Charles Caccia

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

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, for whom I have the greatest respect, no matter where the automotive industry is located, the industry serves Canadians from coast to coast, regardless of their location.

Here we are talking, among other things, of meeting the requirements of the customers in terms of warranty and in terms of the ability of the car owner to determine whether through the diagnostic system the anti-pollution devices can work or not.

The hon. member is shaking his head, but that is a fact. If he has more information to add, I would be glad to listen to him in this debate.

The member for Comox-Alberni spoke about the importance of independent testing. I am told that independent testing has been carried out by both sides of the debate, by the car manufacturers as well as by the petroleum industry. How much more independent testing does the member for Comox-Alberni want? Does he realize that testing is expensive, that it takes

time? And while further tests are taking place, as proposed by him, the manufacturing industry is in the process of producing the diagnostic devices, which will then not be switched on or connected if the MMT additive is not removed from gasoline. Therefore everybody will be losing in the process.

Has the member for Comox-Alberni given any thought to all the consequences of his suggestion flowing from further independent testing?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to inquire whether you are permitting questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to start off this debate on a bill concerning a fuel additive called manganese.

In English it is referred to in technical terms as MMT, nevertheless implying that we are dealing here with a substance called according to a technical name, MMT. It contains a chemical substance called manganese. It is well known in chemistry as well as in geology and in the mineral disciplines as being one that can be dangerous to human health.

This bill aims very simply at bringing about a decision in Canada that was launched and concluded successfully south of the border well over 16 years ago, more precisely in 1978. At the time the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington concluded as a result of studies conducted there that it was essential in the public interest to do away with manganese as an additive to gasoline.

This bill attempts today to bring to the attention of members and the public the importance to do the same now in Canada, not just for environmental reasons but also for technical reasons, not just for public health reasons but also because the automotive industry has by virtue of technological change reached a level where it actually depends on the elimination of manganese from gasoline.

It must be said for the record that Canada is probably the only country in the world that is still using manganese. As a result of that, for the reasons I have just outlined, the situation has reached a point where it is absolutely essential that we move on this issue and deal with it.

The engineers in the automotive industry are telling us that manganese impairs the performance of pollution control equipment in cars and trucks. The automakers in Canada and in the United States are now producing cars with systems that can tell the driver how well and whether the pollution control equipment is working.

Manganese in gasoline does not permit automakers to give the driver of the vehicle the benefit of using the pollution control equipment because manganese is incompatible with this kind of equipment. I am told that automakers will have to disconnect this kind of equipment in Canada if gasoline continues to contain manganese.

The consequences for consumers are manifold. First the warranty of the engine will be affected. It will not be extended as far as it could be extended with this kind of equipment to the benefit of the consumer. Second the performance of the engine could be affected because of the inability of the driver to know whether certain parts of the equipment are functioning. The third consequence is complementary to the second point: the driver will not know whether the catalytic converter is working or not, whether the anti-pollution devices in the car are properly functioning and therefore the driver will not know whether the equipment installed in the car is working in the manner it is supposed to in terms of pollution controls.

The scientists in our community are also informing us that manganese in gasoline means risking greater pollution in the form of smog, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.

Automakers in Canada have told the government they want the elimination of manganese in gasoline. They are technologically ready for it. Actually they are well beyond this point. They all say that manganese adversely affects the onboard diagnostic

systems, which is a fancy word for indicating the types of devices that inform the driver whether the anti-pollution equipment is working or not. In other words, the driver will not have the ability to tell whether or not the pollution control equipment installed in the car is working or not.

Members will quickly realize therefore the importance in the public interest of this measure proposed by the Minister of the Environment, who has been working on this initiative for some time already and who has been behind the scenes pushing the interested industries, petroleum on the one hand and the automakers on the other-and the latter is being quite keen and cooperative-to bring this matter to a solution without legislation.

It is only fair to say that the federal government has waited for the automotive and the petroleum industries to resolve this problem without legislation. Unfortunately, the problem has not been resolved.

