Debates of Nov. 21st, 1995

Treatment Of Municipal Sewage

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As off target as they were, the hon. member talked about some projects that involved sewer work, work on the systems. However I think he missed the real intent of the bill.

The member of the Reform Party tried to address that there are a number of major cities in the country that fail to treat some or all their sewage. In other words, major cities such as Vancouver, Victoria, Halifax and even Montreal are dumping large quantities

of raw sewage untreated into the harbours. This is what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is trying to get at in the bill.

Most towns and cities across the country have sewage treatment and sewage carrying facilities. It is difficult to believe that in 1995 major cities in Canada fail to treat their sewage in any way and dump it raw into the oceans and rivers.

I mentioned the dumping of raw sewage occurs in Halifax, Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal. It is interesting that it also occurs in Montreal. Hon. members will be interested to note that despite the fact Montreal has a very serious problem with its sewage, it was awarded the NAFTA environmental secretariat by the Liberal government. I assume a city would get such an award because it practises good environmental standards. Yet the city of Montreal, a very serious offender in the dumping of raw sewage, was chosen by the Minister of the Environment to receive the environmental secretariat.

Why would the minister overlook a serious environmental problem and award a secretariat on environmental issues to the city of Montreal? Could it be just another appeasement to the province of Quebec that was not deserved in the first place?

In 1994 it was reported that 17 major cities in Canada failed to treat some or all of their sewage. While provincial governments set the standards for sewage treatments, it is up to the municipality to actually treat the sewage. Many cities have lagoons that provide minimal treatment. In some of the cities I mentioned raw sewage minus the solids is dumped directly into the ocean or water basin. Needless to say, the dumping of raw sewage poses a serious health hazard.

In dealing with health hazards, one of the most notable examples occurred earlier this year on a reserve in Manitoba when a number of residents fell seriously ill because the treatment facility of their town had fallen into disrepair.

Pollution resulting from sewage not only damages our health but damages our economy. Members are aware the cities I mentioned are in many cases large tourist attractions in Canada, particularly Victoria and Vancouver, where probably a few million tourists come to enjoy their aesthetic qualities. However they are shocked to find a practice that allows the dumping of raw sewage into the harbour. This does not bode well for the tourist industry. Members will be aware that in some areas tourism is crucial to the economy. Vancouver and Victoria are good examples.

Pollution from sewage is very damaging to the fishing industry. Sewage degrades the water quality and dissolves oxygen levels resulting in damage to marine life and polluted shorelines. Our fishery plays an important role in the Canadian economy on both the east and west coasts. While overfishing has damaged the fishery to a great extent, it is shameful that it continues to be damaged by our own wilful neglect in not setting some standards for treating raw sewage.

The member for Comox-Alberni and I certainly think it is time to take the matter of untreated sewage seriously. The red ink book of the Liberals talks about the detrimental effects of untreated sewage. It promises to assist provincial, regional and municipal governments to finance new or renewed sewage treatment infrastructure.

In order to facilitate a clean-up, the Liberal government introduced its infrastructure program to look after some of these problems. This program was introduced despite the fact the government did not have any money, provincial governments do not have any money and the municipalities do not have any borrowing authority unless by a referendum or some other process given to them by their citizens.

This program was intended to address some of the serious problems in sewage treatment and sewage transport and that is good. If specific areas of concern were addressed, then we would probably have less problem with the infrastructure program than we do even despite the fact that it was done on borrowed funds.

Where money was intended to go to water systems and infrastructure at the municipal and provincial levels, instead we find that a lot of these funds have been used for what we could consider quite frivolous and unnecessary things. This should be of concern. For example, funds have been used for things like circus training centres, snow blowers and boccie courts. The Canadian public is angry that we are spending $2 billion at the federal level, $2 billion at the provincial level and another $2 billion at the municipal level, money that we do not have.

There are such projects as $500,000 for a canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's riding; $18,000 to improve the sound system in a curling rink; $72,000 to build two outdoor tennis courts; $14.4 million for a building for circus training; $15 million for renovations to Edmonton's hockey rink; and $173 million to build a trade centre in Toronto. When average Canadians think about infrastructure, they think about roads, sewers, culverts and things that allow communities to grow and to look after some of the waste problems they have.

