Debates of Oct. 8th, 1996

The Oceans Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Speaker]

At the request of the government whip, the vote will be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.

The House resumed from September 27, 1996, consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed, and the amendment.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, like my colleagues did earlier, to oppose Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

This bill, as its title indicates, seeks to prohibit the importation of certain manganese-based substances, specifically MMT, in Canada, and their interprovincial trade.

The debate on this bill is very interesting, because this is a rather unusual piece of legislation.

It is unusual in that this government attempts to prohibit the use of MMT, not through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as one would expect, but through a roundabout means, at the commercial level, by using a false pretence, namely the harmful effects of this product on health and on the environment.

Instead of prohibiting the sale of MMT in Canada, or simply saying that this is a toxic or dangerous product, the government is trying to legislate to prohibit the importation of this product and its trade between the provinces. This is a blatant violation of NAFTA and interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. It is strange however that a company could produce and sell MMT in a province without violating in any way the provisions of Bill C-29.

If the government is so afraid of the alleged toxic effects of MMT, why did it not completely prohibit its use, instead of restricting its importation and its interprovincial trade?

If the Minister of the Environment had any proof of MMT's harmful effects on health or on the environment, he would have drafted his bill differently but, unfortunately for him, the minister does not have any such proof. Incidentally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, also tried to prove that MMT is harmful to one's health, but it failed in its attempt to do so.

Until last year, the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline was prohibited in certain American states. However, in April 1995, Ethyl Corporation, won a legal battle against the EPA. The U.S. court of appeal for the district of Columbia ruled that the EPA had not proved its allegations to the effect that MMT is harmful to one's health.

As for the auto industry, it was not able to prove that MMT is harmful to cars' anti-pollution systems. The EPA did not appeal the decision. Therefore MMT is now allowed in some American states. In the circumstances, I wonder why the Minister of the Environment assumes he could prove this product is harmful.

Furthermore, on December 6, 1994, Health Canada published the results of an independent study on the so-called risks connected with the use of MMT. The study concluded that the use of MMT in gas did not constitute a health risk for any section of the Canadian public.

Finally, a number of international and Canadian scientific organizations have all concluded that low levels of manganese, as in the case of MMT in unleaded gas, do not represent a health risk.

Therefore, contrary to what the Minister of the Environment seems to think, for the time being there is no hard evidence for banning MMT. Consequently, Bill C-29 is redundant until such time as respected and serious studies provide evidence of a negative impact of MMT on health and the environment.

To prohibit MMT and replace it with another product such as ethanol, for instance, which does cause environmental problems, is merely deferring the problem. It would be better to do a number of serious studies before passing a bill than to do so after the fact.

The Bloc Quebecois is, of course, very concerned about the health of Quebecers and Canadians, as it is about environmental issues, and that is why we want these studies to be done before prohibiting MMT.

I might as well say right now that the bill in its present form will always be unacceptable, since the Minister of the Environment wants to regulate the market, not the environment.

And in that case we have some serious questions about the real motives of the Minister of the Environment for going ahead with Bill C-29, although he knows perfectly well that the bill will generate considerable costs for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, including a likely increase in the price of gas, loss of jobs in the oil industry and the cost of a possible request for compensation under NAFTA.

It may be that privately, and I am sure unconsciously, the present Minister of the Environment, like his predecessor, has realized that the product that would replace MMT-by the way MMT is manufactured exclusively by Ethyl, an American company-is ethanol, which, coincidentally, is manufactured using corn, which is grown mainly in Ontario. We note that ethanol creates environmental problems.

However, there is one aspect the minister has not yet understood, although his colleague for international trade may have tried to explain it to him. Bill C-29 goes counter to a trade agreement we signed with the United States and Mexico: NAFTA. Under this agreement, the Canadian government does not have the right to restrict trade and allow goods to be produced only within its borders, as it intends to do with this bill.

By banning interprovincial trade in and the importation of MMT, the bill before us today requires that all MMT sold in Canada be produced in this country. Furthermore, the minister wants to stop

the importation of a product that is not necessarily harmful to the environment by hindering the free flow of goods. By violating NAFTA, the federal government lays itself open to a compensation claim as provided for in NAFTA.

