Mr. Speaker, I think today is my lucky day. I am very pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-29, formerly Bill C-94, an Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances. The immediate purpose of Bill C-29 is to ban the addition of MMT to unleaded gasoline in Canada by prohibiting the importation of that substance.
Over the last few years, environmental concerns have become more present in our daily lives and are important for the citizens we represent, particularly those living in big cities, who call for for an ever healthier environment. They want standards to be established not only to further reduce pollution, but also to improve the overall quality of the environment.
Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to act in order to protect people's health and to legislate on the issue of dangerous substances contributing to the deterioration of the global environment.
However, the bill before us today does not stem from a desire to protect the environment or public health. Instead, it seems motivated more by a desire to meet the expectations of the automotive industry and those of Ontario corn growers who hope to see a whole new market develop for them, that of ethanol, an additive made from corn, which could eventually replace MMT.
This bill came about in 1994, it must be remembered, thanks to a powerful lobby of automobile manufacturers. According to them, MMT, a substance that has been added to unleaded gasoline since 1977, causes damage to the pollution control equipment in automobiles and is detrimental to public health.
It goes without saying that car manufacturers are quite opposed to the addition of additives to gasoline, be it MMT or any other substance.
Faced with a threat by car manufacturers to raise the price of cars in Canada and limit their warranty if the practice of adding MMT to gasoline continued, the environment minister of the day, the current Deputy Prime Minister, caved in and introduced Bill C-94, which eventually became Bill C-29.
For us, at second reading, this bill is still raising the same questions. We voted in favour of this legislation so that the two major stakeholders in this debate on banning MMT could present their respective point of view. These stakeholders are the car manufacturers and the oil industry, especially the Ethyl Corporation, the only company to produce and export MMT to Canada.
We hoped that the Standing Committee on the Environment would conduct an in-depth review based on studies by both parties concerned.
Already then, it was obvious that the former environment minister was not taking into account studies showing that MMT was not a threat to public health. Indeed, in a study dated December 6, 1994, Health Canada concluded that MMT was not a health hazard. Obviously, any substance added to gasoline is, to a certain extent, a pollutant as is gasoline. But for Health Canada, MMT in itself is clearly not a health hazard.
In the United States, the automobile industry has had to reconsider its position on MMT as a result of a decision by an American court to the effect that the ban on MMT had to be lifted for lack of conclusive evidence of any harmful effect on antipollution devices.
Indeed, in its decision, the United States court of appeal for the District of Columbia pointed out the lack of evidence in the arguments made by supporters of a ban on MMT, and I quote: "Concerning the arguments presented by the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association to challenge the finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that MMT does not affect either partially or totally the functioning of the emission system of vehicles, the American court has deemed these arguments unfounded. First of all, the court pointed out that the agency had established the Ethyl additive had easily passed the tests required for all the most severe investigations ever conducted".
It must be kept in mind that, in April 1995, this same court made a decision rejecting the claims of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the effect MMT was harmful to health, even though the Agency recognized MMT was not playing any role in the deterioration of pollution control equipment.
Therefore, it is more than likely MMT will be reintroduced in the United States, and very rapidly so.
The oil companies favour the use of additives in gasoline. According to some data, MMT added to gasoline would help reduce nitric oxide emissions, which are harmful to the environment and one of the causes of urban smog.
From the hearings of the Standing Committee on Environment, it has not been shown, on the basis of scientific studies, that MMT is a toxic substance and a risk to public health. It has not been demonstrated either that MMT is harmful to pollution control equipment in automobiles. Furthermore, the objective of harmonizing our gasoline policies with those of the United States does not hold any more since the ban on MMT was been lifted by our neighbours to the South, which makes possible the addition of MMT in gasoline in the United States.
In fact, what this bill is proposing us, is to comply with the requests of the automobile industry. As I said earlier, at the present time, nothing argues for the banning of MMT. If MMT has such a detrimental effect on public health in general, it should have been banned by Health Canada or under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. What this bill proposes is not to ban MMT as a product but to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of this substance.
What are the consequences of this trade ban? First of all, it must be pointed out that Ethyl, an American corporation, is the only company that manufactures this product and exports it to Canada. The plant importing it, which is located in Ontario, mixes MMT with other fuel additives. These products are then shipped to refineries. Under this bill, which bans interprovincial trade in and the importation of MMT without banning its use or production, if the Ethyl corporation ever built an MMT manufacturing plant and set up the distribution of this substance in every province and territory, unleaded gasoline produced across Canada could still contain MMT. I am not an expert in this area, but I think we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that the real purpose of this bill is to protect public health and the environment.
Nothing in this bill would prevent the scenario I just described from becoming reality, because MMT has not been banned. This is a rather extraordinary way to deal with a substance which, in the opinion of the Minister of the Environment and the Deputy Prime Minister, is deleterious to the health of Canadians and Quebecers.
At a time when businesses are looking to rationalize their operations, it would be rather surprising for Ethyl to decide to open plants in every province and territory of Canada. This means that, under Bill C-29, it will be forced to shut down its operations in Canada.
Some 40 jobs would be lost if the plant in Ontario closed. Also, MMT no longer being available, oil companies would have to change their refining and production methods.
The oil industry estimates that it would cost close to $100 million to produce gasoline that is equally performant without MMT, as a result of this bill. This extra cost will inevitably make the price of gas at the pump go up. As usual, consumers will pay for this initiative, not to mention the potential job losses resulting from this price increase.
We have come across another possible effect a few weeks ago. On September 10, feeling aggrieved by this ban on MMT exports to Canada, Ethyl gave notice of its intention to file a complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The company argues that Bill C-29 is in conflict with certain provisions of NAFTA, as the subject-matter of the ban is not the product itself but its import. As was pointed out, the production, sale and use of MMT are not prohibited. As a result of such contraventions of NAFTA, Ethyl will sustain damages, actually more than $200 million American, or nearly $275 million Canadian, in loss of revenue.
Questioned on this in the House last Wednesday, the Minister of the Environment insisted this bill was essential to protect both the environment and the health of Canadians. In light of the consequences this bill will have, we can only doubt his sincerity and, consequently, vote against the bill.
Again, not only did the federal government encroach on provincial jurisdictions by legislating in interprovincial trade, but it also ignored the opposition to Bill C-29 expressed by the provinces.
Last May 1, Quebec's legislature unanimously passed a resolution requesting the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning gasoline additive, MMT, as long as environmental studies had not been conducted in a properly scientific manner.
As always, the Liberal government turns a deaf ear to the requests from Quebec and the other provinces that the minister withdraw the bill in order to examine its real impact and what is really at stake.
When this government decided to interfere in interprovincial trade and ignore the pleas of the provinces, it demonstrated once again how it really sees co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. Its idea of co-operative federalism is to wax eloquent on federal-provincial agreements, and then keep moving in on provincial jurisdiction constantly breaking its promises.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is once again asking the minister to postpone passage of this bill. The environment and the health of our fellow Canadians are too important to simply be used to further the expectations of the strong lobby of Ontario's motor vehicle manufacturers and corn producers.