The infrastructure program has become quite a joke in many areas. The spending goes on and on yet sewage is still being dumped into lakes and oceans. It is unacceptable that the government did not place some stricter criteria on the spending of moneys in its infrastructure program.

With respect to the amendment made by the Bloc member, all we have here is the Bloc asking for something for nothing again. The Bloc is saying if the government puts money in for a sewage treatment plant or whatever in the province, if the province or the municipality chooses to opt out they simply get the cash instead to do with it as they like. This idea is another example of the Bloc wanting something for nothing. It defeats the purpose of any kind of infrastructure program funding in the first place.

I ask hon. members in the House to support Motion No. 425 put forward by my colleague from Comox-Alberni.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address Motion No. 425 put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities.

The concern I have about the motion is that such a new country-wide program would only duplicate existing efforts of the federal government, provincial governments and territorial governments.

Our government initiated the Canada infrastructure works program which is geared specifically to upgrading infrastructure. I note that sewage treatment was given a high priority in the program. For example, in my riding of Halifax West, one of the most important and costly projects which the program funded was the upgrading of the Mill Cove sewage treatment plant. It is a very important program which will provide better service for the whole Bedford-Sackville area. That is one of the two largest programs in my riding. The other one relates to road building. Both are solid traditional infrastructure programs.

There are other kinds of infrastructure. These days we have to recognize that even things like fibre optics can be important for infrastructure and for the ability of a community or a country to develop its economic base.

I also note that the Reform Party did not support the infrastructure program when it was first introduced.

I remind hon. members that the primary responsibility of implementing standards or guidelines for fresh water, recreational or drinking water quality and sewage treatment discharges rests with provincial and territorial governments and not with the federal government in Ottawa. The role of the federal government is to supply leadership and advice in support of the provincial and territorial governments through the co-operative establishment of national guidelines and appropriate action in the federal domain.

National guidelines exist in this area and are constantly being updated. For example, through federal and provincial co-operation, health based guidelines for drinking water and recreational water quality are developed. In fact, the fifth edition of "The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality" was published in May 1993. This document is popular among those who study water quality issues. The document recommends limits for microbiological, chemical and radiological contaminants which have been found in drinking water and are known or suspected to be harmful.

The guidelines are used in all parts of Canada. They are developed in co-operation with the health and environment ministries of the provinces and territories. The guidelines fall under the auspices of the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water. It is important work which is in progress.

The process began in the 1970s. For this reason among others, Canada's drinking water is one of the safest drinking waters in the world. We have to recognize how fortunate we are in this country to have this supply of safe fresh water.

The impact of standards for sewerage is to protect raw water sources which might be used by Canadians for drinking water or recreational purposes. It is the raw water sources which we are talking about.

The environment is one of the key determinants of population health. We all know these days about the increase in allergies and respiratory illnesses which seem to be traceable to environmental causes. Water quality is an important indicator of our efforts to protect human health in this area.

Of the many environmental factors, the quality of their drinking water is of major concern to Canadians. We know this from a number of public surveys and consultations which the government has undertaken. We also know that Canada is in the enviable position of having great riches of fresh water within its boundaries. I believe that Canada has the greatest resource of fresh water in the world. Approximately 83 countries in the world do not have access to fresh drinking water. It is atrocious. The problem is the greatest in those countries which are highly populated.

Our infrastructure program is a co-operative effort of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments. It is already being used to upgrade and improve sewage treatment across the country, just as it is in my riding with the upgrading of the Mill Cove sewage treatment plant. This is in keeping with our red book commitments.

In our present situation, the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments are prioritizing the infrastructure works program to benefit all Canadians because we have to look at what is vital to Canadians. Microbiological characteristics of the water are

still considered to be vital to public health protection and for that reason guidelines are under continuous scrutiny.

There are microbiological guidelines for coliform and total bacteria in drinking water. In fact, it was recently updated and sections on viruses and protozoa in finished water are being prepared. Microbiological contaminants will not be removed from source water if we adopt this motion. This motion will not reduce trace chemical contaminants in the fresh water supply to our municipal drinking water systems.

It will not help, for example, in the case of Five Island Lake where the lake system is contaminated by a PCB site or actually an orphan site which has a number of toxins which need to be cleaned up. This motion will not address the problem of that water system.

