Debates of Sept. 19th, 1995

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting presentation.

I would certainly agree with the member's presentation if it was a level playing field. If independent studies could show me reliably that MMT is harmful to the environment and ethanol could be produced in competition with MMT without government subsidization and the industry could stand on its own, then I would accept his argument as realistic. In that case we certainly should go ahead, but exactly the opposite is true.

The fact is that the ethanol industry is not a viable industry in today's technology. Some day it may be and good for it if it is. Certainly the other side of the argument is that MMT has not been proven to be harmful to the environment. The endless studies done by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States have stated that it is not harmful to the environment. In Canada the Minister of Health states that it is not harmful to the health of Canadians. In fact, by banning it we raise the levels of nitrous oxide. By banning it through the extra refining processes that must be done to obtain an equal octane rating in gasoline the refineries have to substantially raise the emissions of CO2 and benzene.

The argument that it is a product of the past and we have to move on because it is so harmful to the environment and we should spend tax dollars to subsidize the ethanol industry is a false one. I ask the member to respond to that.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the member's colleagues brought up the question of waiting until the United States made its final decision and so on regarding the future of MMT. I should just point out to him that in the United States the tax relief on ethanol gasoline has doubled what it is in Canada. They gave it a leg up.

I should also point out to him that in the United States 39 cities mandate the use of gasolines containing ethanol for environmental reasons. This is because of what is called ground level ozone.

My colleague, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister, talked about ground level ozone. Some people believe it is not a problem in Canada and that it really does not exist. If we divide the ozone emissions into the square footage of Canada it is not a problem. It does not exist. However, if we take the area of metropolitan Toronto, the Ottawa valley, Montreal, Vancouver or southwestern Ontario it is a serious problem. It was a problem this last summer with ozone warnings that stayed with us for a number of weeks. The previous year I believe it stayed on for two weeks.

There are real reasons that we might want to give an industry a leg up. In this case it is not subsidy but excise removal. We can worry about the semantics of it but the fact is that the most industrialized country in the world has seen fit to promote ethanol this year. In 1995, 45 new ethanol plants are being built in the United States. There is only one reason for that. They want ethanol as an additive. In the United States right now 8 per cent of all gasoline has an ethanol additive. That is pretty substantial when we consider that the whole thing began very few years ago.

[An hon. member]

They will be bringing back MMT.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

We do not know whether or not the U.S. is going to bring back MMT but the fact is that ethanol is a superior product notwithstanding the fact that it will be manufactured in Canada in quantity. I do not think Canadian farmers would dismiss that out of hand and say that it will not help them if MMT remains. They want ethanol gasoline. In southwestern Ontario farmers are clamouring for ethanol gasoline from dealers who do not normally handle them at all.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says, there is nothing wrong with giving an industry a leg up. That strikes at the heart of the bill. This bill has nothing to do with the environment; it is really an industry issue.

If the government wants to ban MMT just because it wants to ban it, then why does it not say so? If the object is to do that, then go ahead and do it. What annoys many of us is that this is being done under the pretence of an environmental clean up. That is the excuse which has been given. All that we can do is ban the cross-border traffic of MMT because there is no health reason to ban it. I wish the government would be honest and say that it decided to do it because it wants to do it. At least that would be honest if not prudent.

As an example, why is it that Ford and GM in their 1996 models make no mention at all about MMT or the effect it has on the onboard computers?

This has nothing to do with the environment. This has to do with a decision of the government to ban it for reasons known mostly to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not a health issue. It is not an arsenic issue, the example which was used earlier. This is a decision of the government to do it for reasons other than the environment. It is really an industry issue. If the government wants to promote ethanol, as the hon. member mentioned, then the Minister of Industry could do that. I do not know why the Minister of the Environment is picking on this issue when it is not an environmental or health issue.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the argument that it is an economic or an industry issue is mine. It is one I have put to the House. I have put it to the House proudly because I believe that a crossover into ethanol will be a leg up for agriculture and the economy of the country.

The decision of the Minister of the Environment was based first on evidence of what was happening in the United States. Why would the EPA mandate gasoline containing ethanol in 39 cities? There is quite a wealth of evidence coming down to demonstrate that in the United States at least it was believed there was a problem. This country was faced with this conundrum long before the current government took office.