In a letter dated February 23, the Minister for International Trade warned the Minister of the Environment that Bill C-29 violates some of NAFTA's basic principles and that, if this bill is adopted, Canada might receive a compensation claim under NAFTA. But the Minister of the Environment dug in his heels, preferring to expose the Canadian people to possible, even probable prosecution involving millions of dollars. I feel like quoting an excerpt from this very eloquent letter. The Minister for International Trade feels that, and I quote:

"An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the WTO and the NAFTA: (1) it would constitute an impermissible prohibition on imports, particularly if domestic production, sale or use is not similarly prohibited; and (2) it could not be justified on health or environmental grounds given current scientific evidence".

The Minister for International Trade concludes by asking his colleague to drop Bill C-29. The possibility of a lawsuit looms closer every day since a notice of intent to submit a claim was formally filed September 10 by Ethyl Corporation from the U.S. Ethyl is asking for US$201 million in compensation. A claim may be submitted within 90 days of the notice of intent.

This claim process under article 1116 of NAFTA has already been used in the past in two other areas. In fact, two other notices of intent to submit a claim under article 1116 of NAFTA have already been filed against Canada this year and are still pending. One is from a Mexican pharmaceutical company called Signa for $50 million, and the other is from Waste Management Inc. for a secret amount.

The U.S. company feels that its Canadian subsidiary will be hurt by Bill C-29 and that is why it is asking for compensation under article 1116 of NAFTA. This article provides that an investor of a party may submit to arbitration a claim that another party has breached an obligation under NAFTA and that the investor has incurred loss or damage by reason of, or arising out of, that breach.

Some say that NAFTA allows the Canadian government to pass legislation aimed at protecting human, animal or plant life and health. The exception procedure under NAFTA is complex and the Canadian government must at least be able to demonstrate that the substance in question has an adverse effect and that there is indeed a need to restrict this substance. The Canadian government could not do that in the case of MMT.

The tragedy is that, if Ethyl wins and the Canadian government has to pay the company several millions of dollars in compensation, this money will come out of the pockets of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada.

Ethyl Corporation, the sole manufacturer of MMT and sole exporter of this substance to Canada, claims that the Canadian government was in breach of its obligations under NAFTA on three counts: article 1110 on expropriation and compensation; article 1106 on performance requirements; and article 1102 on national treatment.

Under the expropriation provisions, Ethyl complained first about a loss of goodwill because Canada tarnished its reputation both nationally and internationally by saying without proving it that MMT is harmful. The American company also complained about the expropriation of its Canadian investments since Bill C-29 would preclude the commercial use of MMT by Ethyl Canada.

Moreover, Ethyl claims that the bill would create a preference for national content by authorizing the production of MMT in Canada, which violates article 1106 of NAFTA. International law requires governments to pay compensation each time they expropriate.

Finally, Ethyl claims that article 1102 dealing with national treatment was violated because it is discriminatory for the Canadian government to prohibit the import of MMT knowing full well that Ethyl is the sole manufacturer of this product.

In closing, how much is the government prepared to pay in compensation? As the Minister of the Environment so eloquently said, in response to a question I asked him on September 25, a U.S. multinational corporation should not dictate what the Government of Canada should do in the best interests of Canadians, both environmentally and healthwise. However, such a corporation has every right to remind the Government of Canada of the trade agreements it has signed.

Considering the enormous cost for Quebec and Canada taxpayers due to the absence of any advantage in prohibiting MMT in the bill proposed by the Minister of the Environment, I can only ask members to vote against Bill C-29, thus avoiding a financial disaster in Canada.

In closing, I would ask unanimous consent of the House to table a letter written by the Minister of International Trade to the Minister of the Environment.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Terrebonne is asking for permission to table the letter.

Is there unanimous consent to table this letter here in the House of Commons?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Speaker]

I hear a no so we will proceed from there.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the member's remarks that his party supports the continuing use of MMT as a gasoline additive? We now understand that this additive contributes to the build up of ozone levels and smog in urban areas. It is suspected but not proven to be a health hazard. It very clearly harms the diagnostic systems of currently built motor vehicles in North America and indirectly contributes to increasing smog if those diagnostic systems are not maintained properly.

Second, he suggested that the replacement additive ethanol was a health hazard. I believe he said that. If he means it I hope he will be in a position to explain why his party believes that ethanol, which is proposed here in Canada to be a replacement additive for MMT, is a health hazard or not a good replacement for MMT.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try to answer the two questions put by the hon. member.

First, I am somewhat surprised that he would ask me to prove that ethanol is a good product, given that he says, without any proof to support his claim, that MMT is not a good product. I should ask you to prove to me that MMT is a good product.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that MMT is harmful to one's health, that it contributes to smog, that it is harmful to the ozone layer and that it creates problems when diagnosing automotive systems. Where does he get his information, regardless of how accurate it may be? Let him prove his claims in this House.

