Debates of Sept. 19th, 1995

Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the last number of years I have been involved along with the former member from London, Ralph Ferguson, in pushing the issue of better acceptance and more use of ethanol, one of the alternate octane enhancers to MMT.

I believe we were very close to passing, if we did not pass in the House in the last Parliament, a private member's motion to accept ethanol as a replacement for MMT. There was a lot of support at that time for replacement of MMT for many of the reasons the parliamentary secretary has outlined for us today.

At that time we were not made aware of the EPA's requirement to review the whole question of MMT because of the court ruling. However, one of the things we were trying to use at that time from the farm production point of view was the fact that ethanol was a very good replacement. It was renewable and at that point there was a surplus of grains, the source of ethanol, and they were very cheap.

Could the minister tell us what the economics of ethanol production has become? I know I have one of the larger ethanol production units in my riding. It is concerned about the sudden increase in the cost of inputs. Grain prices have more than doubled since the time that Ralph Ferguson introduced his bill.

Will this change make a sizeable change to the cost of gasoline because the ethanol may cost more than the MMT and what will the economic costs of such a change be? Has the Department of the Environment looked at the new costs of ethanol given that the raw material going into ethanol production, namely grains, has virtually doubled or more over the last three or four years?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have these figures with me at present. I know the ministry and others, including several MPs here, have made extensive studies on ethanol and the cost of ethanol as an additive. I will commit myself to make these figures whatever we have available to the hon. member as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that you will obtain the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of committee reports.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House had heard the motion of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-94 to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT.

The bill is fascinating but for the duplicity inherent in the process of how the bill came about. MMT is methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, an additive to unleaded gasoline, an octane enhancer. It reduces nitrous oxide emissions and makes gas burn a lot cleaner.

Nitrous oxides when released are the primary cause of smog which causes respiratory problems in a great number of people within our country, in particular those suffering from asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The minister tried to ban MMT but found she could not do it. MMT has proven not to be a hazard to people's health. She tried to find some other way of getting MMT out of Canada by putting forth this bill to ban the trade of MMT which in effect is a ban on MMT in this country.

It has been demonstrated through Health Canada which has looked at MMT that this was a perfectly benign substance for the people in the country. Therefore there is no scientific ground to ban MMT.

Let us take a look at why is the minister doing this. Before the minister put the bill forward MMT was made the Ethyl Corporation. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association claimed MMT has been destroying its on board diagnostic computers which no doubt are very important to keeping cars burning cleaner so we can all have a healthier environment. No one would dispute having OBDs.

However we dispute having one view from the manufacturers of automobiles saying MMT destroys its OBDs and one view from the Ethyl Corporation which says it does not. The Ethyl Corporation supports this view through studies done by an independent environmental protection association. It has proven conclusively, contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister said, that MMT does not affect on board diagnostic computers. In spite of this the minister has proceeded with this ban.

We can see this is clearly not an environmental bill. Health Canada has even shown MMT has not been deleterious to the health of Canadians. However, it has been proven-

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I think there is now unanimous consent that I put these motions which are somewhat urgent because I understand there are committees waiting for and depending on these.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

House Committees

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 85th report of the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the list of members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, as well as the list of committee associate members.

If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in this almost immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I propose, seconded by the Chief Government Whip, that the 85th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House today be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the names of the following members be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Proud, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Solomon and Mrs. Ur.

While I am on my feet I thank the hon. member who was speaking and all hon. members for their co-operation in seeing these routine matters dispensed with this afternoon.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not an environmental bill. MMT has proven not to be deleterious to the health of Canadians. I quote from the Deputy Prime Minister's own press statement demonstrating our commitment to protecting the environment. It had nothing to do with that but everything to do with protecting the auto manufacturers' industry.