The automakers at the very moment as we have this debate are now manufacturing the diagnostic system for the 1996 models. We are now debating this matter at the eleventh hour, and the government finds it necessary to present and pass this legislation in the speediest manner possible.

The government is doing this with three purposes in mind: number one, as I mentioned earlier, to protect human health; number two, to protect the warranty of the car to the benefit of the consumer; and number three, to take advantage of technological change and reap the benefits offered by these diagnostic systems, which are higher efficiency for the engine, lower consumption, and of course, quite important, pollution prevention.

The question might arise as to who is opposed to this bill. Obviously the only opposition at this stage can be identified among those who are the suppliers of manganese, some multinational companies, which do not really have at heart the public interest.

Remember that MMT, the substance that contains manganese, was banned already in 1978 and for very precise health reasons. This issue has been on the agenda of publicly concerned legislators for some time.

Members remember leaded gasoline. Lead is one of the most poisonous substances which poses a danger to human health, particularly to children. It has been removed therefore from gasoline, from toys, from paints. Who was opposed at the time when lead was to be removed from these products? It was the very same people who now oppose the removal of manganese from gasoline.

It can be said in conclusion that in Canada there are 18 automobile companies that view this bill as needed and desirable. They see it of course from their perspective as being involved in the motor vehicle production centre. As a Parliament we have to take a view also to include health considerations and consumer protection considerations. It is therefore for these three reasons put together that we think this is a bill that commands the attention and positive reception on the part of colleagues and members of this House in the hope that they will consider it in a favourable manner tonight and give it speedy consideration so it can be passed and put at work for the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Alternative Fuels Act, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the argument just made by the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, I have to deal with the point he makes in relation to crown corporations. He says he does not want to interfere with the operations of crown corporations in implementing this measure.

I have to remind the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia that crown corporations are created by acts of Parliament. They express the will of the elected representatives and of the elected government.

Budgets of the crown corporations are scrutinized every year by committees of Parliament. They undergo therefore very close examination on the part of the political arm. Therefore there is nothing wrong in also asking crown corporations to adopt a measure that is economically and environmentally sound.

I begin to wonder whether the Reform Party is interested in economy and environmentally sound measures. I know for sure the member for Comox-Alberni is a very good environmentalist. I know also his colleague, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, is a very fine environmentalist and has proven that on a number of occasions.

Now the moment of truth has come for the Reform Party to show its true colours and to demonstrate where it really stands. As has been underlined on several occasions in this debate, the measure proposed in Bill S-7 to switch the use of fuels from fossil to alternative fuels just emerging in the marketplace would save the government $7 million in consumption and in maintenance terms.

That is not a minor feature considering the interest expressed by the Reform Party on reducing government expenditures. Here is a golden opportunity for the hon. member to demonstrate to his constituents and to the House that he means what he says. I hope he is not using crown corporations as an excuse for not supporting the bill because that would be a very sad matter.

The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia also made a plea for the marketplace to take care of this matter. We all know new technologies, new usages and new fuels when they appear on the market need some help. That is the intent of the bill before us.

Why is the bill before us? This is an important consideration. It relates to economic savings and we have gone over that a moment ago. We have a responsibility in relation to the trend in climate change. I am glad to learn the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia is a scientist. He must know the scientific community warned about the serious trends in climate change and climate warming. These are caused mostly because of our dependence on fossil fuels.

It would seem only logical, in the public interest and desirable that the government seek fuels less damaging in terms of climate change.

In the case of the fuels proposed in this bill we have an alternative approach that will cut in half the so-called greenhouse gases, helping the momentum in climate change which has attracted the attention of a number of international bodies and of a number of leading scientists in Canada .

Therefore it seems to me the Reform Party is at crossroads. I am sure it will want to demonstrate to Parliament and to the public that it means what it says, that it is really concerned as it claims at times with economic measures and environmental objectives.

The bill is well known because of interventions made by previous speakers. It demonstrates the time has come for us as a society, as consumers, to move away wherever possible and as rapidly as we can from our dependence on fossil fuels.

