Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2001

Automotive Pollution Reduction Act

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too, in following along with our last speaker, would like to congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for bringing this matter back to the House. I know that the member has a commitment to private members' business and to the environment. As a result of that he has brought this bill back. After having said all that, however, I could not support this bill if it were votable.

We have to remember a number of things in the House. I heard the critic from the fifth party refer to the science of this issue. We have to read the bill and go back to recent history, recent history being 1995, 1996 and 1997, when a debate was held in this place on this very topic, specifically with respect to MMT. At that time a lot of preposterous things were said about it.

First, it was said that MMT was not used in third world countries such as Colombia, Venezuela and all sorts of other places. That is very true because in those countries leaded gasoline is used.

Second, it was said that MMT was prohibited in the United States. That is absolutely false. This is the same as saying Canadian money is prohibited in the United States or vice versa or that we do not use American money in Canada and what is wrong with that. The real point is the Americans had a much different process of licensing additives. That process has worked in the United States. In 1995 or 1996 the American EPA licensed MMT and today it is used in about 30% of gasoline sold in that country.

Many things have been said around this topic, which I would characterize at the level of grade nine science, that are not correct. Look at the bill and remember back in history as to what occurred in this very place under a government bill.

We talk about the environment, yet clause 4 of this bill issues a prohibition to import a product. How can we use an ostensibly environmental bill as a trade bill? The answer is quite simple. There is no evidence whatsoever that MMT is detrimental to the environment or one's health.

The argument was made before the American EPA that MMT brought a lot of positive attributes, one being it reduces NOx emissions. It lowers such things as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions in the refining process. MMT boosts the octane rating of gasoline so less crude oil is used. There are a number of positive attributes. Canada has been using it since 1977 and has reaped the benefits of MMT usage.

I will go back to recent history. In 1995 a great crusade started in this place to ban MMT importation. This is what clause 4 of Bill C-254 would do. However, we really do not have any reason for doing it. If I go back to 1997, that bill became law.

In June of 1997 an interprovincial trade tribunal ruled that the bill which was passed in this place, in the Senate and received royal assent, was in contravention of interprovincial trade. The environment officials, who so vehemently defended the bill before House and Senate committees and who said they were following the political lead of doing the right thing, were forced to do a 180 degree turn.

In June of 1997, just as the dog days of summer were about to begin, the then minister of industry and the minister of the environment issued a press release and attended a press conference at which time they did three things. First, they said mea culpa, they were wrong. They apologized to the manufacturer Ethyl Corporation.

Second, they said that law could be of no force or effect.

Third, they were required to issue a cheque to Ethyl Corporation for about $18 million Canadian.

That is a pretty remarkable series of events done on the eve of summer. They had to do that because, first, what they did was wrong, and second, they would not listen. They would not listen to the science. It was Grade 9 science they were listening to. They would not listen to their provincial counterparts. Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta objected to the bill. They thought it was a good product and did not want to be deprived of it.

The end result of that little exercise was that the Canadian taxpayer forked out $18 million and the Ministers of Industry and of the Environment said to Ethyl Corporation “We are sorry and we made a mistake and we will not do it again”.

Here we are and we are doing it again.

On that basis I would like to apply what is called the prudence principle: that is, it is prudent not to do what we know is against laws, mainly laws of interprovincial trade and under NAFTA.

I have a couple of final points. We have heard a lot about the precautionary principle and we have heard reference to the Rio convention and all other international accords entered into by Canada. If one assumes that the precautionary principle is to be applied in the face of lack of any evidence—in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary, but at that time, of course, the government would not allow a third party scientific panel to get involved and do an assessment—I would make the same suggestion that we could probably outlaw Tim Horton's doughnuts because if we eat enough of them they are bad for us. If we eat bacon every morning, it will probably kill us. The precautionary principle in the absence of any scientific evidence is not what Rio intended.

I would like to make a couple of comments with respect to the addition into the argument of the use of ethanol. I would concur a great deal with what the member for Athabasca had to say about that point, and that is this: yes, in the United States ethanol is used extensively, however, we have to look at why that is the case. The case is that in the United States a number of highly populated cities were having problems with CO2 emissions. The end result is that ethanol usage will decrease CO2. Of course it ups the NOX, but it is a bit of a balance of both. The Americans decided that they would use ethanol to cut smog. There were 11 centres in the U.S. where ethanol was mandatory at 10%.