There is some counter evidence, which might or might not prove valid, but where do we stop the study process? Everything could stand more study. I do believe that a great deal of independent study has been done, so I do not know what independent study would be acceptable to my hon. friend.

[An hon. member]

But you will not do one.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

No, and you know why.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I was made aware earlier by the hon. member for Halton-Peel that he is some distance from the Chair, but I am at the same equal distance and I would not want to be forgotten. I would urge all members to direct their interventions through the Chair.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. There is a terrible temptation to get carried away at this end of the House. I am going to have to get stronger glasses to see you.

I hope I have answered the question as well as I can. The evidence was that this was a legitimate cause for concern. It has been aided by the automobile companies, that admittedly will not reveal their sources because of commercial confidentiality. Apparently the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister was leaked. However, it gave us the opportunity to say: Here is the evidence as we know it and in the name of cleaner air we should act on it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we resume debate I would like to make the House aware that five hours have lapsed from the beginning of second reading. We will now go to the next stage of debate in which there will be straight 10-minute interventions without questions or comments.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues will be very sad to know that I only have 10 minutes, but I will try to confine my remarks to that period of time.

I know that many Canadians watch the debates in the House of Commons, odd as it may seem, and I would like to remind them that we are now debating Bill C-94. The name of the bill is an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based products. That might not seem like a very gripping title. It sounds quite innocuous, quite routine and regulatory. However, the bill raises issues of which Canadians ought to be made aware and we on this side of the House are doing our best to raise those issues and to bring them out in the public debate.

The manganese product in question, which is the subject substance of the bill, is called MMT. MMT is short for some long scientific name which probably none of us can pronounce or would want to. It is really an octane enhancer for unleaded gasoline. We all know that most of our vehicles use unleaded gasoline. We want to get the maximum mileage because it saves us a few nickels here and there. Therefore all Canadians should be quite interested in anything which enhances the octane of gasoline and MMT does that.

However, the Minister of the Environment now wants to prevent this product from being imported into Canada and does not want it to be traded as a common product across interprovincial borders. It is very interesting the way this dreaded product is being handled. It raises the question: Is this sudden concern on the part of the environment minister about MMT, this octane enhancer, because MMT is unsafe or dangerous? If it is, we certainly want to know. We do not want it floating around in the air and soaking into our fingers when we gas up our cars.

The fact of the matter is that MMT is not dangerous. The minister is not going to ban the product outright. It is not even going to be labelled as unsafe. One wonders why the environment minister, since the product is not going to be banned as unsafe or labelled as unsafe, is mixing into this. It is very strange.

Surely if the product has been determined to be unsafe or if it causes injury, then it should not be readily available to the public. If that is the case, then why is the product not being banned?

Under this bill, MMT can still be manufactured in Canada. In fact, a manufacturer could potentially set up a plant to produce MMT in every province of the country and not be breaking the law, since Bill C-94 merely prohibits the interprovincial trade or the importation of the substance.

The obvious question to be asked is: Why this bill at all? My hon. friend opposite just spent a great deal of time talking about ethane. Maybe the conclusion we should draw is that MMT is being banned so that somehow ethane producers can have a bit of an advantage and not so much competition from MMT. I do not know. We are not being given any answers to those speculations. However, the question is really puzzling because the substance has not proven to cause any harm to Canadians at all.

We have an environment minister who certainly should be concerned about environmental pollutants, environmental hazardous substances, and yet there is no hazard here. Nothing has been shown to cause any harm to us. This has been demonstrated not just by American studies, which I suppose we could dismiss, but a 1994 study by Health Canada found that MMT is not harmful to Canadians.

What is really happening here? We suggest that the Minister of the Environment has dragged the government into a dispute between manufacturers of MMT and the automobile manufacturers in the United States. These manufacturers have plants and provide jobs in Canada. Some of those jobs are fairly close to Ottawa.

As we have heard, there are some suggestions that MMT in unleaded gasoline causes the onboard diagnostic systems in our modern computer chip driven cars to malfunction. Automobile manufacturers, therefore, want MMT banned. They are not being very specific about the data on which they base these allegations. In fact, they are holding it quite close to the vest. Some has been leaked. Therefore, because of a few allegations and suggestions and some leaked data we are now rising to the occasion and making sure that our onboard diagnostic systems are protected. I would suggest that is not really a function of a highly paid environment minister.