If the EPA came to the conclusion that MMT is not harmful to one's health and to the environment, and if major automakers cannot come up with a sound study confirming that MMT is harmful to the exhaust system of cars, how can the hon. member say that MMT is harmful?

The Bloc Quebecois is only asking the member to prove that he is right. And we are not the only ones. Sometimes, when we form the opposition we may wonder whether we oppose a measure just for the sake of it.

But this time I am not the only one opposing this measure. Even the Minister for International Trade, whose letter I was not allowed to table in the House, wrote to the Minister of the Environment to tell him this: what you are doing is dangerous; first, because it is not a proven fact; second, because this bill is not the appropriate measure, since it deals with trade, not health; and third, because it violates at least four or five articles under NAFTA.

I will reply to the member's question by asking him a question of my own, as the Minister of Finance often does. First: does this bill violate three or four articles under NAFTA, yes or no? Second: can you, or your government, prove to me that MMT is harmful? Third: if you do this, I will answer your question about ethanol.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech. Obviously, we are not here to oppose everything systematically.

However, if you read the amendment I put forward in this House a few weeks ago carefully, we were simply asking the government to wait six more months so that we could have conclusive studies, and I stress conclusive, that would prove something to us. The fact is that we have nothing of the sort for the moment; when we asked the automakers to provide us with specific and clear studies, they told us that their studies were confidential. It is rather strange for Parliament to be told that something is confidential.

We asked the health department to confirm whether this substance was dangerous to health. The most recent study confirms that it is not. That is why we are asking the government to wait, to make sure that the right decision is made. As for a North American market, the United States have just reintroduced this product on the market, but we are going contrary to a North American policy.

Ethanol too is an additive. Nothing shows that ethanol will do a better job than MMT. It is a new product on the market. The real solution would be that one day we no longer have to use any additives at all. That is the dream solution. But we are not there yet.

I will tell you something that happened in my riding. The electric car has been launched there. That is the solution of the future. However the technology has not yet been sufficiently developed to commercialize it.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the idea of developing in the near future a different but truly environmentally friendly technology, instead of replacing one additive by another. We are talking about two lobbies.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I agree with my colleague for Laurentides that we have to choose the lesser of two evils, but we would still be better off trying to find a better alternative.

Obviously, I support all research and development on an electric car or another more environmentally friendly vehicle, but I would also like to comment on the remarks of my hon. friend.

If in fact he is right when he says that MMT is bad for human health, for the environment, for cars and all the rest, why was it not declared a toxic and dangerous substance? What the Liberals are trying to do is simply to prevent the importation of MMT in

Canada, period. We will be able to go on producing it, selling it, using it and what not, but not importing it.

If what the hon. member says is true, he should advocate a total ban on the use and sale of MMT.

As my colleague said, we are suggesting a six month moratorium so they can bring some coherence into what they think and say. After that, we will take concrete and coherent measures.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments about the bill. As he said, this is not the first time we have debated the potential banning of the substance MMT in this Chamber. I am quite appalled, as I am sure he is, that this piece of legislation is back before us in an unamended form.

I would like to quickly point out that it is very unusual for the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada to agree on anything. In this case, we are in agreement that this is a bad piece of legislation. Any time it was to happen that both opposition parties were united in their opposition to a piece of legislation, I would hope the federal government would take note. Maybe some alarm bells would go off and the government would say that maybe there really is something wrong with the legislation. I put that forward for the hon. member's comments.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will probably take less than one minute. I am really happy to hear that my Reform colleague is proud we can agree on something. One more step and we can agree on sovereignty and partnership.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental questions we should ask ourselves during this debate on Bill C-29 to ban the use of MMT in Canada.

The first one is: Do the Canadian government and the Minister of the Environment have the authority and the right to pass an environmental act concerning the composition of the gasoline sold in Canada and, by the same token, to promote the use of alternative fuels, or should we give up this right for the sake of an American multinational corporation, that is threatening to take us to court for hundreds of millions of dollars?

I see that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois have entered in a very interesting alliance. The Ethyl Corporation does not even need lobbyists with all the friends it already has on the other side of the House.

The second question is: Is MMT the safest fuel additive we can have or are there other alternatives that present no health hazards to Canadians? These are the two main questions that need to be asked.

