Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 11, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-29, to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, met this day at 9:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. We have a quorum.
We have with us representatives of the Government of Alberta and the Government of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Peter Underwood, Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment, Government of Nova Scotia: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, thank you for granting us this time to present our views on Bill C-29 on behalf of Nova Scotia.
The purpose of our presentation this morning is to provide the committee with a synopsis of Nova Scotia's position on Bill C-29. We believe that proceeding with this bill at this time contradicts the spirit of cooperative, progressive environmental management that characterizes the relationship between the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment and Environment Canada.
Nova Scotia opposes this bill on three grounds: first, the consultation process used during the development of the bill; second, the questionable scientific and technical rationale for the bill; and, third, the use of trade legislation for environmental regulation.
The traditional and successful cooperative arrangement for environmental management in Canada has brought about great advances in the quality of the environment. In the CEPA review and the government's response in 1995, the federal government recognized that the strong partnership between the provinces and the federal government provides all Canadians with the necessary safety net to ensure a healthy environment.
Since Environment Canada's inception in 1970, the cooperative approach to Canada's most significant environmental issues has proven beneficial to this nation. Some of Canada's most challenging issues, such as ozone depletion, acid rain, pulp and paper regulation, have been advanced only because of a willingness by jurisdictions to work toward commonly accepted goals.
In 1996, Canada, the provinces and the territories negotiated the Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization. This accord reiterates the fundamental principle of meeting the highest standards for environmental quality and the wisdom of cooperation.
Nova Scotia is understandably concerned that the commitment to cooperation and the process contained in the harmonization accord are betrayed by federal actions on Bill C-29. This unilateral approach to a matter of national concern opens the door to similar actions in the future. Neither the environment nor the economy would benefit from the adoption of such a direction.
The model for addressing the MMT issue is already in place. Joint working groups under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment could and should be the mechanism to address the MMT question.
Environment Canada and the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment share responsibility for protecting the environment. It is a responsibility we both take very seriously. Both levels of government recognize that providing the highest standard for environmental protection must never be eclipsed by any inter-jurisdictional turf battle.
Environment Canada stifled discussion on this important matter. In early 1995, as the federal government pressed forward with the MMT bill, Nova Scotia's reasonable request to submit the MMT question to the CCME task force on cleaner vehicles and fuels was dismissed.
In July 1996, the Prime Minister wrote to Premier Savage indicating that the bill would be reviewed over the summer. To the best of my knowledge, this review has never taken place. The process employed on this matter brings into question the real willingness of Environment Canada to translate its words espousing cooperation into deeds of consequence.
Our concern over this significant deviation from the accepted cooperative basis for environmental management within this country is compounded by the fact that a sound environmental or public health rationale for Bill C-29 is conspicuously absent.
Let us turn for a moment to the specific rationale for the bill. Environment Canada has elected to rely upon anti-trade legislation, not existing health or environmental statutes, because it clearly lacks the evidence required to regulate this substance for health or environmental reasons.
Regarding emissions, following initial health concerns raised by the United States Environmental Protection Agency based on modelling work, more recent empirical-based research has concluded that MMT does not pose a health threat. In a 1994 health risk assessment completed for Health Canada, it was concluded that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population.
Similar conclusions have been reached in studies carried out by other government agencies, notably the Australian Commonwealth Department of Health and the New Zealand Ministry of Commerce.
While there is no evidence to suggest a health risk, there is evidence that MMT does offer real environmental benefits for Nova Scotia. Ground level ozone, commonly referred to as smog, constitutes one of the more important trans-boundary air pollutants affecting our province.
In 1995, for example, 63 separate excedences of the national ambient air standard were recorded in our province. Oxides of nitrogen, NOx, are a key factor in the formation of this pollutant. MMT reduces vehicle NOx emissions.
While there is some debate over the level of NOx reduction achieved, there is no debate over MMT's ability to realize a higher level of NOx reduction than offered by any of the other replacement additives. This not only poses an increase to Nova Scotians, but it also contradicts the federal environment department's own position on the necessity to control NOx emissions set out under the 1990 CCME management plan for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.
Lack of consistency extends as well to the position adopted by the federal government on climate change. The National Action Program on Climate Change clearly establishes increased vehicle fuel efficiency as a priority greenhouse gas emission reduction measure. However, it is generally acknowledged that the replacement of MMT with an oxygenate will, in fact, reduce fuel economy.
Regarding on-board diagnostic systems, given the real environmental benefits associated with NOx emission reductions and the inability to demonstrate a health risk, Environment Canada has invoked the precautionary principle of possible MMT interference with emission control systems as justification for Bill C-29.
With respect to possible interference with on-board diagnostic equipment, as you are aware, a number of automobile manufacturers have made claims respecting spark plug misfires, catalyst coding, and false oxygen sensor readings as a consequence of the fuel additive MMT.
The information provided by the automotive industry in support of these claims is less than convincing. For example, General Motors asserted that this additive contributed to increased spark plug warranty claims.
However, an examination of the data strongly suggests that MMT was not the cause. Other information was either anecdotal or, as concluded in the study conducted by ORTEC, was derived from test methodologies that had "potential to skew the conclusions."
Against these claims are marshalled separate studies by Ethyl Canada and the CPPI which argue, albeit from limited data sets, that MMT does not have a negative effect on the OBD-II systems.
More significantly, in September of 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency released an emission findings document in which it clearly concluded that the use of MMT at the specified concentration will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system to achieve compliance by the emission standards.
Notwithstanding these questions about the quality of evidence provided by the automotive manufacturers, and study findings clearly suggesting that their claims are unfounded, Nova Scotia believes it is necessary to acknowledge that this debate continues. Furthermore, the data collected to date has invariably been collected by or for vested interests. Consequently, the prudent course of action would be to stay this legislation pending an independent evaluation of this additive and its impact upon emission control systems.
Nova Scotia, along with a number of other provinces, as well as CPPI and Ethyl Canada, has made this specific recommendation repeatedly to Environment Canada. Environment Canada, in turn, has just as repeatedly denied these requests on the grounds that this legislation is dictated by their adherence to the precautionary principle.
In response to this claim, we cite the statement provided in the June 1995 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where industry warned that safeguards are needed to ensure that the precautionary approach is not used as a cloak for inadequate science and is invoked only in appropriate circumstances. Because Bill C-29 has not been developed as a result of standard, risk-based, environmental assessments, it creates a lack of clarification concerning the threshold for triggering the precautionary principle.
It is incumbent upon Environment Canada to create a process which ensures increased certainty for triggering the use of the precautionary principle. It is clear that the precautionary principle cannot be used as an excuse for precipitous or unfounded action. In our view, this principle may only be legitimately applied when reasonable measures are taken to address the lack of full scientific certainty.
The third problem with this bill lies in the inappropriateness of the legislative mechanism. If MMT was really an environmental problem, one would assume it would be banned completely. However, this is not the case. The fact is that if this bill is passed, MMT will continue to be a legal substance in Canada, refineries will still be able to use stockpiled quantities, and the law will only be broken if it is shipped across provincial boundaries. This appears to suggest Environment Canada is not convinced that MMT is a hazard; otherwise they would be implementing a ban by way of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The federal government says Bill C-29 is proactive in a preventive capacity in protecting and enhancing the health of Canadians. It is worth noting that, in international disputes, Canada has argued against the use of the precautionary principle by other countries in terms of its being invoked where a scientific basis is lacking. Canada has clearly stated that the precautionary principle is not absolute, that it should be applied with prudence, and that there must be some scientific information indicating that a risk, and not just mere speculation, exists. We contend that the precautionary principle is legitimately applied when there is a reasonable expectation of risk to public health or the environment.
We believe that no industry should be excluded from its environmental responsibilities. Further, we agree that the petroleum sector should not be allowed to escape its responsibilities while the automotive sector bears the brunt of the costs of improved emissions. The issue of fuel formulations must be considered as a whole, not substance by substance without a full understanding of the interrelationships. Prohibiting an additive that has obvious environmental benefits is not a logical approach.
Nova Scotia will support the federal government in its efforts to control or ban the use of substances that inflict undue environmental damage, but we cannot support a measure based on questionable science and suspect process. To be specific, Nova Scotia accepts that there are times when action is necessary even though there is not full scientific certainty. However, we are very concerned that Environment Canada has not attempted to articulate thresholds for triggering the precautionary principle's application. Consequently, this issue cries out for the type of meaningful consultation outlined in the recent harmonization accord from CCME.
Nova Scotia is committed to environmental protection. We suggest that the matter of MMT be handled in the most appropriate forum through the CCME process. Until such time as Environment Canada can make an adequate case based on science and sustainable development, we urge that Bill C-29 be put aside.
Mr. John Donner, Executive Director, Environmental Affairs, Department of Energy, Government of Alberta: Honourable senators, you should have before you copies of the paper we forwarded last week with attached correspondence between our ministers and federal ministers. This morning we have brief opening comments and then we will welcome your questions.
We welcome this opportunity to address the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to provide a clear outline of Alberta's position on Bill C-29. We are reflecting the positions articulated by Premier Klein, the Minister of Environmental Protection Ty Lund, Energy Minister Pat Black, and the Minister Responsible for Internal Trade Ken Rostad.
In brief, Alberta is concerned that there is no clear environmental benefit from the phase-out of MMT. In fact, there could be a cost to the environment. This means that there is no justification for imposing costs on the private sector. Moreover, this bill ignores principles of federal-provincial cooperation and coordination. Finally, it conflicts with the trade principles supported by both the federal and provincial governments.
The Alberta government is committed to effective and efficient public policy. Streamlined regulation is part of the Alberta government's efforts to avoid unnecessary costs and minimize necessary costs for the private sector. Both levels of government in a federation contribute to a stable regulatory environment.
