 per cent of our yearly emissions of nitrogen oxide and 0.01 per cent of our carbon dioxide emissions. Such slight increases are clearly minuscule.

What then about emissions from vehicle tailpipes? The data collected by Ethyl corporation showed an average reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions with MMT of up to 20 per cent. But the figures were for a test fleet of well maintained vehicles, whereas the actual Canadian cars are not on average as well maintained. If we put the findings into the context of the current Canadian cars, another analysis indicates that MMT causes a much smaller reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, no more than about 5 per cent.

As for toxic benzene emissions, these should not increase as a result of the banning of MMT. Gasoline can be refined to limit its benzene content. This past July the Minister of the Environment announced that she intended to regulate benzene levels in gasoline to a maximum of one per cent per volume. The regulations would also limit any increase in the amount of aromatics in gasoline.

MMT has been used as an octane enhancer in gasoline, but the oil refining industry has various options for replacing it. These options should still limit the benzene content. For example, the refining process could be changed to produce higher octane gasoline constituents. Along with or instead of that, other octane enhancers are available such as ethyl and MTBE.

This raises another question: Are we banning MMT to promote the use of ethanol? The answer to that is no. Ethanol is only one option for replacing the octane now provided by MMT. There are other options available, and it is up to the petroleum industry to make that choice.

What about the financial costs? Some wonder whether MMT removal would place a heavy financial burden on the oil industry or consumers. According to the industry's own estimates, the cost would translate to an increase of approximately 0.1 cents to 0.24 cents per litre, a minor amount, especially considering the normal day to day price fluctuations we see at the fuel pump in the order of a few cents per litre.

Other questions have been raised about the studies that provide the basis for the legislation. Why, it is asked, are we accepting the word of the auto industry, which is surely an interested party in the dispute. Why do we not make use of independent studies? The fact

is there have been no independent studies to determine the effect of MMT on emissions control systems. The research has been sponsored either by the auto makers or by Ethyl for the oil producers.

Some would ask why Environment Canada has not sponsored or conducted its own research. The department has sought technical opinions from two outside experts, one of whom was called on by both industries to participate in joint discussions. Both experts agreed that we do not have conclusive data but that MMT tends to affect emissions performance and increase costs.

To go further and conduct a government study of the issue would simply use up taxpayers' dollars and delay the introduction of new pollution control technology into Canada. We cannot afford to do that. Both industries have done their work and studied the issue. It is now time for a decision. Some might ask why that must be a government decision; why not leave it to the industries concerned to arrive at their solution? That is exactly what we have been trying to do for more than two years, but so far that approach has not succeeded.

Senior officials from four federal departments have met with representatives of the oil and auto industries. I would stress this about four federal departments because the previous speaker suggested we should be talking among the different departments and getting answers. This minister has spoken to and worked with four federal departments. More recently the Minister of the Environment attempted personally to negotiate an agreement. All these efforts have failed. We have no alternative but to legislate the necessary changes.

Still another question concerns actions on MMT in the United States. In the last months we have seen moves to reintroduce its use there. Most recently, this past October 20, a United States Court of Appeal decision ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to grant Ethyl corporation registration for the use of its MMT additive in unleaded gasoline.

Why are we banning MMT in Canada when the United States seems to be lifting its almost 20-year old ban on MMT? After all, part of the argument made against MMT is that we must harmonize our emissions control approach with that of the Americans. Are we not in danger of remaining out of step if we pass the legislation?

MMT prospects in the United States remain cloudy. The EPA could appeal the October 20 ruling or attempt other legal action. Major refineries might be reluctant to adopt MMT until uncertainties are resolved about the health effects associated with widespread use of the additive. Furthermore, the auto industry could launch its own challenge.

Even if none of that happens, about one-third of the U.S. gasoline market including California requires reformulated gasoline to meet more stringent air quality requirements. MMT is still not allowed in reformulated gasoline, which can be expected to claim a growing share of the U.S. market in the coming years as the country moves toward cleaner fuel.

California has gone so far as to expressly prohibit the use of MMT as a gasoline additive. This U.S. state is a world leader in emission control strategies. The example it sets is widely followed throughout North America and beyond. We should carefully consider the approach of California. It could well become the benchmark for tomorrow.

Another question asked is what is the rush. Why do we not wait for the doubts to resolve themselves? Why should we intervene now when the issue is still unclear and evolving? The answer is that the issue will never be settled to the entire satisfaction of both the auto and oil industries. Doubts are bound to persist, but there is sufficient evidence now to make an informed decision. This the two industries have been unable to do themselves, even though we gave them plenty of time in which to do it. The voluntary approach has failed so we must be prepared to turn to legislation to achieve a solution.

