House of Commons Hansard #231 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), to table in both official languages a report entitled Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations .
This is a document entitled "Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations".
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Criminal Code (peeping Toms).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present this private member's bill, seconded by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.
It is very short and very simple. It has been brought to my attention by police officers and other law enforcement individuals that in the Criminal Code peeping Toms apply only at night. It is my understanding this has caused a lot of concern because it seems like the criminals are getting braver in this day and age and a lot of this is happening during daylight hours. This amendment would enable the police to lay charges against those individuals doing this activity during the day, an activity for which they are normally arrested at night.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-350, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call from a constituent asking why he and his family were forced from their rented house when their rent payments were all paid on time and the full amount was remitted.
When I investigated his complaint it was discovered that no warning was given to the constituent that the owner of the building was facing foreclosure and that current legislation requires vacant possession of the building before the lending institution can be paid.
This bill will amend the National Housing Act to allow a lending institution full redress without having to evict current tenants and the tenants will receive notice from the lending institution that it is proceeding with foreclosure on the building owner.
I trust the House will support this measure. It may allow Canadians the opportunity to remain in their homes and at least give them ample time to relocate.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the following members be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: John Cummins, Dick Harris, Elsie Wayne, Hugh Hanrahan and Jane Stewart.
(Motion agreed to.)
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting petitions on behalf of 819 Albertans from across the
province who urge the government to make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of victims of convicted murderers.
They pray to allow reclassification of offenders as dangerous after sentencing. They pray also to allow the indefinite detention of dangerous offenders after warrant expiry and they pray to allow violent offenders to be ineligible for parole until the full sentence has been served. I concur with the petitioners.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition which has been circulating all across Canada.
It has been signed by a number of Canadians from Alberta and British Columbia. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour this morning to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of over 1,000 petitioners in their fight to get recognition in the courts for grandparents to have access to their grandchildren.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I present a petition calling to the attention of the House that the Bloc Quebecois has publicly dedicated itself to the disloyal objective of the secession of the province of Quebec from the Canadian federation.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to preserve Canadian unity and parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights of all people of Canada by prevailing on the Speaker of the House of Commons to recognize the Reform Party as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to introduce more petitions along the same lines as many I received in the last session.
The first two draw to the attention of the House that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will provide certain groups with special status, rights and privileges. They call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation. I have two separate petitions on that.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, with an ongoing petition campaign, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw to the attention of the House that the majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens, they respect the sanctity of life, they believe that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not to end them.
Therefore they ask that Parliament ensure present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide should be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from September 25 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.
Jean Payne Liberal St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-94, the manganese based fuel act.
I will explain the bill and why we are taking action against MMT. MMT is a manganese based fuel additive used to increase the octane rating of gasoline. It has been used in Canada since 1977 as a replacement for lead in unleaded gasoline.
Lead was phased out of virtually all Canadian gasolines by 1990. Who uses MMT? Just about every Canadian motorist does, and that is because Canadian refiners use it. The exact amount of MMT used may vary, depending on the batch of gasoline. However, premium grade gasoline generally contains a higher dosage than regular grade gasoline. Canada is the only country that uses it. The United States, for example, banned it from unleaded gasoline in 1978.
The automobile industry is convinced that gasoline containing MMT adversely impacts the operation of sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems. These OBD systems are important because they monitor the performance of emission control components in vehicles. The auto industry has made the decision that it will not accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs caused by damage related to MMT. Some companies have even indicated that they will disconnect the OBD systems in whole or in part and may reduce Canadian vehicle warranty coverage starting with the 1996 model year if MMT continues to be used in Canadian gasoline. That means that the cost of maintaining these systems will be passed on directly to Canadian consumers.
This is where the federal government comes in. Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT by the end of 1994 or the government would take action. This deadline was subsequently extended until February of this year to review automobile and petroleum industry proposals. The matter was not resolved, so the federal government has had to step in. This has resulted in Bill C-94.
The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emission program we are putting into place and in the long term could negatively impact the automobile sector.
