Dave Chatters

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment to hoist the bill for a six-month period simply because there is pending in the U.S. a ruling by the appeal court whether or not to allow the use of MMT in the United States after an 18-year absence.

A member opposite this morning and the Minister of Industry some time ago spoke about the urgency of uniformity in gasoline blends in the North American market. The member this morning spoke of how unacceptable it would be to have one standard in the U.S. and a different standard in Canada for automobile emissions, gasolines, warranties and so on. I agree with that.

In the interests of achieving uniformity in the North American market we should wait until the ruling comes down in the United States. Industry analysts tell me that the likelihood of a positive ruling which would allow MMT to return to the United States is in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent. It seems unacceptable to me that Canada would move to ban MMT two months before it is again accepted for use in the United States.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the argument. The previous speaker said that the bill is about the environment and air quality in Canada. He also said that the bill is about the health of Canadians. That is rubbish. The bill is about whether MMT affects the onboard diagnostic systems in new vehicles in Canada and the United States. The claims that it affects the environment and the health of Canadians have been proven not to be true without

question both here and in the U.S. Those issues are simply red herrings.

The matter of the onboard diagnostic computer systems is another issue. It is a fact that in the U.S. onboard diagnostic systems have been failing and are unreliable. The technology has not been developed to the point where it is reliable. In fact the EPA in the United States had to lower the standards for certification of automobile diagnostic systems simply because the technology could not meet the required standards. That is the problem. It is not MMT.

In the United States the issue has been studied to death and it has been proven that MMT is not the villain. The technology simply is not developed to the point where it can be reliable. We have to focus on the issue rather than going off on tangents on the side.

Ethanol is another example. We hear time and time again that it is a product which is available to replace MMT and that it will produce cleaner air. Again it is hogwash. People from the refineries tell me that ethanol is not a substitute for MMT. It will not replace MMT when MMT is banned. Gasolines will simply be further refined to reach the octane rating that can now be obtained with MMT. Further refining will cause higher pollution and higher costs both for the consumer and for the refining industry.

Let us keep the debate where it belongs. What is taking place here, as far as I can see at least, is a payback for those who supported the Liberal Party's return to power after nine years in purgatory.

The facts that have been brought out in the debate on the MMT issue simply do not support the action the government is taking. The only reliable reason I can see for the government to push this matter, in spite of all the evidence before it, is simply that it is responding to the masters who supported that political party and its subsequent election to the Government of Canada.

Let us keep it in perspective but let us also, for once in the House, make a decision based on reasonable evidence and on what is good for the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian consumer. Let us look at the facts, judge the facts and make a decision based on them instead of make a decision based on what is politically good.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue again. I listened to the members from the opposite side and I am absolutely amazed at the blatant untruths that are being spewed forth from members opposite. I have studied this issue very carefully and there is simply no independent evidence to support the statements we have just heard being made.

There is all sorts of evidence to support exactly the opposite. The Canadian Department of Health did studies and concluded there was absolutely no detrimental effect to the health of Canadians or anyone else by using MMT. That is simply factual evidence. The government continues to spew forth studies from the Canadian Automobile Association which it refuses to release to the public and so we can neither deny nor verify them. It is simply not true.

I fail to understand what is really driving the agenda. We heard some comments about the ethanol industry and how we should give the industry a leg up, which I suppose means subsidization of an industry that cannot compete on an equal playing field. We certainly do not support that kind of initiative. If the ethanol industry can exist viably without taxpayer subsidization then good for it. We wish the industry all the luck.

In speaking with the refiners in Canada that refine and formulate our gasolines, they assure me that even if MMT were banned ethanol would not replace MMT as a gasoline additive. The only thing banning MMT would do would force refiners to be more intensive in their refining process, to use more crude oil, to refine it further, causing higher CO2 emissions, higher benzene emissions and higher sulphur emissions. Again those facts simply do not back up what is being said.

There was some debate when I spoke the other day on this matter about whether the minister had met with Ethyl Corporation, the other side of the issue. I specifically said she has consistently refused to meet with both sides of the issue to discuss it and to listen to all the facts. After having spoken on it and after having had the debate with members opposite I checked to make sure I was correct. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute wrote to me. It also wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. The letter reads:

I listened with interest to the second reading debate on Bill C-94 and while I do not agree with your position in this matter, I appreciate your interest in this subject. I would, however, like to address one issue you raised with the member from Athabasca, Mr. David Chatters, during the question and comment period following his speech.

