Jay Hill

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words today about the amendment to Bill C-29 which was recently put forward by my colleague from Saskatchewan.

The intent of the amendment is to delay the passage of the bill. In other words, that it not be read a third time until the government adequately addresses the pending import prohibition on certain manganese based substances and the impact of that on our free trade agreements which currently exist. The Reform Party clearly sees a problem with that.

I would like to begin my comments by referring to some key facts about MMT. I noticed there have been a lot of suppositions put forward from both sides of the House during this debate and a lot of innuendo flowing in this place about this subject.

MMT is a gasoline fuel additive which boosts octane in gasoline and increases the efficiency of gasoline production. MMT has been used in almost all Canadian unleaded gasolines since 1977. Canadian motorists have travelled more than an estimated trillion kilometres using gasoline treated with MMT. MMT is the only available gasoline additive in Canada that is capable of reducing nitrogen oxide emissions, NOx, by as much as 20 per cent.

Removing MMT from gasoline will increase nitrogen oxide emissions. Nitrogen oxide emissions cause urban smog. A ban on MMT would have the equivalent effect of adding 1 million cars to Canadian roads by the year 2000.

Two recent studies have concluded that the removal of MMT would increase Canadian nitrogen oxide emissions by 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes annually. This would violate Canada's international treaty agreement signed in Montreal in 1988 promising to freeze nitrogen oxide emissions at the 1987 level.

Test results from the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, the largest approved fuel additives testing program in history, demonstrate clearly that contrary to claims by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, MMT in Canadian gasoline is fully compatible with new on board diagnostic systems.

Automakers have experienced significant difficulties with the certification of on board diagnostic systems in the United States and the U.S. EPA has stated in the federal register that automobile manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated difficulty in complying with every aspect of the OBD requirements and that such difficulty appears likely to continue into 1996 and 1997 model years.

The United States EPA and the California Air Resources Board have recently changed their regulations to allow for certification of vehicles that do not comply with OBD-II requirements.

Often in this debate the talk is about automobile emissions but no one on the other side of the House talks about the emissions from the refineries during the production of gasoline. MMT allows Canadian refiners to use less intensive refining thereby decreasing refinery emissions of carbon dioxide as well as nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. It also enables refiners to reduce the aromatic content of gasoline which reduces emissions of benzene. I just add that for clarification to the viewing public.

A lot of facts have been presented to parliamentarians from all parties on this subject. Sometimes it seems that the debate, as was referred to by my hon. colleague when he presented his amendment, often strays quite a bit from the intent of the bill or what the bill actually does. What the bill does is it places a ban on the interprovincial transport or the international importation of the product MMT. That is all it does.

It is said that if we do not do this that possibly it will be harmful or that it will be potentially harmful, or that it will potentially gum up the onboard diagnostic systems of new automobiles. In their speeches hon. members across the way have used words such as "maybe" and "might". If we are going to base the requirement of legislation on the hypothetical, which is what we are doing with this piece of legislation, then I will pose a hypothetical question myself.

If we in this place are going to ban products in Canada, which is what is going to be accomplished with this ban on the transportation of MMT, every time we think there is a potential for harm, how many lawsuits will the Government of Canada have to face? Ultimately how many millions of dollars will the taxpayers of Canada have to pay just because we feel there is some potential for a problem down the road? That is the thrust of what I wish to add to the debate today.

Everyone in the riding I represent is well aware that I have spoken a number of times on this subject over the last year and a half as have many colleagues on both sides of the House. The point was made recently that members from both sides are reaching the point of exhaustion on this subject. I do not know how much more can be said about it.

That is why we are continually concerned that no matter how many points are made on the side opposing this piece of legislation, we see that C-94, which was put forward in the previous session of Parliament, has been brought back to the House as Bill C-29 which we are debating today. We find that no amendments were made, despite all of the debate in this place and all of the points raised on

the part of opposition members of Parliament who tried to bring to the attention of the government the very real concerns out there and the economic impact this is going to have on industry and jobs.

The government says it is concerned about jobs and the continuing high number of unemployed and underemployed in this country of ours. Yet this government has brought in this piece of legislation unamended from the previous session. It is in virtually the same state as it was when Parliament prorogued in January of this year.

I have to question what we are doing in this place. We bring forward points which are then ignored with no reference and legislation is continually forced through this House of Commons because one party enjoys a majority. It really brings into question the whole issue of how Canada is governed and what effect and impact debate in this Chamber ultimately has upon legislation.

