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.