In short, the Alberta government is concerned with effective, responsible public policy. We believe it has four basic criteria.
The first is need. There must be a clear public purpose. Regulatory intervention requires a clear benefit that counterbalances the cost of intrusion.
The second is due process. Regulation must be developed through consultation with involved stakeholders. Good law-making requires due process. Usually this results in a more effective and lower-cost solution.
The third is effective, efficient implementation. The regulation must be streamlined and efficient in meeting its objectives. It should minimize costs to the government and the private sector. The most appropriate, direct and least-intrusive mechanism should be used.
The fourth is federal-provincial cooperation: Where both federal and provincial governments have jurisdictional interests, there should be effective consultation to set objectives and to avoid duplication, uncertainty and overlap.
These are not unique or special criteria to Alberta. In fact, they are also reflected in the basic rules set down by federal Treasury Board for regulation making in the federal government. Bill C-29 fails each and every criterion.
Let me start with federal-provincial concerns. Provinces have a clear jurisdictional interest in the manufacture and use of gasoline in their jurisdictions and in the protection of the environment as related to gasoline.
Fuel standards, environmental regulation, even the banning of MMT are within provincial competence. However, MMT has been excluded from discussion in federal-provincial fora. As has been mentioned, there have been repeated requests to include MMT in the processes of the CCME, to look at the cleaner vehicles and fuels initiative. Despite provincial and industry representations, there has been no action within the CCME.
There is also a process in the Council of Canadian Ministers of Environment and the Council of Energy Ministers, a process to coordinate action on air-quality issues. Again, this issue does not meet the priorities there and was not discussed in that forum.
In a letter from the Council of Energy Ministers, eight provinces and two territories requested an open, information-based, decision-making process. These are the principles laid down in the guidelines of policy-making by the Council of Canadian Ministers of Environment and reflected in the environmental accord. The response was a cursory, internal review and an announcement that the bill would proceed.
This unilateral approach erodes federal-provincial trust and cooperation for effective policy-making implementation. It runs counter to the environmental accord developed to ensure effective environmental protection without conflict, duplication or overlap. The accord sets clear principles for open and transparent processes, cooperation in setting goals, and goals set according to the best science and with the appropriate consultation. Judged against the best practices for federal-provincial consultation, practices adopted to demonstrate effective federalism, Bill C-29 fails miserably.
With respect to need, let me turn to the fundamental question: Why is this bill necessary? We are here because there is no clear answer. The bill has been proposed as an environmental measure to address either the direct or indirect effects of MMT. However, even the bill's supporters do not know if MMT causes a problem. When the bill was reintroduced, it spoke only of potential negative effects.
Health Canada has given MMT a clean bill of health. The scientific review of OBDs is inconclusive. The U.S. has reversed its position on MMT, and the removal of MMT may actually increase smog contributors, NOx, and increase the toxic composition of gasoline.
We do not come here today with new evidence; rather, we come here seeking a rational process to sort out the evidence and make a science-based decision in an open process as called for by the CCME guidelines and the environmental accord.
Bill C-29 partisans have cited the precautionary principle in proceeding with the bill. This stretches the concept. The precautionary principle is that scientific uncertainty should not be used as an excuse to avoid taking action to prevent a potentially serious and irreversible environmental outcome. In this case, we are talking about detectors, not about the environment directly.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence that the bill would increase smog contributors, NOx, and, therefore, if anything, the precautionary principle could as easily be cited against this bill. Let us not make real environmental problems worse while pursuing phantoms.
Bill C-29 fails the test of need.
My colleague will review the final tests, due process and appropriate mechanisms.
Mr. James Ogilvy, Director, Internal Trade, Alberta Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs: Honourable senators, due process is an important concept that has been missed here. Good decision-making requires effective consultation with the parties involved. That is an essential part of due process. It should be pointed out that a Government of Canada regulatory policy set out by the Treasury Board was required to be in place in the Department of the Environment by the end of 1996.
Among the policy requirements are some that Mr. Donner has mentioned already, but some of the critical items are that Canadians are consulted; the benefits outweigh the costs; no unnecessary regulatory burden is imposed; and trade agreements be recognized, acknowledged and taken into account.
The process questions largely involve consultation but also the placement of appropriate mechanisms. Bill C-29 was conceived and introduced in the middle of a consultative process which was already underway among certain parties. Repeated offers to re-establish such a process were ignored or set aside. A critical element in due process, of course, is abiding by the results and abiding by the outcome of the process. That commitment has apparently not been in place either.
Compounding the problem is the fact that a federal-provincial stakeholder process is attempting to establish a consensus on fuels and transportation issues. Again, the failure of Bill C-29 to follow the process undermines ongoing efforts to deal with fuels efficiently and economically.
This bill seeks to force one-time, one-off changes to refineries that will accommodate the perceived need to eliminate MMT but without any coordination of the possible changes that may result from the more general consultative process on fuels and all their components.
The final point that I will bring forward from Alberta's position is that of the appropriateness of the mechanism used here. The problem originates with the lack of clear evidence that there is an environmental problem. Mr. Donner has referred to that in his testimony. As well, I believe officials from Environment Canada confirmed to you the lack of evidence of harm, meaning that there is really no opportunity to act under environmental legislation.
It is a widely held and widely respected convention that legislation be applied directly to the problems that exist, if problems are discovered, not indirectly as with this bill. In this case, there has not been the opportunity to apply health legislation or environmental legislation because the evidence simply does not exist that that type of legislation is appropriate or necessary. Instead, the bill is a trade bill. It seeks to achieve indirectly what cannot be justified and accomplished directly.
On the face of it, I suggest that indirect legislation can be seen as a symptom of a poorly conceived objective and becomes the product of a poorly executed process.
As a trade bill, Bill C-29 comes into sharp conflict with another objective of both federal and provincial governments; that is the enhancement of free trade continentally and within Canada -- in other words, both internationally and internally.
Both NAFTA and the Agreement on Internal Trade set out a general principle that trade should be free unless it must be constrained for legitimate public policy objectives -- in other words, to the greater benefit of Canadians and the economy as a whole. Any action that is taken must be taken in the least trade-intrusive way.
This bill misses on both those points. As Mr. Donner pointed out, there is no unequivocal environmental purpose for the bill. Beyond that, it is delivered through a trade-restrictive mechanism. The signal it sends is that a free trade federation and all the support for freedom of trade within the country and internationally is deliberately being limited here.
The Alberta government supports legislation which serves a clear purpose, is developed through consultation with stakeholders, with other governments, and uses the least intrusive regulatory mechanism to accomplish its purpose. Where Alberta jurisdiction is involved in this question, we want clear consultation and cooperation in establishing the objectives, finding a solution and finding the route to meet those objectives.
Alberta has asked in its paper, which is more detailed than our oral comments, that the MMT process meet these tests of good regulatory policy. We oppose proceeding with the bill in the absence of clear evidence, due process and effective consultation. If the process reveals a need, we believe it would generate a more objective, less interventionist, less inflammatory and more direct mechanism than Bill C-29.
What the Alberta government is looking for could be characterized in one word, namely, reasonableness.
The particular aim of Alberta in making this presentation to you is to urge, first, that Bill C-29 be set aside pending the outcome of preliminary undertakings, including appropriate consultation with stakeholders and adequate scientific studies. Second, if it cannot be adequately demonstrated that MMT creates a hazard to the environment or to health, the legislation should be dropped. Third, if it can be adequately demonstrated that MMT creates a problem requiring a regulatory response, Bill C-29 still should be dropped because that will be the evidence needed to create a framework in which direct regulatory action can be taken. Therefore, we urge that a more appropriate regulatory vehicle be found to deal directly with MMT, if the need is substantiated.
Senator Kenny: Concerning the province of Nova Scotia, you mention in your brief that MMT reduces emissions of nitrogen oxide which are one of the principal constituents in the formation of urban smog. Vehicle manufacturers told us that they are seriously questioning this claim and, if there is a reduction, it occurs at the expense of increasing hydrocarbon emissions which are a component of urban smog. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Underwood: I will comment on the first part of your question and then perhaps I could refer the issue of hydrocarbon emissions to Mr. Bethune.
The various studies on the increased NOx emissions by the removal of MMT appear to range from somewhere between 8 per cent and 30 per cent. That is quite a large range. If you accept the studies that have been done, even at the lower range, we are looking at an increase of 8 per cent in NOx emissions. For Nova Scotia, that is particularly relevant.
I will not get too technical here because I am not qualified to do so. My understanding is that the production of ground level ozone is a function of reaction between NOx, volatile organic compounds and sunlight. When you combine those three pieces together, you get the production of smog.
In Nova Scotia, we are in what is called a NOx-limited situation. In other words, the limitation on the production of smog during the right sunlight conditions is limited by the amount of nitrogen oxide not by the amount of volatile organic compounds. It is difficult to quantify, but it is clear that the relationship between NOx and DOCs exist. If we get an increase of NOx emissions, such as the tailpipe emissions that come from our western neighbours, that poses a real risk to us.
Mr. Creighton D. Brisco, Director, Resource Management and Environmental Protection, Department of the Environment, Government of Nova Scotia: There is no debate on the effect of NOx emissions and the fact that it will have a reduction effect upon NOx emissions. However, there is debate on hydrocarbon emissions. They have indicated that in some cases it could go as high as 5 per cent, but they have not been able to determine whether or not the measurements that have been taken so far are statistically significant. In other words, the type of analysis and testing that has been done with respect to hydrocarbon emissions do not allow us to say whether or not this is a true concern.
