Jay Hill

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

That is right. The simple answer is no. One would think the government with its penchant for political correctness would want to do the right thing. Unfortunately when Liberals are doing the right thing it

means they are only addressing public perceptions, not reality. These are the Liberal code words for entrenching inequality.

The last time I heard someone use those words in the House it was the Liberal member opposite from Halifax. She said that her government was doing the right thing when defending the inclusion of special protection based on sexual orientation in Bill C-41.

First the Liberals argued that jail terms and community service were supposed to be deterrents. They then told judges to increase sentences if the victim fell into one of the categories listed in section 718.2, such as having a different sexual orientation than the person committing the assault. If longer and harsher sentences are supposed to be a deterrent and certain victims incur those longer sentences, does that not sound like special protection? Does it not smack of inequality when some Canadian lives are worth more than others?

The Liberals are now doing what they call the right thing with MP pensions. They are making cosmetic changes and protecting their own fully indexed MP retirement funds at the same time as they are talking about reducing RRSP contribution levels for other Canadians and pondering how long the Canada pension plan will survive. That sure sounds like a two-tier pension system to me. Every time I hear the phrase doing the right thing from a Liberal it means make some people more equal than others. In this case it is retired MPs.

When a Reformer talks about doing the right thing we mean equality for all Canadians. This means equal protection before the law, equal pay for the same job, equal opportunity and equal treatment of pension plans under the Income Tax Act. Why should MPs be exempted from the pension rules they impose on other Canadians?

During the review of Bill C-85 in the House procedures committee only seven witnesses were heard. I find it incredible that the committee tried to prevent the National Citizens' Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation from attending. These groups have spent considerable time reviewing MPs pensions and were instrumental in drawing the excesses of the plan to the attention of the media and the public. To deny them the opportunity to speak is unconscionable.

In fact only six witnesses were invited. Not to be thwarted, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation showed up in any event. The committee had no choice but to hear the association or be faced with a major media scandal.

The amazing thing is that even the carefully selected witnesses all agreed this was an extremely generous plan. While proposing an MP RRSP plan one witness said:

You live by the same rules you make for other Canadians.

If MPs were reliant on a similar RRSP pension plan they might be a little more cautious about the laws they pass that will affect all Canadians.

According to the Income Tax Act pension plans must comply with certain criteria to be valid. One such criterion is a limit on the accrual rate. It can be no more than 2 per cent of the final three-year average salary. It is also only payable after the age of 60.

The government is acting as if it has made major concessions in the MP pension plan and in Bill C-85. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister proudly pointed out, the pension plan will reduce the existing accrual rate by 20 per cent. At first that sounds great. All it really means is that the accrual rate was dropped from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. Yes, that is a 20 per cent reduction, but it is still 100 per cent more than the 2 per cent accrual rate all other Canadians are allowed under the Income Tax Act.

Further, the Income Tax Act states that such a pension scheme is only payable after the age of 60. The government has decided that only applies to other Canadians. Members are eligible at 55.

In the past MPs who served six years were eligible to collect the pension no matter how young they were; 36-year-olds could collect. I would hardly consider that selfless service in the interest of the public good. How many other Canadians receive a substantial pension after six years in the job? Surely it is an indication that the plan has been exceedingly generous for far too long. Moving the age of eligibility to 55, not 60 like the rest of Canadians, is considered a significant step by the government.

I applaud the government on increasing the age of eligibility to age 55, but why did it not go that small step further to 60 so that the MP pension plan complies with the Income Tax Act?

Apparently it will save taxpayers $3.3 million in the first year. How much more will be saved in the future because all Reformers will opt out? More important, the government is acting like taxpayers will continue to realize significant savings. Under the plan taxpayers will contribute $3.60 for every $1 an MP contributes.

There is one promise we intend to keep. When Reform is elected government following the next election, we will really be reforming this travesty into a pension plan that is completely compatible with that of the private sector, and we will be making it retroactive.

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

Madam Speaker, I notice members opposite making fun of the tie which I happen to be wearing. The tie is for the benefit of members opposite. It is what is commonly referred to by many of my constituents as the piggy plan, not the pension plan.

At the outset I inform the House that I will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues.