Successful solution of the MMT issue will ensure that environmental benefits are realized through the use of the most advanced emission control technologies. It will ensure that Canadians are offered the same warranty coverage as in the United States. It will also ensure that the Canadian motor vehicle emissions control programs do not diverge from those of the United States. This means that Canadians will continue to benefit from the cost and technological advantages of a North American harmonized fleet. It also means good news for Canadian jobs and the Canadian automotive sector. That of course is because diverging emissions standards and different anti-pollution equipment on Canadian cars will negatively affect the marketplace and decrease the competitiveness of the automotive sector.
We could also be faced with a situation where cars built in Canada to go south of the border could have more advanced equipment than those sold in Canada. That is clearly not acceptable.
We should be clear about the economic impact of removing MMT. It will be small for the entire petroleum industry. Estimates for the cost of MMT removal provided by the industry range from $50 million to $83 million per year. That means an additional increase of 0.1 to 0.24 cents per litre at the gas pump.
I would now like to take a few moments to explain some of the key highlights of the bill.
Bill C-94 will prohibit the import or interprovincial trade for a commercial purpose of MMT or anything containing MMT. It will also give the minister the power to authorize exceptions for MMT that will not be used in unleaded gasoline subject to monitoring requirements. Coverage of the act can be expanded by order in council to cover other manganese based substances.
The act is binding on all persons and entities, including the provincial and federal governments. The enforcement tools are similar to those that are in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the penalties are strict.
For the unauthorized import or interprovincial trade of MMT, the maximum penalty on summary conviction is a $300,000 fine and/or six months in jail. On indictment, the maximum fine is $1 million and/or three years in jail. For knowingly providing false or misleading information on the importation or interprovincial trade of MMT, the penalties are the same, but with a maximum of five years in jail instead of three on indictment. On conviction, as in CEPA, the court can also order an additional fine equal to the monetary benefits resulting from the offence, prohibit conduct that may lead to a repeat offence, and direct the offender to notify third parties about the conviction.
I believe this gives the members of the House some idea of what the government is proposing under Bill C-94.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House will recall, during the June session we heard the government's reasoning behind the proposed ban on MMT. According to the hon. member for Davenport, the government is proposing Bill C-94 to ban the interprovincial trade of the fuel additive MMT in order to protect human health, protect car warranties, and to take advantage of technological change.
This may sound on the surface to be reasonable. However, a closer examination of the stated reasons is certainly merited. It is my objective today to seek clarification on the purpose of Bill C-94, a trade sanction bill introduced by the Minister of the
Environment, allegedly to protect the warranties offered customers purchasing new cars.
First, looking at the health issue, allow me to refer to the Canada health study published in late 1994. I quote: "Airborne manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline powered vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in quantities or under conditions that may constitute a health risk. All the analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk for the Canadian population."
During our last discussions on this bill, the government produced facts from the U.S. EPA that indicated the EPA suggests tests be conducted on the potential health effects of MMT. The interesting thing is that the government appears to be predicting that the results of this testing will support its position to ban MMT, certainly a very premature action on its part. It seems ironic that the government chooses to discount scientific findings of the EPA testing programs on the impact of MMT on vehicle emission systems, the results of which clearly indicate that MMT has no adverse effect on the emission systems of cars, while speculating that the studies to be conducted on health will support its position.
One may also ask why the government wants to see EPA testing results on health impacts of MMT when its own agency, Health Canada, has clearly demonstrated that Canadians experience no adverse effects from the level of airborne manganese that results from tailpipe emissions. It appears the government is prepared to discount scientific findings in favour of speculation that the results of the EPA's proposed testing on health effects of MMT will prove to be negative.
The second reason the government offers for a ban on MMT is to protect car warranties. For those of you unfamiliar with the motivation for this legislation, let me remind you of the carmakers' claim that MMT in gasoline causes problems for onboard diagnostic systems in new model cars made in the U.S. According to the industry minister, the federal government has said it wishes to ban MMT so that "Canadian consumers will be protected by ensuring that they are afforded the same warranty coverage as automobile owners in the United States". Another reason is because the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association states that it has research that indicates MMT causes failure of onboard diagnostic systems. The MVMA has elected not to make that research public, however, after a recent review of scientific evidence collected as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency evaluation of the auto industry's claims.