For those who have raised doubts and questions, I have some questions myself. In a time of budgetary constraints can we justify spending government money to duplicate studies already carried out by the private sector? Can we justify a delay in introducing state of the art emission control technology in Canada? Can we justify the extra expense consumers will bear if MMT continues to be used as an additive in Canada? Would there be considerable cost for industry or consumers if MMT is banned? Would there be a notable harmful environmental impact? Is MMT likely to have a place in the cleaner fuels of the future? After more than two years of discussion is there any likelihood that the industries concerned could reach agreement in the near future on MMT use? Is there any real alternative left except legislation?

I believe that the answer to all these questions is self-evident. Equally obvious is that the time has come for Parliament to exercise its obligation and legislate an end to the use of manganese based additives in gasoline. That is what Bill C-94 does. The measure is pro-environmental, pro-consumer, pro-investment and pro-business. It is time for the House to face the facts and pass the legislation.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-94.

We introduced the amendment simply to allow time for the topic to be studied and assessed in light of what has happened in the U.S. and to avoid embarrassment for the government and the country.

The move to ban MMT at this time clearly has little support in evidence. Everyone on the committee, including the government members, raised substantive doubts on the validity of the evidence.

The presentation of the previous speech we heard was very well done. Nevertheless it was a presentation that again accepts unquestionably the evidence provided by the auto manufacturers in spite of the fact that they refused to table any of those studies for us to look at.

We are told that the minister intervened personally to try and bring about a settlement on this issue. I would question how the minister could intervene personally to negotiate a settlement on this issue when she refused to meet with one of the parties involved. In spite of several attempts by that side, that party in the dispute, the minister refused to meet with them.

The member says she personally intervened to try and bring about a settlement. What hogwash. A settlement cannot be brought about by only meeting with one side. Again she says they have had plenty of time to settle the dispute, that the government has given ample time to do that.

In the 1993 campaign the Liberal party, before it became the government, committed in its red book to ban MMT if an agreement was not reached. In the dispute the motor vehicle manufacturers lost all will to negotiate any kind of agreement because it was there in writing: if an agreement was not reached, the government was prepared to ban MMT.

We again hear how there is no time to let the National Research Council or the Department of the Environment conduct independent tests. There is this urgency because of the technology on the 1996 cars. The 1996 cars are here. They are on the market. They are being sold. The OBD II system is onboard. It is functioning and has not been disconnected. Why are we in such a terrible rush?

Yesterday we heard from the member for Davenport that if these OBD II warning lights were disconnected and the system was malfunctioning, it would somehow contribute greatly to more pollution and would be a health hazard for Canadians. My response to that is: What about the millions and millions of cars on our roads that are pre-1996 and do not have OBD II systems and seem to be functioning quite well? This OBD II technology is not vital to the operation of a car. Whether or not it functions is not how we judge the pollution that is coming from the car. They are simply warning devices. They have no effect on the pollution produced from the tailpipe of that car.

There is not that great a rush and we do have time to do that testing. It is important in the interests of this country to wait. Certainly if MMT is allowed to be used again in the United States in the coming year, this bill and this movement by our government will truly be embarrassing. Certainly it will be embarrassing to the country to have the Minister of the Environment go down in history as the minister who passed a bill to increase ground level ozone and smog. It is truly ludicrous.

We have introduced the amendment to appeal to the common sense of the House to let the bill rest somewhere at least for a couple of months or a year. Let us do some independent testing to verify the evidence. Let us wait and see what happens in the U.S. so we can truly move toward harmonization of fuel, an objective the Minister of Industry clearly stated in the House as being crucial.

Whatever happens in the U.S. and however small an amount of MMT is or is not allowed in, to ban MMT in Canada is to move away from the goal of harmonization and not toward it. It only makes good common sense to wait until we see what happens and to do independent testing so that we have concrete evidence one way or the other.

Certainly this party supports the banning of MMT if it can be shown in independent testing that it is a problem. Ethyl corporation and the petroleum refining industry stated in committee that they are perfectly willing to withdraw the product from the market if independent evidence shows that it is detrimental. That is certainly a more reasonable position than the one presented by the government.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments about the auto industry in Canada and point out some facts about it.

In 1994, $44 billion worth of vehicles and $20 billion worth of parts were produced in Canada. Producing $44 billion worth of vehicles in Canada employed 58,000 Canadians. Canadians across the country are involved in the industry. There is a Volvo plant in Halifax, many plants in Quebec and Ontario, and truck manufacturers in British Columbia. The vehicle parts manufacturing industry involves over 750 companies employing 82,000 Canadians.