The evidence is sketchy. It is inconclusive. The manufacturers of MMT have produced evidence that shows that their product is not harmful and does not cause the problems in question. Not only does it not harm the environment, does not harm Canadians, it does not even harm our cars, our onboard diagnostic systems.

However that evidence is not good enough. The car manufacturers are saying: "We have a big problem". The two parties talked and one side said: "You are causing a problem" and the other side is saying: "No, this product does not cause a problem. We will have scientific studies done by experts that we both respect, who have credentials that we can both accept and we will get to the bottom of this".

In spite of that very sensible suggestion, before it could be carried out, before the independent expert advice could be sought, the minister jumps in and says: "I am going to come down on the side of the automobile manufacturers and I am going to decide that MMT should be banned", for reasons which do not seem to be very specific and certainly are not very persuasive. We object to this.

We agree with the submissions that have been made from the other side that Canadians are tired of problems being studied to death. However let us look at the situation. Has this been studied to death? We have had very sketchy and unspecified evidence on the part of the automobile manufacturers. We have heard allegations from the industry people who are producing MMT. We have no independent reports except Health Canada saying that there is no danger or harm from the substance. That is not studying the subject to death. This bill has been put in place willy-nilly without proper thought or evidence, without any proper reason. We object to that. We do not think that is how a government should run things. We do not think that is how decisions should be made and we certainly do not think this is an area in which the environment minister should be involved.

In fact, a ruling in the United States in June concluded that the tests on the impact of MMT that had been done were inconclusive. Presumably the Americans do have some experts worth listening to. Therefore, the ruling was that the substance ought not to be banned. Others have alluded to the fact that this will very likely result in having MMT again approved for use in unleaded gasoline in the United States as an octane enhancer.

The end result of all this is that the Minister of the Environment is taking unwarranted action on an issue that should have been, would have been and could have been settled by the concerned parties themselves.

There is a lot of concern about the impact of this legislation. There is a lot riding on the bill in both of these sectors, the manufacturers of both the vehicles and MMT.

The provinces have also demonstrated that they have a real concern about this. Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all expressed concerns that any replacement of MMT might actually impair the air quality in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances be not now read a

second time, but the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The amendment is in order.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendment of the member for Calgary North.

One of the things about this House that concerns me is how many of us become experts in certain fields in which we do not know anything.

Members of the Reform Party have said that they want to cut taxes, they want to cut the deficit and this kind of stuff. Here they are asking us to go to the National Research Council, hire a group of scientists to work for the Ethyl Corporation and do all the work that corporation is supposed to do. We have all these automotive manufacturers, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Saab, Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mercedes Benz. The list goes on and on.

I will speak about how a car actually functions. We are talking about an octane enhancer. The octane rating is a unit of measurement established by the automotive industry to determine the action of variable fuels. In the laboratory is an engine with a variable compression ratio and various substances, gasoline, stoichiometric and some of these additives are added. At the point where it knocks-at 100 per cent it does not knock-the enhancers put into the gasoline are reduced.

Why do they do this? They want the combustion process to be predictable. Mr. Speaker, if you have ever driven a car and turned the ignition off and the engine still was running this is called after-runner or dieseling. What you have got is the gasoline reaching so high a compression ratio that it explodes by itself. We do not want that happening in our cars. We want to trigger it when we turn the ignition on, getting a spark from the sparkplug. When we turn the ignition switch off we want the spark to stop and the engine to shut off.

What happens in a modern car with all this onboard diagnostic equipment? Starting with a PCV valve, exhaust gas recirculation, the use of a catalytic converter, a sophisticated combustion chamber design and raising the temperature of the engine by using higher thermostats is a sophisticated modern engine where we are trying get a stoichiometric mixture of 14 pounds of air to 1 pound of gasoline.

We want that condition all the time. We want a good spray in the combustion chamber. We want a certain amount of turbulence and we want the predictability so that when that gasoline explodes at a certain point in the cycle, when the piston is travelling down a particular angle, the maximum pressure is built up.