Why is the Liberal government changing the MP pension plan? We would think it would be doing it for reasons of integrity. The Liberal government is only addressing MP pensions to try to deflect public criticism. It knew Canadians wanted real changes so it made red book promises. However the promises were minimal and the government is doing the absolute minimum to barely meet those promises.

What were the promises? They were to end double dipping and to change the minimum age for collecting an MP pension, two of the many things that have outraged Canadians. The bill includes provisions to change those two things, which I commend, but the plan needs a major overhaul. This is just a start.

When questioned about the continuing generosity of the MP pension plan most Liberals throw up smoke screens and whine about how underpaid politicians are. They do not understand that the salaries of working MPs are unrelated to how much retired MPs should be making.

Over the past decade whenever the public has called for MP accountability and questioned the unsustainable and bloated pension package, the government has protected the plan and met the criticism by freezing MP salaries in major PR campaigns. It seemed to work before but not any more. Canadians are looking at the pension plans. Let us stick with the issue and not talk about low MPs salaries to defend high MP pensions.

Today the Liberals are pointing to studies that say MPs are underpaid while they are working. They respond by retaining this overinflated pension plan. Next year or the year after they will point to the same studies and say: "Gosh, look, we are underpaid. The studies prove it". They will pull out the sob stories and gain public support for salary increases. Just as they have refused to discuss the real issues on MP pensions now, they will refuse to discuss the MP pension plan then. That is because it is indefensible.

The government members go to great lengths to talk about anything but why they should be entitled to a two-tier pension plan. However some members of the government do not deny that the plan is generous. Just last Friday the hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader admitted:

The pension plan was generous. It is generous, and remains generous. However, the members of Parliament who entered the lists for the election in 1988 and in all previous elections did so on the basis that at the end of their term of office they would be compensated in some way that was generous but was designed to make up for the loss of income they suffered in being elected to Parliament in the first place.

He continued:

Most people enter a career looking at the remuneration package and seeing what it is like.

I think I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House when I say that Reformers did not switch careers and enter politics for the remuneration package. We came to Ottawa to represent our constituents and to make some long overdue changes. Altering the platinum plated MP pension plan is just one such change.

It saddens me to think that the main reason some of my hon. colleagues across the way entered politics was for the promised pension reward following their retirement from public service, and this is by their own admission. I would like to believe my colleagues opposite are honourable so I return to my first question. Is the Liberal government committed to making significant and necessary changes to the MP pension plan? Will those changes bring it into line with other Canadian pension plans?

[Petitions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions ask Parliament not to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality by amending legislation to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting today petitions on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River.

The first petition asks Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament. The petitioners feel the rights and interests of all Canadian citizens cannot be adequately protected by the Bloc Quebecois.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc is quite right: We have to depoliticize the whole process and get it back on sound technical grounds. That is what the opposition in unity is calling for.

On who should pay for the independent review, the two conflicting positions should equally pay for the independent review.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel the premise is that we just assume this $3,000 figure. I have not seen evidence to support it. That is fear mongering on the part of the auto industry to get its way with the government.

I have not seen the evidence that would support the $3,000. I used it because it was a threat that the automobile industry used to get its way with the government and the government bowed to that pressure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an occasion for me to completely agree with a member from the Bloc Quebecois. I thank her for the kind comments on this subject.

It is indicative of the difficulty that Canadians and industries have trying to deal with the issue. We agree that we require a neutral third party to look at the issue rather than forge ahead based on the information on one side of the argument.

It is interesting to note her comments about the studies the automobile industry says it has done and yet these studies are a secret. If the studies support their side of the argument, why would they not bring them forward? To me that would be obvious.

I support the position of the Reform member for Comox-Alberni who earlier said that at the very least if the government is intent on forging ahead and ramming through the legislation as it has done with so many others in the past month. I would hope, following the vote at second reading, that the issue would be referred to the environment committee with a mandate to do a very intensive study and hear the various sides.

I certainly prefer, as does the Bloc obviously, to see an independent neutral study done but at the very least the environment committee should be given the mandate to look at this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

It is my understanding that the OBD systems on these vehicles were requested by the American government, obviously to control pollution.