The establishment of a national primary sewage treatment standard will not improve the microbiological qualities of drinking water, nor will it significantly improve fresh water quality.

One of the important things we should be moving toward in this regard and one of the things happening in Halifax, for example, is the work toward the removal of toxins and other contaminants at source. That is a very important step we have to take. It is a matter of taking responsibility for the quality of our water and what we dump into our sinks and into our water system.

We have an obligation to all Canadians to expend our resources in the most efficient manner possible. Every dollar we spend must have the maximum possible health benefit to the Canadian public. Health Canada has a duty to Canadians to address serious health issues affecting water quality. We are concerned with disease-causing organisms and cancer-causing chemicals in our water. We have to be concerned about those things more and more these days.

These are the serious issues of the day that Health Canada is addressing. These are also the issues that will not be touched on by this proposed motion. Since primary sewage treatment will not reduce organic substances found in source water from municipal drinking water and disinfection is essential to maintain a safe drinking water supply that will protect the public health, the establishment of a minimum standard of primary treatment will have little public health benefit with respect to drinking water.

Water quality improvements are already occurring under the Canada infrastructure works program, the Canada-Ontario agreement to clean up the Great Lakes and the Quebec-Canada entente to address issues in the St. Lawrence River basin.

I believe the member for Comox-Alberni had the best of intentions in putting forward this motion. Unfortunately, it does not address the real problems facing Canadians today. An isolated program to spend large sums of money on municipal sewage treatment will cost Canadian taxpayers dearly without doing much to increase public health protection.

Health Canada is working now in partnership with other levels of government to improve water quality across the country. These are the initiatives we must continue to develop to ensure that the quality of our drinking water remains the envy of the world.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying I have a particular interest in this topic, because the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, which I have the privilege to represent in this House, happens to have one of the largest waste water treatment plants in Canada.

Officially opened on November 2, 1987, the Montreal Urban Community waste water treatment plant today has an average capacity of more than 23 cubic metres per second, so that between January 1, 1995 and October 15, and this is just an example, the plant processed about 578 million cubic metres of waste water. To give you a better idea of what is involved, this is the equivalent of the volume of the Olympic stadium.

And to give you some idea of the amount of sludge left after this process, imagine a line of 25 tonne trucks all the way from Montreal to Ottawa, in other words, it is a plant operating at full capacity.

I may add that to carry out these operations, the plant in my riding has a total budget of about $43 million, in fact slightly more, and employs a total of 290 people in treatment operations, maintenance, engineering, mechanical engineering and data processing, in other words, all the people who work in this plant. Generally speaking, waste water treatment plants have become indispensable in our modern cities.

That being said, the Bloc Quebecois takes the position that we support the principle of protecting the environment, but to us it is obvious that the environment is better protected when each government does what it is supposed to do.

That is why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Laurentides is so important, since if motion M-425 presented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni were adopted in its present form, without any changes, this would give the Liberal government, the present government, further opportunities to do what it always has done, which is to invade jurisdictions that are not its responsibility. Basically, that is the reasoning behind the motion of the hon. member for Laurentides.

Motion M-425 before the House today asks this House to support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at

least that of primary treatment facilities, in other words, facilities that will eliminate phosphorus deposits.

Currently, managing the environment is largely a municipal responsibility. Municipalities are responsible for supplying clean water, as we said previously, for sewage treatment and garbage collection and disposal.

Under the Constitution, and that is the crux of the matter, municipalities are administrative units that receive their powers from the provincial legislatures. Consequently, the federal government has no legitimate right to deal directly with municipalities.

Of course, in Quebec we are accustomed to seeing the federal government proceed in this way. I may recall that it was this kind of behaviour by the federal government that caused nearly half the population of Quebec, nearly 50 per cent, to vote yes on October 30, and it will certainly be a little more than 50 per cent next time.

Since this government has shown it has no intention of changing any of the bad habits we have been criticizing for the past 30 years, we can assume that, at the time of the next referendum on Quebec, more and more Quebecers will understand they have only two choices left: become a majority with full control over their destiny or remain a minority, with their interests subjugated to those of the majority to which they will not belong.