Mr. Chatters quite correctly pointed out that Minister Copps has refused to meet with representatives of Ethyl. In reply, you stated twice that the minister met twice with CPPI as a representative of Ethyl, on this issue.

I want to be completely clear on this point. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute does not now, nor has it ever, spoken on behalf of Ethyl Canada or Ethyl Corporation. Ethyl is not a member of CPPI, as membership is limited to producers and marketers of motor gasoline.

Representatives of Ethyl have met once with the minister's staff and have met on a few occasions with departmental officials. We have asked for, and been refused a meeting with the minister.

I would ask that you correct this statement at your earliest opportunity.

Clearly there is a lot of confusion, a lot of misinformation and a lot of untruth surrounding the issue. The government repeatedly claims to promote the reduction of interprovincial trade barriers and to promote trade between the provinces. On the issue the minister of the environment for Alberta said: "It is unclear that the removal of MMT from gasoline has a net environmental benefit. Alberta favours the design of a suitable binding process to resolve the dispute in a fair and timely fashion. An open multi-stakeholder review of the environmental and economic merits of MMT should be key to the dispute resolution mechanism to credibly solve the vehicle fuel compatibility issue".

I have a letter from Michael Shaw, deputy minister of the environment and resource management for Saskatchewan, to Mel Cappe, deputy minister of Environment Canada, which reads:

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association has not convinced Saskatchewan and the majority of the provinces that there is any evidence to show that MMT has an adverse effect on the onboard diagnostic systems.

It continues:

We are also concerned with the impact this decision has on the 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 benefits to air quality by this action.

I have a letter from the minister of the environment for Nova Scotia, Wayne Adams, which reads:

We have recently expressed concerns to the federal Minister of the Environment's stated intention to legislate a ban on the use of this additive.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has established a task force on cleaner vehicles and fuels. The mandate of this task group includes the development of options for setting minimum standards for reformulated fuels as a measure to improve air quality. The assessment will be done in such a way as to provide a national approach and the continued use of MMT in Canada will undoubtedly be one of the issues reviewed. The results of an independent study and the benefits and detriments of MMT would undoubtedly be considered.

David Wilson, the provincial minister of the environment for New Brunswick, said: "It seems there are two opposing views on the value of MMT to the environment. Perhaps an independent review is warranted".

Norman Brandson, Manitoba's deputy minister of the environment, said:

The potential negative impacts or positive benefits arising from the continued use of MMT as an additive to unleaded fuels seems to be an issue that includes comprehension of significant technical information. There needs to be a resolution that will be in the best interests of the environment and the consumer, for both the short and long term.

It would be much preferred that this issue could be resolved directly between the industries involved (the manufacturer of vehicles and those providing the fuels for those vehicles).

I would hardly deem that as support for the initiative from the provinces.

Again we go back to the statements that are being made on the issue continually from the opposite side of the House. Again I reiterate that I cannot understand what is driving the agenda because the evidence is so clear and indisputably against what the government has been saying on the issue.

The Minister of the Environment said:

Some companies have indicated that, rather than accept the possibility of increased warranty repair costs, they may disconnect OBDs or reduce vehicle warranty coverage unless steps are taken to remove MMT from unleaded gasolines in Canada.

That simply is not a valid statement. In blaming MMT for the onboard diagnostic problems the automakers have not disclosed that the automobile industry has experienced substantial technical difficulties in complying with the onboard diagnostic II requirements in the U.S. where MMT is not currently being used and has not been used for 18 years. It is not MMT that is causing problems with the onboard diagnostic equipment. It is simply that the technology has not been perfected and developed to the point where it is reliable.

Another statement by the minister reads that removing MMT "will ensure that the most up to date equipment used to reduce air pollution with will not be jeopardized by components in the fuel".

That comes from the Environment Canada news release on May 19, 1995 and is simply not true. The automakers are blaming MMT for onboard diagnostic problems with certification that I spoke about before. The government has blindly accepted that argument without any studies or without any facts, or at least without any independent studies of the auto making industry.

The next statement reads: "The automobile industry is convinced that MMT has an adverse effect on the operation of vehicle emission control components including sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems". That statement is also from an Environment Canada news release May 19, 1995. It continues: "The automobile manufacturers have failed to demonstrate any adverse effects related to MMT and have not disclosed onboard II certification problems in the U.S. Most of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association information on onboard computers has been previously rejected by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. court of appeals".