With that, I will close. Of course, as the seconder of the amendment I am in total support of it. This government must properly address the concern which, as my hon. colleague noted, was raised in a letter from the hon. Minister for International Trade to his counterpart, the Minister of the Environment some time ago, about what impact this legislation will have on our trading partners and how they view our commitment to the free trade agreement. Until that is properly done and until the study is completed, this bill should be set aside.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and her question, but I honestly do not know how I could possibly elaborate any further on what has been said over the past year and a half on this issue.

I would, however, question her statement about the objectivity of a member who happens to have a small oil refinery in their riding. The reason I say that is I have been very careful not to come down on the side of the oil industry or Ethyl Corp. to say that MMT is not harmful and that we should proceed full bore and forever use MMT in gasoline. I have not said that. The Reform Party has not said that. In its defence, the Bloc as well has not said that.

What we have said repeatedly is that we need this independent study to see which side of the argument holds the most water.

Without using any more time of the House-time is of the essence-we have only debated this for some year and a half, I am sure all of us are hoping to be finished with this.

My only hope is that the government members will break with party discipline and on this issue at least will vote with common sense and support the motion to hoist this for six months to allow a study so that we can really have the evidence placed before parliamentarians.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

I would think, Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet enough today that we would not have any problem recalling my riding at this point.

I thank the hon. member for her question and comments about my presentation. On the issue of Canadians and whether they support the banning of MMT, I would like to know who conducted that study, how comprehensive it was, how much information was made available to the Canadians who were actually polled, how many were polled, where they were polled and what background they were given. We can all play with statistics. We have done that all day long in this place. Anyone can conduct a poll and get the results they want. If they ask the right question they will get the answer they want. That addresses the issue of the poll to which the hon. member referred.

She also mentioned the need for an independent voice. As I said earlier, and I am getting tired of saying it, that is what we have been calling for. When we consider that this issue has been around for as long as it has, surely to goodness some government at some time could have undertaken a comprehensive study of this issue so that we as parliamentarians would have had enough evidence in front of us to make a decision one way or the other without there being a big question mark.

As to her statement about being on the wrong side of Canadians, when she read off a list of people who made presentations and who have made their views known, certainly those people and those organizations are representing a certain point of view. They are speaking in support of what they feel is in the best interests of the health of Canadians.

What I cannot understand is despite the representations which were made before the committee, the fact is Health Canada did not support the recommendation that MMT is harmful.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

If the hon. member is not too busy heckling, I wonder if he would listen to another point? With a nuclear power plant in his riding, would he be so concerned about the environmental issues with nuclear power that perhaps we should just pass a quick piece of legislation this afternoon to shut down the power plant, just on the evidence we have before us today, which admittedly is not very substantive?

I know, for example, that the industry and refineries in the province of British Columbia are working extensively with the province to move toward stricter environmental standards. The hon. member mentioned them. From what I can understand, in speaking with members of the industry not only from my riding but from the province of British Columbia, they have a good working relationship with the Government of British Columbia. They are working toward adhering to those new guidelines and regulations when they come down the pipe.

I do not think the comment made by the hon. member is appropriate in the sense of again trying to throw out the scare tactic that somehow the industry is resisting, all the way down the line, making the necessary changes to make Canada, environmentally, a safer place in which to live.

As the member pointed out, the people who work in the oil and gas industries, be it exploration, production or refining, all breathe the same air and drink the same water as the rest of Canadians do. Therefore, it is certainly paramount to them to ensure that we have an environmentally sustainable country and a province of British Columbia in which to live.

I believe that using scare tactics and trying to paint one side of the argument as the bad boys in this dispute is not going to do anyone any good. That is why the common sense approach, the approach that is supported by the majority of Canadians where they can have all of the evidence in front them, would be to support the position of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada on this; which we have been demanding for a year and a half to have a comprehensive study done of this issue and have those results made known to the public.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Ontario.

With his extensive background of working for Toyota he would be an unbiased source to make the points for the automobile industry. I appreciate his enlightening me on how many Toyota dealerships there are in my riding. It certainly is of importance as well.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Yes, it is a very small number. The hon. member says: "Oh, 80 people". What is 80 people? They are potentially out of work. It does not really matter to him, no doubt. It matters to me. It matters to those 80 people who are concerned about their jobs. The whole point is that it is so needless to bring in something like this without proper study.