To say the least, it is disappointing, but nevertheless, quite incredible, that this motion is being proposed in this House by a member of the Reform Party. We all know our friends in the Reform Party claim to want to decentralize Canada. They see it as the likely solution to our political problems. It might not be constitutional decentralization, but a real decentralization of powers to the provinces. Obviously this bill invades provincial jurisdictions.

I find it unfortunate that the Reform Party is sponsoring this bill. This party, it must be remembered, initially set itself up as the alternative to the impasse Canada found itself in federally following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and all that followed. The text of the motion before us, however, shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same. They are still talking about more centralization, as if nothing happened in Quebec.

As we know, and as the English language papers pointed out, our Prime Minister succeeded to some extent in lulling Canada into a bit of a stupor over what was actually happening in Quebec.

Events in Quebec woke people up somewhat. Now they are trying to pretend nothing happened and settle everyone down again, while they go on centralizing in Ottawa, as if nothing has changed.

By voting in favour of this motion without the necessary amendments-one of which has been proposed by my colleague for Laurentides-the federalist parties in this House will simply confirm to Quebec voters that the no side did not favour change, despite what they hoped and continue to hope.

That is why my colleague from Laurentides put forward an amendment to this motion that would give all provinces the right to opt out with full financial compensation, so that they themselves could spend the money on the environment and not on anything else.

This amendment would have two advantages among other things. First, from a constitutional point of view, it would allow all levels of government to exercise their powers properly in their respective areas of jurisdiction, contrary to what is now the case. I would like to remind you that the environment is not among the areas of jurisdiction explicitly assigned by the constitution. It has often been said that the environment was not on the agenda when the constitution was drafted, but still. This is a so-called ancillary power deriving from the areas of jurisdiction explicitly mentioned in the Canadian constitution.

Before the mid-1980s, the Quebec government, which has jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a key role in assuming most environmental responsibilities. As provided for in the constitution, the federal government was happy to get involved in areas complementary to its jurisdiction, and everything was just fine.

In 1985, the federal government started to become much more involved in environmental matters. It did so mostly by using its spending power and the new powers it had been granted by the courts. This has led to many cases of overlap and duplication. This situation has gotten worse since the election of the present Liberal government, which is trying to further centralize decision making in Ottawa.

If there is one thing that is perfectly clear about the bills that I have seen tabled in this House, it is that almost every bill introduced to amend other bills or to encroach on areas of jurisdiction that may previously not have been clearly defined gives ever more authority to the ministers.

At present, there is a great deal of duplication and overlap in federal and provincial environmental regulations. Therefore, private sector enterprises often have to spend time, energy and money on gathering information on a large number of programs, answering inquiries from both levels of government, attending numerous committee meetings, preparing for inspections that are often conducted by both levels, meeting requirements that are often different depending on the level of government involved, and the list goes on ad infinitum.

For instance, there are currently eight federal regulations overlapping existing Quebec regulations on the same subject. Yet, they keep wanting to make more regulations and centralizing more and more. Cases in point are the storage of PCB material regulations and pulp and paper effluent regulations.

There are also environmental benefits, since appropriate solutions to problems to be dealt with locally will be easier to find. You will no doubt agree, Mr. Speaker, that local authorities are in a better position than anyone else to find solutions suited to the particular circumstances of their respective communities. As far as the environment is concerned, government's ability to understand local problems and challenges depends on how far removed it is from the field. The further it is, the less it is able to find practical solutions likely to gain acceptance and generate co-operation within local communities. That is the spirit behind the amendment moved by my hon. colleague for Laurentides, which we support.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today on behalf of the government to address MotionNo. M-425 put forward by the member for Comox-Alberni. It calls for a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard or at least that of primary treatment facilities.

A basic weakness of the motion is that it proposes to solve the problem of municipal waste water through the use of a specific directed technology. Since when have Reform Party members believed in imposing the use for every province of a uniform method when they do not even believe in the consistent application of a basic health care principle.

What we should be concerned about is not the process used to effect treatment of municipal waste water, but the quality of the final product and its subsequent short and long term effects on humans and the ecosystem. The shortsightedness of this bill is typical of many Reform motions: immediate, quick fixes that show the lack of experience that comes from not really understanding how other jurisdictions of government work, how the municipal political mind works.

