Debates of Oct. 11th, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked very complex and detailed questions. As I understand it, the questions are being processed and will be here in due time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I have the good fortune of having in my riding an extremely important business: the Ultramar refinery.

I would like to familiarize this House with the views of its executives. I do not feel impertinent in the least; in the past two days, what have we in this House heard from Liberal members, especially those from Ontario? We have heard them defend Ontario's interests with respect to ethanol.

In this debate, the government wants to ban the use of MMT as a fuel additive. I would like us to address this issue, but the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, would defer debate for six months so that a scientific study can be carried out to prove that this product is indeed harmful. This is something that has never been clearly demonstrated.

I am referring to the arguments raised by Ultramar, which is a member of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. I would like to put forward some arguments, since they must be heard in this House.

According to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Ultramar refinery, car manufacturers have never proved clearly and factually that MMT can adversely affect the operation of catalytic converters.

Health Canada formally stated in public and in writing that there was not a shred of evidence that MMT threatened the health of Canadians. This is not insignificant. This statement was made by Health Canada, the federal department of health.

Another argument is that adding MMT to gasoline helps reduce toxic emissions. As we know, since 1976, this much safer additive has been used instead of lead, because something must be added to gasoline. Furthermore, the other elements in gasoline are known to be somewhat toxic. So why MMT? To reduce the impact of toxic emissions.

Another argument is that two federal ministers, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister for International Trade, have expressed reservations in this regard. According to the Minister for International Trade, this bill might violate the NAFTA agreement signed with the U.S. This is not insignificant as we could then be hit by a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

Bill C-29 banning the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT violates NAFTA, a point of view shared also by Gordon Ritchie, the former Canadian negotiator for NAFTA-far from being a nobody, this is the former Canadian negotiator-and for the interprovincial trade agreement.

Another argument we heard is that car manufacturers rejected the proposal of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute to have an independent organization investigate and report on the issue.

They formally committed to act on the conclusions of such an independent study. They really do want an independent study.

The last argument is that banning MMT threatens the competitiveness of the Quebec refinery industry and that would not be in the best interests of Canadian and Quebec consumers. This also is important. As we well know, the government never told us about the costs. They are not mentioned here either, but we know that it adds up to several hundreds of millions of dollars, a significant amount in these hard times.

As a member of the Bloc Quebecois committed to protecting the best interests of Quebec at all times, I want to remind the hon. members of this House that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously approved the following resolution: "That the national assembly request the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning the gasoline additive MMT as long as environmental studies have not been conducted in a conclusive manner".

If Quebec was the only one to make this request, it might not be enough, but at a energy ministers' conference, at least six provinces expressed the same view. Provincial ministers are not alone, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, send a letter to Mr. Chrétien on September 16, asking him the exact same thing. We know that, in 1982, during the Constitutional debate, Mr. Romanow was a very close friend of Mr. Chrétien, who should now listen to him.

I will point out that the Minister of International Trade also wrote, on February 23, stating that he had problems with this bill, and yet the current Minister of the Environment is forging ahead.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I looked more particularly at this aspect. I read the report of a study conducted in 1989 for Health Canada by the University of Montreal. It said: "It is difficult to assess the effects linked to the environmental exposure to Mn-manganese-coming from MMT due to the incomplete nature of toxicological data on long term exposure to small concentrations. Although the emission of Mn coming from MMT can be associated mainly with the inhalation of manganese oxide, a complete assessment of multiple exposure to manganese must take into account all means of absorption, including the oral route. Food accounts for over 90 per cent of all manganese absorbed by humans". We routinely eat manganese and all of a sudden the government is concerned about what can be found in car exhaust.

And this is not all: "With regard to drinking water, although its manganese contribution is less than 3 per cent of that of food, its assessment is critical to an overall evaluation of total exposure". Tests were conducted on animals, and the study points out that as far as they know, in humans, only one case of poisoning due to manganese in rain water is known. This case, involving very high concentrations of Mn, happened in Japan in 1941. The only known case was caused by water, not by an airborne pollutant. The only case was found in Japan in 1941.

This should lead government members to think it over and to track down other cases. I will not imitate Reform members who had horrible stories to tell. If they had any today, they could tell us about them, but only one case is known throughout the whole world, and it happened in Japan, back in 1941. The United States apparently had the same problem, the very same doubts, and we all know how they solved it recently. The issue was appealed and people who, like the present Liberal Party, tried to demonstrate the risk of MMT failed.

There is now an interest here in ethanol. We do not question its value, its importance, but we feel that, under the circumstances, a six month postponement would allow the government to establish its position more strongly, especially, as I said at the beginning, since the proposed amendment will lead to expenses of hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.