The U.S. court of appeals stated in its judgment of April 14, 1995, that MMT would not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control system or device. According to the U.S. EPA, and I quote: "MMT does not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control system or device". The decision goes further to state: "The administrators' analysis of data submitted by Ethyl was careful and searching. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association did not come close to proving that the administration's analysis of data was arbitrary or capricious."
We should also note that automobile makers have experienced significant technical difficulties complying with the onboard diagnostic requirements in the United States as well as in Canada, despite the fact that MMT is not currently used as an octane enhancer in American gasoline. In fact, difficulties with certification of onboard diagnostic systems in the United States have prompted the U.S. EPA to state in the Federal Register that automobile manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated difficulty in complying with every aspect of onboard diagnostic requirements and difficulty appears likely to continue in the 1996 and 1997 model years.
Despite these facts, the Canadian government appears not to have noted that vehicle manufacturers have failed to achieve onboard diagnostic certification in the U.S. for most new model cars and then chooses to conclude that those same problems in Canada are somehow attributed to MMT.
The government's third reason for the proposed ban of MMT is a desire to take advantage of technological change and to enable Canadian consumers to reap the benefits offered by onboard diagnostic systems, which the hon. member for Davenport describes as contributing to pollution prevention. Unfortunately the member for Davenport does not appear to realize that onboard diagnostic systems merely notify the driver when there is a pollution emission problem. They do not control or reduce emissions. The onboard diagnostic is in fact a light on the dashboard of the car, which when illuminated suggests difficulty has been sensed.
The problem the automakers are experiencing with the onboard diagnostic system, both here and in the United States, is that the OBD has been malfunctioning and lighting up when in fact there is no emission problem. This is causing vehicle owners to take their cars in for service when none is required. Since most of these visits are covered under warranty, the result is that the automakers must pay for the service visit.
The government's confusion on the role of MMT is further exemplified by the notion that removing MMT from gasoline will contribute to pollution reduction. The member for Davenport tells us that scientists in his community have informed him that MMT in gasoline is contributing to greater pollution in the form of smog, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. Again, the facts prove him wrong. All scientific studies on nitrous oxide reductions attributable to MMT in gasoline conclude the same thing: MMT in gasoline reduces emissions of nitrous oxide, a leading contributor to the formation of urban smog. In addition, the use of MMT in the refining process reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and of
hydrocarbons, not to mention emissions of benzene, which is a no-tolerance carcinogen.
We should also note that MMT is compatible for use with alternative fuels. In fact the use of MMT enhances emission benefits of oxygenates such as ethanol and MTBE. For example, EPA test results indicate that MMT with a 10 per cent ethanol blend lowers nitrous oxide emissions by slightly more than 30 per cent and lowers ozone potential by 29 per cent. When MMT was added to an 11 per cent MTBE blend, nitrous oxide emissions were reduced by 25 per cent and ozone potential was reduced by 18 per cent. Not only does MMT contribute significantly to lower Canadian nitrous oxide emissions, but use of MMT enhances emission benefits of oxygenates.
As part of this discussion, we must consider the fact that nitrous oxide increases resulting from the elimination of MMT from Canadian gasoline are projected to add 41,000 tonnes per year of nitrous oxide to the Canadian environment. That is a 16 per cent increase over current levels.
In conclusion, the government's rationale for this bill is inconsistent. It blatantly disagrees with scientific findings regarding MMT effects on health, vehicle pollution control equipment and the environment. It therefore seems to be in the best interests of all constituents that we move to disregard the proposed bill. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
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 that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke will be considered as to its acceptability and the Chair will pronounce on that matter after the next speaker.
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege to speak in this Chamber on Bill C-94, the manganese based fuel additives act. Before speaking about the specific elements of Bill C-94 I would like to say a few words about some issues which affect the environment and concern me, on which the government has acted and more important what the government is intending to do.
Allow me to point out a few facts underlying my concerns. World population is increasing at the rate of about 90 million people every year. In the past 150 years, it has climbed from 1 billion to 6 billion. According to projections, it will reach between 10 billion to 14 billion in the years 2000 to 2050.
