Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.
The Environment September 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
This past summer $12 million was spent on a failed attempt to raise the Irving Whale barge off the coast of P.E.I. Officials are now saying they need to rethink the lifting of the barge because of onboard PCB contaminants.
Why did the minister go ahead with the project, knowing full well from years before that PCBs were on board?
Rogers Surrey June 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Rogers Surrey community channel has served New Westminster with excellence for many years and now local producers are reaping the rewards of their hard work.
On May 30 in Halifax, Nova Scotia executive producer Catherin Ackroyd and co-producers Jim Reis and Archie Miller were recognized for their documentary "Lest We Forget: Canadians in Normandy".
The Canadian Cable Television Association awarded the hour long program as the best documentary in Canada in 1994. The program also won best documentary of the Pacific programmers region for provincial awards of excellence.
From a Canadian perspective "Lest We Forget" shows the dramatic events of the D-Day landing with interviews of veterans from the Canadian Scottish regiment and the 1st Canadian parachute battalion.
In the year of the 50th anniversary of the second world war it is important for all Canadians to appreciate what our veterans did on our behalf. I thank Rogers Surrey for its service to my community and its longstanding commitment to excellence in community programming.
Treatment Of Municipal Sewage June 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is now 12.35 in the morning and it is a privilege to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague from Comox-Alberni. The motion says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities.
The motion put forward is to improve sewage treatment facilities, part of what I might call need to haves rather than the like to haves, which are often put forward by the government in its infrastructure program.
This is not a western issue. It is a national issue. It is also an issue raised by the Liberals in their red book, an issue that now seems to have been put on the back burner.
I want to read the promise in the red book word for word. I encourage my colleagues from across the floor to listen closely. It states: "One of the country's biggest sources of water degradation is untreated municipal sewage, aggravated by decades of neglect of sewage and water treatment infrastructure".
This sounds very similar to the motion so I would assume its mover would have the full support of all the members on the government side on this one.
The lack of basic sewage treatment is a serious problem. According to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund report: "If the annual volume of untreated sewage were piled on the trans-Canada highway, all 7,800 kilometres of it, it would cover the road to a depth of nearly 9 metres from coast to coast".
Running on the boundary of my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby is the Fraser River. British Columbians realize that the Fraser is in serious jeopardy. Unfortunately most do not truly understand why it is in the condition that it is in. I am sure there are many answers, complex scientific ones, but certainly one answer is that it is how sewage is handled in and around the river.
Just last week the Fraser River Management Program issued a report card on the Fraser basin. Sewage treatment plants on the river were singled out as the biggest problem, receiving an f grade, a fail. Dumping of under treated sewage is benefiting no one and is endangering once abundant fish stocks.
The Outdoor Recreation Council declared that the Fraser River, which supports about a $300 million a year salmon fishery, is British Columbia's most endangered river.
We realize that the cost of upgrading or building new treatment plants is rather expensive. We also realize what our priorities are. Our priorities should always be for the well-being and health of Canadians.
A ribbon cutting ceremony for a new sewage treatment plant may not make for great photo opportunities but photo ops are not what will keep the country environmentally sustainable. We all know the Liberal government is more into photo ops than it is into environmental cleanups.
The government implemented its grand infrastructure programs soon after they were elected. They talked about funding going toward roads, sewers, bridges and water mains, except here is where some of the funding is actually going: $15 million for renovations to a coliseum; $21 million for a convention centre; $173 million for a trade centre; $50 million for an arts centre; $24 million for a tennis stadium; and almost $15 million for building a circus training facility.
This is only a portion of the list. I believe the list I just read will give an understanding of how wasteful this government has become. Among the legitimate projects there is also a lot of Liberal pork. These are misplaced priorities from misguided Liberalism.
Our motion clearly calls for the federal government to improve municipal sewage facilities to a minimum standard of at least primary treatment. With only three types of possible treatments available, this is the second from the bottom for effectiveness yet it would be far greater than some Canadian cities currently have. Some of them have nothing at all.