I am sure that Canadians employed in these companies would like to know the hon. member and his party are supporting their jobs. I get the feeling from what I have heard in the House that their support is only for the oil refining industry and not for the workers of Canada and the Canadian industry. I wonder if the hon. member has any comments.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to comment on that because truly we are beginning to see the real motivation for the legislation. It is a political motivation.

I am not responding to any lobby. I met with both sides on the issue. I listened to the evidence from both sides. We did extensive

research into that evidence. The evidence is not there to support banning MMT. It simply is not there.

Certainly to suggest that by not banning MMT it will create a loss of jobs in the auto industry is a red herring. Cars will certainly continue to be built where they are being made today.

I will say one thing. If there are job losses to be incurred because of the issue, they will not be in the auto industry; they will be in the manufacture of MMT. That plant will close down and those jobs will be lost in Canada. They will be gone.

The member has the facts just a little mixed up. We are accused of being overcome by the lobby of Ethyl corporation and that there is some kind of evil corporation from the U.S. which is not even Canadian. Where are the head offices of every member of the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association? They are no more Canadian than Ethyl is, quite frankly. If the member is concerned about job losses, let us be realistic and fair. They will not be in the auto industry.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, again the member for Athabasca is deviating from the information we received in committee.

It was amply discussed there from the information provided by the auto industry that the presence of manganese has a negative effect on the functioning capacity of the oxygen sensors and catalytic converters. The results are clearly identified. The committee was quite keen in investigating the matter. It went into investigating the question of the effect of manganese on sparkplugs. The hon. member saw the pictures that when sparkplugs operate with gasoline containing manganese, the coating of manganese is visible on the sparkplugs.

In addition the MMT manufacturers are in the U.S.A. They are keen to maintain the Canadian market as they have already in Bulgaria, Russia, Taiwan and Argentina. We have now reached a stage in Canada where we have to move away from MMT as the Americans already did in 1978. The American motorist has been using gasoline without MMT since 1978. There is no deviation from that fact and the Reform Party must accept that fact.

The entire North American automotive technology is moving toward an onboard diagnostic system which is intended to improve the emission controls of the engine.

Is this a political decision? Yes, it is a political decision because politicians have to make policy decisions. We have to keep up with rapidly advancing technology. We cannot turn the clocks back to before 1978 and go back to how it was in the United States before the U.S. banned MMT.

We must apply the latest technology for the sake of the consumer. That is why we have the issue of onboard diagnostics which, contrary to what the hon. member for Athabasca said, would have to be disconnected in Canada if MMT was not removed. The disconnection would be to the disadvantage of the warranty holder, namely the car owner.

These facts emerged from committee. Does the member for Athabasca agree with those observations?

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, for some reason the member for Davenport does not seem to remember what went on in committee.

The evidence was very suspect. The pictures of the sparkplugs which he referred to were two different types of sparkplugs. The witnesses told us they were exactly the same sparkplugs run in the same engine and all the rest of it. On the tailpipe emission issue, a government member was clearly confused and had some real doubt as to the authenticity of the data before him and what they were suggested to mean.

Without any question, the evidence is suspect at best and certainly is not enough on which to base the decision to ban MMT. The evidence simply is not there. The bill is an embarrassment to the country and the minister.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

The primary purpose of the bill which is to be known as the manganese based fuel additives act is to ban the use of MMT, a manganese based compound used as an octane enhancer in Canadian gasolines.

MMT is widely recognized as having an adverse effect on the operation of vehicle emission control components, including sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems, commonly known as OBDS. OBDS are slated to be introduced in virtually all 1996 vehicle models. They will help to control vehicle pollution by monitoring emission system performance and alerting drivers to a malfunction. Several car manufacturers around the world including Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and Toyota have all come to the conclusion after extensive scientific testing that MMT adversely affects onboard diagnostic systems. Many of these corporations have billions of dollars invested in Canada and directly employ tens of thousands of Canadians in manufacturing plants.

To continue using MMT in Canadian gasoline would compromise the ability of Canada's auto industry to design cars that achieve important pollution reductions. Surely it goes without saying that Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to the best emission control technology available. Presently Canada is one of the last countries in the world in which MMT is

used in unleaded gasoline. That is a distinction we should not be particularly proud of.

While MMT has been in use in Canada since 1977 as a replacement for lead in unleaded gasoline, it has been banned in the United States since 1977 because of concerns over health effects. I find it ironical that one country, ours, adopted a product at the precisely the same time its neighbour bans it.