While the Canadian Federation of Mayors has been consistently requesting an infrastructure program, the first government to take the request seriously was the Liberal government. A minister was put in charge of the program who has been a well respected, long serving mayor and he tailored the program to suit the unique and individual needs of all municipalities, municipalities that are fiercely protective of their jurisdictions.

Under the federal Fisheries Act, for example, no person including a municipality, is allowed to discharge water where fish are found or treated water which contains any substance that is harmful to fish. The focus should not be on what technology is used to treat municipal water waste, including domestic sewage, but on the final quality of the water.

As a technology for treating municipal waste water, primary treatment is a physical, mechanical process, very simplistic at best. It can remove material like sand, grit, stones, twigs and larger objects like wood and plastic. It can settle out the heavy organics of domestic sewage, but that is about all primary treatment can achieve.

A fundamental concern related to municipal waste water is how much oxygen demanding matter it contains. Oxygen demanding matter takes up oxygen from its environment to decompose. A primary treatment system, if efficiently designed and operated, can only reduce up to 40 per cent of the oxygen demanding substances found in municipal waste water. The remaining 60 per cent will be discharged into the system.

It is important to remove as much organic matter as possible that requires oxygen to decompose from municipal waste water so it does not consume oxygen that fish need to thrive. Such matter does not then demand heavy chlorination and subsequent disinfection processes.

Primary treatment cannot address concerns related to toxins, including removal of heavy metals that are commonly found in Canadian municipalities.

A country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities will not in all cases adequately conserve and protect the environment. More important, in the jurisdiction of water treatment, municipalities will, en masse, cry foul if the federal government presumes to tell them how to achieve a technology that many of them have to this date perfected in an extremely economical manner.

I would not like to be the federal politician who attempts to tell Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga, a mayor well known for her strength of character, how to treat her water system rather than what minimal standards should be maintained coming out of Mississauga. In fact, when the current infrastructure program was designed and offered to Mississauga, the city council did not request money for water treatment. The basic structures were in such good shape that Mississauga requested a one-third portion contribution for a living arts centre which created, as an aside, 950 jobs.

The standard of water in Mississauga is absolutely one of the highest in the country. No government has ever told the city how to do this.

Improving the treatment of municipal sewage is a commendable objective, but it does not fully address the issue of conservation and effective management of Canada's water sources. What is urgently needed at the municipal level is sewer use bylaws to restrict access

to the sewer systems of substances not amenable to treatment. Also municipalities should charge water users the full and true cost of both supplying drinkable, usable water and treating waste water after its use, as is done in Mississauga. At this very time water charges in Mississauga are double, water amount going in and water amount going out.

Municipal water in Canada has traditionally been underpriced in comparison to other utilities or essential services. Many years of water prices set at artificially low levels by municipalities have not allowed Canadian communities to accumulate adequate reserve funds for renovation and upgrading of water infrastructure. Also low water prices have offered no incentive for technological advance. Thus, the municipal water industry has been left with old technologies, inefficient plants and very low levels of innovation.

A country-wide program to improve sewage treatment to at least the level of primary treatment would still leave all current pricing problems intact and without resolution.

According to 1991 statistics, which are the most recent figures available, the level of revenues collected by Canadian municipalities for water use and sewerage charges is in the order of $3.3 billion. With the probable exception of property taxes, revenues from water use are the largest source of income for municipal governments. At current prices, for many Canadian municipalities this revenue source is still insufficient for municipalities to operate and maintain their water infrastructures.

What are Canadians to do to deal with this apparent shortfall? Surprisingly, researchers have found that as the price of water increases, the demand decreases. This is not witchcraft. We have all seen this in the pricing of many commodities.

In accordance with the polluter pays principle, municipal water customers should pay for waste water treatment according to their level of water use. The federal government cannot be big brother and pay for all minimal water treatment across the country. Treatment according to the level of water use is the most important product of proper water conservation.

Similarly, industries that use municipal sewers and treatment as their primary or only method of waste water abatement should pay for the extra stress they place on water treatment plants. Perhaps municipalities should even pay their provinces in proportion to the level of contamination of their effluent for the right to deposit their waste water in lakes, rivers, and other communal waterways.