In Halifax, Nova Scotia the city dumps all of its raw sewage down the pipe into the ocean. That is 250 years of pumping untreated sewage right into the Halifax harbour. The same method is used in Victoria, British Columbia. In both places proponents hope that the cold tidal waters will be capable of carrying the waste out to sea. I believe both cities are realizing that there is only so much that the waters are able to neutralize.
So many promises have been made that people are having trouble keeping track of which level of government actually said what. For Halifax, the federal, provincial and municipal governments apparently earmarked $200 million to build a new treatment facility yet residents of Halifax are still pumping over 100 million litres of untreated sewage into the harbour each day. While Nova Scotia waits for its much needed facilities, Montrealers will be serving up aces in their new tennis complex and doing somersaults in their new circus tent, all part of infrastructure money.
This country's deficit and debt are ballooning larger every day. The federal government must be frugal on how it spends its money. My constituents have told me that when their bank accounts are low, they spend according to priority. They only purchase what is most necessary and they expect the government to do the same.
Like many of my constituents, Canada has basic necessities like education, health and the environment. When my own personal bank account is low, I do not go out and purchase a painting but when the federal government's bank account is low it goes out and builds an art gallery. Something just does not make sense here.
The Minister of the Environment talks of sustainable development but talk is insincere when the words are not put into action. British Columbia's Fraser River is the greatest salmon producing river in the world. People living along the Fraser have always had a close connection with the river, relying on it for water, food, transportation and livelihood. However this river system cannot be sustained if municipalities along the river are forced to release untreated sewage.
My colleague from Comox-Alberni is not proposing anything new with his motion. He is simply reminding the government of its commitments for sustainable development. I hope that the revenue minister as well as the member for Halifax are listening closely to this debate because Victoria and Halifax are the two Canadian cities that are dumping untreated sewage into our waters.
I note that the revenue minister is quite aware of the situation. In February 1993 he wrote a column in the Globe and Mail entitled: The benefits of dumping sewage in the sea''. In the article he wrote:When the waste water leaves the pipe, it is immediately subjected to vast quantities of cold, fast moving sea water high in oxygen which would result in a biological, bacterial and chemical change''. Strangely enough, he does admit there is the possibility that something dangerous but unknown may be in the discharge water and might become a problem in the future.
Finally it should be noted that in 1989, 70 per cent of Victorians supported treatment for all waste water coming out of Victoria's capital regional district. I hope that the minister will have the courage to listen to his own electorate.
The government was so proud of the red book during the election. I often heard the Prime Minister tell Canadians that if his Liberal government was not following the red book promises to notify him and make him accountable, not that the red book was so great anyway.
Someone mentioned to me recently that the Deputy Prime Minister said a similar thing but added that if promises were not kept that they should give her a good swift kick. After the next election, the voters will not be able to kick the minister around any more for she will not be around.
The Reform Party through this motion is asking the government to live up to its basic promise and to support improvements to municipal sewage facilities. Should it fail to do so it will be conveying a message to Canadians that the red book was merely an election pamphlet which was long ago forgotten.
I urge the government to take care of the basics, to do at least the minimum and quickly act positively in response to the motion presented today.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act June 19th, 1995
No evidence.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act June 19th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I have listened to a number of speakers from the government side and to their rationalizations and explanations. I want to further respond because a lot of questions remain unanswered. In my questions and comments I will put some more questions and maybe we will get some answers. I have a dozen questions.
Why has the government refused to conduct an independent technical review to address issues in dispute as suggested by Ethyl, Canada's gasoline refiners and several provinces?
Having refused an independent technical review, how can the government justify removing MMT when the claims and concerns of the MVMA about MMT and vehicle emission systems, including the new OBD systems, have been considered and rejected by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. court of appeals?
Why would Canada ban the import of MMT as it is about to be reintroduced into unleaded gasoline in the United States? Why would the environment minister have chosen to address this issue by restricting trade?
How does the government square the restrictions of import and interprovincial trade of MMT with legislation currently before the House of Commons to remove interprovincial trade barriers?