Between 1960 and 1990, economic activity grew at a compound annual rate of 3.8 per cent. The growth rate in any given year exceeded in absolute terms the total economic activity in Europe in
Over the past 30 years the manufacturing activities around the globe have increased by 500 per cent, electrical production by 400 per cent and the production of automobiles by 300 per cent. Clearly at the heart of our environmental concerns lies a historic trend of unprecedented expansion and acceleration of human activity. These now threaten vital components of the earth's ecology. The major consequences include the fact that forests are vanishing at the rate of 17 million hectares per year; six million hectares of productive dry land are turning into desert every year; 140 plant and animal species become extinct every day; and air and water quality on a global scale is declining at an equally alarming rate.
The problem of inadequate distribution systems or ecometric considerations such as the need to maintain price of excess commodities exacerbates our environmental problems in a global context.
The bottom line of all of this is that the combined impacts of pollution and these other pressures I have mentioned cause environmental capacity limits to be exceeded locally, regionally and globally. It is now clear that without some major shift in policies and practices a continuation of these trends is simply ecologically unsustainable.
That is why in the red book the Prime Minister supported the development of renewable energy and initiatives which limit pollution.
To this end, the government has launched a variety of programs, including the national bio-ethanol program. Announced last December, this program will support the development of ethanol production through a refundable line of credit to qualified candidates who want to establish bio-ethanol fuel production plants in Canada. Managed by the Farm Credit Corporation, the program will guarantee up to $70 million in loans between 1999 and 2005.
In other words the government will only assist renewable energy companies which first invest their own capital and their own strength. There will be no subsidies, no megaprojects. The government will only provide assistance once the private sector has invested its own capital for a period of five years. This is a fiscally
responsible way to help turn wood chips, straw, grain and other biomass derived waste into energy which can be used to fuel our vehicles.
Properly blended ethanol gasoline can reduce carbon monoxide emissions which degrade urban air quality. It can reduce carbon dioxide emissions which are a primary source of greenhouse gases. It can reduce benzene emissions, a substance declared toxic under CEPA, into the atmosphere.
The program is targeted to encourage ethanol production in every region of the country. This is a sound example of the concept of sustainable development. We can deal with an environmental problem and create jobs at the same time.
Our standards for the exhaust coming out of the tailpipes of our cars and trucks are among the most stringent in the world. These standards set strict limits for nitrogen oxides which contribute to acid rain and are key components in the formation of smog. The government has also set limits on the amounts of hydrocarbons, another major contributor to smog, that cars can emit as well as limits on carbon monoxide.
Although pollution from cars and trucks has diminished-they do pollute much less than in the past-the number of vehicles has increased significantly. As a consequence they represent an important source of air pollution in Canada: 60 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions; 35 per cent of other oxide emissions; 25 per cent of hydrocarbon emissions; and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. These are all attributable to automobile tailpipes.
As a result the federal government is following a strategy for the control of motor vehicle emissions. It includes the adoption of more severe depollution standards for vehicles and requires advanced emission control technologies such as improved integrated diagnostic systems.
There remains an obstacle to the introduction in Canada of the next generation of emission control technologies which is the continued presence of MMT, an octane enhancer that is presently used in unleaded gasoline. Bill C-94 very clearly calls for a ban on the import and interprovincial trade of MMT which is not manufactured in Canada but imported from the United States. In Canada the use of MMT as an octane enhancer is allowed in unleaded gasoline up to a maximum of 18 milligrams of manganese per litre. In the United States the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline has not been allowed since 1978.
The automobile industry is convinced that MMT adversely affects the operation of these advanced emissions control technologies. All the domestic manufacturers and automobile importers agree that MMT adversely affects their sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems.
It is clear that reducing automobile pollution demands combined action on two fronts: on the one hand improving technology to control automobile emissions such as integrated diagnostic systems and on the other hand improvements in the composition and the properties of the fuels which motors use.
This bill is about the health of the environment. It is about the health of Canadians. It is also about the sound management of government. Canadians, whether they live in Quebec, British Columbia, the Yukon or New Brunswick deserve a federal government that projects their common interests, a government that can rapidly act for the benefit of all.