One of the biggest problems with the whole issue has been the inability of the petroleum industry on one side and the car manufacturers on the other side to get together and develop something that would benefit both industries and all Canadians and Americans. I hope that would be the outcome of an independent study. If the two sides could agree who should conduct the study and to abide by the results of the study, that is the kind of thing Canadians are looking for.

Suffice it to say that the two sides should be brought together, which has not been the case in the past. We have been getting these constantly conflicting statements from one side versus the other.

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

Even more important for Canada, it appears that as a result auto manufacturers are now considering a joint testing program between the U.S. and Canada because MMT may be on the U.S. unleaded gas market within the year. And note I said "may be".

What will Canada be doing as MMT fills gas stations across the border? Preventing its movement to appease the current whims of the auto industry. While the government commits itself to eliminating internal trade barriers in Bill C-88, the

Minister of the Environment is busy erecting them in Bill C-94. Not only does this demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Liberal commitment to freer trade between the provinces. It also demonstrates the inability of the Minister of the Environment to act decisively and responsibly on an important issue. Lacking the hard evidence to defend the outright elimination of MMT in fuels, she is caving in to the lobbying efforts of one group. Instead of making her decision based on technical information regarding the problems with the use of MMT, she is completely sidestepping the issue.

Bill C-94 means MMT can still be sold and used wherever it is produced. So petroleum producers could produce MMT in southern Ontario, where most cars are driven, and they would not be prohibited from selling it at the pumps. Somehow I do not see how this addresses the real issue of whether or not MMT contributes to pollution or should be used at all in Canada. This merely prevents the transport of MMT across borders but does not prevent its use.

If I were a suspicious and cynical westerner I might question the regional economic impacts of this bill, which seem to far outweigh any environmental concerns the minister might have. I might wonder why the minister refuses to consider studies by petroleum producers in western Canada or the United States. I might wonder if she represents the interests of all Canadians in all industries or merely a select few in Liberal territory in central Canada.

If I were really cynical I might wonder at the timing of the introduction of this bill, during the Ontario election campaign, in the province most dependent on the auto industry. When faced with an ultimatum by the auto companies to ban MMT use by August, what did the government do? Did it get tough and try to determine what the truth is regarding its effects? No, that would be too much to expect.

The government has a very bad track record when it comes to standing up for Canadians in the face of pressure from big industry. Remember the powerful tobacco lobby last year, when the government refused to look at a real solution to the smuggling problem. Instead of raising export tariffs or beefing up our anti-smuggling patrols, it gave the tobacco companies what they wanted: lower taxes to add new teenage smokers to their growing list of the addicted.

Instead of finding out the truth about MMT, the government is acceding to the demands of the car lobby without independent proof of its claims. What is more, possibly because they cannot prove the harmful effects of MMT, the environment minister is not actually banning it, just restricting its movement.

Something is not quite right here. Why is the Minister of the Environment championing a bill that says and does absolutely nothing about protecting the environment? Until we have an independent study, the only things being protected here are the interests of the auto industry.

What will some of the consequences of this legislation be? For one thing, increased pollution from sulphur emissions in western Canada, where the refineries must change their processing. If MMT cannot be moved interprovincially, producers will spend an additional $100 million to switch over to another fuel additive and will have to refine the gas more for higher octane levels, thereby increasing sulphur emissions. Is that increase in pollution included in the minister's calculations?

There will be up to a 20 per cent increase in nitrogen oxide levels emitted by cars if we ban MMT. Of course now the car manufacturers dispute the 20 per cent figure because of the changes they have been forced to make with the new pollution controls.

Kicking and screaming, the auto industry finally started to invest some research and development dollars into eliminating pollution. Suddenly it has found that it can reduce nitrogen oxide levels substantially. It does not dispute that MMT would decrease nitrogen oxide levels further, only that it will not be as much as 20 per cent because it has finally started producing more efficient cars. However, no one has calculated how much nitrogen oxide levels will go up once a final balance is reached between more efficient cars and less efficient alternate fuel additives.

Let us look at the other side of the equation. How much would it cost auto manufacturers to develop a flushing system or technology to deal with the effects of MMT? I think $100 million seems a little steep, but I am not a scientist or a chemist. I do not pretend to understand why research to solve the problem would cost more than $100 million. Either way, it is the Canadian driver who is going to lose.

