Julian Reed

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the member's colleagues brought up the question of waiting until the United States made its final decision and so on regarding the future of MMT. I should just point out to him that in the United States the tax relief on ethanol gasoline has doubled what it is in Canada. They gave it a leg up.

I should also point out to him that in the United States 39 cities mandate the use of gasolines containing ethanol for environmental reasons. This is because of what is called ground level ozone.

My colleague, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister, talked about ground level ozone. Some people believe it is not a problem in Canada and that it really does not exist. If we divide the ozone emissions into the square footage of Canada it is not a problem. It does not exist. However, if we take the area of metropolitan Toronto, the Ottawa valley, Montreal, Vancouver or southwestern Ontario it is a serious problem. It was a problem this last summer with ozone warnings that stayed with us for a number of weeks. The previous year I believe it stayed on for two weeks.

There are real reasons that we might want to give an industry a leg up. In this case it is not subsidy but excise removal. We can worry about the semantics of it but the fact is that the most industrialized country in the world has seen fit to promote ethanol this year. In 1995, 45 new ethanol plants are being built in the United States. There is only one reason for that. They want ethanol as an additive. In the United States right now 8 per cent of all gasoline has an ethanol additive. That is pretty substantial when we consider that the whole thing began very few years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by how hard things die. Here we have a situation where a product has been on the market and it was discovered nearly 20 years ago that there were problems with it. It was discovered about 10 years ago in Canada by the Ministry of the Environment that there were some problems with it. Now there is an alternative.

I do not blame the vested interests that keep promoting these things, but the fact is that it has taken a long time for reality to set in and for life to take its course, as it should.

I would like to go back a little in terms of the history of fuel additives. In about 1928 it was discovered that tetra-ethyl lead added to gasoline would enhance the octane and provide some upper cylinder lubrication to engines. It was called the anti-knock compound and was produced by the Ethyl Corporation. At the same time another body of equally distinguished scientists and chemists promoted the idea of ethanol in gasolines. As a matter of fact, Henry Ford had been a strong advocate of ethanol. His first Model T ran on pure ethanol.

The debate raged through the 1930s and finally lead won out over ethanol. It is an interesting story. According to the information I have, the Du Pont Corporation owned and controlled the Ethyl Corporation of America and it also held 24 per cent of General Motors' stock. Consequently, General Motors became a promoter of lead. In 1929 Ford stopped putting extra jets on carburettors so that ethanol could be burned. That is not the only story like that in history.

When I was a young person spraying the apple trees at our home farm, I used arsenical to kill grubs and worms. It was discovered during my early teenage years that arsenic really was a heavy metal and it was not very nice to spray on trees and on the ground. Finally, by the time I got to agricultural college a solution had been found to the problem-mercurial. Mercurials were going to be the be-all and end-all. It was not for many years, too many for me to admit to, that industry realized that products used in these areas have to be biodegradable, able to return to the soil from whence they originate. The same realization is slowly coming with our fuel additives.

So we went to lead. It was discovered that lead really was not what we wanted to be spewing around into the environment in ever increasing quantities. When government decided to take lead out, a substitute was found, which was going to be the miracle replacement for lead. It was another heavy metal, methyl manganese. There are a lot of $10 words following that one that I am not prepared to repeat.

For almost a generation we have realized that there are some difficulties. The people who support one side of the case and the other side of the case make their stories, but we know now that there is a better substitute. There is a substitute.

My friend from Athabasca felt that one of the motivations of the government was because the product ethanol could be manufactured in Canada. That has not been a motivation of the government. It is one of my motivations, because I believe that a Canadian ethanol industry has potential to be one of the great things for Canadian agriculture.

Since the government did its little arrangement about a year ago, about $300 million has been committed in Ontario alone for ethanol development. If ethanol were to replace MMT at the rate of 10 per cent in Canada, it would take approximately 10 investments of the size that are taking place in Ontario right now in order to fill that need. One can see that there is great potential.

The cost of ethanol has been raised, and it is a very legitimate argument. What about the cost? The cost of grain is increasing at the present time, and of course grain is a cyclical thing.

The answer to that is twofold. One is that the cost of grain is not the only factor in determining the cost of ethanol production. There are by-products. If we are making ethanol from wheat, gluten and some of these other things are important products and they are important in the economics of the ethanol industry. If we are making it from corn, corn oil, distillers grains, distillers solubles and so on, they are also very important by-products and they are quite meaningful when we are calculating the cost.