To echo what the Deputy Prime Minister said, we can wait no longer; we must act now. Any further delay will pose a serious threat to federal emissions control programs.
In conclusion, this bill works for consumers, it works for business and it works for the environment. For those reasons I ask all colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Colleagues, the amendment proposed is receivable. The debate is now on the amendment.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment to hoist the bill for a six-month period simply because there is pending in the U.S. a ruling by the appeal court whether or not to allow the use of MMT in the United States after an 18-year absence.
A member opposite this morning and the Minister of Industry some time ago spoke about the urgency of uniformity in gasoline blends in the North American market. The member this morning spoke of how unacceptable it would be to have one standard in the U.S. and a different standard in Canada for automobile emissions, gasolines, warranties and so on. I agree with that.
In the interests of achieving uniformity in the North American market we should wait until the ruling comes down in the United States. Industry analysts tell me that the likelihood of a positive ruling which would allow MMT to return to the United States is in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent. It seems unacceptable to me that Canada would move to ban MMT two months before it is again accepted for use in the United States.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the argument. The previous speaker said that the bill is about the environment and air quality in Canada. He also said that the bill is about the health of Canadians. That is rubbish. The bill is about whether MMT affects the onboard diagnostic systems in new vehicles in Canada and the United States. The claims that it affects the environment and the health of Canadians have been proven not to be true without
question both here and in the U.S. Those issues are simply red herrings.
The matter of the onboard diagnostic computer systems is another issue. It is a fact that in the U.S. onboard diagnostic systems have been failing and are unreliable. The technology has not been developed to the point where it is reliable. In fact the EPA in the United States had to lower the standards for certification of automobile diagnostic systems simply because the technology could not meet the required standards. That is the problem. It is not MMT.
In the United States the issue has been studied to death and it has been proven that MMT is not the villain. The technology simply is not developed to the point where it can be reliable. We have to focus on the issue rather than going off on tangents on the side.
Ethanol is another example. We hear time and time again that it is a product which is available to replace MMT and that it will produce cleaner air. Again it is hogwash. People from the refineries tell me that ethanol is not a substitute for MMT. It will not replace MMT when MMT is banned. Gasolines will simply be further refined to reach the octane rating that can now be obtained with MMT. Further refining will cause higher pollution and higher costs both for the consumer and for the refining industry.
Let us keep the debate where it belongs. What is taking place here, as far as I can see at least, is a payback for those who supported the Liberal Party's return to power after nine years in purgatory.
The facts that have been brought out in the debate on the MMT issue simply do not support the action the government is taking. The only reliable reason I can see for the government to push this matter, in spite of all the evidence before it, is simply that it is responding to the masters who supported that political party and its subsequent election to the Government of Canada.
Let us keep it in perspective but let us also, for once in the House, make a decision based on reasonable evidence and on what is good for the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian consumer. Let us look at the facts, judge the facts and make a decision based on them instead of make a decision based on what is politically good.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand to speak at second reading of Bill C-94, the Manganese based Fuel Additives Act, the legislation designed to take MMT out of unleaded fuels.
If the federal government is given an opportunity to protect jobs, protect the environment, protect consumers and keep Canada on the leading edge of automotive technology all at the same time, should it take that opportunity? I would say that it should. The government will seize a chance to support technology which will help us improve fuel economy and meet our climate change objectives. We will do what we can to reduce air pollution and smog.
That is why we are taking action to remove MMT from Canadian unleaded gasoline. That is why I am proud to speak on the legislation today.
This bill will prohibit interprovincial trade in and importation of MMT, a manganese based fuel additive made in the U.S. The proposed bill will come into effect 60 days after receiving royal assent. Canada is the only country in the world where MMT is used in unleaded gas. The U.S. banned it from their unleaded fuels in 1978. Bulgaria and Argentina are the only two other countries still showing some interest in its use.
Why is MMT not used by more countries? Because it hinders the operation of anti-pollution devices found in today's cars and trucks.