MMT has been in use in Canada for 18 years. There is no guarantee that it will not be around for another 18 years. If the auto industry had such grave concern about the effect of MMT on emission systems, why was that not built into the original R and D? Why should the federal government legislate a ban on the movement of MMT because the auto industry did not deem the Canadian fuel market important enough to consider it while it was developing its OBD systems?

On the one hand, if we do not use MMT we have the potential for increasing hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and other smog ingredients, with their various negative health effects. On the other hand, if we keep MMT no one will know if or when the emission systems fail because the detection systems will be disabled.

I want to turn now to the second part of the debate, which seems to have been buried in Canada but was the reason the EPA initially denied the waiver for MMT in unleaded gas in the U.S. That is the issue of airborne manganese and its effects on the health of Canadians.

We have known for more than a hundred years that airborne manganese is harmful and results in neurological disorders similar to Parkinson's disease. It has been an occupational hazard in manganese mines, where workers breathe in an extremely high level of manganese dust.

One would think that the Minister of the Environment would want to ban MMT if it contributed to unsafe manganese levels in our air. In light of the EPA statements, one would think she would want to conduct tests to see whether Canada should control airborne manganese. Why does she not? Why instead does she go through a ridiculous loop to ban the interprovincial trade of manganese based substances? Should she not as Minister of the Environment be more concerned about emissions?

Although Environment Canada has not conducted studies on this issue, Health Canada has. Its findings are very interesting and refute the EPA administrator's reasonable concerns about the health risks of MMT with hard evidence. The Health Canada study attempted to determine a safe daily intake of airborne manganese. Our bodies can handle ingested manganese much better than airborne manganese. It is an essential part of our diet. However excessive intake of manganese can result in an accumulation in the brain, which will cause the neurological problems I mentioned. Infants and older people are particularly susceptible to the negative effects.

What did Health Canada discover? After establishing a safe daily intake level it studied airborne manganese, particularly that related to MMT. Even garage mechanics fell well inside the acceptable range of manganese inhalation. The major findings regarding MMT are as follows, and I quote from the study:

Levels of respirable manganese in major Canadian urban centres have remained constant or decreased from 1986 to 1992, and do not reflect major changes in MMT use during that time, suggesting that MMT does not contribute substantially to manganese concentrations.

The part of the study I found most enlightening was with respect to why the minister might be reluctant to initiate a study on the effects of MMT related specifically to airborne manganese in particular industrial towns. The study reads:

Inhalation exposure to manganese has been assessed for residents of cities with large manganese-emitting industries such as steel mills. Current mean ambient air manganese levels are at, or substantially above, the acceptable daily intake. Inhalation uptake from all age groups approaches or exceeds the total daily uptake. This raises concern regarding chronic exposure to manganese for residents in these cities and recommendations are made regarding this issue.

If we had an environment minister truly concerned about the effect of emissions on Canadian health one she would be right on top of trying to control manganese emissions from steel plants in towns like Hamilton. Perhaps that is expecting a bit too much.

Obviously we need an independent review or study to determine the truth. Each side has studies supporting its particular view. The petroleum industry has been pushing for such an independent study but the auto industry has balked. I wonder why that would be. Why has the Minister of the Environment not proposed an independent study? A number of reasons come to mind.

One reason might be the power of the auto industry in southern Ontario, a veritable Liberal stronghold. Maybe she does not think we need an independent study because she only believes the studies by the auto industry and not the ones by the petroleum producers.

Before putting this ban in place, the Minister of the Environment must act responsibly and commission an independent investigation into the environmental effects of MMT and its use in cars. This must include pollutants such as the expected increase in sulphur and other emissions at refineries and the increase in nitrogen oxide levels estimated at the equivalent of one million additional cars on the road.

Then it should look at the other side of the equation that might result from the removal of MMT, at the increase in airborne manganese levels, verification of a Health Canada study which indicated there was not a health risk linked to MMT use, the failure of emission control systems and the overall failure rate. Car manufacturers have not provided such numbers to my knowledge.

When all these factors are considered perhaps the government could make a rational decision based on hard evidence rather than just cave in to the auto industry and the jobs and votes they represent in Liberal ridings.