The other part of the cost equation is not just eight cents, which was the excise tax on ethanol. The cost of any fuel is not just the direct cost. The cost of a shovelful of coal is not whether you are going to pay 30 cents or a dollar for that shovelful of coal. It has to be looked upon as the whole cost. What is the cost of the impact on the environment? There is a dollar attachment to those things now. Things can be costed. I think I once saw the word monetized. When you have emissions into the environment, they carry with them a real cost, a real impact cost.

When we talk about substituting ethanol in gasoline for MMT, the actual cost of the ethanol itself is not the true cost. The injection of MMT and the cost of MMT is not the true cost. The whole costing is what is really important here.

If we have a product like ethanol that is going to result in certain reductions in emissions, which are positive, I think of carbon monoxide and I think of carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon monoxide is touted to be reduced by about 20 per cent or 25 per cent and carbon dioxide by approximately 15 per cent.

Then we get to the cost of nitrous oxide, which tends to offset that to a certain extent. But I beg you to look at the figures when you are looking at the emissions, because nitrous oxide is the smallest of all the emissions. It is very tiny. If you were to increase the nitrous oxide emissions by 150 per cent, you are still looking at 150 per cent of zip. However, it is the only emission that increases in this whole scenario.

A comment was made about looking for one type of gasoline. I am not sure how that is evaluated. There are about four types of gasoline on the market right now. Most of them are based on octane. One of them is based on whether or not there is an ethanol additive which is presently increasing in interest and usage. About two years ago there were 50 outlets selling gasoline containing an ethanol additive. Right now there are 500 and the prognosis is that there will be 5,000 within the next two years.

The oil companies should not be the least bit concerned about enhancing their product with ethanol versus MMT. The kind of raw product they produce is a little different. The vapour pressure of the two is different but that is really where it ends. In terms of a public relations gesture they should be able able to say that they are striving for a cleaner product. Here it is a cleaner product when they used ethanol instead of MMT.

As I say, I do not blame the Ethyl Corporation for wanting to protect its turf. One of the things I would say to a company like the Ethyl Corporation is that there is a time when one has to put the past by and move on into the future. If I were that corporation right now I would be looking very hard at producing ethanol, ETBE or whatever in order to get on into a more modern mode.

We cannot spend our whole lives trying to hang onto the past forever and ever. The fact is too that some refineries have already made the switch to ethanol. I do not know whether my friend from Athabasca buys gasoline at Mohawk outlets, but the Mohawk adopted this some time ago and promoted it in Ontario.

Sunoco is refining ethanol gasoline and does it because it considers it to be good business. In Canada it should be considered good business.

We are starting to use grain to produce ethanol and it is helping agriculture. That will become a base line now. As science and technology and research and development continue in the production process the next natural move is into cellulosic waste, sawdust, wood waste and so on. That technology is known now. It is being done commercially in France but it is not competitive yet. When it is competitive in Canada, it will be more competitive probably than ethanol from grain. That is only a few years down the road.

What we are dealing with here is simply the conflict between moving on to something that is better and finally putting past us something we have been hanging onto for nearly two decades. According to what I know we are the only country left in the world

that is using MMT. Even tiny Bulgaria considered using MMT and turned it down for whatever reason. We have every reason to get on with the modern age and let things move.

The automobile industry is supporting it for its own reasons. Whether or not those studies are correct it is amazing that all the studies the automobile companies did were independent unto themselves and they all came to the same conclusion. That is very interesting in terms of emission controls or the monitoring that reads the emissions and indicates whether or not the emission control system is working properly. Canadian citizens deserve to have on their cars the most modern emission control systems as can be manufactured and researched. I do not think we want to accept second best in order to continue on the importation of this manganese product in our gasoline.

My humble submission is yes we should get on with the job, allow the past to go by and get on with the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Athabasca initially made what one would consider a rather unwise accusation in his speech. He suggested the government was succumbing to big powers or big business or the shakers and movers in the country and so on.

I listened intently when he talked about the wisdom of continuing to use this American produced product and I wondered where he was getting his information and the kind of thing he was reading into the record.

The first of three questions is who is turning his crank? Who is cheering him on to stand up and deliver his own set of figures especially when a perfectly valid Canadian produced substitute is available?

No oil refiner would feel threatened in any way to be substituting an oxygenate like ETBE or ethanol or whatever for MMT. Some refineries are in the forefront of that change right now. He suggested refineries have been reporting they would have increased emissions. Did all refineries say that? Some refineries are a way out in front.

He referred to the pollutant nitrous oxide. NOx is the one pollutant whose quantity increases without the use of MMT or with the inclusion of an oxygenate, but it increases from what? What is the base line of the pollutant?