Committees Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask for it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and relative to its study concerning rural economic development, that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to travel to western Canada during the week of October 27 to November 1, and to eastern Canada during the week of November 3 to November 9, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this closing debate on the bill dealing with manganese-based additives.

It is important to clearly understand the objectives of this bill. Manganese is one of the elements found in MMT, which is added to gasoline. The bill seeks to ensure that manganese can no longer be added to gasoline.

When we hear names of chemical products like this one, our initial reaction is often that we must absolutely eliminate all dangerous elements. In this particular case, the government originally had three arguments to support its bill.

First, it claimed that MMT was a threat to health. However, this argument was rebutted by Health Canada and is no longer valid.

Second, the government said manganese was also harmful to the anti-pollution systems in automobiles. This claim is no longer valid either, since it was contradicted by the ruling of a U.S. court. Indeed, the same issue surfaced in the United States and, following a court ruling, it was realized there was no evidence supporting the claim that manganese was dangerous.

The third claim, which is the really trickiest one, is that the bill to prohibit manganese would help harmonize our policies with those of the Americans. In fact, it will have precisely the opposite effect.

The manganese currently found in gasoline is produced by Ethyl, a U.S.-based corporation which, following the introduction of this bill, instituted proceedings against the Government of Canada, something which could end up costing close to $300 million to the Canadian government, under specific NAFTA provisions. As you know, NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement that binds Canada, the United States and Mexico.

So, the Government of Canada knows that, by passing this bill, it will put itself in a difficult position, given this court action, which is definitely not frivolous in nature. This is an action being brought under NAFTA sections 1110, 1106 and 1102 and, moreover, supported by a letter from this Liberal government's international trade minister to the environment minister advising that it would be better not to follow through with this legislation because the action against us is very risky. Odds are that we lose in the end.

It is obvious that if Parliament does pass this bill, that would amount to deciding to invest that sum of money and this would lead to expenditures that could have been avoided. These are mistakes the government should not make.

I do not think that we are in a position to pour $300 million down the drain, saying odds are that we will lose but that we are going ahead, nevertheless. Why? Why, when the argument that this threatens health has been refuted by Health Canada, when the argument about the antipollution systems has been dismissed by an U.S. court ruling on the issue, and when it has been established that there is no danger for pollution control equipment.

Instead, we will have a legislation which will aggravate the relationships between Canada and the United States. Why then is the government still going ahead with this legislation?

The answer is an old answer in Canada, it has been there for a very long time. This government has a strong majority from Ontario, and its aim is to foster the economic development of that province at the expense of the six other provincial governments, including Quebec National Assembly, which has unanimously called for the postponement of this bill.

The ministers involved, the Deputy Prime Minister and the present environment minister, are all from Ontario, and they have decided, come hell or high water, to have the government endorse that view even if it is not a good bill for all Canadians. It is a bad bill, because it is going to poison relations between Canada and the United States.

In the context of NAFTA, when countries have to negotiate, there is always give and take. When our case is not good, as with this bill on MMT, we have to give the Americans something in exchange.

Proceedings could be initiated against us, and we would perhaps have something to pay if the American company maintains that Canada is in breach of NAFTA. We will have to pay that money and give something in exchange to the Americans. What will be the target of these concessions? Will it be like in the softwood issue? Will we lose as much in another area? All in all, the present government is not acting responsibly in pushing this bill through.

All the arguments have been presented. They have been repeated in the House, and they have been made by the six provinces that condemn this bill. Unfortunately, there is a huge representation of Liberals from Ontario, who ensure that the interests of the province take precedence over the interests of the whole country. That also creates environmental concerns.

It is important to realize that banning manganese would increase the emissions of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere by 5 to 20 per cent. This is being avoided thanks to the presence of manganese in MMT, but if we ban this substance, there will be a significant increase.

There is something else that defies all logic; this bill will create a lot of problems throughout the years. The government has decided to go ahead with this bill even if there is no health hazard, even if it does not improve anti-pollution systems, even if it could cause trouble with the United States, even if it could cause environmental problems, because the Ontario Liberal majority has managed to impose their position on their caucus.

In conclusion, we have before us a bill which, at first glance, did not seem to create any problems, but upon closer examination, we have come to realize that the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, would, by passing this bill, make a decision that would undermine the Canadian economy and cost taxpayers a lot of money.

The next time the people will be asked to tighten their belts for cuts in UI benefits, we will have yet another example of $100 million, $150 million, $200 million, $300 million, we do not know how much for sure, spent on legal opinions. We have received opinions that clearly indicated Canada's position is not very tenable under NAFTA.

For all these reasons, I will again urge the members of this House to vote against this bill, because it is not in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate on what I feel is a very important topic. I would like to add a few words of insight to this particular issue.