Before the bill came about both the Ethyl Corporation and the vehicle manufacturers' association were under negotiation to solve this problem outside of the House. They were close to making a decision. Then the minister came forward with this bill and the auto manufacturers, knowing they would get a response in their favour, understandably backed away. Sure enough this bill rather than solving a problem is muddying the waters. That is unfortunate. We would not be wasting House time with the bill if we had let nature take its course.

We have requested an independent third party to review MMT to determine if it damages onboard devices. If it does we have two options. We need to look for an alternative to MMT or we need to change the onboard devices and work out some agreement with the private sector.

The minister noted that MMT has been banned all over the world and Canada is the only country still using it. I bring to the attention of the minister that last year the U.S. district court of appeals said MMT could again be used in the United States. Therefore while we are pursuing a course to ban MMT the United States will now allow its use. Why are we engaging in this behaviour?

The Minister of Industry wants one unified gasoline for the entire continent. Why are we pursuing a course which would take us into a different type of gasoline when the United States is trying to bring back gasoline which contains MMT?

This is telling us there has been an abuse of power. We have seen legislative shenanigans and the government is favouring one group, the automobile association. That is reprehensible.

I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will take the mature course and ask for an independent study, as my friend from Elk Island has requested. That study would give us the answers we require and it would serve the people of Canada and the environment well. It is fundamental for us to get these answers not only for the citizens of Canada but for the environment.

If we remove MMT the minister must lay out another plan. She must be aware that nitrous oxide content would actually increase in the emissions from cars by up to 20 per cent or more, which would greatly increase health hazards to Canadians. Having seen many people with pulmonary diseases, that is grossly unfair.

She also spoke about having two types of gasoline in Canada. Quite frankly that is a fantasy. Why do we not have one gasoline, the best and the cleanest, which we could responsibly and cost effectively use, that would be fair to both sides, the auto manufacturers and the petroleum corporations?

I ask that we act together on this issue. It is not an issue of one side against the other. It is an issue for all Canadians and for the country.

I also strongly suggest that in the area of transport there is much which can be done by new technology. Fascinating advances have been made in making cars and other vehicles burn cleaner and safer. Much of these technologies have not been brought forward in an aggressive fashion. I believe we can take a leadership role in promoting these very substantial discoveries and bring them to the forefront. It is the responsibility of the House to bring them forward in order for them to become a practical reality for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for his comments.

I would like to get his opinion on a couple of suggestions we have put forward. What does he feel would be served by having a completely independent study done by an independent agency, for example something from the National Research Council, to study independent of the automakers or the Ethyl Corporation whether this MMT stuff actually does any harm? Is there a need for that? Is there a need to have a completely independent study? If so, is the National Research Council perhaps the group that could perform that?

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

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for getting up prematurely. It was such a good question from my friend that I could not resist it.

To echo basically what my colleague, the hon. member for Elk Island, just said, the reason we are asking for an independent study is that the Deputy Prime Minister brought forth a slew of papers, all

of which were from members of the Automobile Manufacturers Association. They are very interested party in this debate, but in fact they are one side of this debate.

What we can do is determine whether or not the studies that have been put forth are in fact legitimate, sound, scientifically based studies. If they are, then we should believe them. If they are not, if there is any question whatsoever, then we definitely need to have an independent third party to do the study. We cannot have a member or a group as intimately associated with the question at hand-in fact a combatant in this debate-to decide what is true and what is not. That is why we in this party are asking for an independent review, an independent group to do this. Perhaps the National Research Council or some other group could do this. The important point to remember is that it must be an independent party that is not intimately associated with either the Ethyl Corporation or the automobile manufacturers association.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask this question because I do not hear the question coming from the opposite benches and I think it is an important issue.

After we have heard all of the discussion about using ethanol as a substitute for MMT, given that the two products are equally effective and setting aside the argument of whether one is better for the environment or not, I would ask my colleague to tell the House why this government would not choose to ban MMT in favour of ethanol in gasoline as an octane enhancer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the interesting question on ethanol.