If the pollutant increase were 150 per cent it would still be incredibly small. How does that tiny increase in nitrous oxide emission compare with the decreases in all of the other emissions when one takes MMT out?

Maybe it is not fair to ask the hon. member to deliver statistics but I want to get on the record the fact that NOx, while it is an admitted pollutant, is not the big ticket item here. There are other things.

In terms of the minister's supporting the industry she has supported the petroleum industry very well and has been written up. Her support has been publicized.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I remind my friend from Comox-Alberni his accusation of the government's not reading the mood of the people is quite interesting. The latest polls came out this morning, showing the Reform Party at a resounding 10 per cent. That is a drop of about about half from what it was at the time of the election.

I ask the hon. member if he has ever terminated employment at some time and tried to resume a career after that termination? The hon. member is probably not as old as I am and so he is probably more marketable as a commodity in the private sector than I am at my age.

A large number of his colleagues in the Reform Party will be facing that onerous challenge at the end of this term, the challenge of resuming a career in the private sector. Members of the Reform Party for the sake of the people who will follow them, some will be Reform members, should think seriously about that.

I have had that experience. Being self-employed I thought it would be the easiest thing in the world to terminate my career in Ontario politics and resume my previous career. It took four years to resume that income level, that level of activity. When I went back I was a different person. Many of my colleagues I have worked with and worked for prior to that time had gone on to other things and some had even died. It was a matter of starting all over again.

I respectfully ask the member, whose righteousness reflects his colleagues', if he has ever had that experience and if he really knows what it is like to go back.

[Alternative Fuels Act, June 16th, 1995]

My friend says that we cannot afford it. I always said that if we had a surplus of it we could drink it.

The fact is that all of these fuels, while they may be a little more expensive at the present time, will find a niche market as times goes by. As production increases in efficiency, the cost per unit will decline. When the transition occurs, when the demand for petroleum resources puts the prices through the roof, Canada

will be in the driver's seat and will be able to lead the world in the supply of alternate fuels. It is a natural that will happen and we have this glorious opportunity to help it along.

We are on the cusp of the future. No longer can Canada be looked at as a country we can put a fence around. We have to think of our resources as being marketable to the world. We have to think of where the demand is going to go as the population accelerates, as it will in the next 25 or 30 years, and we will have to be ready for that. This is one bill which will get us ready for it and put us in a position of leadership.

[Alternative Fuels Act, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, every now and again, and not often enough, a nation has an opportunity to provide leadership to not only its people but to people in other countries.

Every now and again its elected political people in the democratic process have a golden opportunity to participate in that leadership. Every now and again those elected people who want to participate in that leadership have to drag along other elected people who want to keep the country in the dark ages.

We are on the threshold of beginning the energy transition from a hydrocarbon energy economy to a carbohydrate energy economy. Petroleum resources are finite. Their reserves are declining.

As exploration reaches farther out into more difficult areas, the product becomes more and more expensive. At the same time, the consumption of these products is increasing, particularly when we witness the explosion of industrial growth in nations that were considered third world less than a generation ago. I refer specifically to China and India with a combined population of approximately two billion souls.

Therefore, it is essential that we as an industrialized nation begin to look seriously at bringing alternative energy forms on line. Hence the creation of Bill S-7 to the credit of Sen. Colin Kenny who had the vision and has exploited the vision. I am proud to stand here today hoping to bring this bill to fruition so that we can begin the transition of 75 per cent of the national fleet to alternate fuels by the year 2004.

That transition will not be limited to just those fuels that are named in Bill S-7. Since that bill was written, two more fuels have emerged with great potential, not only for the economy of western Canada, but also to enlarge the options available to individuals.

The question was raised why is legislation preferable to guidelines. The guidelines have been in place since 1976 and nothing has happened. The neanderthals remain in place and nothing moves. Obviously it is necessary to legislate.

There is one more reason for legislating. Bringing something new on stream is a chicken and egg situation. If one does not have enough demand for the fuel then the distributors of the fuel cannot afford to set up to supply the fuel. The manufacturers of the vehicles really cannot afford to retool to supply vehicles that will burn alternative fuels. This is the chicken and the egg. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a critical mass of alternative fuel burning vehicles so the distribution system will follow.

Because the country is beginning to move in that direction, two of our major automobile manufacturers, General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, are now in a position to supply vehicles to the market which will burn up to 85 per cent ethanol or any combination from straight gasoline on up at no additional cost. We have an obligation to get the stream started and get things rolling.