Cheap water in Canada has led to unnecessarily high water usage. Higher water usage has led municipalities to install water systems that are larger than would be needed if realistic pricing policies were implemented by Canadian communities to bring out true water conservation.

I believe water conservation is the real way of the future. Pricing based on quantity of water used provides each user with the incentive to conserve water. This leads to cost savings by water consumers as well as municipalities themselves in terms of their capital expenditures and maintenance costs of waste water treatment plants. It also encourages less reliance on unpredictable purification chemicals, which in the future may cause other problems.

Let me emphasize that there is wastage by the consumer, who has no incentive, financial or otherwise, to conserve water supplies. In addition, public utilities find it cheaper to process and pump more clean water through the system than to find and repair expensive leaks. In some areas of Canada, system leakage accounts for 40 per cent of total pumping. Country-wide primary treatment for municipal sewage, as proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, will do nothing to correct that.

If I may call the attention of the hon. members to the 1987 federal water policy, the concept of full cost pricing, which includes extra sewer charges for industrial waste and the promotion of universal metering, is a cornerstone of that document. The infrastructure related components of the federal water policy accord well with the policies outlined in Creating Opportunity , our Liberal plan for Canada.

The 1987 federal water policy is based on a user pay principle. This means users should be responsible for funding a particular service in approximate proportion to their consumption. User pay wherever possible is an appropriate principle for our times and one this government endorses.

To monitor the progress of implementation of the 1987 federal water policy, Environment Canada undertook in 1991 a survey of water piping practices among Canadian municipalities of at least 1,000 inhabitants or more. The results were somewhat of a disappointment. The Government of Canada had spent the four years since the release of the 1987 federal water policy promoting the benefits of full cost pricing as a means of water conservation and adequate financing of water infrastructure programs. Environment Canada found, however, that half of the surveyed municipalities were still charging a flat rate for water use.

Under such circumstances there is no incentive for water consumers to lower their consumption. In addition, water customers often have no idea of how much water they are actually using, as there is no meter attached to their facility or home, counting and then compiling the number of cubic metres of water used.

In summary, a country-wide program that would have the sole goal of improving municipal sewage treatment to the minimum level of primary treatment will not solve Canada's problems in the area of municipal waste water treatment. Minimal chemical purification and ultimately a serious concern for conservation of this valuable resource is the true direction this government should be taking. Therefore I will not be supporting a very shortsighted bill at this time.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wager that if Motion M-425 came from the other side of the House it would be getting a different hearing in the House.

I cannot imagine anyone concerned about clean water and health issues saying that this bill will not look after all the problems of Canada in terms of our water supply. Who says it would? Motion 425 simply calls for raising the standard in Canada to a minimal standard, a standard that would have solid settling, chlorination, and discharge of sewage in a much different manner from what we have today. Is it simplistic to try to raise the standard of water treatment in Canada? Where I come from it is not.

I would like to tell a little story relating to water quality. I am a fisherman. I enjoy sport fishing. The river that flows through the community near me is world class as a sport fishing river, the Bow River. In my youth I fished in that river and was unable to eat the fish. They were beautiful rainbow trout, wonderful to catch. A 24-inch rainbow would take me 20 minutes to land, but I released every one. They were oily downstream of Calgary. There was a huge amount of waste going into the Bow River.

I have a cousin in England who is a very keen fisherman. He came all the way from England to fish in the Bow River with me. He asked me whether I expected he would catch a wild trout in this beautiful stretch of water. I pretty well guaranteed him that he would. I told him what time of year to come. I said that I had some experience there and had the opportunity to just about guarantee him that unless there was a change in weather, a tremendous amount of extra mud in the water, he would be guaranteed a fish.

He did catch the first wild rainbow trout of his life. I will never forget him holding that beautiful fish out of the water and asking for a picture to be taken, then saying to me, "I must release this fish, it will be polluted". I was able to say to him, "No, Derrick, that fish today is edible". Over the 25 years since I had been fishing this river Calgary had cleaned up its act to the point where this beautiful fish could be eaten. He said, "I am a conservationist, I think I will release it anyway". And he did.

Does the treatment of effluent downstream of a big city make any difference? I believe it does.