Senator Kenny: The province supports the precautionary principle in a general sense. How will you explain to the voters of Nova Scotia that banning MMT may cause an additional cost of not only $5 per year at the gas pumps but also $150 or $200 in service calls a year if their OBD equipment malfunctions? Who will get up and explain that to the folks in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Underwood: From the information I have read and the briefings that I have received, it is clear that there is no definitive evidence on your latter point concerning the impact of the use of MMT in relation to on-board diagnostics.
I had what I consider to be a good briefing on that issue from Mr. Bethune, who has the wonderful skill of being able to explain complex, technical issues to the uninformed. As a matter of fact, he is on the radio regularly doing diagnosis of cars and their problems.
I think the record shows that the impact of the use of MMT, if there is one, is on the sensors, the post-catalytic converters, not on the actual emissions themselves.
I would explain this to Nova Scotians by saying that we have a situation where we know that if we stop using MMT, we will have increased NOx emissions and an increase in CO2 emissions because of reduced fuel efficiency. Weigh that against the uncertain implications with respect to on-board diagnostic systems and I think that this case cries out for an independent study on the actual impact of this material on on-board diagnostic systems and on the emissions.
These are two very different issues. Perhaps Mr. Bethune could discuss that further. One is a sensor issue and one is an actual emission issue.
Senator Kenny: Before he goes into that, we have had Health Canada comment on an independent study. They have suggested that to put it together would take at least one year. We have new equipment coming out next month on some vehicles. We have also had car dealers and the association of car dealers come before us and say things such as: This MMT stuff is terrific. We have never seen anything that we have liked quite so much because we are charging hundreds of dollars more per year to service vehicles that are using MMT whereas the identical vehicles that are running on MMT-free gasoline do not have those service calls. You folks would be doing us a great service if you did not pass the bill because we will get rich at the expense of consumers.
The witness went on to say that, in the interests of Canadians, he thought it would be wise to pass the bill, as did Health Canada.
Mr. Doug Bethune, Instructor, Nova Scotia Community College: With regard to MMT and its effect on warranties with OBD-II systems, OBD-II vehicles are being shipped into Canada presently and since 1996. They are completely OBD-equipped in every sense of the word, with the exception of the post-O2 sensor behind the catalyst.
The purpose of that post-O2 sensor is to monitor the oxygen storage capacity of the catalytic converter and its ability to absorb and release oxygen into the atmosphere. That is the only reason for that post- O2 sensor.
With regard to warranty claims costing Canadians more money, I do not know specifically what manufacturers you are talking about, but we have had MMT in gasoline in Canada for 17 years. I work on the front lines and I have seen no devastating effects from MMT residue in catalytic converters, spark plugs or elsewhere.
General Motors does claim that they have problems with spark plugs, and they have some physical evidence to support that. If MMT were the cause of spark-plug-related complaints, one would expect to find the greatest number of complaints in Canada where the average concentrations of MMT in fuel were the highest. No such correlation exists. As a matter of fact, average use of MMT in British Columbia is nearly twice as high as in Atlantic Canada. General Motors' own warranty figures show that the incidence per 1,000 vehicles for B.C. is nearly four times lower than it is in the Atlantic provinces. Gasoline in Ontario and Quebec has the same average concentration of MMT as gasoline in the Atlantic provinces, but for some strange reason the incidence per 1,000 vehicles in the Atlantic provinces is nearly ten times as high as in Ontario and Quebec.
Could it be that this incidence per 1,000 vehicles of spark-plug-related complaints correlates more closely to the distillation curve of the fuel rather than the concentration of MMT? It seems that General Motors has been aware of this for quite some time. The service bulletins which they supply to their technicians make specific reference to the distillation curve of fuel causing spark plug fouling.
Senator Kenny: Why do you think General Motors has gone to the trouble of disconnecting their OBD equipment in their new vehicles?
Mr. Bethune: That requires some qualification. General Motors cars produced and sold in Canada are equipped with OBD-II and OBD-II is connected and functioning in every sense of the word with the exception of the post-catalytic converter and the software which monitors it.
Senator Kenny: And the warning light that alerts the driver.
Mr. Bethune: The malfunction indicator light will still be triggered by the software in the computer if any of the other systems fail. The light will function. The only time the light will not function is if the post-catalytic converter triggers the oxygen storage capacity of that converter. That is the only thing that that post-oxygen sensor does.
As a matter of fact, we have cars in Nova Scotia produced by General Motors which do not even have a post-O2 sensor. There is a plug in it. Those cars were sold under full warranty.
Senator Kenny: Would you agree that if the OBD-II equipment on a vehicle is not functioning there is some risk of greater pollution during the use of the vehicle?
Mr. Bethune: I would have difficulty agreeing with that because the post-oxygen sensor, whether or not it is connected, does not affect emissions. It only checks the oxygen storage capacity of the converter. The question is always whether MMT is really the problem. In 33 years as a technician, I have never seen General Motors be less than very cautious with their science. The manufacturers in general have been very cautious with their science.
However, for some strange reason, on every avenue that I pursue to find the science behind these problems with MMT, I come to a dead end. As everyone in my area knows, I am a proponent of GM. In my opinion, the MMT issue was raised when General Motors began putting a base metal in their catalytic converter called cerium which has the unique property of absorbing oxygen when it is in plentiful supply and giving up oxygen when it is deficient. This is when the concern arose for MMT. It is not what MMT has that is the problem, it is what it does not have.
Oxygenated fuels with additives such as MTBE and ETBE are oxygenates and ethers. When they burn, they do a couple of things. First, there are less Btu's per pound in the fuel so it causes higher fuel consumption and, thus, higher CO2 emissions. If we use fuel in Canada with MTBE, we will have higher carbon dioxide emissions, which is not a harmless gas. We have a greenhouse problem.
The cerium and the MTBE will provide oxygen for the converter, which will be absorbed by the cerium and released. MMT will not do that. Therefore, it is what MTBE has, not what it does not have. The by-products of combustion from MTBE-based fuels to enhance octane are pretty scary in the simplest sense of the word. I am not a chemist, but I do know that it emits formaldehyde, and formaldehyde is a known carcinogenic. These formaldehyde-based substances, when combined with chlorine, cause some nasty chemical emissions.
Also, some of the MTBE additives are toluene based. When toluene burns and is emitted into the atmosphere, it produces toluene substances which inhibit the growth of bone marrow. If we are going to use the precautionary principle, we would be prudent to have a look at the alternative for MMT.
The consumption of fuel in Canada will increase. Even by the most conservative estimates, there will be a 2-per-cent increase in fuel consumption.
Some downstream alternative organizations in the United States are claiming a 3.5-per-cent to 5-per-cent increase in fuel consumption by burning fuels containing oxygenates. That breaks the first rule of conservation -- reduction of consumption.
Senator Kenny: How do you explain that 21 vehicle manufacturers have told this committee that they have a problem with MMT?
Mr. Bethune: As has been mentioned here, there are two giants in this country; the oil companies and the auto manufacturers. They are at each other on this MMT issue. These two giants have been pushed to the wall by a greater giant, and that giant is EPA. The manufacturers are being forced to meet emission levels which have been pushed ad nauseam. They are now starting to approach a threshold of unattainable goals. The manufacturers are taking the brunt of it and now we are addressing the fuel issue.
With all due respect, I think it is uncharacteristic of the oil companies and the manufacturers to be in a confrontational mode, as it is uncharacteristic of Canadians. It is our tradition to solve our problems through consultation, not confrontation.
Senator Comeau: In a letter from the Premier of Nova Scotia to the Prime Minister last June, the Premier of Nova Scotia alluded to the problem of transboundary pollutants in the air caused by NOx emissions from central Canada. As I understand it, if vehicles made prior to 1988 were no longer allowed to use MMT-based fuel, this would increase NOx emissions; is that right?
Mr. Underwood: That is right.
Senator Comeau: Is there any kind of an estimate at all as to the amount of pollutants that would impact on areas such as Nova Scotia?
Mr. Underwood: The short answer to that question is no. All we have now is the information that the elimination of MMT will cause an increase in NOx emissions at somewhere between 8 per cent and 20 per cent. The other thing that we do know is that the NOx that impacts on Nova Scotia does not come from Nova Scotia.
One of the highest levels of NOx readings found on a regular basis are from the middle of the Kejimkujik National Park. At that point, it becomes a matter of trying to determine how much of those pollutants are coming from the northeastern United States, southern Ontario or the Ohio Valley.
I am sure if we were to look back at the information on the transport of pollutants that was used to support the acid rain initiatives, we might find that information as to what percentage comes from Ontario, the Ohio Valley and the northeastern U.S.
No, we do not have an exact estimate; we just have the information that leads to some concern.
Senator Comeau: I am not familiar with the damages caused by NOx pollutants. What are the damages that can result?
Mr. Briscoe: The concern here is ground level ozone and the contribution that NOx makes to the formation of that contaminant. We have a number of monitoring stations in Nova Scotia which monitor ground level ozone. Last summer alone, there were over 60 reports of exceeding the 82-parts-per-million standard.
Therefore, the question is: What is the impact of ground level ozone? It is fairly clear that excessive concentrations of ground level ozone have a real impact upon crop production. In terms of human health, it has a significant effect on respiration. Certainly, there has been a correlation between the number of people admitted to hospital who are having problems breathing and the concentration of ground level ozone. Those are probably the two most significant effects of that problem.
In terms of the contribution of ground level ozone from outside the province, some modelling data suggest that roughly a little more than one-third originates from Upper Canada, that is, from Ontario and Quebec, with the rest originating from the eastern United States.
Senator Comeau: Last week, the president of Imperial Oil was asked whether the removal of MMT would impact on the refinery in Nova Scotia. He indicated that it would have a significant impact on the competitiveness of the refinery. Does the government have any inside knowledge as to whether this would cause the closure of the refinery in Dartmouth?