My hon. friend in the Reform Party talked about the undesirability of having crown corporations included in the conversion process. One crown corporation, Canada Post, has a major competitor that advertised it used alternate cleaner burning fuels. If I were the manager of the Canada Post Corporation I would be clamouring to convert my fleet of delivery trucks, vans and whatever to alternate fuels and advertise it in order to get the public relations value. Crown corporations need to be included.

I remember a comment being made when we were in committee by someone regarding the conversion of some vehicles of the RCMP and how undesirable that would be because they needed pursuit vehicles. I had to remind that gentleman the Indy 500 which had run two weeks earlier was not run on gasoline but on methanol. The idea that some conversions produce a little less is just not plausible.

I also had the opportunity to tour the Pratt and Whitney plant in my riding last Monday. It has already completed all the work on burning ethanol in jet engines for the Brazilian government. The technology is already in place and all ready to go.

I know my friend in the Reform Party does not like the word ethanol. Somehow it does not have a nice ring to it. He comes from western Canada and I would think he would be an enthusiastic supporter of ethanol as one of the options which is available to us.

[Bosnia, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I call on all members of the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Kresimir Zubak, president of the federation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Mr. Vladislav Pogarcic, deputy minister of foreign affairs for the Bosnian federation.

The federation of Bosnia-Hercegovina was created last year in Washington, D.C. Its creation signalled a small step toward peace in what has been a tragic and lengthy war. The federation is currently comprised of Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims who have agreed to work together toward a lasting peace.

The tragic events in Bosnia have touched us all. Television images have haunted us, as have our concerns for the safety of the hundreds of Canadian peacekeepers currently in Bosnia.

We pray for an end to the fighting in Bosnia-Hercegovina and we wish Mr. Zubak much luck in his endeavours to find a lasting peace in his homeland.

[Grand Parents' Day Act, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to second the bill on grandparents day, declaring the second Sunday in September every year national grandparents day.

Earlier this month I introduced a bill which would declare 1995 the year of the grandparent. I believe this is the third time this year grandparents have been recognized by various parties in the House. During the last debate, on May 2 of this year, there was a unanimous endorsement of that private member's bill.

It was rather disappointing that the committee assessing the bill considered it non-votable. Whether the arguments I put to the committee were not convincing enough, I am not sure. Perhaps I should bear some responsibility for that. Nevertheless, the feelings in the House crossed all party lines, a rare occurrence. I wonder whether in this, the third instance of recognition of grandparents this year, the hackneyed phrase family values has again risen to the fore in our society.

In the debate on May 2 there some statements registered very strongly with me. One was that grandparents are a pillar of our existence. I had the privilege of having one grandparent whose strength and values were imparted to me as strongly as those of my parents. He was a pillar of my existence.

I have underlined showing the way by example. Grandparents do their very best in leading by way of example. They impart those examples to their grandchildren. The word wisdom caught my attention. Grandparents are most often much wiser than parents because of the accumulation of experience and the way they can interpret life for their grandchildren.

Another word which came up was tolerance. As we grow older we tend to be either more tolerant or less tolerant. I have found the grandparents of our children and my own grandfather had tolerance. They set the standard for tolerance.

They provide strength and enrich the family. When things go wrong, as they often do in family life, grandparents are often a source of strength and security. Children need to feel secure on a continuing basis. It cannot be a start and stop affair or catch as catch can. Very often grandparents can fill the role of providing security. That leads me to one of the great concerns all of us in the House share. With the divorce rate and the break-up of families very often grandparents at the present time find themselves without access to their grandchildren.

I will be doing everything I can to make sure that state is changed so grandparents in future will be able to have proper access to grandchildren especially at the time in their lives when they need them so badly.

Other words I found are grace and dignity. I have talked about family strength. The grandfather I had a great experience with lived by a very strict code. He imposed a code of conduct on himself, for which he was admired by so many in the small community where we lived.

He did not always preach about it. He did not always try to impose it, although sometimes he looked with wonderment at the way the world seemed to change. We all agree the more things change, the more they remain the same.

As I get older I find myself more appreciative of that code my grandfather imparted to me. I hope some of that has by example been shared with our children who did not know that great-grandfather.

They also knew grandparents; they grew up with more grandparents than I had. Those grandparents were wonderful people in the way they helped our family, the graciousness with which they accepted responsibility we often imposed on them when they took care of our children, when we needed them.

Grandparents have a much stronger role to play in family life than society has acknowledged to this point. The year 1995, with the recognition and debate we have put forward in the House, should set the stage for the years to come as recognizing the importance of the family and the role grandparents have in it.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 167 signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, the first containing 40 signatures.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code and the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.