I heard all kinds of praise for the infrastructure program from members opposite, an infrastructure program that I flatly think is an abject failure. To borrow $6 billion and mortgage the future of my children and my grandchildren to provide short term jobs in Canada is fundamentally flawed.

I will give one example of how badly the infrastructure program failed. This is a municipality I am responsible for in my own constituency.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Are you going to make the announcement?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

You bet. I am making that announcement here in front of everybody in Canada.

The infrastructure program was a pronounced failure in a constituency at home. What did the municipality do for infrastructure in my own constituency? It bought a grader, a Yankee-built grader. It shipped it home by a U.S. trucker. It paid for it with borrowed dollars. It produced one job, just one job. The infrastructure program in this municipality produced one job. Is that an advantage? That is an advantage for whom? It is an advantage for a U.S. manufacturer with a grader. The infrastructure program is an abject failure.

This bill will simply raise the standard in Canada. Will it solve all the problems in Canada? It will not. If this bill were coming from the other side of the House, there would be effusive praise for such a bill. Since it is not, I am convinced it will not gain support.

I ask members opposite, how can they argue against cleaner water in Canada? How can they argue with that?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Motion M-425 because I want my Reform colleagues to know that I support it wholeheartedly. I am delighted indeed that the Reform Party has brought it forward.

I regret that my colleague from Mississauga West and I find ourselves on different sides of this debate. The reason I support this bill so wholeheartedly is that not only does it address a very serious problem and address it in a very responsible way, but it also addresses the problem of federalism versus regionalism. I find to my absolute delight that the Reform Party has put a motion on the floor that actually argues for a strong central government rather than regionalism, as that party tends to support generally.

I am very aware of the sewage problem that occurs in Victoria, where sewage treatment consists of building a longer pipe into the ocean so that the effluent does not come back to the beaches of Victoria. I am also aware that the United Kingdom is very angry right now because constantly on the beaches of the Hebrides and the Orkneys and the northern coast of Scotland are effluent, plastic materials, and garbage that can be identified as coming from Canada. This is absolutely an intolerable situation.

Why can we not rely on municipalities to spend the money to give the kinds of treatment facilities that are demanded by this motion? The answer is that municipalities are driven by local interests. Often they have priorities that are very local and are unwilling to support things that actually pertain to society at large and to our global environment. In other words, if it is not in one's own local backyard then it is easier to spend elsewhere.

We have a situation where regional interests cannot look after the problem and we must look to a strong federal government to provide the money and the leadership to attack this problem. I regret absolutely that we do not have in the Constitution some provision that says the federal government would have the power to prevent Victoria from simply dumping sewage into the sea.

Not only is this motion well taken, but it is ironic, because it shows that the third party-and I have great admiration for the third party on certain issues-supports the kind of concept that we Liberals have when we see a strong central government showing leadership in many ways.

I have to add that implicit in this motion is the suggestion that the federal government should have the necessary funds to provide minimum sewage treatment in various municipalities across the land.

In conclusion, I do not support the Bloc amendment because that is a regional amendment, but I want the Reform Party to know, especially the member for Comox-Alberni, that this is a very fine motion. I congratulate them on bringing it before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 38 on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt on an issue of national importance.

On October 3, 1995 I asked the Minister of National Defence a question pertaining to Colonel Kenward who ordered the destruction of video tape evidence of an airborne regiment hazing video. The minister's response was, to say the least, insufficient.

The video tapes that were ordered destroyed impeded the investigation of the military police. Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward who was subsequently promoted to full colonel by the chief of the defence staff despite the minister's own reservations ordered the destruction of the video tapes. It was later revealed that three copies of the video tape existed.

This does not justify the actions of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward. There will never be any way of knowing whether the three copies match the one destroyed by Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward's order.

This case is an example of the serious problems with the system of justice at the Department of National Defence. This case may in fact be providing details of a miscarriage of justice within the senior command of the Department of National Defence.

The Minister of National Defence notified me in his response on October 3 that the chief of defence staff, General John de Chastelain, would hold a press conference on the issue to clear the air. I personally attended that press conference and I would like to say that it did not clear the air. It muddied the waters further.

The CDS presented the official side of the story with a documented audit trail detailing how Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward was promoted to full colonel. What became clear from these documents was that the chief of defence staff had intervened on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward to ensure his promotion.

