Alan Tonks

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the motivations of my colleague in bringing forward a bill that aims at improving the environmental performance of vehicles through more environmentally acceptable fuels. However, while the government supports the objectives, it does not support the specifics of Bill C-235 to require oxygenates in all Canadian gasoline and diesel fuel within the context, chronology and framework that the member's bill has presented.

Oxygenates are added to fuels to improve combustion and, therefore, decrease carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions, which has environmental merit. Oxygenates that are blended into gasoline include ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE.

Ethanol is a renewable fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Under our climate change plan the government has targeted increased use of ethanol in Canadian fuels. Ethanol produced from cellulose has the largest greenhouse gas benefits. However, the technology to produce ethanol from cellulose is still being developed.

Although methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, is presently being used in Canada, it has been the oxygenate of choice in the United States where oxygenates were mandated. As members may know, MTBE has caused groundwater contamination south of the border as has been pointed out. We want to prevent this from becoming a problem here in Canada.

The transportation sector is a major source of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants in Canada.

As part of a balanced approach addressing vehicle and fuel technology, behaviour change and infrastructure, we need to increase the supply and use of less carbon intensive fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. Increased use of biomass ethanol and biodiesel will not only reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, but will also stimulate innovative Canadian companies already active in the bioeconomy and stimulate potential new income sources for farmers and other sectors.

In co-operation with provincial governments, the Government of Canada has been delivering a comprehensive and stringent program for cleaner vehicles and fuels to reduce harmful emissions from vehicles since 1994. We have in place today a 10 year regulatory road map for cleaner fuels and vehicles that will give Canadians cleaner air to breathe and better protect their health from airborne pollutants.

Never before has the government produced such an agenda for action for a product that all Canadians use. Our 10 year plan of action contains stringent new low emission standards for passenger cars, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles and new standards for the fuels that power them. With this package, nitrogen oxide emissions, a key ingredient of smog, will be reduced by 90% for the vehicles built in 2004 and beyond.

We are also dealing with the fuels that power these vehicles. In June 1999 the government put regulations in place controlling the sulphur content of gasoline to an average limit of 30 parts per million starting January 1, 2005. The interim requirements for less sulphur in gasoline came into effect this past summer. Also in July the government put in place regulations limiting the sulphur content of diesel fuel to 15 parts per million by 2006. These measures will significantly reduce emissions of harmful substances from the transportation sector.

It is understood that a major tenet of the bill is support for oxygenated fuels, such as ethanol. The government continues to support the use of ethanol through a waiver of the federal excise tax on ethanol used as a fuel and through continued research into the production of ethanol from cellulose and through promotion of the environmental benefits of ethanol.

Action Plan 2000, the Canadian government's response to climate change to meet the Kyoto goal, includes five transportation initiatives, two of which are fuel related. As part of Action Plan 2000, the aim is to increase ethanol production in Canada by 750 million litres per year over the next five years. In effect, this will quadruple the production of ethanol in Canada. When fully implemented this will be equivalent to 25% of Canada's total gasoline supply containing a 10% ethanol blend.

The climate change plan for Canada further commits the government to working with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to increase this target to 35% by 2010. It also indicates that the government is looking at alternatives, such as a standard for a certain percentage of fuel to be greenhouse gas free, which would encourage the development of cellulosic ethanol.

To further encourage the development of biodiesel, the plan proposes that federal, provincial and territorial governments collaborate on how to reach a target of 500 million litres of biodiesel production by 2010 using a variety of tools including incentives, standards and research and development.

An important policy to encourage the use of ethanol is its tax treatment as compared to gasoline. We currently waive the excise tax on the ethanol portion of gasoline to make ethanol blended gasoline more attractive to consumers. The federal budget 2003 extends federal support for ethanol by proposing that the ethanol or methanol portion of blended diesel fuel also be exempted from the federal excise tax on diesel fuel. In addition, it proposes that biodiesel, which is produced from biomass or renewable feedstocks, be exempted from the federal excise tax on diesel fuel when used as a motive fuel or blended with regular diesel fuel.

The government recognizes the key role of provinces, territories and industry in expanding the ethanol markets in Canada. We will negotiate with provinces and territories a national framework for the production and use of ethanol, with voluntary agreements on regional targets.