Before the end of the year MMT will again be used in the United States, which would mean that if we are to achieve formulation compatibility between the two countries, as was the wish of the Minister of Industry, we would then be required to leave MMT in the formulation rather than remove it.

If one cares to look at the evidence-and it does not seem to be very important in the debate that is taking place-there simply is no strong independent evidence that MMT has caused any of the problems we spoke about.

It is very important that we step back, take another look and do some independent studies in the time we have before the product is again released in the U.S. to verify this argument one way or the other. That is a reasonable request and one based on the evidence before us.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting presentation.

I would certainly agree with the member's presentation if it was a level playing field. If independent studies could show me reliably that MMT is harmful to the environment and ethanol could be produced in competition with MMT without government subsidization and the industry could stand on its own, then I would accept his argument as realistic. In that case we certainly should go ahead, but exactly the opposite is true.

The fact is that the ethanol industry is not a viable industry in today's technology. Some day it may be and good for it if it is. Certainly the other side of the argument is that MMT has not been proven to be harmful to the environment. The endless studies done by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States have stated that it is not harmful to the environment. In Canada the Minister of Health states that it is not harmful to the health of Canadians. In fact, by banning it we raise the levels of nitrous oxide. By banning it through the extra refining processes that must be done to obtain an equal octane rating in gasoline the refineries have to substantially raise the emissions of CO2 and benzene.

The argument that it is a product of the past and we have to move on because it is so harmful to the environment and we should spend tax dollars to subsidize the ethanol industry is a false one. I ask the member to respond to that.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask this question because I do not hear the question coming from the opposite benches and I think it is an important issue.

After we have heard all of the discussion about using ethanol as a substitute for MMT, given that the two products are equally effective and setting aside the argument of whether one is better for the environment or not, I would ask my colleague to tell the House why this government would not choose to ban MMT in favour of ethanol in gasoline as an octane enhancer.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

I heard her and I questioned the validity of that remark. I think it is a legitimate question and I will continue to raise it.

She also raised a lot of other issues. I might point to the one concerning sparkplug failure. In a very emotional manner she raised the issue of Canadians having to change their sparkplugs 17 times more frequently than Americans. However in an independent, valid and verifiable study it was concluded that was an absolute fraud. One particular sparkplug failed 17 times more often than others simply because of a flaw in the manufacture of that sparkplug. It did the same with MMT or without MMT. It had no significance.

If I am not allowed to raise questions concerning the validity of the comments made by the minister, then what am I doing here? I believe my question was valid and reasonable and I will continue to raise it.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly was in the House. I called into question her sincerity in offering to meet with all the parties involved in this issue. That is not my understanding of what has happened. I raised what I think is a valid question. According to my information, she consistently refused to meet with-

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite perhaps sheds some light on the mysterious position of the minister and the government on this issue.

I was under the impression the issue here was one of a problem with onboard diagnostic equipment and environmental protection. He raises the issue of perhaps finding a way to force the refining industry to use a Canadian product rather than an imported American product. Perhaps that has something to do with the position the government has taken on this issue. Others would find interesting under the free trade agreement with the United States that it would choose to do that. That was not my understanding as part of this issue.

Certainly the people who turn my crank on this issue are my constituents and the Canadian people who are being sold a con job, a fraud job on this whole issue because the environment minister and the government refuse to do independent studies on the issue and to gather independent unbiased information. They choose rather to accept solely without question all the evidence presented by the one stakeholder in the issue.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is not who has met whom and on whose behalf but whether both sides in this issue have had a chance to argue directly with the minister the question at hand and whether both sides have had an equal chance to produce unbiased independent studies on the issue, which has not been the case in Canada.

This issue has been studied to death in the United States. The conclusion by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been that MMT has no detrimental effect on the environment, on health, on the onboard computer equipment in cars. That should indicate at least some doubt in the minds of the Minister of the Environment and the parliamentary secretary to the validity of the automobile manufacturers association's evidence, which it have refused to provide to the public.

The very lease we should do is provide an opportunity in Canada for independent study, independent of both stakeholders in this issue. We should then make a decision based on that impartial, independent evidence. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by Ethyl Corporation, one of the stakeholders in this issue, the other being the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers Association, that the Minister of the Environment refused to meet with it. That is the information I have to go with.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by question period I attempted to raise substantive questions concerning the position taken by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association as voiced through the Minister of the Environment.