We are internationally committed to the stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000, taking the year 1990 as a base. At the rate we are at now we will reach the year 2000 with a minus 13 deficit; in other words, we are badly behind schedule.

In addition to that, in "Creating Opportunity" in 1993 we made a pledge to Canadian electors that we would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005 by 20 per cent. This measure is helping to move us in that direction and it seems every member of Parliament has a great opportunity to demonstrate we are taking to heart the public interest and that we want to take every opportunity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

[Nuclear Industry, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently the auditor general stated that Canada's serious nuclear waste disposal problem would require $9 billion to remedy. On top of this the government is now under pressure to provide $570 million in the form of a subsidy to the international thermonuclear experimental project, otherwise called ITER, a nuclear fusion megaproject.

I urge the government to turn down this subsidy request in keeping with the promise made in the last budget not to finance megaprojects. So far the nuclear industry has been subsidized by Ottawa to the tune of over $5 billion. Canadians can no longer afford to subsidize megaprojects.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I asked the Minister of the Environment whether the government planned to regulate emissions of dioxins, furans and hexachlorobenzenes from incinerators. I also asked whether the federal guideline for human exposure to dioxins and dioxin related compounds was adequate to protect human health. In response the minister stated that the exposure levels for dioxins and furans were under review by Health Canada.

Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds such as furans are highly toxic chemicals produced when various types of waste, particularly chlorinated plastics, are burned. Every day Canadians are exposed to dioxins and carry this persistent toxic compound in their bodies.

At present Canada's dioxin guideline is set at 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. It has been maintained that this level of exposure is safe. However a recently published review, which took three years to conduct, in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency pointed to dioxin being even more dangerous than was originally thought. The Environmental Protection Agency's reassessment found that even at extremely low levels dioxin affects human development, reproduction capacity and the immune system. The Environmental Protection Agency's reassessment of dioxin strongly suggests that safe levels of exposure set so far in the Canadian guidelines may no longer be safe or acceptable.

The time has come to shift the burden of proof so as to protect the environment and public health in this respect. The existence of safe doses needs to be re-examined because evidence from human epidemiological studies, from animal cancer studies and

from biochemical research tells us that dioxin represents a cancer hazard to people.

The findings of the Environmental Protection Agency suggest that the environment and our own bodies are already overburdened with dioxin-like compounds. Given the persistence and toxicity of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, one must conclude that the prudent course of action would be to prevent pollution, coupled most importantly with a reduction in our dependence on dioxin producing activities such as incineration.

In this context I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to inform the House whether the federal government intends to take steps to phase out airborne dioxin emissions from incinerators across Canada and to reassess the Canadian guidelines for exposure to dioxins presently set at 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day.

I am looking forward to hearing the parliamentary secretary's reply.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Return, June 12th, 1995]

What is the total amount of federal public money, in 1995 dollars, that has been given to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) since its inception?

Return tabled.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that is humbly submitted by over 250 petitioners who are residents of Burlington, Mississauga, Toronto, and further points.

The petitioners are asking for an extension of the stay outside Canada for landed immigrants from the present 183 days to two years, the reason being that the care of property back home requires attention for a period that is longer than what is presently permitted under the law.

[Law Of The Sea Convention, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

As he knows, the law of the sea convention protects the world's fisheries and prevents ocean pollution. It came into force in 1994. Canada is among the nations who have yet to ratify it.

Having celebrated international oceans day last week, I would like to ask the minister whether he can say when Canada will ratify the international law of the sea.

[Environment, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently the United States Senate passed legislation allowing oil and gas development on the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd in the Alaskan wildlife refuge. This action contravenes a 1987 agreement recognizing Canadian and American joint responsibility to protect the habitat of the Porcupine caribou herd and the Gwich'in people who depend on it.

I urge the government to ensure both the continuation of the U.S. government's commitment and the right of the Gwich'in people to their traditional food source and longstanding way of life. We owe this action to our aboriginal people.