How do they do it? The senators in some of the midwestern states got about to subsidizing corn production in a big way. If we want to subsidize corn farmers, and I am not making an argument against that, let us just say so. Or as the member for Athabasca has said, let us explain to Canadians why the price of gasoline is going up. Part of it is the price of crude, absolutely, but a bigger factor in all of this is what occurs in places right here and in provincial capitals where, as we saw last year, sulphur requirements were imposed upon the industry without its co-operation: we are seeing that the price of gasoline will rise.

In summary, I say that this is once again bringing in something that ought not to be declared a law, and it is not likely to be under the circumstances. Second, we have to be a little more frank and open with people when we start going on crusades in this place about gasoline prices. There have been 12 federal inquiries and one provincial inquiry in Ontario and what did they prove? Absolutely nothing. They proved that we are a contributing factor to the high price of gasoline.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of the comments some of the other members have made with regard to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. It is to his credit and his long term commitment to the environment that he has brought forth this bill today. It is unfortunate that it is a non-votable one. Perhaps as this draws more attention, the government may see its way clear to meeting some of the commitments it made over a period of time and dealing with some of the fiasco that has occurred around the use of the MMT.

I want to re-emphasize a number of points that have been made by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. The reality is that most of the industrialized world does not use MMT in gasoline. It is banned in a number of states in the United States and, in fact, 85% of the U.S. refineries do not use MMT. I think everybody in this debate recognizes that there is a concern with regard to the use of the MMT in terms of a serious potential risk to human health and a risk to the environment.

Specifically with regard to the environment, there is no debate. The scientific evidence on this is clear: the use of the MMT does inhibit and in fact in a lot of cases renders useless emission control devices in automobiles, resulting in a number of toxins being released into the atmosphere.

MMT was initially banned in the U.S. because of concerns around hydrocarbon emissions, but there were further studies and there has been some reference made to them today. Again, there is no debate within the health and scientific communities that high concentrations of manganese can cause neurological damage. The debate is about at what level it is safe.

With regard to that and there being no evidence, as alleged by some of the other members in this House, I want to quote from a study that was done by the neurotoxicologist Donna Mergler at the University of Quebec. This was an EPA sponsored study of a 306 residents in Quebec. The results suggest that even low levels of manganese can have deleterious affects. She is quoted as saying:

In large concentrations, airborne manganese does pose a risk. What we don't know is at what level does it not pose a risk...We should know a lot more about it before we use it.

I want to spend a few minutes with regard to the whole farcical history of how MMT has been treated by the government, the embarrassment that Canada has been put to and, to some extent, the shame of having to pay that $18 million plus to an American corporation when in fact in a number of states in the U.S. it is already banned.

However, because I think it is more important to deal with the health and environment issues and not so much with the trade component in this issue, let me go back a bit. In 1992 Canada committed to applying the precautionary principle. In fact we have not had a very good history of doing that. The NDP has strongly advocated that the federal government abide by this commitment and apply the precautionary principle. To my mind, this is one of the clearest cases where we should in fact be doing that.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Health Canada said they did.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Health Canada: I support your position that it really has to be looked at. Health Canada has a very high standard of tolerance for manganese. Dr. Mergler, I think, would clearly set a lower one.

It would be very nice if this matter could be referred to committee and if more evidence could be brought forth. The Mergler study was done in the middle part of 1998. I would suggest that more studies have been done since then wherein we might find more clear evidence in this regard.

Let me go back to the precautionary principle. In the bill, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis has specifically invoked it. I again want to commend him for that. The preamble states:

And Whereas on the basis of the precautionary principle, it is imperative for the Parliament of Canada to take immediate action to protect human health and the environment by banning these harmful or potentially harmful automotive fuels;

That is very much what the precautionary principle is all about, a principle that not only Canada but all the world has adopted. To suggest that we treat MMT in the same category as Tim Hortons doughnuts is ridiculous.