Mr. Underwood: The only information we have seen is on the public record with respect to the costs associated with retooling or using alternatives at the refinery. I believe in the submission to which you have referred, senator, Imperial Oil pointed out that it has made significant strides at that refinery in terms of increased efficiencies and cost reduction over the last number of years. Having to do this retooling would eat up about 40 per cent of that figure.
I do not think this will cause the refinery to close. I think Imperial Oil has as much as said that it probably would not be enough to close it. However, it would impact on their bottom line.
If you look at the agenda of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the committee on automotive fuels, you will see that a number of substances are in the hopper for consideration in terms of fuel formulation changes. One of the fears we should have is that those will have a big price tag associated with them. Whether benzene or sulphur, these are all high priority substances for looking at solutions to fuel formulation. They will have big costs associated with them.
At some point, we will have to recognize that the incremental costs involved in going through this process in an ad hoc way are not prudent, either environmentally or economically.
Senator Comeau: I understand that banning the interprovincial trade of MMT will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of retooling refineries. This cost, obviously, has to be passed on to consumers. Has any kind of estimate been made as to the average cost to the consumer per litre of gasoline?
Mr. Underwood: It is about 15 per cent in the short term.
Senator Comeau: All those who cannot afford 1998 vehicles, therefore, will have to pay roughly 15 per cent more than those people who can afford 1998 vehicles.
Mr. Underwood: There is some logic to that.
Senator Comeau: What we should be concerned about is cost. I hate to bring up such things as cost. In fact, the greatest cost here is to the health of Canadians.
Senator Taylor: Senator Comeau brought up a point about the cost of gasoline. I think it might be wise to confirm that the cost of gasoline coming out of the refineries is only about one-third of the price for which it is sold at the pump. The government with their greedy fingers are responsible for 60 per cent to 70 per cent of that price. We could almost double the cost of gasoline without making that big a difference at the pumps. It is a bit like whiskey; it comes out of the plant pretty cheap, but what it costs on the other end is a different matter.
I am puzzled that Albertans are against MMT when one of the biggest manufacturers of MTBE in Canada is coming on stream in that province. There are many farmers who want to get rid of their grain through the production of ethanol. Did you suddenly decide to say to hell with the farm vote and to hell with Sherwood Park? Why are you worrying about MMT when only one refinery in your province turns out gas with MMT?
Mr. Donner: We said at the beginning of our brief that we are not speaking in favour of MMT or any specific product. We do not believe that it is the role of government to mandate specific products, even if it were to the advantage of certain sectors of the economy. If the action is not taken on a rational and reasonable basis, through due process and based on science, it is simply capricious. How do we know that the next time around that capricious action will not be on those commodities?
What we are trying to do in Alberta is to create what some of you may have heard called the Alberta advantage. That means a streamlined and efficient infrastructure, with a reasonable, streamlined and stable regulatory process and the due process to be consulted when that is changed. We believe that is the basis for the development of MTBE, ETBE and ethanol in the refining industry. It should be on a stable basis, not on a product specific mandate.
Senator Taylor: Areas such as the lower mainland of B.C., Los Angeles, and Toronto/Hamilton have a problem with pollution. They wish to bring in laws which are not necessary in the rest of Canada. Does it not behoove a national government to bring forward a certain minimum for our environmental laws?
If B.C. went ahead with their rules on the lower mainland, would it not be much easier to monitor the gasoline you are putting into these vehicles than to monitor the engine? Would you have a customs line around the lower mainland checking all cars and popping up the hood to see if things are connected? It is easier to monitor the gasoline, as they found in Los Angeles and London. When a specific municipal area decides that it wants higher standards because of the population and the number of vehicles, it is easier to do it by something measurable -- that is, the dispensing of fuel, the type of fuel, and so on. Hence, even MMT-free gasoline cannot get into California. It must be reformulated.
How would you answer that? Would you have Mr. Klein and Mr. Harris and the others sit down and make laws as to what kind of gasoline they will have in Toronto and Vancouver?
Mr. Donner: Effectively, there is a process for developing priorities on air issues. I referred to one of those which involves the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the Council of Energy Ministers and something called the National Air Issues Coordinating Mechanism, which looks at such issues as smog, acidifying emissions, climate change, and then develops priorities and coordinates approaches.
Senator Taylor: Does that go down to a municipal level?
Mr. Donner: It develops it on a regional basis. If you refer to the issues mentioned by Mr. Brisco, the smog issues and the non-attainment issues, those are developed in terms of those plans and strategies.
You are correct that one of those key areas is transportation issues -- vehicles and fuels. However, as Mr. Underwood advised, the process is underway to look at cleaner vehicles and fuels, trying to look at an integrated, science-based, consultative approach on sulphur, benzene and other emissions, other constituents. This is an ad hoc process which may well add costs and become a detriment in terms of the problems you are citing in the lower Vancouver mainland, central Canada, and the eastern provinces.
Senator Taylor: You are a very optimistic person. The ten provinces and the federal government cannot agree on a Constitution; how would they agree on gasoline?
I was intrigued by your statement about mechanics. I am sort of a half-way mechanic. I restore old cars which, fortunately, do not have OBD-IIs on them. I re-read the Ortech testimony to which you referred. They indicated the data was reviewed from the test but that they had the potential to skew the conclusions. In other words, Ortech was not at all happy with the way they collected the data in order to come up with a spark plug.
We have heard from the dealers, and I took some time when I was home last weekend to check with some of my friends in the business. There is no question that the spark plugs require replacement much more often now than they did previously. It is not because the fuel is worse, but simply because the OBDs are indicating that they need to be replaced.
Mr. Bethune: With regard to the spark plugs, General Motors did have spark plugs in place which they wished to warranty for 160,000 kilometres.
Senator Taylor: Which it will do with MMT-free or propane, but it will not do it on an MMT gasoline.
Mr. Bethune: I believe I alluded to that.
For clarification sake, I do have some spark plugs with me. General Motors came out with this spark plug. This is General Motors' first attempt at a high-warranty spark plug, and this is their 41908 spark plug. This particular plug did cause some problems initially, even when it was tested with pure fuel, no MMT added at all. As a matter of fact, this spark plug -- tested without fuel period, any kind of fuel -- had a tendency to surface-fire and foul, which caused horrendous problems, as far as warranty is concerned, from no-starts. It was particularly acute in the province of Nova Scotia where we have high humidity and cold temperatures.
We also have a fuel with a low distillation curve, and that distillation curve will not atomize the fuel as well as a fuel that has a higher curve. On the distillation curve, the fuel itself has heavier ends in it, so it does not evaporate off as quickly, and because that was an attempt to control evaporative emissions upon burning hydrocarbons, this plug fouls. It fouls because of the fuel and because, in my humble opinion, it is poorly designed. General Motors would concur with that, because they came out with a new plug to replace this. This plug came out in 1994.
Another spark plug is applied to vehicles from 1995 to 1997. This particular spark plug has much heavier insulation, and the electrode tip is much greater. It does not reach over as close to the ground electrode as the other plug does. It has been shown that the leakage resistance on this particular spark plug is more than twice that of the original plug, so the new one replaced the old one.
It is carbon that fouls plugs and causes tracking, not MMT. I was a tune-up specialist for about 20 years. I did ten tune-ups a day, five days a week, and most of the cars were V8s. I have been looking at 400 spark plugs a week for a long time. Carbon tracking is known for leakage in causing fouling of spark plugs, not MMT. We have had MMT in fuel for 17 years. This particular spark plug, even at the dealer level, is not used.
Senator Taylor: Does manganese oxide not create a surface conductor?
Mr. Bethune: The manganese oxide on the spark plug is not a conductor. Oxides are insulators rather than conductors. It is the carbon which causes the fouling of the spark plug. The spark, rather than jumping the electrode gap and providing the nucleus for the fuel to burn, goes down the carbon and to the ground, which provides no nucleus for the fuel. Hence you have the flooding and misfire. The carbon on the fuel will not come off of the fuel until the engine runs for some period of time.
The problem is more acute in areas where you have cold climate and a low distillation curve of fuel, and also in areas where you have short-trip driving.
At the dealer level, when they replace spark plugs for these problem engines, these 2.2 litre J-cars, the dealers say these are the best plugs. However, according to their sales figures, they do not use either of those plugs. They use this one, which is a conventional spark plug. The technicians know that this plug gives no trouble regardless of what fuel is used and regardless of what engine it is in. That is evidence from the front lines.
It is not MMT or the residue of MMT that is causing the spark plug fouling; it is carbon. It is caused by the low distillation rate of the fuel. It became particularly acute when General Motors went from a throttle-body, fuel-injected engine where there was one injector and the air stream delivered the fuel to the combustion chamber. It became particularly acute when they went to multiport fuel injection where the injector was very close to the cylinder indeed.
Senator Landry: If MMT is not a problem, why does Transport Canada test new vehicles with MMT-free fuel? In addition to that, why is it that MMT is only widely used in three countries: Canada, Ukraine and Bulgaria? Why is it banned in the State of California and in all of the states and regions of the U.S. where the Clean Air Act applies?
Perhaps we should have a little bit of Hitler in us. When Hitler was trying to make a super-nation, he said it was like raising horses: If anything was going to hurt his horses, he would keep it away from them.
The Chairman: Heaven forbid we follow that concept, but would you answer the question?
Mr. Donner: I do not know why Transport Canada tests without MMT. I would suspect it is for comparison testing. I know Canada does rely on some EPA tests which do not have MMT, but I do not know why they would test with MMT-free gasoline.
In terms of the use of MMT, I do not know what other countries are doing and why they have elected to go with other alternatives. I have seen the numerous reports at various levels -- some cited by my colleagues from Nova Scotia, -- others from the United Nations and the World Health Organization -- which talk about MMT being no risk at a variety of levels. I do not understand how those comments can be driven by a health concern, since there has been no evidence of there being any health concern.