This is done by antiknock. For instance, if one went to a modern car, took a hammer and hammered on it, if the timing light is used the spark will retard when that happens.

These cars are very sensitive. The bottom line is that they have these onboard diagnostic pieces of equipment. The onboard diagnostic piece of equipment is a way of refining the entire combustion process from start to finish making sure the contaminants that come out in the air do not pollute the atmosphere.

That is what the Minister of the Environment is trying to do. The Minister of the Environment has said if there were no onboard diagnostics on cars in Canada but available in the United States, Canadians would get a inferior product to their counterparts in the United States. We would be actually manufacturing the cars in Canada and exporting them to the States while we are using cars with obsolete technology.

Study after study by the automotive manufacturers has said MMT interferes with diagnostic onboard pieces of equipment and causes them to foul up. It causes them to trigger warning lights. It causes them to take the car under warranty which in turn would cost more money for the car.

These cars are supposed to go well over 100,000 kilometres without these parts being replaced or without some major clogging up of the complicated three way catalytic converter.

What has the Government of Canada done? The Minister of the Environment went to the manufacturers and went to the Ethyl Corporation and said solve the problem and they could not solve the problem.

If the Ethyl Corporation feels so strongly that its product is so good, let it take the risk. Do not ask us to go to our National Research Council and use our researchers to prove its product is good or bad. Put it in sample cars and prove it. The idea that there is a court case in the United States is a sham because the Americans have not been using MMT for 17 years.

There is still a ban. It is not legal to buy MMT in the States and the Environmental Protection Agency has said it has to go through that series of tests which are so important to environmental protection. It has to go through that thumb print required by any fuel additives that have certain restrictions which have to be met.

Hydrocarbon emissions, nitric oxide emissions and all these things are calibrated through an acceptable level which cars have to go through in order to make sure they pass the test.

We have an automotive industry of which we use 10 per cent and 17 per cent is exported. It is important to get into the new model year. The minister had to act and she acted.

I do not see why any of my colleagues being lobbied by the Ethyl Corporation are trying to tell the government side that we should be spending any more money.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the proposal of my colleague to refer this Bill C-94 to the Standing Committee on Industry to examine it further.

During today's debate we have fairly firmly established that the decision on the government's behalf to ban MMT is not an environmental decision at all but a decision made by one of the most political of our ministers, the Minister of the Environment.

It is interesting that years ago she made news by jumping over a table to confront a Conservative cabinet minister. Perhaps she feels she has not been in the news enough lately so she is tabling Bill C-94 to attempt to show that she is doing something about the environment. Obviously it is a purely political bill.

Bill C-94 is a bill which would ban the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT. It is interesting the Liberals have no reason to ban MMT on environmental reasons. This is why they cannot ban it. They can simply prohibit interprovincial trade of it, which of course has the same effect.

It is a shame they do not come out and say as a policy of the government under industrial diversification or whatever that they want to claim they are going to ban it. This would be the honest thing to say. It is not based on the environmental criteria.

Again it was interesting today when the environment minister quoted extensively from all the reports she has seen, none of which she will table in the House of Commons. They are all classified or secret or whatever.

If she would agree to an independent study or table the study so that everybody could have a look perhaps we could believe the purity of her motives. As it is now, because she will not table it, because she will not have an independent study, it raises the question of the sincerity of the minister on the environmental impact of it, especially in light of some of the other studies on what the EPA has said that MMT does not cause or contribute to the failure of vehicles to meet applicable emissions standards required by the U.S. clean air act.

The clean air act is much more stringent than our own. It is unfortunate that she has used this as a political statement of some sort. It is really to her detriment that she continues to push this idea instead of referring it to the committee on industry where it could be properly studied so we could get some scientific reason why MMT is good or bad.

On November 30, 1993 the EPA determined MMT does not cause or contribute to the failure of emission control systems in automobiles and the courts on April 14, 1995 ordered the EPA to grant a temporary waiver of its ban on MMT to a private company that wants to market it again. The EPA, which I do not think is anybody's lapdog, has said it has no reason to prohibit MMT and will allow it again into the United States.

The United States is almost at the point where it will once again allow MMT in unleaded gasoline at the very time when Canada is trying to ban it.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute said its industries will not remove MMT unless there is conclusive proof the additive is harmful to the environment, which was one argument, or that it causes the onboard diagnostic computers to malfunction.