Why is the government ignoring opposition and concerns expressed about this unilateral federal action by the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?
How can the Minister of the Environment support an action which studies conclude will result in an annual 50,000 to 60,000 tonne increase in smog causing NOx from Canadian vehicles?
If MMT is replaced, what will the replacement be and what will the cost to consumers and refiners be? What are the environmental and health impacts of potential replacements? Why have the Minister of the Environment and all major automobile manufacturers refused to meet with Ethyl Canada?
What pre-1996 models have been impacted by these alleged MMT related problems and what specific MMT related warranty claims have been made and why have the manufacturers not notified consumers before?
Why did the MVMA turn down a specific proposal for a technical review of alleged MMT related problems made by key executives representing petroleum refiners and automobile makers at the joint industry task force in 1993?
How can the Minister of the Environment explain her statement if vehicle manufacturers carry through on threats to remove OBD systems? This would result in a tenfold increase in vehicle emissions; lots of questions and no answers.
Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act June 19th, 1995
Madam Speaker, the member for Bruce-Grey talked about a number of issues. He talked about standards and harmonization. He talked about MMT being banned. I think he also touched on the issue that Canada is the only country that uses it.
Our industry minister said in April: "The member will know that MMT is not permitted in the United States by legislation. It is crucial that we have uniformity of standards". The U.S. court of appeals has now ordered the U.S. EPA to grant Ethyl Corporation's application for a waiver, paving the way for the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States. Several U.S. refiners have provided written notice of their intention to use MMT. Uniformity of gasoline additives within North America would now require Canada to maintain rather than restrict MMT.
The member also talked about it being banned. The environment minister on May 5, 1995 said: "The United States Environmental Protection Agency banned MMT in 1977 and since that time Ethyl Corporation has consistently tried to turn around the ban by court case after court case in which it continues to fail".
MMT was not banned by the EPA. It is still used in the United States in leaded gasoline and after market products. It was used in unleaded gasoline during the crude oil shortages of the 1970s. In 1977 the U.S. Clean Air Act established a process requiring new fuel additives not substantially similar to gasoline to obtain a waiver by demonstrating compatibility with vehicle emission systems.
Ethyl of course undertook the largest fuel additives testing program in history which resulted in the EPA's conclusion in December 1993 that MMT will not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system. Contrary to the minister's statements in May the U.S. court of appeals ordered the EPA to grant a waiver approval to Ethyl Corporation on April 14, 1995. The minister was fully informed of this decision but did not say anything to this House.
Another comment was made by an Environment Canada news release on May 19: "Canada is currently the only country in the world tht permits the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline". MMT is approved for use in Canada, Argentina, Bulgaria and Ukraine. It is being actively considered for introduction in Australia, New Zealand and other countries in southeast Asia and around the world. These countries have closely monitored Ethyl's EPA fleet testing program and have noted the U.S. court of appeals ruling ordering the U.S. EPA to grant Ethyl's waiver application. Several U.S. refiners have confirmed their interest in using MMT in the United States.
If MMT is considered bad for automobiles and the environment, why then does the minister not ban the substance under the schedule in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Why can we not use CEPA to ban MMT?
Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act June 19th, 1995
Madam Speaker, balance is needed and I hope this is what I can represent as I respond to the government on Bill C-94.
It is amazing how quickly the bill got to this stage. I take it the environment minister feels this bill is more important than Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act, which was a red book promise. I suppose large companies like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are not pushing to pass a bill that would create a commissioner to the auditor general's office like Bill C-83 would do.
Every Canadian knows of the power of the big three auto manufacturers. What they want they seem to get from the minister. In this case they wanted the help of the minister to ban the octane enhancer MMT from Canadian gasoline, and help is exactly what they got.
When the minister held her press conference on May 19 she said that the data the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association presented to her clearly convinced her that MMT was bad for automobiles and for Canadians. She did not comment on the evidence presented to her by Ethyl Corporation. When the minister was asked to comment on that she simply stated that she did not need to see Ethyl's data because what the MVMA presented was correct and there was no refuting it. Essentially what the minister was saying was that Ethyl's data was wrong and the data from the MVMA was correct, but she would not fully admit it.
