Peter Adams

[Infrastructure, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian infrastructure program is still in full swing in Peterborough where it represents more than $35 million and 68 construction projects in every village, township and city, both school boards, Fleming College and Trent University.

One feature of the program has been the way it has released monies, private and public, being held in reserve for future projects. The release of these funds now has resulted in useful projects and has created much needed jobs. Money has been spent at the grassroots of the economy.

I strongly urge the government to build on its experience with the current infrastructure program and launch another. Perhaps the new one could be redesigned to deliberately tap more private sector funds. Perhaps its could include regional variants to accommodate special local needs. Perhaps priority could be given to particular types of infrastructure.

Let us consult with the municipalities and launch a new invigorated infrastructure program.

[Lakefield, Ont., November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last summer I attended Civic Pride Day in the village of Lakefield, Ontario. This was the home of Margaret Laurence and before her of two other famous authors, Catherine Parr Trail and Susannah Mordy.

On this day, the village was celebrating no less than four anniversaries. It was the 75th anniversary of the Lakefield Hydroelectric Commission and Memorial Hall. It was the 100th anniversary of the library and it was the 120th anniversary of the first village council meeting.

The celebrations were organized by the LACAC, Lakefield Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, with the support of council and many volunteers and sponsors. Past and present reeves and councillors were present. A historical booklet was produced.

We do not take enough time to celebrate our rich and diverse heritage. We need to think more about Canada as it really is today. My thanks to the village of Lakefield for setting such a fine example.

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am truly delighted to rise to speak in support of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act. This act will create for Canada a commissioner for the environment and sustainable development.

I am particularly delighted in this case because this is a clear example of us fulfilling a commitment we made to Canadians in the red book, which was the basis of our election campaign. We said then that we would move Canada toward sustainable development. This bill is a very concrete step in that direction.

In the red book we recognized that there is no separation between a national environmental agenda and a national economic agenda. Since assuming office we have tried to implement that belief wherever possible. We have implemented it in our approach to planning and decision making within government. We have tried to integrate economic matters, social matters and environmental considerations. We understand that all these aspects of sustainable development can and must be co-ordinated to give Canadians what they want: a prosperous and healthy country in which we, our children, and our children's children can work to achieve our aspirations.

Environmental sustainable development must be an integral part of decision making in all federal departments. That means that decisions on new policies, programs, regulations, and laws as well as decisions on existing ones, must take that into account. It also includes decisions on how departments manage their buildings, facilities, and operations.

Strategies of sustainable development are a key part of Bill C-83. These strategies will take sustainable development from a concept to a real practice across all federal departments. Each minister will be required to table a sustainable development strategy for his or her department in this House within two years of the coming into force of this legislation.

By legal definition, sustainable development strategies must be results oriented. Each strategy will include the department's objectives and plans of action to obtain those objectives. Every minister will in fact become a sustainable development minister.

We all now realize that sustainable development is not the sole responsibility of the environment minister. It is the responsibility of all ministers and indeed of us all as Canadians. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, in an ideal world we would not need a Ministry of the Environment to monitor sustainable development in Canada because it should be the concern of all of us and of all ministries.

These departmental strategies will also assist the new environmental and sustainable development commissioner in monitoring and reporting on the government's performance. The stated objectives and action plans will serve as meaningful and measurable benchmarks against which to assess each department's performance in making the shift to sustainable development.

Departments are committed to developing their sustainable development strategies and establishing their goals and action plans in an open manner, working with all interested parties. This

will help to ensure that the departments establish meaningful and challenging targets.

In June the government released a guide to green government, which was endorsed by the Prime Minister and all ministers. The guide will assist federal departments and their stakeholders in the preparation of their sustainable development strategies.

Federal government departments differ in their mandates and in their abilities to influence Canada's sustainable development prospects. As a result, their strategies will differ, but clearly together they must present a coherent and consistent government approach to sustainable development.

Sustainable development is an evolving concept. Indeed, our understanding of sustainable development has evolved considerably in the past few years and it will continue to evolve as we grasp a further understanding of what it means as we move to operationalize it.

The guide I mentioned provides core concepts and principles underlying sustainable development as a starting point. The concepts and principles will likely continue to evolve over time and perhaps new concepts and principles will emerge.

Bill C-83 requires departments to update their sustainable development strategies and requires responsible ministers to table the updates in the House every three years. This allows the evolving nature of sustainable development and the lessons learned from operationalizing it to continually be incorporated into the strategies.

