Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for moving the motion to suspend this legislation for six months.
It would be a rather smart move on the government's part to put this bill on the side and allow an independent tester to see if MMT is really hazardous to these onboard diagnostic systems in 1996 automobiles. So far there is no conclusive evidence or data that MMT ruins the idiot lights on the dashboards of cars.
We have debated the bill for some time now. I think the bill was first debated on June 19, 1995. I have heard all the discussion from both sides of the House and we still come to the same conclusion. It is not clear that MMT is hazardous to our health, our air or automobiles.
In the debate last week the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated: "The product in question has been known to have effects which are offensive to the health of people". The member presents the broken ideology of the entire Liberal Party: make a statement, substantiated or not, so long as it scares people into thinking it is right. In this case the member was making an inaccurate statement. I guess he has not read his own government's reports and is simply shooting from the hip.
Canadians have a right to hear the truth and have government pronouncements backed up by real data. In the December 6, 1994 Health Canada report "Risk Assessment for the Combustive Products of MMT", all analysis indicate the combustive products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell cannot dispute a study of his own government. What the member does not realize is that if MMT were so hazardous to the health of Canadians his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, could have easily added it to the schedule under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. She cannot and so she has gone through the back door only to find a few snags along the way. These snags are raising questions from some within her own party and yet she refuses to listen.
The Minister of Natural Resources has strong reservations which the environment minister is ignoring. Why? The Minister of the Environment is being pressured by auto manufacturers who have told her that if the product is not banned maybe they will close some plants and maybe lay off some workers. Instead of listening to reason, the minister went ahead and proceeded with the bill
banning the trade of this substance so it would not be uneconomical to use in Canada.
There seems to be considerable concern about what type of replacement for MMT will adequately address the increase in NOx emissions. We know ethanol will not reduce NOx very much. We know MTBE is a very expensive alternative, especially for the refineries.
Another major concern I have heard from those who have an interest in the legislation concerns the main rationale for the bill. What is it? The minister has told us the MVMA has evidence to prove MMT causes failures in its onboard diagnostic systems. However, it has not elected to make that research public in order for third party independent groups to evaluate it.
The minister has stood in the House on several occasions and listed every car manufacturer under the sun and said they have all done studies which prove without a doubt that MMT is hazardous to OBDs. Several members of the Reform Party have asked her for those studies but she refuses to table them in the House.
The minister knows these studies do not exist and she carries on as if they do. What a shame the country has an environment minister who is perhaps full of steam or vapour.
I understand General Motors is currently conducting a testing program to evaluate the effects of MMT on OBD systems. Why is GM initiating a test again when the minister claims it has already done a conclusive test? Clearly there are some inconsistencies. It is time the minister set the record straight.
On several occasions the Minister of the Environment has gone on that the United States has banned MMT since 1978 and that Canada is simply following suit. In 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency did not approve MMT because of its view that it might affect the health of Americans. However, the EPA's research was reviewed by the U.S. court of appeals and based on the findings the EPA was instructed to grant the manufacturers of MMT a waiver which will allow the reintroduction of MMT into the American market.
The minister might have egg on her face if she goes through with the bill at this time while a reversal is being made in the United States. At that time will the minister want to conduct further studies in Canada? She may even ask for an independent test to be done. We have been asking for that. This would not be the first time the minister has completed a 180 degree turnabout.
This past summer off the coast of P.E.I. the government had plans to raise the Irving Whale oil barge, sunk for over two decades. Despite the presence of the PCBs on board the vessel the minister went ahead. I questioned the minister in the House on that one and she reassured Canadians that all appropriate testing had been done and that the Canadian Coast Guard was more than prepared to make it a safe lift. The lift did not occur due to bad weather and was therefore scratched for this year. As a result there was a court that was convinced there had been inadequate study of the considerations of the PCB factor. The result was an injunction against the action of raising the barge. We have now discovered that the minister wants to undergo further testing on the presence of PCBs on board the Irving Whale .
I am discussing a pattern of the minister, ministerial responsibility, accountability. First she tells Canadians that everything is a go and there is no hazard at all. Then she says they must do more testing. The minister does not seem to be able to make up her mind. The same is going to happen if the United States lifts the ban on MMT later this year. Will the minister organize independent testing then? Perhaps she will be forced to.
The minister has a chance to save face and vote in favour of the motion that was moved. If she waits for six months she will have the opportunity to see what the U.S. courts will instruct. However, if Bill C-94 passes and the U.S. courts reverse the decision forbidding MMT to be sold again, the minister will have to bring forward another bill that would reverse Bill C-94. This would not only be an added cost to the taxpayer but it would also be a travesty of our parliamentary system.
Does the Minister of the Environment want to really make the taxpayers dig into their pocketbooks just because she is pressured by her political supporters? What about this pressure? The MVMA threatened that if the government does not ban MMT it will void the warranties. In a copy of the fuel section of the owner's manual of for example the 1996 Buick Regal, it bears no mention of a lack of warranty coverage.
General Motors certainly knows how to disclaim warranty responsibility since the 1996 owner's manual contains a disclaimer regarding the use of methanol in the vehicle. The manual goes on to state that the service light on the instrument panel may turn on with the use of certain fuels, not in Canada and the United States, but elsewhere because of a lack of grade of refining. If this occurs the owner should simply contact the retailer for service. What it means is they would want to clean the sensor. This certainly does not disclaim warranty responsibility so those threats that were mentioned in this House do not bear fruit.
If the auto industry has not carried through on its threat to void warranties in instances where MMT is used in gasoline, then why is the government trying to rush this legislation through the House? This bill has been political from the outset. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to do what is best for the country and our environment and not what is best politically. The minister is becoming Canada's best non-environmental minister and this in itself is hazardous to the health of Canadians.
We should reflect on the gamesmanship and the deal making related to this bill. It is becoming another instance where the government's political concerns in its own mistaken view have taken precedence over what is good for the country. This bill has nothing to do with helping the environment. In fact, it is said that the result is equivalent to adding thousands of cars immediately to the exhaust load of the air if this bill is passed. It is not good for Canada that we rush into banning trade in a commodity which could very shortly be used in the United States.
I was sitting here listening to the member for Peterborough who claims that the banning of MMT will save jobs. The MVMA threatened the environment minister to ban MMT or else workers would be laid off. The minister has denied that the MVMA threatened her with this. Now the member across the way has admitted that jobs might be lost, or at least that was the threat anyway and he is peddling this as an argument. We now have an admission that contradicts the minister.
I say this is all scare tactics and puffery in the absence of scientific evidence. What seems the most appropriate course in this instance is to use our motion, the six month hoist, so that we will have sufficient time to review all the scientific evidence and make a fair and considered evaluation of the rationale for Bill C-94.