There are regional air quality issues in the United States, reasons why those areas would want to clean up their air, and they have looked at methanol and ethanol fuels for improved regional air quality. I can understand that at the regional level.
We have been told that MMT is an issue because it affects OBD-IIs and vehicle performance. The record in the United States is that there have been similar problems with OBD-IIs. It is not the MMT that is creating the problem so much as the variation in revapour pressure for those gasolines. I do not have the answer. All I can say is that, since Canada was one of the first countries to phase out lead and identify a cost-effective replacement, it has turned to MMT. So far, we have seen no evidence that MMT is a problem.
The Alberta government is not defending MMT. It has been stated clearly in the letter from the Council of Energy Ministers, and in the letters from the Premier and the Minister of Environmental Protection, that we want to see an open process to allow for the resolution of these questions before action is taken. That is what we want to see. That open process should address those kinds of concerns.
Senator Anderson: I drive a car, and I am interested in the discussion about oxygen sensors, the life of spark plugs and the possible problems with emission control systems that we have been hearing about last week and today.
However, I am more concerned about the possible harmful effects of manganese from MMT on the health of humans. Manganese is a known neurotoxin. I was interested in your comments that there is no known research indicating possible harm to humans.
Are you aware of a research study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1997, entitled: "Manganese in the U.S. gasoline supply"?
Mr. Donner: No, we are not aware of it.
Senator Anderson: I want to read a few items from this. The authors are from Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia; and the Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston. They wrote at the time that Ethyl Corporation was looking to reapply to include MMT in their gasoline:
During the early 1900s, however, a second concern arose at EPA, this one based on health effects. EPA analyzed the existing literature on manganese toxicity and found that available evidence did not demonstrate the safety of MMT use. Citing the Clean Air Act, which aims to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the population.' The EPA continued to deny Ethyl's waiver. In October 1995, however, a Federal appeals court in Washington held that EPA could only consider automobile engine performance, and not public health, in deciding whether to permit MMT use, and ruled that Ethyl must be permitted to market MMT, effective December 1995. The safety and proprietary of MMT use have been actively debated on editorial pages, in press releases, and in other public forums, since that time.
The article goes on to point out various vulnerable people in the population, such as children, pregnant women, the aged and individuals with pre-existing neurological diseases. Persons with iron deficiency are also of special concern because animal and human evidence has shown that gastrointestinal absorption of manganese is enhanced by iron deficiency. We also know that there are many children in our population who are deficient in iron. They would, therefore, tend to absorb more manganese.
Are you not concerned? Should we not all be more concerned about the health of humans in this issue rather than the maintenance of cars?
Mr. Donner: First of all, if I had suggested or stated that there was no evidence, that would have been beyond my competence. What I was meaning to say was that the studies I have seen quoted from a variety of sources have all indicated a wide margin of safety in terms of MMT. Even were I familiar with this paper, I would not be qualified to speak to it. My understanding of the court ruling with respect to the EPA was that they were not allowed to withhold the waiver for reasons of health.
However, there was nothing to stop the EPA from banning MMT if they found it to be toxic. In the same way, if MMT was demonstrated to be toxic, there is nothing to prevent Environment Canada from proceeding under CEPA.
As far as I know, Health Canada, in its most recent viewing of the evidence, has determined that there is no risk from MMT. Perhaps this would be something that would be looked at in that open forum, exposed to the testing of true science. However, as one piece, I cannot comment on it, not having seen it.
Senator Anderson: Dr. Landrigan from the Mt. Sinai Medical Centre had a comment about manganese, and he spoke about what science did know, that manganese was a neurotoxin in occupational exposure creating Parkinson's-like tremors.
Dr. Landrigan -- a noted physician and epidemiologist in the United States -- apparently explained that we have learned from the experience with leaded gasoline. He said that if you want to introduce a potent neurotoxin into the blood and brains of people, particularly children, adding such a neurotoxin metal to gasoline is an extremely effective delivery mechanism. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Donner: We have been asking repeatedly for an open process to examine this evidence and make an informed decision. In our opinion, the use of anecdotal evidence is not a good way to make public policy decisions.
Senator Anderson: I agree.
Senator Nolin: My good friend Senator Taylor introduced the issue of how federal and provincial governments can produce good policy. Can you explain to this committee how CCME works, when it was formed, and give us some examples of decisions taken through that process?
Mr. Underwood: I will try to be fairly brief. I have been associated with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, on and off for the last six or eight years. In my opinion, having also been involved in other interjurisdictional fora, the CCME is one of the most constructive and competent collectives of ministers in the country. The issues that it faces, and will continue to face, are extremely complex, not only technologically but jurisdictionally. The Constitution was not very visionary when it came to the environment. No one was thinking of the environment. That is not to discredit our forefathers, but it did not give clear guidance, nor was it possible to do so, since environmental issues transcend spatial boundaries.
In the last approximately eight years, the CCME has grappled with a number of difficult environmental problems, ranging all the way from a protocol on the issue of NOx and VOCs, ground level ozone precursors, identification of non-attaining areas and programs put in place to reduce those emissions.
Basically here is how it works and how it has worked in the past. In a moment, I will discuss how we see it working in the future, in the context of harmonization. The idea is that the ministers, as a collective, through their consultations with various stakeholders, bring to the table matters they wish to place as priorities for national action. Once a consensus is reached that something is an issue -- whether it is NOx, VOCs, toxic chemicals, water-quality guidelines, emissions from incinerators, the various issues that all regulatory agencies face -- standards and guidelines are developed.
That has been how the council has worked to this point. That allows, for example, a small jurisdiction like Nova Scotia to use the CCME guidelines on the emissions of dioxins and furans from incinerators, because we know they have been established scientifically, and set through consultations. Those guidelines become, in essence, a law of the province of Nova Scotia through our permitting process.
Up to this point, the success has been, in some cases, very good, and, in some cases, not. There has not been a clear structure and a commitment to a cooperative approach in a rigorous format. Over the last eight months or so, we have negotiated an agreement on harmonization of environmental management in Canada, as well as a number of subagreements, the most significant in this context being the one relating to standards development.
Here is how that works. As a collective, the ministers identify, through consultations, which issues are priorities for the development of standards, whether those standards will be for ambient environmental quality standards -- in other words, the level in the general environment -- or specific standards relating to products, such as additives to fuels, or whether they will be a combination of those plus some stack emissions or discharge emissions.
One may ask the following questions: What are the priorities for national action? What needs to be done to solve the problem? Who is best situated to do what on that list of to-dos? That will depend on who is closest to the problem, who has the capacity to enforce the measures, and so on. You do not even look at the Constitution at this point. You are just deciding what is the issue, what needs to be done, and who is best situated to do it.
After you have come to that point, you say, "I have the authority to regulate in this area where we have agreed that you are best situated to take the action, so I will take my legislation and put it in the closet, or in abeyance, for as long as you live up to your deal." It is a deal that is struck; I call it "contractual federalism". It is saying that both levels of government have the ability to legislate and regulate this activity, but it does not make sense that both do so. As long as one level agrees to do what it says it will do, the other level will not regulate. This MMT situation would fit very nicely into that process.
We have a process to look at fuels and fuel additives in a comprehensive way, identify the priorities, determine the best legislative measures to be utilized to control those emissions or reduce those problems, and then we go ahead and do it as a collective.
Senator Nolin: Your lengthy explanation begs the question: Was the issue of MMT ever raised at that environmental partnership?
Mr. Underwood: The request was made to have the MMT bill follow through the process established under CCME, and that request was denied.
Senator Nolin: Can you explain that a little more. It was requested by whom?
Mr. Brisco: There were a number of requests. Our minister made one as did the minister from Alberta. Over the past two years, there have been a number of requests at the operational level and at the directors' level, in an effort to get MMT rolled into the fuel formulation task force and reviewed there. This attempt was made at both the ministerial and operational levels.
Senator Nolin: Who rejected those requests?
Mr. Brisco: Environment Canada.
Senator Nolin: Was the federal government never asked about this matter? Did they ever inform you that they were going to introduce this bill before they introduced it?
Mr. Brisco: Perhaps Mr. Donner could relate the incident of the CCME meeting in the Yukon.
Mr. Donner: I was not at that meeting.
Mr. Brisco: I am sorry. If I remember correctly, your ministry raised the issue of MMT at that meeting of the CCME ministers.
Mr. Donner: It was at a meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers. It was raised by energy ministers last September, and at that time eight provinces and two territories indicated their opposition to proceeding with the bill. In both April of 1996 and April of 1995, Minister Lund expressed concern about MMT. I have to check my records to see in which of those he specifically requested to go through the CCME process. At the officials level, I do know we were informed that the bill would proceed. There was no opportunity to discuss its merits. It was presented as a fait accompli: It would be introduced and there was nothing we could do to discuss it, investigate it or change it.
Mr. Brisco: At the CCME meeting I am thinking of, the issue was raised, but there was no discussion and it came to everyone's surprise three days later that the bill had been introduced. That forum seemed like a good opportunity at least to announce that the bill would be tabled.
Senator Nolin: That is a good partnership.
Senator Taylor: I have a supplementary question regarding the CCME. The evidence presented by the automobile association and the presidents of the automobile companies was that they had first broached the subject of taking MMT out seven years ago, as it was in the United States.
You have been with the CCME for a long time. Was that never put on the agenda of the CCME? Do you mean to say that the first time you even heard about banning MMT was only a few months ago? Certain representatives of the CCME maintain they did it seven years ago.
Mr. Underwood: I do not recall it in my past involvement with the CCME, but that does not mean it was not raised. My involvement with the CCME related to policy. It was a different stream from the technical side. It may have come forward to the technical group of the CCME, but I do not recall.