Ethanol is a very important additive, but it unfortunately requires a government subsidy in the order of eight cents per litre in order to get to market. That would be an enormous cost to the government, and during these times of fiscal restraint we would not advocate in any way, shape, or form that the government put more money into this and spend more money. It would cost billions of dollars to do this.

This party has been very emphatic about prompting and encouraging scientists and researchers in the country to come up with a more cost effective way of making ethanol and other fuel additives so we can have automobiles burn fuel more cleanly.

We have always been strong advocates for the research and development sector in the country because it is one of the pillars that will enable our country to be highly competitive in the future to create economic niches for longlasting, high paying jobs.

I encourage the government to continue to support the research and development sector, which does some fantastic things in the country. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is a pillar that will enable us to be economically competitive in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by how hard things die. Here we have a situation where a product has been on the market and it was discovered nearly 20 years ago that there were problems with it. It was discovered about 10 years ago in Canada by the Ministry of the Environment that there were some problems with it. Now there is an alternative.

I do not blame the vested interests that keep promoting these things, but the fact is that it has taken a long time for reality to set in and for life to take its course, as it should.

I would like to go back a little in terms of the history of fuel additives. In about 1928 it was discovered that tetra-ethyl lead added to gasoline would enhance the octane and provide some upper cylinder lubrication to engines. It was called the anti-knock compound and was produced by the Ethyl Corporation. At the same time another body of equally distinguished scientists and chemists promoted the idea of ethanol in gasolines. As a matter of fact, Henry Ford had been a strong advocate of ethanol. His first Model T ran on pure ethanol.

The debate raged through the 1930s and finally lead won out over ethanol. It is an interesting story. According to the information I have, the Du Pont Corporation owned and controlled the Ethyl Corporation of America and it also held 24 per cent of General Motors' stock. Consequently, General Motors became a promoter of lead. In 1929 Ford stopped putting extra jets on carburettors so that ethanol could be burned. That is not the only story like that in history.

When I was a young person spraying the apple trees at our home farm, I used arsenical to kill grubs and worms. It was discovered during my early teenage years that arsenic really was a heavy metal and it was not very nice to spray on trees and on the ground. Finally, by the time I got to agricultural college a solution had been found to the problem-mercurial. Mercurials were going to be the be-all and end-all. It was not for many years, too many for me to admit to, that industry realized that products used in these areas have to be biodegradable, able to return to the soil from whence they originate. The same realization is slowly coming with our fuel additives.

So we went to lead. It was discovered that lead really was not what we wanted to be spewing around into the environment in ever increasing quantities. When government decided to take lead out, a substitute was found, which was going to be the miracle replacement for lead. It was another heavy metal, methyl manganese. There are a lot of $10 words following that one that I am not prepared to repeat.

For almost a generation we have realized that there are some difficulties. The people who support one side of the case and the other side of the case make their stories, but we know now that there is a better substitute. There is a substitute.

My friend from Athabasca felt that one of the motivations of the government was because the product ethanol could be manufactured in Canada. That has not been a motivation of the government. It is one of my motivations, because I believe that a Canadian ethanol industry has potential to be one of the great things for Canadian agriculture.

Since the government did its little arrangement about a year ago, about $300 million has been committed in Ontario alone for ethanol development. If ethanol were to replace MMT at the rate of 10 per cent in Canada, it would take approximately 10 investments of the size that are taking place in Ontario right now in order to fill that need. One can see that there is great potential.

The cost of ethanol has been raised, and it is a very legitimate argument. What about the cost? The cost of grain is increasing at the present time, and of course grain is a cyclical thing.

The answer to that is twofold. One is that the cost of grain is not the only factor in determining the cost of ethanol production. There are by-products. If we are making ethanol from wheat, gluten and some of these other things are important products and they are important in the economics of the ethanol industry. If we are making it from corn, corn oil, distillers grains, distillers solubles and so on, they are also very important by-products and they are quite meaningful when we are calculating the cost.