It is willing to move on that if the proof in either of those departments is forthcoming, but there is no such proof. The opposite is true. In December 1994 Health Canada published a study which said there is no health risk from MMT, and therefore the minister cannot ban it. All she can do is try to stop it from being transported.

In order to enhance the octane in gasoline refineries will have to substitute something else. What will that be? We have heard some arguments on both sides and one of the things could be an unpronounceable chemical additive called MTBE which will cost refineries some $50 million to change over to and will cost an extra $25 million every year to make the switch, not an insignificant drop in the bucket.

The higher prices will be passed on to the consumers at the pumps. The Minister of the Environment should also have included in her portfolio the minister of gas, not only for the political nature of her remarks but also for her notable contribution to the higher gasoline prices if this bill continues.

Even more ironically the new substance which will replace MMT is also known to cause increased pollution even while the substance she is banning has been determined to be safe by Health Canada. Her own officials say banning MMT will increase nitrogen oxide emissions by a full 20 per cent. Nitrogen oxide is the stuff that increases ground level ozone which makes the lives of people with lung problems a little harder to bear.

The Minister of the Environment, who also could be called the minister of gas, could be the minister of lung problems. Not only does it point out her normal tendency to rash comment but it also highlights her contribution to worsening an already serious air pollution problem in Canada.

If the banning of MMT hurts people and the environment, and if the American EPA says an MMT does not hurt automobile emission systems, what could be the real motivation behind the minister's introducing such a bill?

The obvious reason is purely political. Is it the lobbying efforts of the powerful automobile companies? Is it a weak minister who, when she is confronted by a powerful group in central Canada,

buckles even though there is no evidence from her own department that this is causing serious harm.

The minister should remember she is a national minister who is supposed to look out for the entire country and that all parts of Canada will be affected by her decisions.

We all know the producing fineries are located mostly in western Canada and therefore western Canada will bear most of the costs. The big car manufacturers located near the minister's riding will not have to spend any more time or money trying to figure out what is wrong with their faulty on board computers. They will not have to justify their opposition to MMT on scientific or technical grounds but merely lobby really hard and hope the minister supports them, which apparently she does.

I wonder what the Minister of Natural Resources thinks about the bill. I mentioned earlier today on a different subject that I have been quick to applaud the Minister of Natural Resources when she has stood up for industry and when she has made decisions based on sound, scientific evidence. However, I wonder where she is on this matter. I would dearly like to ask her whether she agrees with the intent of this bill and whether she is willing to sell out the industry she represents so the minister of gas and lung problems can protect her own political turf. Is the minister really fighting for her industry at the cabinet table or is she losing out to the political heavyweights sitting across the cabinet table?

I am waiting for the Minister of Natural Resources to announce her own feelings about this bill. I want her to come out and say why on a scientific basis she thinks MMT should be banned. I would also like her to come out forcefully and either support or argue with the Minister of the Environment on those issues.

I hope the Minister of Natural Resources does want to represent all of the producers in this country, not just the automobile producers, but the people in the resource industries who are asking, as is the minister of the environment in, for proof as to why MMT should be banned.

The media release I have is from a respected international brokerage firm, the Solomon Brothers, with strong research capabilities in this sector. Talking about the EPA rulings in the United States:

We continue to strongly believe that the rule of law will prevail in this case and not some half baked EPA policy stance. In other words, MMT will get a full green light by year end.

The firm used the term half baked. We could use the same term to refer to Bill C-94. It is a half baked political attempt to appease some groups of people, although I am not sure who. The environment minister seems ready and willing to turn her back on her own portfolio which is to protect the environment for all Canadians on a technical and scientific basis.

How ironic that even while the U.S. is moving forward on this issue Canada is furiously back pedalling. I encourage the Minister of the Environment to back pedal in one more way and do what she knows is the right thing and refer this bill to the committee of industry where it can have a detailed study and hearings on it to bring it to a proper scientific conclusion.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, and in particular to the motion now before this House to adjourn the debate as proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.