In answer to the first one, I want to say that I do not support the Ethyl Corporation, a company that spends all of its time in court in the United States, that has spent years in court in the States to fight the EPA and that is now threatening to take the Minister of the Environment to court for $201 million, hoping that the Canadian government would soon retreat.

We are talking about a very powerful American multinational that, up until recently, only sold its product in Canada. Japan was not buying, Germany was not buying, Denmark was not buying, Sweden was not buying, no other country besides Canada uses MMT.

Everybody is wrong, except for us. But we now have come to realize that there are safer, more secure alternatives. In this battle, Canadians do not want to be used as guinea pigs by the Ethyl Corporation.

We do not want to be the guinea pigs of the Ethyl Corporation. In fact, EPA in the United States lost the battle in the courts but it certainly is still very much of the opinion today that MMT is unfavourable to Americans.

To quote from the head of the EPA, Carol Browner: "The Environmental Protection Agency believes that the American public should not be used as a laboratory to test the safety of MMT". Nor do we Canadians want to be the laboratory for the Ethyl Corporation in regard to MMT.

In the United States today, despite the court challenges on MMT and the fact that MMT got a reprieve, it is not allowed as an additive in reformulated gas in California, in New York, in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin. Almost one-third of the United States want nothing to do with MMT. These states use reformulated gas which includes additives which they believe are much safer for the health of Americans.

I hear there has been no conclusive proof that it is harmful to the health of Canadians, yet I have quoted several studies that raise the precaution that MMT can be potentially very dangerous to human health. I will quote again from a study I received before the last debate in November 1995. It was completed by three scientists: Kimberley Treinen of the Sanofi Research Division of Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Tim Gray of the Alnwick Research Centre in Alnwick, Northumberland, England; and William Blazak of Nycomed, Collegeville, Pennsylvania:

In summary, the data presented here indicate that a specific syndrome of skeletal malformation in rats was induced by MnDPDP, which occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity at four times the intended clinical dose. The same specific malformations were also seen with intravenous administration of equivalent or lower doses of manganese. Since manganese has been shown to cross the placenta (Jarvinen and Ahlstrom, '75; Koshida et al, '63; Rojas et al, '67) it appears that manganese is the active teratogenic moeity in MnDPDP.

If we wait to find out if manganese is bad for human beings, if it affects people's brains after it affected the brains of rats and other lab animals, is that the precautionary principle Canadians should use?

This is what we used to say about DDT when Rachel Carson wrote her famous book. This is what we used to say about PCBs; they were also safe. This is what we used to say about CFC gases. They were the intended gases that were the purest of gases until we found out they perforated the ozone layer. It is what we used to say about lead. We used lead in gasoline every day of our lives. Many people in the world used lead in gasoline until we found out that it causes cancer.

So do we wait until we have this final and conclusive proof that will satisfy my friends from the Reform Party and my friends from the Bloc Quebecois? When we find out, what happens if it is too late and the effects are irreversible? If there were no alternatives, they would have a case, but we have alternatives.

Before going to Montreal from Ottawa I stop at McEwen's gasoline station on Bank Street. It serves an ethanol blend of gasoline. My car runs just as well on that as it does on ordinary gasoline with MMT. In fact, as my colleague says, it runs better.

My friend from the Bloc Quebecois said this was a plug by the Liberals to sell corn in Ontario. I could introduce him to a big firm in Quebec that produces ethanol from wood. Ethanol can be produced from sugar cane remnants, from wood and from all kinds of things. It is not a plug by the Liberals to sell corn.

The time has come to say that manganese is not good for us. In the latest surveys in Canada, surveys about health and the environment, at least 75 per cent of Canadians consistently said that until we are sure, we should not use manganese. They said it should be banned.

The people who are for the banning of MMT are not just those involved with General Motors and Honda. They are those involved in the Asthma Information Association, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the City of North York Public Health Department, the City of Toronto Public Health Department, the Environmental Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the Ontario Public Health Association, Pollution Probe and Sierra Club of Canada. They are not automobile manufacturers. They are all terribly worried about manganese.

I do not care about Ethyl Corporation. I do not care if it loses money, so long as the health of Canadians will be better off.

The challenge is: Do we let Ethyl Corporation threaten us? Do we let Ethyl Corporation dictate the policy of Canada? Why does it not sell its product in Japan, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Holland? Those countries believe in the environment. They do not use it. Why should we be the only guinea pigs in the world? Why should we accede to the threat of an American multinational which uses the courts to browbeat us into a policy that is supposed to be so wonderful? If it is so wonderful, why do so many countries in the world not want it?