The Chairman: For clarification, Mr. Underwood, when you set your priorities within the committee to which you refer, did you set those priorities on the basis of your environmental concerns regionally or across the country?
Mr. Underwood: This priority setting is an evolutionary process. Different jurisdictions bring forward issues that they feel should be dealt with nationally. We have a list of them. It is comprised of priorities that flow out of the CEPA consultative process and our general awareness through reading and discussion. Then it is simply a matter of working out which ones we will tackle this year on the work plan and setting budgets to deal with them.
The Chairman: Was MMT on that list as something you wanted to tackle?
Mr. Underwood: It is not on the list at this point because MMT is going through this process.
The Chairman: Before the legislation intervened, did anyone come forward to ask that MMT be put on the list as something of concern to any jurisdiction in Canada?
Mr. Underwood: Not to my recollection.
The Chairman: From that, I take it that it was not looked upon as an issue by the environment ministers. Is that a fair comment?
Mr. Brisco: That seems like a logical conclusion, yes. There had been some debate and discussion on MMT as far back as 1993 that I recall, but the specific federal action in terms of legislation was something that came as a surprise, not the fact that MMT was an issue.
Senator Taylor: Could it be that they were fed up with waiting?
Mr. Brisco: There had been no attempt by the federal government at that point to ask the CCME to undertake an investigation of MMT or to view that additive within that framework.
The Chairman: Is reformulated gasoline on the agenda as part of a comprehensive examination of all aspects of gasoline? Is that a priority on the agenda of the council?
Mr. Brisco: Yes, it is.
The Chairman: What steps were taken by the council in order to achieve or examine that issue?
Mr. Brisco: They established a task force on fuel reformulation, and that task force actually came down with recommendations with respect to benzine and sulphur.
The Chairman: Is the federal government a party to that examination?
Mr. Brisco: Yes, it is.
The Chairman: That is interesting.
Senator Kinsella: Reference was made to meetings of energy ministers in the Yukon. Was Minister McLellan, the federal minister, involved?
Mr. Donner: Yes. It was at Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. The federal minister was there, but it was signed by the provinces and the territories, and addressed to her.
Senator Kinsella: This might be a good reason why we need Minister McLellan as a witness here, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Bethune, in answer to a question raised by Senator Kenny, you referred to a service bulletin from General Motors. I have one of those bulletins in front of me. They list 11 reasons for non-vehicle induced fault and reasons why there are problems with OBDs. Is that the bulletin to which you were referring?
What is the date of that document?
Mr. Bethune: The date of this document is November 1995. I mentioned in my comments that GM was aware of this volatility problem early on. Their bulletin is dated 10-01-1992, and it is Chevrolet bulletin 93-31-6C.
Senator Nolin: Take a few moments to look at it and see if it is an updated version of what you were referring to. What is new in this document as to reasons why those OBDs are not functioning properly?
Mr. Bethune: There are 11 reasons here. Only one of them refers to MMT.
Senator Nolin: I know. That is exactly my point. Can you explain to the committee the reasons apart from the one for MMT? You referred to that in your answers to Senator Kenny. I want you to explain to committee members, who are not as informed as you, what those reasons are.
Mr. Bethune: As they are listed here?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could ask the witness to table the document.
The Chairman: Members of the committee have seen the document and are aware of it. You may not have been here at the time, senator. The committee is aware that a number of other reasons were set out.
Senator Nolin: Such as cellular phones.
The Chairman: Weather, vapourization and others.
Senator Rompkey: The bulletin was aimed at consumers, and they cannot do anything about MMT.
The Chairman: We asked the president of GM about that document, so it is on the record.
Mr. Bethune, if you disagree with the document or can add to it, we would be happy to hear from you.
Mr. Bethune: I can only add that GM has cited several instances of problems with MMT. As a matter of fact, with respect to the compliance rate in the United States at this time, according to raw data we received from the California Air Resources Board, OBD-II only has a 46-per-cent compliance rate. They cite every other reason except MMT because MMT is not used in the U.S.
The Chairman: What does that mean?
Mr. Bethune: It means that they are certified OBD-II vehicles. They have problems in the U.S. too, and no MMT is used there. If you look at the data, they look for all kinds of exemptions, none of which mention MMT.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, you have clarified my question. My point was that the president of the auto dealers association acknowledged that all of these other problems affected OBD-IIs. However, the one difference was MMT and non-MMT. That is why he felt there were higher costs in Canada.
Senator Nolin: Senator Anderson raised an important question, the health situation. Is that the reason why the CCME would list the problem as a priority and why MMT was not put on the priority list? If we listen to the health argument, it puzzles me as to why MMT was never put on the priority list of the CCME.
Mr. Underwood: Issues that are a matter of health concern are foremost in the minds of environment ministers when setting their priorities. I joined the environment department in June of last year, so I do not have the direct history of what happened, who brought MMT forward and who refused. That has been clarified quite well. Clearly, when you look at a Health Canada report as late as 1994, it must have been in their minds that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline did not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population.
We often look at Health Canada analyses and research because they are the experts. Often if the health department identifies health risks, they will bring those issues forward either at the federal or provincial level and placed on the agenda.
Senator Nolin: Do we have that document from Health Canada in the file already?
The Chairman: We have a memorandum from Health Canada as of this date concerning the health issues and confirming what Mr. Underwood has been stating.
Senator Kinsella: This committee has been hearing a great deal of contradictory evidence as between witnesses concerning the effect of MMT on OBDs. Some of the evidence is not anecdotal; some of it is based on some scientific evidence which has been brought forward.
On December 12, 1996, approximately eight weeks ago, the California Air Resources Board held hearings on OBD issues. The Ford Motor Company representative appeared before that board . His testimony, in part, indicated that they are experiencing malfunctioning problems or deficiencies with the OBD in California. They were monitoring large numbers of misfires on most of their vehicles in the field because of an unusually high number of malfunction indicator lights coming on. Here is yet another piece of evidence that OBDs are malfunctioning, and this from a state where they do not have MMT in their gasoline,.
In your letter from the Alberta Environmental Protection Branch dated April 18, 1995, which is before the members of this committee, the Alberta minister makes the statement that it is unclear that the removal of MMT from gasoline will offer net environmental benefits. The environmental merits of the fuel additive appear to be an industry dispute between the petroleum companies and automobile manufacturers. As such, Alberta favours the design of a suitable and binding process to resolve the dispute in a fair and timely fashion.
I believe that is your testimony this morning as well.
Focusing for a moment on "a suitable binding process to resolve this dispute" and taking into consideration the abject failure of the current and previous ministers of the environment to provide leadership in this dispute among the industry players, the Government of Canada and the Minister of the Environment has failed to provide the necessary leadership to bring this to a fair, science-based equitable solution.
This committee is under an instruction from the Senate, as a result of a motion that I brought forward, to submit an interim report that answers the following questions: Is there an environmental issue here? What is the data? Is there a health issue? Does MMT affect the OBD-IIs?
This committee can answer the first two questions without much difficulty, but to answer the third question, where the evidence is so contradictory, what would your government think -- building upon what your minister has said, namely, that there should be a suitable binding process to resolve this dispute -- if this committee were to submit the data that we have to a group like the Royal Society of Canada as objective arbiters? Would that be helpful in this process ? Would it meet the kind the test about which you were thinking or the binding process mentioned by your minister in his letter of April 18, 1995?
Mr. Ogilvy: I think that is a very constructive thought. It has a number of virtues, all of which have been endorsed by Alberta ministers from time to time, building on this letter of April 18, 1995 and referring to other correspondence as well.
The two most apparent virtues are, first, that it involves a neutral third party, which will go about this in a dispassionate manner and provide the type of answers needed to satisfy the question of process. The second virtue is that it takes the matter out of the trade realm and puts it where it belongs. It places it in the area of establishing the possible basis for responsible action, which is tied directly to the issues involved. For those reasons, the Government of Alberta would, in my view, support that type of process.
There has been an understanding from early on in this discussion some months ago that if a decision or a finding were made on a scientific, thoroughly reasoned, adequate basis, the Government of Alberta would be prepared to abide by it, because it would have satisfied our needs. Many of the stakeholders would likely indicate that as well.
Senator Kinsella: That is important testimony. I raised the question in the spirit of problem solving. The particular model I have suggested builds somewhat on the position that the Prime Minister took on the question of asbestos safety with the Government of France during his recent visit there. Honourable senators will recall that the Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on February 10, indicated that he had informed the French Prime Minister that the Royal Society of Canada had produced a detailed report showing that it is possible to use asbestos safely.
Senator Kenny: Further to Senator Kinsella's question, bearing in mind the province of Nova Scotia's concern about the precautionary principle; the fact that Health Canada testified before us that they felt the study would take a minimum of one year; and the acrimony and animosity that exists between the auto industry, the refiners and Ethyl Corporation, how long do you think such a study would take? What do you propose to do about the new equipment that is being introduced in the intervening time?
Mr. Ogilvy: It is very difficult to determine how long a study would take. If the Royal Society of Canada were indeed involved in a situation like this, it would certainly have to have the freedom to determine that the evidence available is unsuitable for making a final conclusion and, if so, it would have to have the freedom to establish at that point a further cooperative effort; one which would be accessible to stakeholders, governments and so on to give testimony.
The question of timing is always important, of course. My understanding from discussions with those who are better versed in the technical aspects of this matter is that the full implementation of the findings would take some time anyway, because the so-called fleet does not turn over immediately. Determining the benefits or negative effects of the application of a new policy would take time.
People will not stop driving cars, so anything that is done on a scientific or policy basis must be done on the strength of understood net benefits, not absolute benefits. There has been a good deal of discussion from the technical experts that the net benefits are still somewhat in doubt, and we are talking about replacing one thing with another. Any study undertaken would have to provide enough resources and enough time to enable those studying the issue to determine that one option is better than another. The comparison issue enters into any study, and the time and resources must be given for that to be done effectively and adequately.