I feel it is important not to delay the debate under way. We cannot keep putting off indefinitely environment issues. Matters as important to our future as the environment cannot be postponed endlessly. But before talking about the proposal to adjourn the debate on this crucial matter, I would like to say a few words about some general environmental issues that deserve our attention.

This morning, we debated in this House a bill to amend the Auditor General Act, which provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reporting to the auditor general and requires departments to develop environmental strategies to be laid before the House.

Environmental matters are always a little less tangible than issues such as finance, revenue or day-to-day management. I used to sit on the public accounts committee and the auditor general often came to explain or question the regular management of various government departments. Regarding the environment, however, I think it is important for the government to be concerned about the environment, about the future of all Quebecers and Canadians.

Environmental issues transcend borders. Some examples come to mind. In my riding, we have one, in fact two international lakes, namely Lake Memphremagog and Lake Champlain, about which we are having environmental difficulties with our American neighbours.

It makes us realize that not all problems are resolved with borders. Agreements must be reached with neighbouring states.

Over the summer, I participated in discussions with our neighbours in Vermont and people in Washington to try to resolve an environmental problem affecting Lake Champlain. I think it is important for neighbours to make an effort to understand one another and ensure that future generations on both sides of the border, in Canada as well as in the U.S., can agree in future.

In that sense, I do not see the use of having borders sprouting up all over the place in terms of the environment. With NAFTA, with the World Trade Organization, we are now in an open economy and the same should hold true for the environment.

As far as this bill is concerned, I think we should move on this, and not in six months time. There have been enough studies. I think that the government should go ahead with this bill.

I mentioned earlier how important the environment is to this country. I would like to share with you more of what I have learned during the summer. We witnessed this wonderful co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments across the country. I am referring to the infrastructure program which had an impact on the environment in Quebec. Some communities got funding from the infrastructure program to build a water treatment plant. The program helped promote environmental projects in several sectors.

I want to go back to the importance of the decisions which have to be made today, not tomorrow, to preserve our future. As you know, when a decision is made concerning the environment, it costs money. However, it may be better to pay today than to be blamed by future generations for not having acted quickly enough regarding the environment.

This is important for our safety. There is the ozone depletion, as well as all the problems with our lakes and rivers, pollution problems. We have to act immediately and this is what the government intends to do. It wants to take immediate action, so that our future generations can live safely.

We must also look at the impact on the industry sector. By acting now, the government prompts the industry to develop, produce and export new technologies and products. The environment is a promising sector for our engineering firms, our industries, our producers, our exporters, and everyone else. For that reason, we should not let the debate go on and on. We should look at this bill right now.

Earlier, I alluded to the debate that took place this morning regarding the auditor general, the new commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

I think that this act, which seeks to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, shows that this government is a good government. This is a good government's program. It is a program which makes people realize that environmental safety is important. It is important to all Canadians today and it is also important for future generations. Such an initiative does solve the real issues, even though it may not do much for hypothetical questions such as where will the border be located, etc. We are together in this country and we work together to find solutions to the real issues that confront Canadians. This is what is important.

There has been co-operation on environmental matters between the Canadian government and the provinces. To mention only two instances, under the previous Quebec government, the Liberal government, the environment minister at the time, Pierre Paradis, and the present Minister of Environment of Canada, Ms. Copps, signed a number of agreements. The plan for the St. Lawrence, for instance, referred to as Vision 2000, and the agreement between the Government of Quebec and the government in Ottawa on the St. Lawrence. But the St. Lawrence starts in the Great Lakes. Everything is inter-related. So these agreements are extremely beneficial for Quebec and for Canada, for present and future generations. It is important to have this co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments.

Ten months later we had a second agreement, an agreement with the pulp and paper mills, an agreement signed by the Government of Quebec and Ottawa. Incredible. We have not had many environmental agreements since the separatist government came to power, but we have had an agreement between Quebec and Ottawa on environmental matters. This bill, sponsored by the Minister of the Environment, makes me proud to be a Canadian, to be a member of a generous and sharing society, a society that is open and secure.

We live in a system that is evolving. We should let it evolve. Let there be new agreements and new ways of sharing. Let us also ensure that Canada, which, according to a UN report, ranked first on quality of life and, according to a report by the World Bank published yesterday, is the second richest country in the world, let us make sure that in the future, this country keeps up the good work through its environmental programs, as we have done in the past and will continue to do so.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion to amend Bill C-94, an act to ban the importation of MMT.