Another key aspect of Bill C-83 is the appointment of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development within the office of the auditor general. The commissioner will assist the auditor general in performing general auditing duties. He or she will also report annually to the House on any matter concerning sustainable development that he or she considers merits the attention of the House. The commissioner will not only strengthen the work of the office of the auditor general on the environment and sustainable development, he or she will also enhance the federal government's accountability for its actions or its inaction on the environment and sustainable development.

We are the first major country to build sustainable development into our economy in this way. It is becoming increasingly clear that those economies that take environmental costs into account are in fact the most efficient of modern economies.

In conclusion, Bill C-83 establishes a framework for sustainability across all federal departments and enhances the government's accountability to the House for its progress on sustainable development. We are not afraid of being held accountable in this way because we are building a record of accomplishments, a record of which we are proud.

Bill C-83 will have far reaching implications within the government and within our society as a whole. It will move Canada forward along the path from talking about sustainability to acting sustainably. I look forward to the speedy passage of this important legislation.

[Tobacco, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, studies in the U.S. show that smoking causes 415,000 deaths in a year and $50 billion in medical care costs.

Smoking is the most important preventable cause of premature death. The immediate causes of death are a wide variety of cancers and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Yet 48 million young Americans still smoke. Twenty-four billion packs of cigarettes are purchased each year. Every pack sold causes $4 of expenditures on smoking related health care.

As 70 per cent of smokers begin before the age of 18 years, discouraging smoking among the young is essential if we are to cope with this problem. It has been shown that the young prefer the most heavily advertised brands. Here in Canada we must discourage our children from smoking.

These facts are from the 1994 issues of the morbidity and mortality weekly report of the Massachusetts Medical Society, 1440 Main Street, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02154. I would be glad to provide extracts to anyone interested.

[Space Program, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Chris Hadfield on his voyage in space and best wishes to members of his family in Peterborough riding: son Kyle at school in Lakefield, sister Pat Bowlar in Norwood and Aunt Caroline Kitchen in Peterborough.

A Canadian has now operated our Canadarm in space and it will be the prototype for a giant space crane. Next year Marc Garneau, one of our most distinguished astronauts, will be returning to space. He will be followed by yet another Canadian astronaut: three Canadians in space within a year and a half.

The astronaut program is one of the most successful features of the Canadian Space Agency which is based in Montreal but which has a nationwide science and technology network. Our astronauts have inspired students from kindergarten to Ph.D. III. They have had a healthy effect on all science and technology in Canada.

Canada is united in its space efforts. Let us remain united on this blessed portion of the earth's surface.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I suspect technically the question is out of order, but I am glad to reply.

I was referring to the experience of Canadian manufacturers over many years and to their monitoring of vehicles. That information is readily available from manufacturers.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have to compliment my colleague for the best question I have received.

First, this is based on the many years of experience of our auto manufacturers and importers running vehicles on Canadian gasoline with MMT in it. The spark plug point is based on experience over that period of time. However they have been forced to do this by the development of the new onboard diagnostic systems. In the same way we monitor the speed of the vehicle or how much gasoline there is the tank, we can now monitor what emissions are going from the exhaust pipe. Those onboard diagnostic systems are a new, very expensive, exciting innovation in the automobile industry. They have been coming along for some years but in the 1996 models they are particularly sophisticated and expensive and that is what is forcing the issue at the present time.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know he has been following this debate very seriously.

First I want to pick up his remark about lack of scientific evidence. His colleague, in the speech which preceded mine, referred to rigorous statistical analysis and phrases of that sort.

Members opposite know that an experiment based on the opinion of 27 million automobile owners is based on a very solid scientific foundation. How much better a foundation scientifically than 48 vehicles that have driven three million miles, which is approximately five million kilometres. On the scientific evidence side, I urge the member to bear in that in mind. We are talking here about manufacturers who have been monitoring hundreds of thousands of vehicles.

Going back to the member's remark and the Reform Party's point that the decision has been made in the United States, we know that the United States has a very legalistic system. All sorts of groups, particularly large corporations, can take advantage of the system to fight decisions they do not like.

I would remind members opposite that MMT is banned in the United States at present. We will see if it is going to come in. The great state of California, which is comparable in population and has more vehicles than our whole country, has enormous automobile problems. It has been trying to tackle them with many of the most stringent regulations in the world. The state of California has banned MMT.

If and when we see the state of California, which is progressive in this regard, acting the way the Reform Party expects then I think the member will have a stronger base to stand on.

In general, I do not think that Canadians should follow the lowest common denominator. We should aim for the highest standards and try to achieve them where we can. That is what we are doing in this case.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He draws attention to the fact that this legislation affects virtually every Canadian. In addition to its improvement of the environment, it affects the health of us all.