Let me conclude by encouraging the member for Lac-Saint-Louis to pursue his cause in this regard. We certainly intend to support him. Hopefully other members of the House, government members in particular, will see their way clear to in effect push this legislation through and ban MMT.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to applaud the motivations of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis in bringing forward a bill that aims at improving the environmental performance of vehicles. The government, with the support of members like my hon. colleague, has taken and will continue to take strong action on air pollution.

The particulars of this bill, however, including some of the environmental as well as economic consequences, make it impossible for the government to support it. We are, however, moving forward with programs that have equivalent or even better environmental results than the ones intended in this bill.

On February 19 the minister announced a 10 year regulatory road map for cleaner vehicles and fuels which will give Canadians cleaner air to breathe and will better protect their health from airborne pollutants. These actions follow a significant clean air event of 2000, the negotiation of and the signature to the historic ozone annex to the 1991 Canada-U.S. air quality agreement.

The ozone annex is a major accomplishment in the transboundary field. Studies show that up to 90% of the smog we see during the summer months in central and Atlantic Canada comes from the United States. Clearly pollution does not need a passport.

The ozone annex contains commitments for action by both countries and will deliver clean air to up to 16 million Canadians in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada and millions more in the 18 American states as they apply the commitment to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.

Reaching an agreement in 2000 on the ozone annex was an opportunity Canada did not want to miss. The government's implementation plan for the annex is a major step forward in capturing opportunities. The plan represents $120 million of investment from the Government of Canada for cleaner, healthier air.

While the ozone annex commitments and benefits are targeted at Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, the regulatory and other initiatives unveiled on February 19 will benefit all Canadians. Over 30 million Canadians will benefit. These are national benefits because, clearly, clean air is a national issue.

Science tells us that more than 5,000 Canadians die prematurely each year because of air pollution. Hundreds of thousands suffer from aggravated asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses. Now we are learning that air pollution affects our health at levels lower than we previously believed. The people most vulnerable are children and the elderly.

In our election platform and in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada promised opportunities for all. Opportunities come in all shapes and sizes. If a smog warning prevents a child with asthma from playing outside, that is a missed opportunity. If an elderly person becomes a virtual shut-in during a heat wave, that too is a lost opportunity.

This investment focuses on action in two key areas, transportation and industrial sectors, backed up by better air quality monitoring of air pollution and an improved and expanded reporting system so that Canadians can follow our progress.

Transportation is the biggest cause of air pollution in Canada. For that reason, our 10 year regulatory plan of action contains stringent new low emission standards for passenger cars, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles and new standards for the fuels that power them.

With this package, nitrogen oxide emissions, a key ingredient of smog, will be reduced by 90% for vehicles of the year 2004 and beyond. However there is more. The package of regulatory initiatives will also apply to the off road sector which includes diesel engines for construction vehicles and farm vehicles, and gasoline utility engines for snow blowers, lawnmowers and chain saws. These handy household recreational vehicles and tools account for approximately 20% of the transportation sector's smog inventory.

In addition we are also looking at new measures to reduce sulphur in residential and industrial fuel oils, as well as taking action on the gasoline additive MTBE.

It is understood that a major tenet of Bill C-254 is the support for clean, renewable, biomass based fuels such as ethanol. To this point the government has recently increased its support to ethanol production through the action plan 2000 to address climate change. We have committed an additional $150 million in loan guarantees for construction of biomass to ethanol plants to be delivered through the Farm Credit Corporation.

It is expected there will be five additional world scale production facilities commissioned in Canada, producing approximately 750 million litres of ethanol per year as a direct result of the loan guarantee program. Additionally, $3 million has been earmarked to support the promotion of ethanol blended gasoline and increase consumer demand for this environmentally friendlier gasoline. We will continue to support ethanol production through the excise tax relief program.

These actions are in keeping with the government's desire to see clean, renewable fuel ethanol expand and thrive upon solid footing in a response to normal market forces.

What the Minister of the Environment unveiled in the 10 year plan is a major step forward in bringing cleaner air to Canadians, but the federal government's job is far from finished. The government wants to engage more Canadians in direct actions that they can take and to empower them to hold governments to account to meet clean air commitments.