Environment Canada has received and reviewed study after study after study of the effects of MMT on onboard automobile equipment. I agree with the Minister of the Environment and with Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are debating a Reform motion to hoist the bill until we get a ruling from the U.S. court of appeal. The member opposite seems to be debating the bill on second reading. It is our motion that is being debated here.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
There is very little restriction on what one might say in reply to the question of hoisting the bill for six months. I do not believe that is a point of order.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I understand the point of the member opposite. In fact to show that the legislation is worth while is to debate the amendment Reform members have put.
I was just saying that these various corporations support the legislation and the evidence we are putting forward. Then there is Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai. They all say that MMT adversely affects the sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems where the pollution control equipment of automobiles is found.
These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle's emission controls and for alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure the cleaner burning of the engines of today and tomorrow. They ensure that
automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy.
In short, these important onboard systems are the basis of anti-pollution control measures across the continent and of reduced fuel consumption in our vehicles. Therefore this onboard technology is very important technology. It is extremely important once it is installed that it works, that it does its job. The legislation is designed to make sure that technology works effectively.
Mr. Speaker, this government will not allow MMT to prevent the Canadian automotive industry from designing vehicles that do not pollute nearly as much. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to enjoy the best anti-pollution devices.
The federal government has been waiting since 1985 for the automotive and oil industries to address this situation on their own. Last October, it urged the two industries to resolve this issue between themselves before the end of 1994; otherwise, the government would be forced to intervene. The two industries, however, did not succeed in solving the problem.
We then pushed back the deadline to February 1995. Again, the problem was not solved. Well, we have been waiting long enough. The time has come for the government to take action.
If we do not act now, the federal government's vehicle emission reduction programs will be in jeopardy. We will risk missing out on major reductions in smog, carbon monoxide and hydro carbons.
If we do not act now, Canadian consumers will be prevented from taking advantage of state of the art emission reduction technologies simply because they do not have access to MMT-free gasoline.
If we do not act now, we could face the situation where automakers will be forced to turn off the onboard diagnostic systems scheduled for 1996 models because of the damage MMT causes. General Motors is already bringing models off the assembly line with some of the onboard diagnostic functions disconnected. General Motors, like the others, is no longer prepared to assume the increased warranty risks for damage caused to anti-pollution equipment. As we have said, MMT damages this delicate, expensive and very important onboard equipment.
In the end it is the Canadian motorist who will have to pay more to have his or her car maintained because of this kind of industry action. We will not let this happen. We will not allow the buck to be passed to the Canadian consumer. We will not allow anti-pollution equipment in Canada to be less effective than anti-pollution equipment in the United States.
We will not allow the competitiveness of our auto industry to be threatened. We will not allow investment and the thousands of Canadian jobs which depend on that investment to be put in jeopardy.
Resolving the MMT problem will have positive environmental effects through the use of the most sophisticated emission control technologies. This will also give Canadians the same guarantee as that enjoyed by U.S. car owners and ensure that Canadian vehicle emission control programs are in line with U.S. programs.
This means that Canadians will continue to enjoy the economic and technological benefits of an harmonized North American car pool. It also means that the Canadian automotive industry will remain competitive.
Let us be clear. The job of reducing motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just the auto industry or by just the petroleum industry or the government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution demands action by all.
The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels the engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in vehicle emission control technologies such as those offered through onboard diagnostic systems.
As for the government, it must act to reduce automobile air pollution. This is what we are doing with Bill C-94. We are taking action by putting in place a global vehicle emission control strategy including the adoption of tougher standards for exhaust systems.
To meet these standards, we are relying on state of the art emission control technologies and on the types of fuel they require. We need new anti-emission technologies such as onboard diagnostic systems to help us reduce smog as well as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. We must reduce this kind of emissions, which have a major effect on urban air quality and contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Preventive action means producing goods more cleanly. It means using less energy and conserving our natural resources. It means developing and using the latest green technologies like the emission reduction technologies in today's cars and trucks.
The bill before the House is one important measure of prevention. The bill is pro-environment, pro-consumer and pro-business. Eighteen of Canada's automobile companies think that what we are doing is right. Canadians think that what we are doing is right.
MMT can no longer stand in the way of the progress we continue to make in emission controls.
Let us protect jobs. Let us protect the environment. Let us vote for the legislation.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
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".