The Government of Canada will also work with provinces and industry to enable the development and commercialization of high performing technologies such as cellulose-based ethanol.

These actions are in keeping with the government's desire to see the use of clean, renewable fuel expand and thrive in a context for which has been well prepared.

The government has also signaled through its climate change plan that it will work with the auto industry to improve by 25% fleet fuel efficiency by the year 2010. More fuel efficient vehicles save the environment, protect our health and save us money.

The 10 year plan is a major step forward in bringing cleaner air to Canadians but our job is far from finished. We want to engage more Canadians in direct actions they can take and also to empower them to hold governments accountable to meet clean air commitments.

The 10 year plan for cleaner vehicles and fuels is yet another step along the road to cleaner air and healthier Canadians.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to the third part of the motion, which I will quote, “hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power”. He has indicated that it would be a bizarre contradiction for the government not to support this motion inasmuch as we are all opposed to dictatorship and we are opposed to the despotic regime that Saddam Hussein leads.

Could the member though look at this in a little different way? Our opposition with respect to the attack against Iraq is within the context of our belief that there should have been a United Nations multilateral force that would have done the job for the reasons that the opposition has given: the removal of a dictatorial and despotic regime, in fact the liberation of Iraq. Does he not see a problem with that kind of logic?

If we applied the same kind of logic, that it is a bizarre contradiction to support the attack but outside of the UN, I ask him this question. Not too long ago we were on the cusp of a conflict between Pakistan and India, both nuclear powers. At this time there is a problem with respect to the nuclear capability of North Korea which needs to be resolved. We have seen the Chechnyan situation with respect to Russia, and Russia's desire to deal with those problems. We have seen the deterioration of relations around the whole support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Could the member respond to the government's position that these are the kinds of issues that cannot be addressed through pre-emptive action because in fact pre-emptive actions will lead to major confrontations and could lead to nuclear war if there is no United Nations policy, which is the policy of the government and has been driving this position?

[George Katsarov, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in the House to inform my hon. colleagues of the outstanding work of one of my constituents in York South--Weston who is a volunteer in the Canadian Executive Service Overseas. Mr. George Katsarov went to Huludso, Liaoning, China, to assist a state owned company that produces cement and cement products.

Mr. Katsarov was asked to improve production of high quality cement using low grade limestone. Through discussions with staff and the performance of lab experiments, Mr. Katsarov was able to improve the operation. A second project with the company involved the reduction of kiln fuel consumption. Mr. Katsarov made recommendations to the staff that he hopes will not only improve the quality of the product, but will reduce pollution, save energy costs and gain new markets.

I call on the House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Katsarov for exemplary volunteer service and for serving as an example to other Canadians in demonstrating that one person can indeed make a difference.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been in the House a long period of time but I have from time to time observed how a member can stand and speak in an expansive fashion on an issue, in this case the budget, and then at the end of it, as a tactic, undermine what was quite a decent overview with a really cheap shot.

I have to say, with great respect, that we are here as parliamentarians to try to raise the bar of dignity, decency and honesty with respect to the discussions on an issue. We should not have to place our Speaker in the position of having to remind the House of that on the basis of something being raised that we have questioned, which is our right. I find myself in the position now of having, other than to ask a question on the budget, to take exception to the last statement.

In the context of alliances in the North American continent, Mexico, Canada and the United States have been the closest, similar to the initiative taken in Europe with the common market. We find that two members, led by the president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, and our Prime Minister, have chosen through the United Nations to take a specific initiative and to stay with that, and they informed the president.

Where do we go from here in the view of the member? Do we continue to make it appear that we are not of one mind with respect to the future and the legacy of our people or do we continue along that line of cheap shots and bring the bar down? Is that what we are all about in this Parliament? Is that what they are all about in that party, because I think the people of Canada take great exception to that style?

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member has expressed very well some of the sentiments that many members in the House feel in terms of a number of issues, one of which being the inability of the United Nations, because of some of the reasons to which the member alluded, to come to a diplomatic solution and bring the forces to bear that would have influenced the Iraqi government and thereby avoided the whole conflict.