The case is: the environment, the health of Canadians, the precautionary principle and the autonomy of the Government of Canada and of the Minister of the Environment to decide that yes, we will ban MMT and use better alternatives. That is the case and I make it today.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments and ask a question to my colleage across the way.

I took some notes during his speech. The member started his speech by saying: "Does Canada have the power to legislate in this matter?" His answer was yes. "Would it be the good solution to ban MMT?" Yes, he said. He ended his speech by talking about the pressures exerted by American multinationals. However, he said nothing about the pressures exerted by the auto makers lobby, which do want to get rid of MMT.

Is the member across the way saying: "No, we will not give in to pressures by American multinationals; however, we are ready to give in to pressures exerted by multinationals that build cars here".

The real point at issue here, and I think the Bloc and the Reform Party made it quite clear, is the amendment of the member for Laurentides to postpone third reading of this bill for six months. Why? And this is where we, of the Bloc, are not giving in to any pressure. We are not giving in to any pressure.

We expect impact studies on MMT to be made. We want to know the impacts of this product and we want to know if there are substitute additives that could be used. Those studies are needed. Why does the government want to have its bill adopted so quickly since we could get clear answers to our questions six months from now?

We have to ask ourselves this kind of question. We must ask why the government is so anxious to pass its bill when the Bloc and the Reform Party are making a constructive proposal and asking that passage of the bill be postponed for six months. If the hon. member across the way is truly sincere when he says that health and a clean environment must be considered, that his main concern is the health of Canadians and Quebecers, I think that a six month delay, which would allow us to find out what the alternatives and the

impacts of MMT are, would be an wise, fair and reasonable decision.

I would ask the following question of the hon. member: Considering his concern for the well-being of Quebecers, does he not think that it would be advisable to wait six months and have all the necessary information to make the right decision?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not think that the member listened carefully to what I said. I was not speaking only about automobile manufacturers. That is their business. They have their lobby, and that is their business. I mentioned companies, health institutions and environmental institutions. I said that a poll showed that 75 per cent of Canadians felt that if MMT and manganese cannot be shown to be 100 per cent safe, they should be banned.

Furthermore, the fundamental issue is this: we are going to wait another six months to please the official opposition. But that is not what we are talking about today. I think that the predecessor of my colleague, the member for Lambton-Middlesex, Ralph Ferguson, had been talking about it since 1988.

If the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are interested in this issue, let them look over the proceedings of the House committees, which have discussed this issue ad infinitum. Mr. Ferguson himself made it a personal crusade here in the House of Commons. The time has come for action.

Manganese is potentially dangerous to the health. Even Mrs. Browner of the EPA says so. We do not want to be guinea pigs for Ethyl corporation. That is not what Canadians want. They can go sell their manganese somewhere else if it is so good. Nobody wants to buy it. Why would we be the only ones in the world to do so?

That is why MMT must be banned now. Enough stalling around. This is a cause that the great majority of Canadians support.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member. I noted that early in his remarks he said that we must not capitulate to Ethyl Corporation. It is threatening to take us to court. He accused the Reform Party and the Bloc of somehow being in cahoots, being lobbyists for this huge multinational.

The member from the Bloc raised a good point. It is not only the lobbyists on one side of the argument who are making points here. If we want to get into throwing accusations across the floor, some Liberal members of Parliament could be accused of being lobbyists for automobile manufacturers. I do not think that would do us any good in the debate today.

I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. I noted that he used the words "potentially harmful health effects of MMT". He was very careful to use the word "potentially".

Why did the Department of Health not support the findings of this raft of studies he has put forward. If it can be substantiated why did the Department of Health not recommend an outright ban on MMT?

The second question is if that is the case, that he truly believes and his government believes that MMT is harmful and has been proven to be harmful, which I do not believe it has been proven to be so, why is his government not moving to completely ban MMT instead of bringing forward this half measure of banning the transportation of MMT across borders?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health confirmed in July 1996 that he is totally supportive of the ban on MMT. That is the first fact.

The second fact is that the responsibility happens to be that of the Minister of the Environment. It was the minister of the environment in 1988 who proposed the banning of lead from gasoline, not the Minister of Health. That is his prerogative and the Minister of Health is fully supportive as is the total Government of Canada. That is the position. Even the Minister for International Trade, after having issued a caution, has now reversed himself and said: "Yes, after studying it, I agree there is no problem with NAFTA".

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Would you let me speak, please.