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.