The member suggested that perhaps it was the Security Council that was the problem. I would like the member to address further whether he feels that if there is an inability to deal with the Security Council and its structure, he sees some wisdom in changing the rules of membership in the Security Council such that a major player on the world stage, like Canada, would have an opportunity to influence diplomatically the course of events. Could different structural changes be made in the Security Council that would allow countries like Canada to play a major role as opposed to a minor role in terms of influencing events?

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, could the previous speaker help this side understand why in the most recent poll taken of Canadians, I think 68% believe the government has exercised leadership. Could he help us to understand that? Or are 68% of Canadians wrong in coming to that conclusion?

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about reconstruction, conciliation and building a better world. The member is obviously characterizing the role that the United Nations and the vision and the hope that the United Nations would offer.

The member also has talked about the future needless estrangement of China and Russia at time when we are developing a global attitude and a strengthening hopefully of the United Nations.

The member also has talked about the future in terms of Korea and the problems with the Palestinians and Israel.

I ask my colleague this. How can we strengthen the United Nations and what is the role that Canada can play in recognizing that the future is very precarious, as he has described, inasmuch as the United Nations has not been able to respond to the present situation?

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's desire for specificity and I will be specific.

Development of the national framework for refinery emission reductions started in June 2002 and a draft framework document is expected in the fall of 2003 when a public consultation workshop will be held. The final draft of the framework document is scheduled for submission to the National Air Issues Co-ordinating Committee. Other air issues will be submitted in December 2003. The CCME approval will be sought in the spring of 2004. Further discussions on the adoption of the framework by different jurisdictions will continue into 2004.

If a specific chronology were to be required in terms of legislative framework that would govern refineries and storage tanks, that is the chronology to which we are dedicated.

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for bringing the issue to the floor of the House and giving the government an opportunity to respond in a general context, and then work toward the specific incident that took place and the series of events that occurred from that point on.

The government is committed to ensuring cleaner air for Canadians and to working collaboratively with the provinces and territories to implement Canada wide standards for particulate matter and ozone.

Our commitment is demonstrated through the series of initiatives we have put in place that are delivering cleaner air for Canadians. Among those commitments are: low emission vehicles and cleaner fuels because we all recognize--industry, governments and consumers alike--that transportation is a key source of air pollutants that cause smog. Cleaner vehicles, engines and fuels are an important step to reduce the threat to human health and the environment from air pollution.

Our regulatory initiatives would bring cleaner small engines and heavy off-road construction equipment. The vehicles, fuels and small engine initiatives would reduce smog pollutants such as volatile organic compounds, VOCs, that the member is concerned about, and particulate matter. But we recognize that VOCs also come from other products and sectors so we have started work on an action plan to reduce emissions of VOCs from paints, degreasing agents, solvents and other products.

We recognize that Canadian actions alone will not produce cleaner air in this country. We need emissions reductions in the United States from the industry and power sector and we are working to achieve those results. Particulate matter emissions would be reduced in both the United States and Canada thanks to agreements now in place. In addition, we are working to develop further projects with the United States that, as budget 2003 pointed out, would be especially important for southern Ontario and southern British Columbia. We recognize that Canadians need more information about air emissions and their sources in their communities.

For that reason, and for others in regard to the gasoline additive MTBE, in 2001 the federal government published a mandatory information gathering notice under CEPA 1999. The information gathered under the notice indicates that the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute member companies, including Chevron, no longer use MTBE in gasoline produced at their refineries.

With respect to the storage tanks, the Chevron Burnaby Refinery has voluntarily committed to Environment Canada to upgrade its storage tank systems to conform with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment codes of practice. As well, a framework for achieving emission reductions from refineries is currently being developed with the provinces.

Its goals are to protect human health, to align the environmental performance of Canadian refineries and comparable U.S. refineries while preserving the competitiveness of the sector in Canada.

The framework is expected to result in provincial and/or municipal jurisdictional regulatory action to achieve caps and establish a level playing field. Environment Canada officials are working with the CCME to release a new edition of the environment code of practice for storage tank systems containing petroleum products and allied petroleum products. Environment Canada is developing new regulations under part 9 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Finally, these new regulations are expected to be published in part I of the Canada Gazette in the fall of 2003.

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties, as well as with the member for Ottawa--Vanier, concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-202 scheduled at the conclusion of private members' business later this day and I believe you would find consent that at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-202, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for second reading of the said bill be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred to Thursday, March 20 at the end of government orders.