The minister knows very well what the best solution would be to this entire debate. She knows that a series of independent third party tests are needed but she will not initiate it or facilitate it happening.
As members of the House and more important as representatives of all Canadians, it is important that we weigh and pursue every available option to come up with an accurate conclusion before we create any legislation. The Liberal government calls itself responsible but I ask what is really meant by the term responsible in view of Bill C-94. In these technical matters it certainly does not hurt to demonstrate and then legislate.
Some important questions should be asked on the banning of this substance. First, was the evidence brought forward based on accurate data and was it performed by independent testers? Second, who paid for the evaluators and who are they accountable to? Third, what will be the cost implications to consumers both in financial and in environmental terms? I think it is who pays is at the bottom of the government's capitulation to the MVMA lobby.
I want to deal with how the minister came to the decision to ban MMT. Apparently on September 12 last year representatives from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler met with the minister to discuss the banning of MMT.
They told her that if MMT was still in gasoline in August 1995, a time when all new model cars were released, they would do one of maybe three things. First they would raise the price of each automobile by about $3,000. Second they would void sections of their cars warranties and/or close down some high tech Canadian manufacturing facilities.
The minister got spooked in a big way. This was the big three as well as a few other importer tag-alongs telling her what to do. They threatened to close up automotive plants and most of the plants are located not too far from her constituency of Hamilton East and certainly in southwestern Ontario.
The political decision apparently was not too difficult: ban MMT. About a month following the meeting the minister told a reporter that unless the fuel industry moved MMT from its products voluntarily the government was going to impose a ban.
The MVMA could not have been happier: no more dealing with Ethyl and let the federal government work the whole thing out for itself. There was no need for a third party to come in to do testing. Negotiations and industry collaboration went out the window. This is where the minister failed.
There are two sides to the issue and she picked the one that seemed politically friendly. The decision was not based on science. It was based on short term political interest and money, certainly not because there would be any gains for the environment.
Both the MVMA and Ethyl have conducted tests. Both had apparent credible statistics and yet they were contrary to each other. Both sides were adamant that the tests they had brought forward were accurate. I am not a scientist and the environment minister has admitted the same in her background. I have seen the detailed test data and the chemical charts and tables. I am not going to stand here today to convince with a technical argument. All I am trying to do is to provide a reasonable solution like any responsible environment minister would do.
The solution should have been, and for that matter still can be, an independent third party series of tests to determine if MMT actually causes a problem to onboard diagnostic systems in cars. Certainly MMT is not hazardous to our environment as it greatly reduces knocks. Both sides were close to coming to a decision. Both sides were about to approve a third party evaluation. Ford
Motor Company recently did a test with MMT flavoured gasoline to see how it would affect its onboard diagnostic systems.
The minister has been touting the MVMA to be the expert and most accurate in its data collection. Ford conducted an in house fleet test composed of twenty 1994 Thunderbirds. Ten went to Toronto and were driven for about 50,000 miles of city driving. Five went to Florida and five to Nevada. Similar to the testing in Toronto, the ten U.S. cars were also driven about 50,000 miles each and were also kept to city driving. In the interim report Ford asserted that catalyst monitoring ratios generated by the OBD-II system in the vehicles were different in Canada and the U.S. mainly because of MMT.
Ford claims that this was the only difference between Canadian and U.S. vehicles. The U.S. EPA, on the other hand, concluded "it is difficult to distinguish small losses in catalyst activity" using existing OBT technology. The smallest change in emissions which is technologically feasible to detect for current production vehicles equipped with the OBD-II system is a hydrocarbon emission increase or decrease of about .4 grams per mile. Ford tests show an HE emission of only .02 grams per mile. Apparently Ford has not released any data that would verify if the OBD-II systems actually have the ability to measure such small changes in emission performance.
The testing that Ford did was in three very distinct areas: Toronto, Florida and Nevada. We are all aware that the composition of fuel will vary from region to region. With data provided by the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and Environment Canada, basic differences in the gasoline between the three test sites were rather considerable.