Environment Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and virtually every single automobile company around the world all agree that MMT impairs the performance of pollution control equipment found in today's cars and trucks. Study after study shows that MMT adversely affects the onboard diagnostic systems where the pollution control equipment is found. These systems are extremely important for the environment because they ensure the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed.

Understandably the vehicle industry has indicated it will not accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs associated with MMT in gasoline and would take preventive actions, including disconnecting the OBD systems in whole or in part and possibly reducing vehicle warranty coverage with 1996 vehicles if MMT continues to be used.

The passage of Bill C-94 into law will bring about a successful resolution of the MMT issue in Canada and will ensure that vehicle emission standards remain harmonized in the North American automotive market.

I will now speak on the health hazards associated with manganese based compounds like MMT. AT 1990 hearings of the U.S. environmental protection agency into a waiver application submitted by Ethyl Corporation to reallow MMT in unleaded gasoline, a number of experts testified on the toxic effects of manganese compounds.

Ms. Ellen Silbergeld of the environmental defense fund testified at the EPA hearings: "Manganese, like lead, is a toxin in that both its absorption and retention as well as its toxicity increase with time. At present there are insufficient data on the low level chronic effects of the manganese exposure similar to the case that was made for lead in 1925".

The environmental defense fund in its written submission to the EPA states: "We know that manganese at high dose is a demonstrated human neurotoxin with persistent and irreversible pathological effects on brain structure and resulting severe impairments in movement and mental state. We do not know what the long term chronic low dose consequences of human exposure to manganese are. We do not know a safe level of manganese exposure, particularly for those subgroups that may be at increased risk for neurotoxity, the young and the aged".

Dr. John Donaldson is one of Canada's top neurotoxologists. He has conducted ground breaking research in this area. Dr. Donaldson told the EPA in Washington: "One of the major theories in leading edge neuroscience which relate to the environment today is that there are agents, neurotoxins, insidious neurotoxins like manganese, which are age accelerating neurotoxins. I believe that manganese is such an age accelerating neurotoxin and I believe this is the answer to manganese's ability to produce biochemically, pathologically and clinically the picture which is very similar, very similar but not identical, to Parkinson's disease".

On May 1, 1994 Dr. Donaldson wrote to me with an overview of more recent scientific studies that should give us all pause. I put on the record the following examples of recent research provided to me by Dr. Donaldson:

An increasing body of evidence from Sweden, the centre of excellence and occupational health and safety, has demonstrated that chronic exposure to manganese at very low levels can produce impairment of mental function. The evidence suggesting that low levels over a prolonged period can impair memory has strong implications not only for occupational health but perhaps more especially to child mental health, and firmly places manganese in the category of behavioural psychotoxin as well as neurotoxin.

This newly emerging recognition of the low dose effects of manganese is a most effective club with which to stifle industrial critics which argue that manganese is only toxic at enormous levels rarely attained.

Recent evidence by Dr. Donald Calne of the University of British Columbia, a distinguished and internationally acclaimed researcher in Parkinson's disease, considers that manganese in humans is progressive and even a short exposure can lead ultimately to brain damage. Of especial importance was his observations that even a short exposure was as effective as a prolonged one in causing irreparable brain damage. This should dispel claims by critics that at moderate doses manganese has no health risk.

Dr. Calne has also noted that the initial toxicity of manganese can remain masked for several decades following exposure although causing brain cell death at an increased rate which is only detectable by brain imaging techniques. The disease may not appear for periods as long as four decades. A silent killer indeed.

There are a number of options to replace the octane provided by MMT. Available substances include MTBE, ETBE, methanol and ethanol. Ethanol, which is produced from Canadian grains, is an ideal octane enhancer for unleaded gasoline. Since it is manufactured from renewal feedstock it is especially valuable as a non-petroleum fuel component in times of restricted supply. Ethanol and its derivative, ETBE, are the only gasoline additives which are renewable and offer the further security of reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies.

The primary environmental benefit of ethanol is its high content of oxygen. Gasoline contains no oxygen. Adding oxygen has the effect of creating a more favourable air-fuel ratio, which results in a cleaner combustion of the fuel, thereby reducing such harmful emissions as carbon dioxide.

On December 21, 1994 the government announced a new program to encourage the development of biomass derived fuels. It is obvious that the banning of MMT as contained in Bill C-94 dovetails perfectly with this program. In addition to helping improve the environment, the government's support of ethanol investment will benefit agricultural producers and create industrial development. There is no doubt in my mind that the banning of MMT will boost demand for ethanol and help to create new long term markets for corn and grain as feedstock to the ethanol process.

I heartily support Bill C-94 and I strongly encourage all members to do likewise.