Our search for scientific understanding for the sources of air pollution and the solutions we take must continue. The 10 year plan for cleaner vehicles and fuels is another step along the road to cleaner air and healthier Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that my own government does not want my bill. In any case, the bill has died so the government must be quite happy. I listened to all this panoply of wonderful measures the government would take. I did not see anything that contradicted my bill.

I ask the government this. How come the 28 states of the United States produce ethanol? How come in Minnesota alone produces more ethanol then we would produce with our 10 year plan? It is because they have legislated oxygenation of fuel. It is that simple. If we oxygenate fuel and legislate it, then the oil companies are bound to do it. It sparks a tremendous production of oxygenated fuels in the land. In answer to the member from Prince George, I never said that MMT kills. I never said anything like that. I said a lot of studies show that it is an impairment on the motor systems of human beings. There is lot of evidence to support this.

My colleague from Sarnia disappointed me most of all. He is a loud speaker for the oil industry from Sarnia. He said we were comparing manganese with Tim Hortons doughnuts in applying a precautionary principle. He was not there when Rio was created. He was not there for the discussions about chemical toxins.

I will mention a number of experts who say manganese is a toxin and is dangerous to human health. Two famous scientists in Canada, Dr. John Donaldson and Dr. Frank Labella have done extensive studies. They have appeared before the Western Psychiatric Institute of the University of Pittsburgh, and the health and environment committee of the U.S. congress on this issue. They appeared before the U.S. house of representatives in 1990 which had extensive hearings on MMT.

There are also other doctors, Dr. Kimberley Treinen, Dr. Tim Gray of England, Dr. William Blazak, who was cited by my colleague from the NDP, Dr. Donna Mergler, who is carrying out a study for the U.S. EPA at the University of Montreal and Dr. Joseph Zayed, who showed that manganese was not good for us and that it affected the motor system of human beings.

The parliamentary secretary told us how the government is going to marvellously clean the air but it does not want to address the MMT issue. By legislating oxygenation of gasoline, we then force the oil companies to produce natural additives such as ethanol. It lessens the need for MMT. We are the only industrialized nation to use MMT.

My colleague from Sarnia mentioned Venezuela, as a developing nation, uses MMT. He is not correct. I never mentioned that. I said that industrialized nations that use unleaded gas today do not use MMT. We are the only guinea pigs in the world that do. He mentioned that MMT is not used in 30% of the gasoline in the United States. I got a letter from the U.S. EPA last year. It said that it used MMT in .002% of all gasoline in the United States. This officially came from the U.S. EPA.

This is why my bill never contradicted all the various measures that the government has taken on clean air. On the contrary, we rejoice about more money being put into the environment. What is the contradiction between this and discussing a bill which will oxygenate gasoline and force it by legislation? I do not see any.

What is the contradiction between what the government is going to do and saying that by 2005 we will get rid of MMT. We had many debates in the past on MMT while the legislation was before us. The only reason it was thrown out was because of trade reasons. It was not thrown out because of environmental and health reasons.

It is true that in 1994 our health ministry decided that it was not harmful to human health when used as an additive. Now the health ministry has decided to recant itself. It has ordered Dr. Mergler and other famous scientists in Canada, who are specialists in manganese, to review the whole issue.

There is a multi-year study being carried out by Health Canada today on manganese. If it felt that the 1994 study was so conclusive, it would not have ordered this new study. It is because time after time scientists are saying “beware”. I do not say that the proof is conclusive. At the time the battle over lead was going on, Ethyl Corporation, the purveyors of lead and the same purveyors of MMT, was telling us how good lead was for us. It was the same kind of debate. Lead is wonderful.

Now that we have banned lead in Canada, thank the Lord, what do they do with the lead? It is sold to developing nations and the poor. People who are using it in their gasoline are being poisoned by lead. It is the same people today who sell us MMT and tell us how great MMT is and how good manganese is for us.

Manganese is not doughnuts at Tim Hortons. It is far more serious.

I believe people like Drs. Mergler and Zayed before I believe my colleague from Sarnia. I believe the U.S. EPA as well. I do not know why the government thinks, because it has not thought of it, that this environmental legislation is not good enough for it.