Let us use for example summer gasoline in Toronto. The amount of sulphur in parts per million is about 400 and the percentage of ether is about zero per cent. On the other hand in U.S. gasoline sulphur content is about 248 parts per million in Florida and about 80 parts per million in the west southwest. As for ether, in Florida it is 1.8 per cent and in the west southwest it is 1.6 per cent.
The reason for my explanation of these data is to show that test parameters can vary significantly from city to city.
Why did Ford use these two U.S. cities to conduct its testing when it knew full well of the differences in the composition of gasoline? As politicians we are all very familiar with polls and the use of polls. One poll says this and another poll says something else. If one wants a polling company to get a favourable answer it is possible to do so by the way one words the questions.
I would assume the same was also true for the way testing was done on MMT. On one side Ethyl wanted to see tests which showed that MMT was not responsible for malfunctions with the onboard diagnostic systems in cars. On the other side the MVMA wanted to prove how MMT was hurting or interfering with its systems. Essentially each party got the results it wanted. How accurate are the tests and what are the implications for public policy?
The bill bans MMT in Canada. The way I read it there is no reference to Nevada or Florida in the bill, if the minister wants to believe the data provided to her of tests that were not even performed in this country on comparable fuels.
Some proponents of the bill will ask me for a better way of doing the tests. I can only think of one logical way. The ban is in Canada. Take cars and pair them up. Choose independent locations across the country. Use two cars in each location. In one car use gasoline added with MMT and in the other car use the same type of gasoline without the addition of MMT. Drive each car for the same distance and over the same terrain and in the same climate. For instance, if one of the two cars is driven in the city, the same should apply to the other. A wide variety of car models should be used in varied Canadian climates and conditions. This would seem to be the only available solution.
When people are charged with crimes and they know in their hearts they are innocent, they agree to any test, any independent investigation, lie detectors, DNA and so on. They are confident and therefore they have nothing to be afraid of, nothing to hide.
Since the beginning the Ethyl Corporation has wanted to settle the entire dispute using a comprehensive series of industry wide, third party tests. It was confident in the outcome. The same was not true for the MVMA. As soon as there was a hint that the minister would back it up all future talks were cancelled. Now it balks at the idea of independent testing. I guess its lobbying paid off.
Early last week the United States Court of Appeals issued a mandate ordering the EPA to grant a waiver to permit the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the U.S. The court found that MMT does not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system. It evaluated the evidence placed before it. I realize this does not mean that MMT will be in U.S. gasoline tomorrow but it does mean one large step closer.
Ethyl Corporation still has a hearing before the same court in September of this year to confirm final registration of MMT, which would then allow for the sale of the additive. It is interesting to note that in the above decision by the appeals court
neither the auto industry nor the Environmental Protection Agency appealed the court decision. Why? There was likely no grounds for appeal.
On Friday I received material from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute that has been following the issue with great interest. The CPPI official who was in attendance in Washington for the decision stated:
EPA officials made it clear that, assuming Ethyl does win, the burden of proof for any future attempts to have MMT banned will shift from Ethyl to the auto makers. This is leading the auto makers in the U.S. to all of a sudden start talking about a joint testing program. This is what CPPI has been proposing for the last two years in Canada and what the auto makers have continually refused to support.
Maybe the auto manufacturers' lobbyists are not so confident of their position.
Even before Bill C-94 was introduced Reformers asked the environment minister to conduct independent tests. She has adamantly refused. Somehow the minister at least could have facilitated it. The MVMA knew it had the inside track with the minister. All it had to do was stall with Ethyl.
In the early stages I think the minister believed the U.S. courts would maybe side with the EPA. The bill will become the environment minister's legacy. There is a good chance that the bill will pass through the House about the same time that the U.S. begins using MMT in its gasoline again. What will the minister do then? Will she stick to her legislation and continue with the ban or will she flip-flop or succumb to some international pressure?