The main objective of the car companies appears to be to standardize fuels in North America. They could not care less about pollution or emissions in Canada. Because they cannot change the American market, they will get their wish by coercing the Canadian government. Do we not have a right to our own standards in this country? Why should any industry be able to dictate terms to us?

In conclusion, the Minister of the Environment by passing this bill to block the interprovincial trade of MMT is not acting in the best interests of the Canadian people. If there are significant health risks and pollution problems associated with the use of MMT, I would be the first to stand behind her, back her up and support her. However she refuses to conduct an independent study.

A reduction in nitrogen oxide levels for every car may far outstrip any potential pollution from a few failed OBD systems. It is time the minister starts acting like the Minister of the Environment for Canada, not the minister of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association.

The minister should do the right thing and order an independent study.

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

Madam Speaker, despite the late hour of 11 p.m., it is somewhat of a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-94, the Manganese based Fuel Additives Act.

For those members who have been told they must vote for this bill and have therefore decided that they do not need to understand the whole issue, I would like to give them a few of the facts surrounding this lobby effort by the powerful auto industry.

MMT has been used in Canada in unleaded fuel since 1977. Contrary to some disinformation in the papers, MMT has also been used in the United States since 1978 in leaded gas. Congress passed laws that said that all additives for unleaded fuels had to get a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency before they could be used-all additives, not just MMT.

In their previous applications to use MMT, petroleum companies were unable to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that MMT should be given a waiver. In the last application the EPA reviewed evidence from both sides. Auto manufacturers contend that MMT should be banned because they believe that MMT gums up the new anti-pollution systems mandated for all cars in 1996. The onboard diagnostic systems, or OBD as they are called, apparently get coated with manganese and the car companies claim this results in inaccurate readings. They state: "Manganese based additives precipitate the degradation and failure of vehicle emission systems".

The petroleum companies ran their own tests and did not find MMT adversely affected the performance of the OBDs. Further, they point out that the auto companies' own tests prove that MMT does not adversely affect the detection of emission failures. When the system detected a problem, the failure light went on.

This finding is important, because now Canadian auto manufacturers are threatening to disable the dashboard light that signals the control system is not operating at optimum. By disabling the detection system, the car companies are deliberately, and spitefully I might add, preventing Canada from achieving pollution and emission targets.

The EPA, with its very strict standards, reviewed the evidence from both sides. It found no reason to refuse a waiver for MMT based on its effects on the emissions control equipment. The EPA administrator first noted that "use of Ethol's product in unleaded gasoline at the specified concentration will not cause or contribute to a failure to achieve compliance with vehicle emission standards".

However, she went on to cover other factors beyond her mandate with respect to the waiver application. She found that "there is a reasonable basis for concern about the effects on public health that could result if EPA were to approve the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline". On those grounds the administrator again denied the waiver. However, on April 14 the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned this decision, noting that the reasonable basis for concern that she applied was not consistent with section 211(c) of the act, which deals with health factors. Specifically there must be "significant risk to public health", which was not found in this case.

I would like to know why the Minister of the Environment has not addressed this aspect of MMT. It would seem to be her duty to protect Canadians against airborne pollutants, which will negatively impact on their health. Instead of pursuing this, the main objection by the EPA administrator, she is passing legislation to ban the importation or movement of MMT across borders.

Why does the government not have the gumption to stand up to blatant threats by the auto industry? It has warned that it would slap an extra $3,000 on the price of all 1996 model cars, void all exhaust system warranties and simply disconnect the new anti-pollution devices if Ottawa did not act by August. I want to know what the $3,000 would be used for. Is it going to research and development to make slightly different pollution control systems for Canada? Or, is it a fearmongering tactic by the car companies?

We have had MMT additives since 1977 in Canada. Why were the effects of MMT not built into the OBD tests over the last several years?

Another reason the auto industry has given for its position is to harmonize the North American market. It does not want to invest in technology to meet Canada's requirements, only those of the U.S.

Harmonizing the North American market sounds like a great plan during this age of NAFTA and free trade, except for one thing: the EPA has been ordered to give a waiver to American petroleum producers to start using MMT in unleaded gas. The appeal date on that decision expired last week without an appeal by the auto manufacturers or the EPA. If they felt their facts were so solid, why did they not appeal?