This debate illustrates, among other things, what is wrong with this Parliament and the process. We end up with certain lobby groups making strong presentations to those people who are in the decision making loop of the government. We stand here in the House and debate these issues. I know that members on both sides have entered into the debate, but those on this side of the House who have tried to appeal for an independent scientific inquiry are really not getting anywhere. We can keep debating and putting words on the record, but they will not be heard because those who are making the decisions are not hearing the words of the debate. They are not paying attention and probably will not respond to the reasoned arguments.

I would also like to use this opportunity to appeal once again to the members of the governing party, the Liberals, to simply vote the way they believe they ought to vote on this. Perhaps on this issue they should reject the party discipline to which they always bow down. It seems reasonable to me that what we ought to do in this instance is to have some truly independent scientific studies done and find the results of those.

Right now, the messages we are hearing from the opposing lobby groups are not defensible on either side; that is, both of the sides are presenting data but it is very biased because it comes from those who have a large and vested interest in it.

What we need is an independent study from someone who has no vested interest in the outcome at all to decide whether or not the use of MMT in fuels is dangerous to health and damaging to vehicles.

I want to relate a story because of my own experience. I happen to be one who works with people all the time. In my previous life I was an instructor working with fellow instructors and students. My recreation on Saturday included putting on my work clothes and doing my own mechanical work. Over the years I always did my own vehicle servicing: oil changes, lube jobs, and some minor and sometimes major mechanical work. I used to love getting out my tools on Saturday and doing mechanical work.

I need to tell members that two days after the vote on the Charlottetown accord, a day I will never forget, I was in my vehicle, a miniature car, and was in a bone-crunching accident. Fortunately all the factors came out right and I was not seriously injured. However, my mini vehicle was totalled. I guess I could use the name because I am not going to say anything bad about it. I am very grateful that it collapsed in the front and in the rear and because I was in the middle, as snug as a bug in the rug, I was unharmed.

Just in case anyone thinks I am a dangerous driver, I was stopped at stop light in a line of vehicles and the person behind me hit my car at some 70 kilometres an hour and jammed my car into the vehicles in front of me. I was just sitting in the line and totally innocent of the accident. However, I was saved because of various factors which I will not go into.

However, as a result of that accident I went to purchase a replacement vehicle. I bought a small vehicle again because of their economy and low fuel usage. I always argued that if I put a small amount of fuel into the tank because the vehicle is very fuel efficient, then I produce less polluting elements into the atmosphere and thus I am doing my part as a citizen.

I purchased that vehicle new in the fall of 1992. I drove it for a long time. It was an excellent vehicle. I only changed the oil, added gasoline and occasionally washed it. I had 75,000 kilometres on that car without ever having touched the motor.

Just as a matter of course I thought that I should change the spark plugs in the vehicle. I never had a vehicle that went that long without changing the spark plugs. I purchased a new set of spark plugs and on a Saturday morning I pulled out the old ones and I was going to replace them. After 75,000 kilometres of travel on that vehicle those spark plugs looked like new. I merely scraped them a little, regapped them and put them back into the motor and ran them until 100,000 kilometres at which time I did change them just because it was time. Even then they were not fouled.

That is a single example, but logically speaking that example is sufficient. If someone makes the declaration that the presence of MMT fouls up spark plugs, then for spark plugs to remained unfouled would be an exceptional instance. We have MMT in our fuel right now. In the Edmonton area we have had it for years. I have used that additive and this has been my experience. I know of no one who has complained of fouled up spark plugs. Consequently, I can only argue logically that if a statement is made it is sufficient to show but one counter example to refute the argument.

As a result of this and because of personal experience, I have very serious questions about the validity of the so-called scientific studies which say that spark plugs will foul. I have seen the pictures. I have seen the same presentations where it is claimed that after 20,000 kilometres the plugs are so fouled up that they no long function. That is certainly the opposite of my experience.

I appeal to members of the government. We are merely bowing to lobby and pressure groups. That is not the correct way to make decision. Decisions ought to be made on clearly demonstrable, independently provable scientific evidence. We need to get those with a vested interest out of it, even though they are certainly entitled to present their studies and conclusions. We need to make our decisions based on independent scientific studies. I call for that.

It is most important that this bill be defeated at this time until there is actual reliable evidence received. At that time the decision can be made wisely, not just on emotional reactions based on which lobby group speaks the loudest. That is my submission to this debate. I think it is an important one. I appeal to members to hear what I have said and pass it along to the decision-makers who will soon be calling on members to stand and vote on call.

I am speaking collectively here. Why not make our decisions logically instead of simply obeying, on command, what we are told to do.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred to Monday, October 21, 1996, at the usual adjournment time.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Yukon Quartz Mining Act

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.