The industry minister has also said on numerous occasions that the key to banning MMT in Canada is to create a uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada so costs to the auto makers rather than environmental concerns are behind this move. According to this statement Canada will go back and forth like a lost puppy or maybe a lapdog.
The minister introduced this legislation with hopes it would get quick passage before the summer. She is on a deadline set by the MVMA. The 1996 cars were about to be shipped and they wanted to ship them with the OBD-II systems all hooked up.
It is clear now the bill will not get through all stages. The bill will wait until the fall to be reopened for debate. Even if the bill is passed before the end of the year manufacturers will have already shipped their cars. The 1996 cars will not have gone up in price and the warranties will not have been reduced, since all the warranty manuals will already have been printed and shipped with the cars. This is a perfect opportunity for the environment minister since she knows the passage of the bill is irrelevant to the timing of production for the 1996 cars.
It was once said the Liberal philosophy holds that enduring governments must be accountable to someone besides themselves, that a government responsible only to its own conscience is not for long tolerable. This is befitting of the government which occupies the benches today; to whom is it accountable?
Before the government goes through with this legislation I draw to its attention some of the information I have come across during the last several weeks. I raise it for the sake of discussion.
On several occasions the minister stated in the House and at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that if we do not curb global warming much of Prince Edward Island will be completely under water. The minister has stated that if action is not taken immediately thousands upon thousands of jobs could be lost.
I still have a lot of questions on the whole issue of global warming in relation to greenhouse gases, as do many Canadians. In the reading I have done on the topic lately I have discovered that according to scientists the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides, NOx.
Since we are dealing specifically with MMT we should concentrate on the NOx emissions. I do not believe anyone will deny that the additive MMT does reduce NOx emissions. However, I suppose the only argument may come as to how much NOx emissions are reduced with MMT in gasoline. It may also be important to point out that at the 1988 international treaty Canada committed itself to freezing NOx emissions at the 1988 level. This was all part of Environment Canada's NOx VOC2 management plan.
Since the minister's own department feels it is necessary to reduce these emissions it would be important for us to better understand how much MMT actually reduces NOx emissions and helps the environment.
This past June a month long cleaner air campaign was launched in Toronto after results showed the outrageous levels of smog in certain Canadian centres. The campaign was put together by pollution probe and included some major sponsors: Canadian Tire Corporation, Consumers Gas, Petro-Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada, to name a few.
B.C.'s lower mainland, where I come from, parts of New Brunswick and the Windsor-Quebec corridor were found to be the three worst areas in the country for smog pollution. The people of Hamilton East, part of the Windsor-Quebec corridor, need to know their member of Parliament, who happens to be the Minister of the Environment, is banning a substance which would help to reduce urban smog. The minister needs to be
accountable to the well-being of Canada's environment. She should also be accountable to those who elected her to office.
Ethyl Canada claims that removing MMT from Canadian gasoline would increase NOx emission levels by up to 20 per cent. The CPPI has added to this and made the claim that removing MMT would be the equivalent of adding over a million cars to Canadian roads. Those are pretty substantial numbers for the environment.
On the other hand, Environment Canada did its own testing on MMT and found that removing it from gasoline would increase NOx emissions by only 5 per cent; again, two evaluations, two substantially different numbers. Which one is correct?
I want to look at how Environment Canada came to its conclusion of 5 per cent. Environment Canada used an EPA NOx benefit of .08 grams per mile, based on John Holly's 1994 analysis of all Ethyl and Ford testing data. Therefore the .08 grams per mile was divided by the average of summer and winter predicted emissions for a typical Canadian gasoline without MMT.
I point out something very important. John Holly's analysis is based on MMT testing data for late model passenger cars only, with vehicles accruing no more than 75,000 miles. Again Environment Canada is taking data based on U.S. gasoline which has completely different properties, most of which will affect NOx emissions. This was something I explained earlier when I referred to the testing done by the MVMA. We are relatively clear that our gasoline is different than that in the U.S. and that this would no doubt skew the results.
