Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to enter the debate about what is called a six-month hoist. The motion reads: "That this bill not be read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence". The reason that our party would propose a motion like that is that we have serious questions about the suitability or the legitimacy of the government's argument for banning MMT.
There is some requirement to go through briefly some of the arguments or non-arguments on the government side about why MMT should be banned. Its first argument is that MMT is a health risk and that is why the environment minister is dealing with it. Or, should it have been the health minister? Regardless, the environment minister brought it in because of the so-called tremendous health risk.
When I look through the documents I see a study performed by Health Canada, not the minister's own department. It carried out the risk assessment for the combustion products of MMT in gasoline. This study showed MMT poses no health risk to Canadians. The report stated: "All analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population".
We are not talking about health. Health has nothing to do with this ban, which is why the health minister cannot ban it legally. The environment minister cannot ban it. All she can do is prevent the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT. If the people who make MMT wanted to set up a separate plant in each province we could continue to have MMT and there would be virtually nothing the minister could do about it. There is no scientific or medical reason MMT should not be allowed.
They say MMT is bad for the onboard diagnostic systems of 1996 automobiles. It is interesting the minister has not commissioned a study to prove that. The studies she quotes at length are by different automobile manufacturers. Interestingly enough, when she was speaking the other day she quoted at length study after study that claim MMT is harmful to onboard diagnostics.
We asked her to table those reports in the House. Many of us would be interested to see how those tests were conducted, whether they were done scientifically and objectively, whether they started off with a premise and tried to prove it or what the case was. The environment minister would not table one of those reports in the House.
Time and again members of the government side say all these tests prove the case for MMT being bad for onboard diagnostics but they will not table any of the proof. They are corporate secrets and the government cannot do it. I guess they would be corporate secrets to people who are part of the automobile association. Naturally they are out to prove their case and naturally they do not want that information in the public domain. At least the government has yet to table that information for us.
The other report we have access to is from the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, hardly a lapdog of any particular industry. It decided from its own studies that MMT does not harm onboard diagnostic systems. An independent study indicates there appears to be no harm done to the computers. That is the only one we have access to because the minister will not table anything else.
To summarize, there is no health risk and there is no proof, at least none tabled, that the onboard diagnostics are harmed. The first two reasons are debunked.
The third thing the government is prone to talk about is that it is necessary in order to improve the environment. I heard more nonsense in the last debate on this. As if it is restating the obvious, "I love the environment. I love clean air. Clean water is great. Green space is lovely. Biodiversity is good. Apples pie is wonderful and motherhood is okay". Where do we stop? Those are all obvious statements.
Removing MMT from gasoline will increase noxious emissions from automobiles. That is one of the reasons MMT is in unleaded fuel now. Removing it will have the effect of increasing the auto emissions that create ground level ozone by up to 20 per cent, which is not insignificant. As far as using ethanol as a substitute for MMT, if it can be produced and sold without subsidy as Mohawk already does, that is good. However, if we cannot prove scientifically what is wrong with MMT then the decision to ban it is wrong.
The other day I mentioned another title for the Minister of the Environment should perhaps be the minister of gas because of the gas fumes and the increase in those fumes because of the banning of MMT.
I read an article entitled: "Sheila Copps: Minister of Smog" in the Globe and Mail , not exactly a fly by night outfit. The author, Terence Corcoran, goes through the argument about what is happening. He asks why the minister is pushing this now. Why can she not wait the six months that we have asked which would give us time to do either an independent study by the National Research Council, more studies and rulings by the United States for this
common market in gasoline and more time to study it in committee if require? A six-month hoist is not the end of the world.
The author states: "The sole purpose of the legislation, which is being forced through the Liberal legislative sausage machine, is to remove a gasoline additive". He wonders why when the main benefit will be to increase ground level ozone by up to 20 per cent. Why would the minister do this?
This article says what I have already said, that there is no scientific independent study that shows why. There is no health risk. Whey would they do that? It further states: "Enter the auto giants. For reasons of their own, they have mounted a campaign against MMT because they cannot meet the emissions control standards set out for the 1996 model year".