I am terribly sorry that it is dying here and that we will not have a chance to debate it in committee, where I would have loved to have debated it with the parliamentary secretary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since this is not a votable motion, this item is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday during question period I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The question was taken by the Deputy Prime Minister. My question was in regard to maintaining the rescue diving capability of the Vancouver based coast guard rescue centre.

The possible cancellation of this program had been a news story on Vancouver television for five nights running. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister had to take the question under advisement.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the end of the program that very same day and informed me by letter, because of the lack of response I had received during question period.

Then early Sunday morning Paul Sandhu ended upside down in his car in four feet of water in the Fraser River right across from the coast guard station. They were on the scene within a minute of being called. The coast guard crew were only allowed to provide lighting because the rescue diving program had been cancelled. The car containing the body of Mr. Sandhu was pulled out by the RCMP one half hour later.

Much has happened since then. The minister stated to me in the House of Commons on Tuesday that services would continue to be provided by the Department of National Defence. It is now clear that it will not work to drop the coast guard rescue diving in the Vancouver area and substitute DND from Comox or Esquimalt on Vancouver Island to do the rescue diving.

The Vancouver coast guard rescue diving program record over the last six years demonstrates that the vast majority of calls were responded to within 20 minutes. For example, mobilization and flight time for DND from Comox is one and a half hours and it is worse on nights and weekends.

The minister is saying that these are equivalent services when they are so obviously not. Then on Wednesday the minister issued a statement that his department would review all of the facts surrounding the response to the tragic accident that occurred on Sunday. Until this review is complete and a final decision is announced, the rescue diving pilot project will remain suspended.

The decision to cancel the rescue divers has all the earmarks of bureaucratic bungling and bad advice to the minister. I have been here before with the coast guard initiative to de-staff all light stations on the B.C. coast. This was finally overturned.

The minister is now in a face saving posture. He must respond to public pressure to reinstate the rescue diver program. He does not want to alienate those few in his department who gave him the bad advice he used to authorize this ill-conceived decision. None of this is a valid enough reason to expose the public to further risk by maintaining suspension of service.

This brings me back full circle to where I was on Friday when I asked if the minister would stop this wrong headed, bureaucratic initiative now. While a review is under way, the common sense approach would be to reinstate coast guard rescue diver capability rather than leave the opportunity for another tragedy. Every day is important.

I would like an explanation as to why the minister will not reinstate the program immediately, even though the review is pending.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and his interest.

I am pleased to speak today about rescue diving. Before I continue I certainly wish to state that it is unfortunate that the automobile accident in Richmond, British Columbia, resulted in a death on February 18. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the victim's family and friends.

Some members today may recall the announcement in 1995 which preceded the commencement of a two year rescue diving pilot project at the coast guard hovercraft station at Sea Island in British Columbia. The pilot project was to determine the effectiveness of rescue diving as a complement to Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue.

In 1997, after two years of operating the pilot project, the project was extended so that more information could be collected by the coast guard to determine the effectiveness of providing a rescue diving capability.

In November 2000, after reviewing available information, the coast guard, primarily out of concern for the safety of the divers, engaged in the very high risk operations inherent with these activities, suspended the pilot project.

An evaluation of the pilot project has indicated that the risks inherent in diving activities were high and that the risks inherent in rescue diving were even greater. The rescue diving operations were usually conducted in poor to bad visibility, rough weather and involved a high degree of uncertainty and the presence of wreckage in the water.

An analysis of the dives during the six years of the pilot project indicated that approximately 2,000 dives took place. Of these, only about three dozen were actual rescue dives. The remainder of the dives were to conduct underwater hull inspections and to work on marine navigational buoys. As a result of the rescue dives two individuals were rescued alive. Tragically, one of them died of his injuries.

To return to the recent accident on February 18, it is currently too early and perhaps impossible to determine whether the life of the individual involved in this accident could indeed have been saved had the coast guard deployed divers.

As members are probably aware, the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has announced that he has personally asked his deputy minister and the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard to review all the facts surrounding the response to the tragic accident that occurred on that Sunday in Richmond, British Columbia, as well as the rescue diving pilot project in Richmond.

The government's priority is to continue to work with its partners and with its own resources to provide efficient, safe maritime search and rescue services to Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.)