I am not a technical expert and so reading scientific data and making interpretations could only be general in nature. When we look at some of the ways MMT was tested it is clear there are many intervening factors and uncontrolled variables, the number one factor being the type of gasoline used in each of the tests.
Each side has an argument about what the other side did wrong, how its test design was inadequate or how unwarranted conclusions were made from the available evidence. I am sure if we were to bring both the MVMA and Ethyl together to debate their individual cases each would have no problem finding fault with each other's data and making circular arguments.
I now bring another player into this whole debate. All we have heard about so far are the auto makers and Ethyl. However, another key component to the equation is the refineries. Studies show the removal of MMT would significantly add to refinery costs for reformulating gasoline and increase the cost of the refining processes.
Refineries are required to achieve cleaner burning fuels but removal of MMT will cause refineries to increase refinery emissions and consume a greater amount of fuel which would require an expensive retrofitting process.
The Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment and Resource Management stated in a May 1995 letter to Environment Canada:
We are also concerned with the impact this decision will have on Consumers' Co-Operative Refineries Limited in Regina. CCRL has Advised us that refining costs will increase in the order of $500,000 annually if MMT is banned. We have difficulty rationalizing this cost with no identifiable benefit to air quality by this action.
This is a dollar amount from only one refinery. If we take into account other refineries the number would be extremely high. In the recent Kilborn study, which I understand the environment department has still not released, it is estimated the cost to refiners of replacing MMT in Canada would be approximately $100,000 million in capital and tens of millions of dollars for operating. Perhaps the minister will release this report as soon as possible so all Canadians can see the real cost of the implication of this legislation.
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents the majority of the petroleum refining and marketing industry in Canada in the same way that the MVMA represents the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers, states:
The MMT controversy is a technical issue between the auto industry and the petroleum industry that should be decided on the basis of science-The CPPI has repeatedly offered to participate in either a joint testing program or an independent scientific evaluation program, and to abide by the results, but all offers have been rebuffed.
Why should they when there is the appearance that the minister is in the pocket of the MVMA?
I learned on Friday that the American Automobile Manufacturers' Association is considering doing third party testing. Apparently the recent decision by the U.S. court of appeals has made it think twice. The Minister of the Environment should put an immediate stop to her legislation and let the key players work this out among themselves. I do not believe anyone would consider the Minister of the Environment a key player. Putting it simply, she appears to be an all too willing politician at the behest of the MVMA.
I want to point out to the minister there is still time left before she may become rather embarrassed. If all goes well for Ethyl the United States may have MMT included in its gasoline by the fall. If the minister decides to scrap the bill in the fall, she will appear as the minister who has been hasty and not on top of her responsibility to protect the public interest rather than the interest of those who contribute to her election campaigns. There will be no way of making amends at that time.
My suggestion is for the government to scrap this legislation and begin immediately with independent third party testing. The Reform Party would support the minister if she decided to do this and would support subsequent government regulations when science so indicates.
It is time for the minister to be wise. However if the minister continues the stubborn course and proceeds with Bill C-94 we will have no choice but to oppose this legislation.
If the bill passes second reading the House standing committee must hear witnesses and provide a public forum for the scientific evidence to be displayed, not inside arguments made within ministries but out in the open. The merits of the bill must stand on their own. The bill must not be rammed through to respond to the government's friends and against available scientific evidence.
Gasoline Additives June 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has a bill before the House which would ban the octane enhancer MMT from Canadian gasoline. She says that since the United States EPA has banned it, Canada should follow suit.
This week the United States District Court of Appeals issued a mandate ordering the EPA to grant a waiver to permit the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States. The court found that MMT does not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system.
The industry minister has added that the key to banning MMT in Canada is to create a uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. Now with the U.S. on the verge of reintroducing MMT, Canada again will be on the opposite side.
The government is too stubborn to initiate third party tests which would show one way or another whether MMT is hazardous to our automobiles, our health and our environment. It works now to make things cleaner. The Minister of the Environment has shown that she is swayed by political lobbies rather than scientific evidence.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995 June 15th, 1995
You are making the Liberals squirm now.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995 June 15th, 1995
What do the people want?