Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by question period I attempted to raise substantive questions concerning the position taken by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association as voiced through the Minister of the Environment.
In continuing my presentation, I would like to talk about some of the difficulties that will be imposed on Canadians if this bill is to proceed and become law.
On April 25, the Minister of Industry stated that it was crucial to have uniformity of standards in gasoline formulation in the North American market because we exist in one North American market. I hope that the minister still agrees with that statement and still agrees that it is crucial to have uniformity of standards, particularly since the U.S. court of appeals has now ordered that the U.S. EPA grant Ethyl Corporation's application for waiver, paving the way for the use of MMT in unleaded gasolines in the United States. In fact, several refiners in the U.S. have provided written notice of their intention to use MMT in gasoline formulation.
Uniformity of gasoline additives within North America would now require that Canada maintain rather than restrict MMT. Certainly it should not mean that it is no longer crucial to maintain that uniformity of standards.
Also the refining industry has raised a number of objections to the initiative, basically that it would increase the cost to refiners and it will increase refinery emissions. A 1995 study by T.J. McCann and Associates Limited of Calgary concluded that removing MMT from Canadian gasolines would add significantly to the refinery cost for formulating gasoline and increase the severity of the refining process required to achieve cleaner burning fuels, leading to increased refinery emissions and higher oil consumption.
The Minister of the Environment made much of need to control pollution in this country. The study by Calgary based T.J. McCann and Associates and Environ International Limited of California showed the likely range of increase in nitrous oxide emissions if MMT were banned. The testing utilized Environment Canada's own criteria, Mobile 5-C data and Ethyl fleet test data. The study concluded that the banning of MMT would increase Canadian nitrous oxide emissions from its vehicle fleet by 32,000 to 50,000 tonnes by the year 2000, an equivalent of adding over one million automobiles to Canadian roads.
Last May, Environ California concluded that Environment Canada and the McCann study underestimated the annual increases in tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions that would result from the removal of MMT. Environ examined the inappropriate use and application of the Mobile 5C emission factor by Environment Canada and concluded that Canadian nitrous oxide emissions increases resulting from the removal of MMT would range between 49,000 and 62,000 tonnes.
Putting these studies in a non-technical format, removing MMT would increase nitrous oxide levels from automobiles by up to 20 per cent. I cannot believe the Canadian Minister of the Environment is pushing legislation that would increase pollution in Canada.
Almost all provinces in Canada oppose this initiative by the environment minister. In the interest of time I will quote Alberta's position. Ty Lund, Alberta's minister for environmental protection, said:
It is unclear that the removal of MMT from gasoline has net environmental benefits.
Alberta favours the design of a suitable, binding process to resolve the dispute in a fair and timely fashion. An open, multi-stakeholder review of the environmental and economic merits of MMT should be key to this dispute resolution mechanism to credibly solve the vehicle-fuel compatibility issue.
Further, Alberta is concerned that the actions of the federal government to affect the interprovincial trade of MMT appear to contradict the provision found in the energy chapter of the draft agreement on international trade. Article 1209, section 1 of the draft agreement currently states: "No party shall prohibit or hinder access to its petroleum markets or its petroleum products markets". It is our understanding that the intent of the federal-provincial agreement was to remove interprovincial barriers to trade in petroleum products.
I also have similar objections from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
When we examine all the evidence before us and if we examine the evidence impartially we cannot help but to at least conclude there is some doubt to the argument and position put forward by the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers Association.
Based on that information it is only reasonable that instead of passing this bill the government should ask-in my mind there is no doubt-if there still remains a doubt and ask for an independent study to determine what the affect of MMT in gasoline is required in Canada.
The minister says she has seen numerous studies on the issue in Canada but those studies come from only from the automobile manufacturers association which has refused to release those studies or the minister has refused to table those studies in the House so that we might all have a look at them in order to decide whether they are legitimate studies containing legitimate evidence.
I challenge not only the Minister of Industry to reject this bill and vote against it, but I challenge Alberta's only representative in cabinet, the Minister of Natural Resources, who professes to support the industry and Alberta's position, to vote against the bill on that basis.
I am disappointed that Canada's environment minister has been unwilling to listen to both sides in this argument and judge the evidence from both sides. She chose instead to simply voice, as a political puppet, the concerns of the motor vehicle manufacturers association and carry it forward on its behalf instead of taking the interest of all Canadians into consideration on this issue.