Those people would support the banning of MMT if it could be conclusively shown that it was either harmful to the health of Canadians or that it was creating some sort of substantive problems for the automobile manufacturers that could not be overcome in some other way. Other members earlier said that they did not want to see the Canadian government browbeaten with the threat of legal action by Ethyl Corporation.

What about the threats that came from the automobile industry over the last year and half suggesting that if the government did not put this in maybe the price of cars would go up by some $3,000? If that is not a threat I do not know what is. It is inappropriate to listen to one side of the argument. None of us want to see the price of cars go up. I keep returning to the fact that the conclusive evidence is not there so how can the government arrive at a decision to simply ban this product on the basis of available information?

We could go on and on debating this. I spoke for some 20 minutes in June 1995 on this issue, as did a lot of other members. I find it incredible that a year and a half later we are still debating the same issue. The government has refused to listen to any of the arguments put forward by members in debate. It is simply bringing back the bill to appease the automobile industry. It will force it through and it will get its backbench members to vote along party lines to force this through. I find it disgusting.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

I hear all sorts of heckling. Is the issue here really that we are supposed to try to represent the interests of our constituents or not? Is that the issue?

It has been said that the hon. members across the way are supporting the interests of a certain side of this argument. I want to repeat, because of the heckling coming from the other side of the House, that I am not supporting the continuation of the use of MMT, although it would be very appropriate for me to do so in support of the refinery that exists in Prince George.

Quite the contrary, what I am saying is that we need further study. We need a comprehensive study. After 12 years I do not think it is too much for Canadians to expect that the government would conduct such a study instead of going with one side of the argument, as I have already stated.

This refinery, although it is quite small, employs some 80 people.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the statement which was just made by the hon. member for Ontario. He stated that it really comes down to a health issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. If it is a health issue, why has Health Canada not recommended that MMT be banned? It does not support all of the so-called studies that the Liberal members are bringing up today. It simply does not support those studies. If Health Canada cannot find reasons to proceed with the banning, then I would say that hon. members opposite are simply puffing hot air on the issue. It certainly is not a health issue.

Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they would try to use scare tactics, as they have so many times on other issues, to scare Canadians into believing that what the government is doing is really in their best interests. I find that quite despicable.

As said by a number of individuals who spoke this afternoon, Bill C-29 goes back a long way. The thrust of this bill will be to impose a ban on trans-border transportation of MMT.

It is somewhat ironic that the government would not impose an outright ban if it truly believes that this is in the best interests of the health of Canadians. It is not only harmful to the health but it is going to follow the onboard diagnostic systems in new automo--

biles and all sorts of other issues that it believes are attributable to the burning of MMT in gasoline. If the government truly believes that why would it not just outright ban it, ban the use of MMT in Canada instead of simply banning the transportation of it?

As said by one of my hon. colleagues, I think the House and individual members are reaching a point of exhaustion with this legislation. As an hon. Liberal member noted earlier, it dates back to May 1995 when the previous environment minister brought forward Bill C-94, before Parliament subsequently prorogued in January of this year, and that died on the Order Paper.

I, along with a number of others, had hoped that when Bill C-94 died on the Order Paper the new environment minister, following a cabinet shuffle, would not have seen fit to bring this bill back unamended, despite all the debate that had taken place in the House on Bill C-94, all the points that had been brought forward by a wide ranging number of speakers both in opposition and in government, as well as witnesses and, admittedly, the lobbying efforts on both sides of this argument. Despite all that information being brought forward, the new Minister of the Environment saw fit to bring in Bill C-29 which in reality is the old Bill C-94 virtually unchanged.

It brings into question what exactly is the role to be debated in this House of Commons. Regardless of political stripes, if members bring forward points in debate in the House and they simply fall on deaf ears, what is the point to debate in the House at all when we see a minister bring back a piece of legislation unchanged despite some serious reservations being expressed by a lot of people?

I believe quite strongly that this government with Bill C-29 has fallen prey to the lobbying efforts of the very powerful Canadian automobile industry. I know we have been accused on this side of the House of being in the pockets of the oil industry, which is on the other side of the argument.

While we can defend what we have been saying, it is very difficult for the government to defend the real thrust of why it is bringing in this legislation if it is not to appease the automobile industry. It is bringing in a piece of legislation that will see the banning of a product used by the oil industry.

The Reform position on this is and always has been that we would support an independent comprehensive third party study. When we see that this issue goes back to 1984, some 12 years ago, surely to goodness the two sides could have been brought together and forced by government legislation rather than imposing a ban and taking one side of the argument with what we believe is not substantive evidence against the use of MMT.