Every person who has a car or a truck is affected by this legislation. These onboard diagnostic systems which we are discussing and which manufacturers tell us are directly affected by MMT in gasoline add a great deal to the cost of a car.

If the manufacturers fail to hook up the systems, the cost of the car will be the same but Canadian drivers will not have the benefit of those expensive systems although they have paid for them. Even more, they will not have the benefits of the improvement in the environment which will result from proper monitoring throughout the year, day in, day out, every driving hour, the emissions from their vehicle.

I find it unfortunate, given that the federal government allowed the petroleum industry and the automobile industry a very considerable time to come together and discuss this matter. It is very unfortunate that the member opposite reduces this argument to a battle between the petroleum industry which this government supports and Canadians. This is simply not the case.

The petroleum industry in the United States adapted to the ban on MMT very quickly. It has the technology to do that. The larger part of the petroleum industry on this continent has been producing gasoline without MMT in it.

It is extremely unfortunate that the member opposite makes this argument on the basis of these large petroleum corporations that already have the technology to take the MMT out and simply bring Canada in line with what has been the norm on this continent for many years.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again to speak to Bill C-94, the manganese based fuel additives act.

We have heard all kinds of arguments for and against the legislation now before the House but it is clear there are still misconceptions on the other side.

I will focus on the crucial reasons we seek to ban the use of manganese based fuel additives in Canada. We are doing this

because it is good for the environment, good for Canadian consumers and good for Canadian business and workers.

The ban benefits the environment by supporting the latest development in technology for reducing emissions from motor vehicles. That is significant because vehicles are still the largest single factor contributing to air pollution. In recent decades we have seen major improvements made by vehicle manufacturers and fuel producers. These have certainly lowered the amounts of pollutants released by individual vehicles.

During the same time the number of cars and trucks on the road has grown considerably. As a result, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles are still responsible for 60 per cent of the carbon monoxide emissions in Canada. They are responsible for 35 per cent of the nitrogen oxide emissions. They are responsible for 25 per cent of the hydrocarbon emissions and they are responsible for 20 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions. Given those numbers we must make every effort to lower vehicle emissions for the sake of air quality in Canada.

Certainly we have seen progress since the 1970s. One decisive step was the phase out of lead from Canadian gasoline starting in 1977. Another has been the improvement in fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. Still another has been the introduction of emissions control equipment.

Now we are in the midst of taking another major step, the introduction into our cars and trucks of onboard diagnostic systems. These systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution control systems in our cars, in particular to monitor the catalyst, and to alert the driver to malfunctions in those emission control systems.

In essence a properly functioning onboard diagnostic system is a built in inspection and maintenance tool. As we know, inspection and maintenance of a vehicle can greatly reduce vehicle emissions. For proof of this we need only look at programs that require vehicles to be emissions tested from time to time.

For example, the Vancouver area has the air care inspection and maintenance program which is conducted on an annual basis. In the tested fleet of cars the programmers reduced hydrocarbon emissions by 20 per cent, carbon monoxide emissions by 24 per cent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 2.7 per cent and fuel consumption by 5 per cent. That is a municipal, metropolitan emissions monitoring system.

The new onboard diagnostic systems which we will have in our vehicles could allow all Canadians to benefit from such emissions reductions. As I said, they are built in emissions monitoring systems. However, there is one obstacle to this: the continued presence of MMT, an octane enhancer currently used in unleaded gasoline.

The automotive industry is convinced that MMT adversely affects the sophisticated new onboard diagnostic systems. It affects the effectiveness with which those systems can monitor the emissions and warn us when emissions are increasing.

This is not an isolated statement or an assertion on my part but the conclusion of Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Saab, Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai.

General Motors is a major employer in my riding of Peterborough, employing approximately 8,000 people. General Motors employees are concerned that the investment in the new modern onboard diagnostic systems in the 1996 models not be wasted.

The list of supporters I have just cited includes virtually all of Canada's automakers and importers and all of their workers. When they speak with such unanimity, we need to listen to their message carefully. Their opinion is based on hundreds of thousands of vehicles running millions and millions of kilometres on MMT gasoline in Canada, not on 48 vehicles running a few million kilometres in the United States. This opinion is based on the experience of the producers and users of the vehicles of an entire nation, not of a few cars selected by the EPA in the United States.