The other part of the cost equation is not just eight cents, which was the excise tax on ethanol. The cost of any fuel is not just the direct cost. The cost of a shovelful of coal is not whether you are going to pay 30 cents or a dollar for that shovelful of coal. It has to be looked upon as the whole cost. What is the cost of the impact on the environment? There is a dollar attachment to those things now. Things can be costed. I think I once saw the word monetized. When you have emissions into the environment, they carry with them a real cost, a real impact cost.

When we talk about substituting ethanol in gasoline for MMT, the actual cost of the ethanol itself is not the true cost. The injection of MMT and the cost of MMT is not the true cost. The whole costing is what is really important here.

If we have a product like ethanol that is going to result in certain reductions in emissions, which are positive, I think of carbon monoxide and I think of carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon monoxide is touted to be reduced by about 20 per cent or 25 per cent and carbon dioxide by approximately 15 per cent.

Then we get to the cost of nitrous oxide, which tends to offset that to a certain extent. But I beg you to look at the figures when you are looking at the emissions, because nitrous oxide is the smallest of all the emissions. It is very tiny. If you were to increase the nitrous oxide emissions by 150 per cent, you are still looking at 150 per cent of zip. However, it is the only emission that increases in this whole scenario.

A comment was made about looking for one type of gasoline. I am not sure how that is evaluated. There are about four types of gasoline on the market right now. Most of them are based on octane. One of them is based on whether or not there is an ethanol additive which is presently increasing in interest and usage. About two years ago there were 50 outlets selling gasoline containing an ethanol additive. Right now there are 500 and the prognosis is that there will be 5,000 within the next two years.

The oil companies should not be the least bit concerned about enhancing their product with ethanol versus MMT. The kind of raw product they produce is a little different. The vapour pressure of the two is different but that is really where it ends. In terms of a public relations gesture they should be able able to say that they are striving for a cleaner product. Here it is a cleaner product when they used ethanol instead of MMT.

As I say, I do not blame the Ethyl Corporation for wanting to protect its turf. One of the things I would say to a company like the Ethyl Corporation is that there is a time when one has to put the past by and move on into the future. If I were that corporation right now I would be looking very hard at producing ethanol, ETBE or whatever in order to get on into a more modern mode.

We cannot spend our whole lives trying to hang onto the past forever and ever. The fact is too that some refineries have already made the switch to ethanol. I do not know whether my friend from Athabasca buys gasoline at Mohawk outlets, but the Mohawk adopted this some time ago and promoted it in Ontario.

Sunoco is refining ethanol gasoline and does it because it considers it to be good business. In Canada it should be considered good business.

We are starting to use grain to produce ethanol and it is helping agriculture. That will become a base line now. As science and technology and research and development continue in the production process the next natural move is into cellulosic waste, sawdust, wood waste and so on. That technology is known now. It is being done commercially in France but it is not competitive yet. When it is competitive in Canada, it will be more competitive probably than ethanol from grain. That is only a few years down the road.

What we are dealing with here is simply the conflict between moving on to something that is better and finally putting past us something we have been hanging onto for nearly two decades. According to what I know we are the only country left in the world

that is using MMT. Even tiny Bulgaria considered using MMT and turned it down for whatever reason. We have every reason to get on with the modern age and let things move.

The automobile industry is supporting it for its own reasons. Whether or not those studies are correct it is amazing that all the studies the automobile companies did were independent unto themselves and they all came to the same conclusion. That is very interesting in terms of emission controls or the monitoring that reads the emissions and indicates whether or not the emission control system is working properly. Canadian citizens deserve to have on their cars the most modern emission control systems as can be manufactured and researched. I do not think we want to accept second best in order to continue on the importation of this manganese product in our gasoline.

My humble submission is yes we should get on with the job, allow the past to go by and get on with the future.