Senator Kenny: My question was whether the witness had an estimate of how long the study would take and whether he had a suggestion for what we could do about the new cars being introduced in the intervening time.
Mr. Briscoe: We have discussed this matter with a number of consulting companies to find an answer to that question, because we made the recommendation that the study be done. The estimates we received vary from 5 to 15 months. It really depends on the terms of reference we would draft for the study. Of course, they have not been drafted, so everyone is reluctant to say how long it will take, but the upper limit would be about 15 months.
Senator Kenny: What do you do with the vehicles that come on stream in the meantime, given your concern about the precautionary principle that your colleague Mr. Underwood raised at the beginning of his presentation?
Mr. Briscoe: As Mr. Bethune indicated, we would do what they are doing now, which is to have the OBD-II systems in place and monitor all the systems they are monitoring, with the exception that the O2 sensor would be on the back end of the catalytic converter.
Senator Kenny: Would you argue that all 10 provinces, the territories and the federal government would have to agree on the terms of reference?
Mr. Briscoe: If the study were to be done through the CCME forum, that sounds like a monumental task, but it would not be difficult to develop those terms of reference quickly.
Senator Kenny: Would you estimate how many years that might be?
The Chairman: That was a rhetorical question.
Senator Kinsella: Some of the witnesses from the oil industry proposed to this committee, if I understood them correctly, that perhaps we could look at reducing the amount of MMT that is used in polishing off the gasoline during the latter part of the refining process.
As an intermediate step, would you reduce the amount of MMT being put into gasoline, should the scenario raised by Senator Kenny be borne out, that to do an objective study would take forever?
Mr. Donner: It is my understanding that that suggestion is substantially part of a proposal which CPPI made, which was essentially endorsed by the council of energy ministers last September. That is, there would be a reduction in MMT from the legal limit, as part of a process which would be open, consultative and science-based, to resolve the issue. We would certainly abide by that endorsement of the council of environment ministers of the eight provinces and two territories.
The Chairman: I am looking at the letter from the Alberta Department of the Environment dated April 18, 1995, signed by Mr. Lund to Minister Copps, the then federal minister of the environment. It refers to article 12.09(1) of the draft agreement which states that no party shall restrict, prohibit or hinder access to its petroleum markets or its petroleum products markets. Since then, I have read that your Minister Black has stated that if this legislation goes through she will challenge it.
I would like you to explain to me, if you could, where this challenge arises, how the remedies flow and what forum you would go before.
Mr. Ogilvy: The references to the agreement on internal trade may touch on that agreement in various places. Obviously, the chapter on the energy arrangements can only be quoted as a draft at this point because there has not been agreement on that chapter. However, the understanding we have, upon a close reading of the agreement, is that there are problems with this trade bill in its ability to resolve what is perceived as an environmental hazard.
The process started when the Government of Alberta was approached by Alberta members of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. All governments in Canada are parties to the agreement; the federal government and the governments of the provinces and territories. Any party to the agreement can be approached by a person or an industry within the territory it covers to review and, potentially, to carry forward a complaint under the terms of the agreement. We have an obligation to fulfil the terms of that process.
We were approached by CPPI. The Alberta government reviewed the complaint that was made about the legislation and concluded that there were grounds for proceeding with a complaint under the agreement, focusing, in particular, on the environment chapter.
Most of the arguments in support of this bill, certainly in the House of Commons, were environmental and health arguments. It was seen, therefore, as a legitimate approach to take this measure as an attempt to shape environmental policy through a trade bill. Therefore, the environmental chapter of a trade agreement could apply in this instance.
The chapter on the environment adopts all of the general rules of the agreement which appear in Chapter 4. Among those general rules are the ideas that policy will be direct, that it will not be more trade restrictive than is necessary under the circumstances, that it will be transparent, that it will not restrict the movement of goods across provincial boundaries unnecessarily and so on. These are general principles which all parties to the agreement have adopted by signing the agreement.
The question of legitimate objectives has certainly come up in this context. The agreement provides for exceptions to the general rules, provided that there are objectives that are legitimate according to the tests in the agreement. Legitimate objectives may include public health, safety and security, protection of the environment and so on, but those are not blanket exceptions. Any action justified on the basis of legitimate objectives must pass certain tests which are laid out in the agreement.
It is the view of the Government of Alberta that this legislation does not pass those tests. Therefore, the government responded to CPPI's request in the affirmative, stating that Alberta would be prepared to take forward a dispute under the agreement.
The Chairman: When you lodge your dispute, to what forum will you go?
Mr. Ogilvy: There are several stages, Mr. Chairman. The initial stage is consultation between the parties involved. The federal government, the Government of Alberta and any other government which wishes to intervene can participate. If the consultations do not result in a satisfactory conclusion, then the matter would go to the CCME. Failing a solution at that stage, the matter could be taken before a panel constituted under the terms of the dispute resolution provisions of the agreement. The panel would be made up of five individuals, with each party to the dispute selecting two of those individuals. Those four panelists would then select the fifth to serve as the chair. The names are from a national roster made up of individuals from across the country who are selected for this task.
Alberta would not select one of its own choices for the panel. It might select someone from New Brunswick and someone from British Columbia for such a panel. The same would be true of the federal government. This is a third-party process of mediation and review by an impartial panel. At that stage, it becomes similar to the provisions of the NAFTA, the WTO or the GATT, where differences that cannot be resolved through consultation, either at the officials' level or the ministerial level, can be taken to a body of arbitrators.
The Chairman: It is a bit of a Trojan horse, is it not? In the end, you cannot set aside the legislation. If the Parliament of Canada passes this legislation and it is the law of the land and you go through this process, so what?
Mr. Ogilvy: I acknowledge that the findings of the panel come out as recommendations. They do not come out as an order for action to be taken. However, the terms of the agreement have already lead to legislative change in various jurisdictions where the legislation in place was found to be at odds with the terms of the agreement.
The agreement is a voluntary submission to the general terms that are accepted by all governments. When a government has gone astray, when it has stepped outside the bounds of that agreement, there is at least a moral obligation to make the necessary changes. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the reaction to a finding by a panel. This is a young agreement. However, we have already had the experience of parties, including Alberta, going through the legislative process and amending or removing legislation.
The Chairman: How long does it take to go right through to the conclusion of this process? Or have you ever been to the conclusion?
Mr. Ogilvy: No, there has never been a panel under the agreement on internal trade. We can only speculate on how long it would take. We have been involved in a number of disputes. The happy news is that we have not been to a panel because the agreement is working at the consultative stage. We have resolved a number of disputes through consultation. I would venture to say that this issue would likely have to go to a panel. It might take anywhere from two or three months to a year.
The Chairman: Are you speaking today only for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Alberta, or, through the CCME, on behalf of the provinces and territories that have concurred in the letter that went to the federal government?
Mr. Ogilvy: We are speaking in the capacity of the Government of Alberta at this point. On the particular question of the challenge under the agreement on internal trade, we have received assurances from two other provinces that they will join as intervenors if the province of Alberta goes forward with it.
The Chairman: Which provinces are those?
Mr. Ogilvy: Senator, I am not sure that that is information I can provide at this point. That has not been mandated, I am sorry.
The Chairman: I should like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee this morning.
Our next witness will be Dr. Joseph Zayed.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph Zayed, University of Montreal: Honourable senators, I have been a full professor at the Faculté de médecine de l'Université de Montréal for about eight years, now. I am also director of an environment and prevention post-graduate degree program. I'm also a member of several societies, some of them Canadian.
I undertook my first research work some 10 years ago and this research was under the direction of Dr. André Barbeau, a neurologist -- unfortunately now deceased -- who worked at the Institut de recherche clinique de Montréal. Dr. Barbeau spent much of his life trying to understand the causes of Parkinson's disease.
You've certainly heard about Parkinson's since you've started your hearing. This disease, which essentially affects those over 55 years of age, is mainly characterized by the trembling it produces. Through this research, undertaken in the southwestern part of the Province of Quebec, amongst other things we established a relationship between exposure to manganese and the development of Parkinson's disease. Thus, following that study, the question I had was the following: Can MMT, now used in gasoline, because of combustion products, among others manganese oxides, cause health problems? The results of studies on Parkinson's disease and environmental factors led to two major studies. One was done by my colleague Donna Mergler in a workplace environment. Another one led by myself is a research program on MMT as such.
It should be pointed out that this research program was undertaken about six years ago. There have been some 20 articles published in international magazines, and some 25 conferences given during international meetings. Also for your information, the World Health Organization is presently looking at this matter of manganese and has undertaken writing a new monograph. I'm one of the evaluators of this monograph which should be validated by April, 1997.
It is important to remember that the combustion products coming out of the tailpipes of cars include manganese oxides, manganese sulphates and manganese phosphates.
We should remember that this is an important problem in the area of public health. The information we have on the toxicity of manganese is mainly drawn from work done in a workplace environment, in industry, where exposure can vary -- I will not flood you with data today -- but it is somewhere between 150 to 1,000 micrograms per cubic metre of air.
The main concerns are the neurotoxic effects although there can also be effects on the respiratory system. It should be noted that the pseudo parkinsonism that sometimes stems from heavy exposure to manganese is due not only to environmental factors such as manganese but also to hereditary factors just as old age contributes to the development of a pseudo parkinsonism or even to Parkinson's disease.
There is little data concerning chronic exposure; we are talking about exposure varying from 10 to 5 years, but there is very little data concerning chronic exposure of 40, 50 or 60 years' duration. On the other hand, we must also remember consider that manganese is also an essential element we need every day to function normally. Broadly speaking, we ingest three to four milligrams or 3,000 to 4,000 micrograms of it per day.