In continuing my presentation, I would like to talk about some of the difficulties that will be imposed on Canadians if this bill is to proceed and become law.

On April 25, the Minister of Industry stated that it was crucial to have uniformity of standards in gasoline formulation in the North American market because we exist in one North American market. I hope that the minister still agrees with that statement and still agrees that it is crucial to have uniformity of standards, particularly since the U.S. court of appeals has now ordered that the U.S. EPA grant Ethyl Corporation's application for waiver, paving the way for the use of MMT in unleaded gasolines in the United States. In fact, several refiners in the U.S. have provided written notice of their intention to use MMT in gasoline formulation.

Uniformity of gasoline additives within North America would now require that Canada maintain rather than restrict MMT. Certainly it should not mean that it is no longer crucial to maintain that uniformity of standards.

Also the refining industry has raised a number of objections to the initiative, basically that it would increase the cost to refiners and it will increase refinery emissions. A 1995 study by T.J. McCann and Associates Limited of Calgary concluded that removing MMT from Canadian gasolines would add significantly to the refinery cost for formulating gasoline and increase the severity of the refining process required to achieve cleaner burning fuels, leading to increased refinery emissions and higher oil consumption.

The Minister of the Environment made much of need to control pollution in this country. The study by Calgary based T.J. McCann and Associates and Environ International Limited of California showed the likely range of increase in nitrous oxide emissions if MMT were banned. The testing utilized Environment Canada's own criteria, Mobile 5-C data and Ethyl fleet test data. The study concluded that the banning of MMT would increase Canadian nitrous oxide emissions from its vehicle fleet by 32,000 to 50,000 tonnes by the year 2000, an equivalent of adding over one million automobiles to Canadian roads.

Last May, Environ California concluded that Environment Canada and the McCann study underestimated the annual increases in tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions that would result from the removal of MMT. Environ examined the inappropriate use and application of the Mobile 5C emission factor by Environment Canada and concluded that Canadian nitrous oxide emissions increases resulting from the removal of MMT would range between 49,000 and 62,000 tonnes.

Putting these studies in a non-technical format, removing MMT would increase nitrous oxide levels from automobiles by up to 20 per cent. I cannot believe the Canadian Minister of the Environment is pushing legislation that would increase pollution in Canada.

Almost all provinces in Canada oppose this initiative by the environment minister. In the interest of time I will quote Alberta's position. Ty Lund, Alberta's minister for environmental protection, said:

It is unclear that the removal of MMT from gasoline has net environmental benefits.

Alberta favours the design of a suitable, binding process to resolve the dispute in a fair and timely fashion. An open, multi-stakeholder review of the environmental and economic merits of MMT should be key to this dispute resolution mechanism to credibly solve the vehicle-fuel compatibility issue.

Further, Alberta is concerned that the actions of the federal government to affect the interprovincial trade of MMT appear to contradict the provision found in the energy chapter of the draft agreement on international trade. Article 1209, section 1 of the draft agreement currently states: "No party shall prohibit or hinder access to its petroleum markets or its petroleum products markets". It is our understanding that the intent of the federal-provincial agreement was to remove interprovincial barriers to trade in petroleum products.

I also have similar objections from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

When we examine all the evidence before us and if we examine the evidence impartially we cannot help but to at least conclude there is some doubt to the argument and position put forward by the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers Association.

Based on that information it is only reasonable that instead of passing this bill the government should ask-in my mind there is no doubt-if there still remains a doubt and ask for an independent study to determine what the affect of MMT in gasoline is required in Canada.

The minister says she has seen numerous studies on the issue in Canada but those studies come from only from the automobile manufacturers association which has refused to release those studies or the minister has refused to table those studies in the House so that we might all have a look at them in order to decide whether they are legitimate studies containing legitimate evidence.

I challenge not only the Minister of Industry to reject this bill and vote against it, but I challenge Alberta's only representative in cabinet, the Minister of Natural Resources, who professes to support the industry and Alberta's position, to vote against the bill on that basis.

I am disappointed that Canada's environment minister has been unwilling to listen to both sides in this argument and judge the evidence from both sides. She chose instead to simply voice, as a political puppet, the concerns of the motor vehicle manufacturers association and carry it forward on its behalf instead of taking the interest of all Canadians into consideration on this issue.