Suppose the efficiency of the catalyst in our vehicles' pollution control system is reduced by 50 per cent due to abnormal wear or a manufacturing deficiency. The catalyst is one of the key controls of emissions by our vehicles. The result of this reduction of 50 per cent in its efficiency would be a twofold increase in emissions compared with a properly functioning vehicle.

However, at the present time drivers would be unaware of the increase in pollutants as a result of the decline in efficiency of the catalyst in their cars. They would be unaware of the increase of pollutants if MMT interferes with the proper functioning of onboard diagnostic systems, the systems which monitor emissions from vehicle.

The member opposite mentioned the case of sparkplugs. There are real indications that the use of fuel containing MMT causes sparkplug failures. GM Canada, the automotive corporation which is closest to my riding, reports that sparkplug failures for one particular Canadian model are 17 times higher than a comparable U.S. model. Again this is not some laboratory experiment, not some engines running on a bench in a factory or a few vehicles driving around California being monitored by technicians. This is the opinion of one of the major Canadian automobile producers. It is one of the largest employers in the country.

As I mentioned in my previous speech on this legislation, the federal government gave the petroleum and automotive industries

a considerable period of time to get together to sort out this problem. I suggest the federal government has now waited long enough for the fuel producers and the automakers to resolve this dispute between themselves. If we do not act now the federal government's vehicle emissions reduction program will be in jeopardy. We risk missing out on major reductions in smog, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.

The time has come to make a decision. Bill C-94 is a decision in favour of Canada's environment.

Members will note the bill helps the environment by improving onboard diagnostic systems and the efficiency of our vehicles. We do not base our argument on environmental improvements simply on the reduction in emissions of MMT. We base them on the affect of MMT on the emission monitoring systems in new models of cars and trucks.

Therefore Bill C-94 is the decision in favour of the environment. It is also a decision in favour of Canadian consumers because it ensures they will have access to state of the art emission reduction technologies. Unless we act now we could face a situation in which automakers will be forced to turn off the onboard diagnostic systems in new models because of the damage MMT causes.

In fact, one manufacturer is already bringing models off the assembly line with the onboard diagnostic systems partially disconnected. Some manufacturers are no longer prepared to pay the substantial warranty costs for damage caused to pollution control equipment. In the end, it is we, the Canadian motorists, who have to pay more to have our cars maintained because of this kind of industry action. The government will not allow the buck to be passed to the Canadian consumer. For their sake we need to move now and pass Bill C-94.

Solving the MMT issue signals the government's desire to ensure that Canadians have access to fuel formulations that will not impede the performance of the vehicle emission control systems. We know that this is only a small step in the process of reducing vehicle pollution.

The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels that automobile engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in vehicle emissions control technologies such as those offered through the onboard diagnostic systems that I have just been discussing.

The government, for its share, must act now to reduce pollution by vehicles. Very recently in Whitehorse the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment which includes our own minister of the environment and sustainable development endorsed a report on cleaner vehicles and fuels. The report calls for reducing pollution from automobiles by means of tougher national for vehicle emissions and fuels.

It also calls for actions to improve fuel efficiency and to promote advanced technology as well as vehicles running on alternative fuels. Further, the CCM report recognizes the importance of inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that emission control systems are in good working order. I have addressed that matter and the way MMT relates to it.

By acting on the report Canada will have a new program for low emission vehicles no later than the year 2001 with an earlier phase-in, in harmony with the United States if feasible. There will be new standards for cleaner gasoline and diesel fuel. The result should be significant health benefits.

This Whitehorse report was prepared through a consultation process involving representatives from industry, environmental groups and other stakeholders. What we are doing here today will help achieve the aims of that report. We need to act now. We cannot, as the member opposite keeps suggesting, afford to wait or delay.

In the past year we have heard a great deal about a much wider atmospheric issue, that of global warning triggered by the greenhouse effect. Scientists have concluded we cannot wait for hard and fast proof that human activities are causing an unprecedented climb in global temperatures because by the time we have the proof, we will be overtaken by climate change of possibly catastrophic dimensions. Instead we need to act now on the precautionary principle. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a danger and action now will be beneficial in any case.

The actions we should take to avoid a possible climate changes are actions which we should be taking anyway to make this planet a healthier place to live.

Of course, and I accept the member's arguments on this point, MMT use in gasoline is not specifically a global warming issue but the same principle applies. There is plenty of evidence to show the danger MMT presents and if we eliminate its use now there are sure to be benefits to Canada's environment, Canadian consumers, Canadian industry and workers.

That is why Bill C-94 makes such eminent sense. That is why I am going to support this legislation and why I urge all members of the House to support it.