With those concerns in mind, we built a research program and we also covered several environmental components. The objective was to document the level of environmental contamination and also the degree of exposure of the population. My expertise is limited to characterizing and evaluating the exposure of the population to manganese and more particularly of certain groups of workers who may be somewhat more exposed to MMT combustion products.
I will not present all of this research to you today, but I will give you a few results that were obtained in the area concerning human exposure.
This research program was funded by many organizations, public as well as private. In the document I've given you, you'll find the organizations which have funded this program for roughly the last six years, the proportion being 75-per-cent public and 25-per-cent private funding. The major part of the public sector funding comes from NSERC: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
I had one major concern when I designed this research program in 1990. I wondered why and how Montreal was winding up with the highest levels of manganese concentration in Canada. If we look at the transparency, we can see that manganese concentrations in Montreal -- setting aside the .07 microgram unit per cubic metre -- were very high as compared to what was found in the other Canadian cities. A few years after undertaking the research program, we witnessed a rather significant decrease in atmospheric concentrations. This is taken from three sites in Montreal. This line comes from a site situated along a freeway where there are 135,000 cars passing a day; downtown Montreal and Montreal's Botanical Gardens. Now, in 1992, all the sampling stations in Montreal showed atmospheric concentrations of manganese that were definitely lower than what they were two years before.
We studied the dispersion of atmospheric contaminants through the air and realized that this decrease happened at the same time as, or was caused by, the closing of a plant on the south shore of Montreal; this was a ferromanganese plant that closed down approximately in June 1991. So during the first six months of 1991, we were obtaining concentrations similar to those of 1990 and during the last six months, we were obtaining concentrations similar to those in 1992.
We would point out that the concentrations since 1992 have been relatively stable and these concentrations are similar to the average concentrations that are found in all North American urban centres.
Of the studies we undertook, there was an important one on the population's exposure. You'll see the two groups. The blue collar workers at the University of Montreal represent the exposure of that whole population and that can be generalized to represent the exposure of the whole population of Montreal. The other group is made up of garage mechanics who work anywhere from eight to nine hours a day in a closed area with automobile exhaust.
We can see that food is the main means of absorbing manganese with relatively high quantities of 3,700 micrograms a day. Drinking water contributes to manganese exposure to a lesser degree, with quantities definitely lower than what we get through food. As for ambient air exposure, quantities per day are lower still and are relatively very low for blue collar workers -- and so, for the population in general -- while they're a bit higher for garage mechanics.
We should remember here that we're taking some in through food and we're breathing some in through our nose but these two mediums don't share the same metabolism. We only keep a fraction of what we eat. Literature tells us that we keep about 3 per cent of the manganese we ingest through food or drink whereas a review of the literature concerning what we keep through breathing is a bit unclear.
In some articles, it can vary from 50 to 90 per cent. Just to be on the conservative side -- without playing politics -- I used an absorption rate of 100 per cent. I've estimated that we will keep whatever we breathe in. So now let's see what the result is in terms of exposure through the different media of exposure.
Here again, we have the two groups, blue-collar workers, and we can extrapolate the data to get figures for the entire population of Montreal. But even with this percentage, we see that oral intake is the primary means of exposure to manganese, while intake through the respiratory tract contributes little to multi-media exposure.
In the last column, I took figures from the literature review showing an association between health problems in a given worker and manganese concentration in air. This manganese concentration was the lowest I found in the literature. I used a similar approach myself. We see that oral intake is 99 micrograms per day; for these workers, exposure through the respiratory tract is significantly higher -- 10 times higher than that for the two groups of workers that I researched. Intake through the respiratory tract amounts to a little over 1000 micrograms per day. At that level, we begin to see a health impact.
After conducting the research, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency changed its standard. It suggested that a guideline concentration be established, below which the manganese level could be considered safe.
It proposed a new standard that does not govern all forms of manganese dust but only dust made up of very small particles, which can be carried into the lungs. I wanted to conduct some research on both the environment and people to see what that standard would mean.
Respirable manganese consists of very small particles. I have found this type of manganese at two sampling stations: the Montreal aqueduct, where 135,000 cars pass by every day, and the Botanical Gardens, where 18,000 cars pass by every day. The concentrations of respirable manganese I found were 0.024 and 0.015 micrograms per cubic metre, respectively; these values are both lower than the safe value established by the EPA -- 0.05 microgram per cubic metre.
This means that the highest concentration that we are finding is less then half the safety threshold proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
As for exposure values measured directly on workers -- and we are still talking about respirable manganese -- we find concentrations that are still somewhat lower than those found outdoors. Let's not forget that we spend many hours a day in houses, apartments and offices, where manganese concentrations are lower than they are outdoors.
And here again, we find manganese concentrations that are lower than the safety thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
On the basis of this exposure assessment, I can draw three conclusions:
The first is that air concentrations of manganese in Montreal are within safety thresholds; that is, they are below the safety thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Second, the amount of manganese absorbed through the respiratory tract is negligible compared to the amount absorbed through oral intake, except for certain workers in specific industries.
Third, the high air concentration of manganese observed in Montreal until 1990 was caused primarily by some industrial activities.
Please feel free to ask questions in English. I will be answering in French.
[English]
The Chairman: Doctor, what happened in 1990 in Montreal to cause this reduction? Did some industries close down? Can you pinpoint that at all?
[Translation]
Mr. Zayed: Yes, until 1990, we found stable concentrations. In 1991, the ferromanganese plant located on Montreal's south shore shut down some time around June. As a result, manganese concentrations dropped significantly. I was among the first to find this surprising, since I never imagined that the plant could have had such an impact on all sampling conducted in Montreal. To an extent, this contradicted one of the initial hypotheses on which I based the research program.
[English]
Senator Taylor: I have to be careful how I word this, but I notice that your funding is 75 per cent from the government and 25 per cent from the private sector. The private sector consists of Ethyl Corporation and other people with a vested interest in the type of answers that would be found on a scientific basis. I would be interested in knowing just how Ethyl Corporation and the private sector were integrated into the project. Did they just give you the money and wish you good-bye and good luck, or were they there on the board of directors of the study?
[Translation]
Mr. Zayed: Yes, you are right, and I think that is a very good question. Today, I feel that government funding organizations have been prioritizing a new approach for some years. It is called matching funds -- it means we have to find equivalent funding from the private sector. But I would like to point out that all the funding we receive, be it from the public or the private sector, are research contributions and not research contracts. There is a major difference there: research contributions are made to a group of researchers who develop a research program, present it, and divide the funding among partners on the basis of need during the year in question.
All our results, without exception, have been published in international journals. We have all the latitude we need to produce results. We have no interference from the private sector, nor from public organizations. Some public organizations insisted on following our research more closely than some private-sector companies.
For example, when you receive funding from the Quebec Department of Environment and Wildlife, you have to report regularly to show how your work is progressing. But I have no problem with that.
[English]
Senator Taylor: My second question relates to something I read in Dr. Donna Mergler's presentation. She stated that the liver is the organ which discharges all the excess manganese in the body. What would be the effect of too much manganese on someone with a liver malfunction due to cirrhosis or other disease? Would there be a toxic effect in such a person at a level that is not important to a normal, healthy person?
[Translation]
Mr. Zayed: All human beings have a homeostasis system. This means that, if the body receives more manganese than it needs, it is capable of clearing it to a point. But I have no information for the specific example indicated.
My expertise does not really focus on the effects of manganese. I am convinced that my colleague, Mr. Mergler, could answer that question. If you would allow it, she could answer right away.
[English]
Dr. Donna Mergler, University of Quebec at Montreal: There are no studies which prove the effects of adding more manganese to a liver malfunction. In the literature, are case studies of children with liver malfunctions who had high levels of manganese and also encephalopathies; that is, neurological disorders that were associated to their high levels of manganese. Different subgroups of the population might be more at risk for increasing levels of manganese because their homeostatic mechanisms cannot control it as well as a normal person.
The Chairman: Perhaps we can go into further detail later.
Senator Spivak: I do not understand how the research impacts on long-term, chronic ingestion or absorption of manganese. The cumulative effects are beginning to be studied in science with different kinds of toxic chemicals. For example, with endocrine disruptors, a minute amount at a particular time in development can have devastating effects.
I understand that we are below the standards for the EPA, but I do not know what data you have. What came out of your research in terms of the chronic factor?
[Translation]
Mr. Zayed: That is the issue everyone is interested in. What are the results, and what could they tell us about chronic exposure? That is why we chose the group of workers I mentioned just now for our research. Data for blue-collar workers of the University of Montreal could easily be extrapolated and realistically applied to the entire population of Montreal, and in fact the population of any city.
Our approach documents these levels and compares them to the safety threshold. Of course, that leads us to the question of whether the safety threshold is in fact safe. Is the U.S. EPA being overly cautious, or not cautious enough? Let's not forget that the safety threshold was established on the basis of work done in industries. So we take those thresholds, and, since they are uncertain -- as you pointed out yourself -- we attribute an uncertainty factor to them. We take the value in question and divide it by 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 to take uncertainty into account. To date, there has been no way of getting away from this limitation. We have no other way of establishing a standard or safety threshold for manganese on the basis of data from industry and extrapolating those data to come up with chronic concentrations.
The safety threshold set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- 0.5 micrograms of respirable manganese per cubic metre, is not based on a specific study. It is based on studies of industry as a whole, and on data to which the EPA applied a number of uncertainty factors.
[English]
The Chairman: Our colleagues have an urgent meeting. We are without a quorum, unfortunately. On that basis, I do apologize that we do not have further opportunity at this time to discuss the issue.
We shall meet when the Senate rises, in Room 520.
The committee adjourned.