Rather than taking one side of the argument surely the government could have brought legislation forward to have an independent study done to substantiate who is right in this argument. We believe quite simply that the whole issue of the banning of the transportation of MMT is one built on fallacy. It is built on scare tactics. When we look at the evidence that is provided by the two sides in the argument, it certainly supports what both opposition parties have been calling for, an independent study. That is why I find myself speaking in support of the hoist motion of the Bloc Quebecois to see this bill put off for six months. That is what we are debating here. It is not specifically Bill C-29 but the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois to see the bill delayed for six months in yet again the hope that a study could be done in the intervening time to bring forward evidence on one side or the other.

If the evidence, clearly supported, is what the government has been saying on this issue, I know all members of the House would support what the government has been endeavouring to do. Currently there is no studies or evidence before us to allow us to make that decision.

I find it quite ironic that when I questioned the previous Liberal speaker during questions and comments she said that her constituent had brought forward information which she listened to and he said there was overwhelming evidence that MMT was harmful to vehicle emission systems, and therefore she was going to support the bill.

I find it interesting that an MP would rise and say that one person had brought forward one side of an argument and therefore that is why she was going to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation. I would hope that all MPs of all parties would be much more comprehensive in studying an issue and looking at both sides of it before they cast their vote. At least that is how I approach this issue.

I want to bring to the attention of the House something that is of importance to me as the member representing Prince George-Peace River. I want to take this whole argument about Bill C-29 and the banning of the transportation of MMT to the level of my riding of Prince George-Peace River which I am pleased to represent in this House.

There is a refinery currently operating in the city of Prince George. This refinery produces some 10,000 barrels per day of gasoline. It is therefore the smallest fully integrated Canadian refinery. It is owned by Husky Oil.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened, as I always do, very attentively to the hon. member's dialogue on Bill C-29.

During her speech she referred to the fact that the government had been hoping that the automobile industry and the oil industry, and specifically Ethyl Canada as a subsidiary of Ethyl Corporation of the United States, would have come to some voluntary arrangement on the issue of MMT. That is what she said during her discourse.

What I found interesting in that is that 1984 to 1996, by my calculation, is 12 years. I would have thought that in 12 years, if this government and the government before had really wanted to do something to drive this to resolution, as she said, they would have insisted that these two opposing factions would have got together and had an independent study done, which is what the Bloc and the Reform have been calling for for a year and a half. Clearly we have had 12 years where we have had conflicting testimony and studies.

It is interesting to note, as an hon. Bloc member did before, that the automobile industry has been very reluctant to bring forward any proof of its studies and its findings. All they say is that they do find that MMT is harmful to the onboard diagnostic systems and to health.

I have two quick points. In the hon. member's speech she said, as did a preceding Liberal member, that MMT is harmful to the health of Canadians. Yet Health Canada does not support that, as the hon. member from Burnaby stated earlier in his remarks.

The second point is whether the hon. member is aware, when she makes the point about how MMT gums up the onboard diagnostic systems in new automobiles, that it is claimed by the automobile manufacturers that they are experiencing just as many problems with the onboard diagnostic systems in the new automobiles in the United States. In the United States MMT has not been in fuel for some years now. What is the problem down there?

If this government is going to blame the malfunctioning of onboard diagnostic systems on the use of MMT in Canadian gasoline, then clearly there should not be a problem in the United States. However, my information is that there is. Does the member know that?

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member. I noted that early in his remarks he said that we must not capitulate to Ethyl Corporation. It is threatening to take us to court. He accused the Reform Party and the Bloc of somehow being in cahoots, being lobbyists for this huge multinational.

The member from the Bloc raised a good point. It is not only the lobbyists on one side of the argument who are making points here. If we want to get into throwing accusations across the floor, some Liberal members of Parliament could be accused of being lobbyists for automobile manufacturers. I do not think that would do us any good in the debate today.

I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. I noted that he used the words "potentially harmful health effects of MMT". He was very careful to use the word "potentially".

Why did the Department of Health not support the findings of this raft of studies he has put forward. If it can be substantiated why did the Department of Health not recommend an outright ban on MMT?

The second question is if that is the case, that he truly believes and his government believes that MMT is harmful and has been proven to be harmful, which I do not believe it has been proven to be so, why is his government not moving to completely ban MMT instead of bringing forward this half measure of banning the transportation of MMT across borders?