My colleague, the member for Calgary North, proposes to withdraw Bill C-94 from second reading and refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Industry. I support this motion, because when we look at the facts it will become very clear that the banning of MMT is clearly an industry issue, not an environmental issue.

This bill revolves around an industry dispute, a dispute between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, the MVMA, and the Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute, the CPPI. It should be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

The environment minister has Bill C-94 on a fast track through the House on environmental grounds, but there is no impartial evidence to support this approach or the minister's supposed environmental claims. That is the reason we are debating an interprovincial ban on MMT, as opposed to environmental concerns.

It concerns me that after a review of legislation proposed in Bill C-94 and of the scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence presented both in support of the bill and in opposition to it, I am still left with one question: Why is this government proposing to ban MMT?

In the last session I asked the House to lay out the facts that support this proposed legislation. I am still waiting for those facts to be presented, which leaves me asking the same questions and drawing the same conclusions. The minister's decision to ban MMT is purely political. The fact is that the minister's decision has been influenced by the MVMA.

The MVMA wants the minister to ban MMT because it claims that MMT is responsible for problems with onboard diagnostic systems. However, there is a problem with this claim. Automakers are experiencing the same problems in the United States, where MMT is not in current use. Given this fact, and without any impartial evidence, it is difficult to understand how equipment problems could be the result of MMT's presence in Canadian gasoline. We have two different cases.

There are many things that do not make sense with this bill. For example, it is difficult to understand why this government is proposing to ban a substance when research has shown that removing MMT will increase vehicle emissions that cause smog and poor air quality by up to 20 per cent.

Over the last decade Canadians have worked hard to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide to meet international and domestic commitments to improve air quality. While we have been successful at freezing NOX emissions at 1987 levels, and we have pledged to do so with the OECD, can we now afford to consider increasing NOX emissions by 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes a year? This is what will happen by removing MMT from gasoline.

The government has yet to provide any answers regarding what will replace MMT in gasoline. MMT is the only fuel additive that has been scientifically proven to reduce emissions of NOX. Alternative fuels such as ethanol also benefit from addition of MMT, so this will affect their performance as well. Without MMT ethanol puts NOX into the atmosphere, but when MMT is added to a 10 per cent solution of ethanol blend it reduces emissions of NOX by 30 per cent.

In addition, the minister has failed to address what the health impacts of banning MMT will be. Air pollution can be a threat to public health and health costs. NOX is one of the leading contributors to formation of urban smog. Scientific testing has demonstrated that without MMT, emissions of NOX will increase by 20 per cent over current levels. That means additional production of NOX every year, which would be equivalent to adding a million cars to our roads.

Despite the environmental and health evidence, the environment minister still echoes the concerns of the MVMA that MMT in Canadian gasoline is causing problems for the onboard diagnostic systems in the new model American cars. The minister says she wants to ban MMT so that consumers will not have to pay $3,000 or more for their automobiles next year. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. These claims were made by the MVMA's counterpart in the United States, and the U.S. court of appeals has determined they were totally unfounded. In addition, automakers are having exactly the same problems with OBDs in the U.S., and MMT is not currently used, so it cannot be the MMT that is causing the problem.

The environment minister has also stated that if vehicle manufacturers carry through on threats to remove OBD systems the result would be a tenfold increase in vehicle emissions. The OBD system does not reduce emissions. OBDs are monitoring systems, which provide drivers with notification by a dashboard light of a potential problem that could increase emissions. Removal or disconnection of the onboard system would prevent the dashboard malfunction light from illuminating, but it would not have the direct result of increasing emissions.

It concerns me that the minister does not appear to understand the function of these onboard systems, especially as she cited this as one of the major reasons for banning MMT. The environment minister also indicated that she has received studies from the MVMA that illustrate that MMT is the cause of onboard failures. I find this most interesting. If these studies exist, why has GM recently announced that it plans to conduct tests in the U.S. to determine the effects of MMT on the onboard systems?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, an act to act to amend the Auditor General Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Auditor General Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to

the taking of the deferred division at the second reading stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act.

Call in the members.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 6.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.).