Documents he released showed that he wrote to the Canadian Armed Forces judge advocate general on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward. The correspondence included quotes from Kenward himself denying that he had intended any wrongdoing. The judge advocate general, after considering this counsel from his superior, the chief of defence staff, cleared Kenward's name and cleared the way for Kenward's promotion.

This type of shenanigans underlines the culture of cover-up at the highest level of the Department of National Defence. Kenward's promotion to full colonel was secured despite the concerns of the military police and the Minister of National Defence.

The minister has publicly admitted that he expressed his concerns regarding the promotion to the chief of defence staff and the chief of defence staff refused to heed them. Clearly the minister has no confidence in the CDS and the CDS has little respect for the minister's judgment.

This case is indicative of the problems with our military justice system. It is difficult to believe that the military police had their investigation thwarted by the chief of defence staff and the judge advocate general.

I believe that justice was not served. Canadians still want the Minister of National Defence to clarify his position. When did the Minister of National Defence learn that Colonel Kenward had destroyed video tape evidence? Was it before or after the promotion? Why did he have reservations about the promotion of Kenward to full colonel?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this all relates to Somalia and the airborne. The hon. member is clearly misguided in his attempts to discredit the Minister of National Defence and the government.

The Reform Party platform of using specious arguments and half truths for partisan gain has done nothing to help Canada deal with the issue at hand.

By contrast, the Minister of National Defence and the government have acted forthrightly and effectively. I believe this is what Canadians are seeing and what they are asking for. They are rejecting the disparaging arguments being put forth by the Reform Party.

Let us look at the facts. It was this government that called for an inquiry. More specifically, it was this member as opposition defence critic who asked for the inquiry two and a half years ago, not the Reform Party. It was this government that ensured the inquiry would be public. It was this government that made the commitment to make Canadian forces members available to the commission when they were called upon to testify. It was this government that encouraged people with any information that may be of interest to the commission to go forward to the inquiry. It was this government that ensured the Somali inquiry was provided with complete and accurate information and that relevant documents were made available to the commission.

DND and the Canadian forces have and will continue to co-operate fully with the commission that has been established. Not all our actions have been easy. The public rightfully demanded that the government address this serious issue in an expedient manner, but this had to be tempered with prudence. Where others may have attempted to score quick political points, we stayed the course waiting for the Westray mine decision so that justice would not later be undone as a result of a legal technicality.

These actions point toward leadership, integrity and a willingness to get things done. There is nothing to sustain the utterly fallacious and ultimately destructive arguments being put forward by the Reform Party. We will certainly not be goaded into taking ill advice and precipitous action. We are monitoring the commission proceedings. Canadians can rest assured that appropriate actions will be initiated when and where they are warranted.

Now is the time to let the commission do its work. We look forward to hearing the recommendations of the commission. In summary, the Canadian forces have a long and proud heritage that we are not prepared to discard. I suggest that the Reform Party shares this sentiment.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some time ago I had occasion to ask the minister about the issue of the Helms-Burton bill dealing with an embargo against goods from Cuba. I should like to introduce my question this evening by reminding the representative of the ministry about some of the facts of the bill.

We in Canada share the interest of American legislators and Americans generally in seeing Cuba begin to respect human rights and to open up its economy to forces from outside so that it has a liberal, open economy for the benefit of all Cuban citizens. What we are talking about here is the methodology whereby this change may be obtained.

We believe, it seems to me in our government, in a form of open trading whereby we can liberalize trade relationships by having relations with one another. The United States, for some reason not difficult to understand because it is rooted in U.S. domestic politics, has chosen in respect of Cuba an embargo that flies in the face of its policies with respect to other countries and that seeks to penalize the Cuban government and the Cuban people for the fact that they are unwilling to conform to U.S. standards and practices.

We do not deny that the United States has the right to embargo Cuba if that is what its domestic policies call for it to do. What we object to, what I will ask for further information on and what I asked in the question I earlier posed to the minister was what we were doing in Canada to ensure that the measures being adopted by the American congress do not proceed in a way that would violate international law, violate international obligations of the United States to Canada and violate our rights to conduct our relationships with Cuba and the Cuban people in a way that we can ensure Canadian policies and Canadian law are respected.

The bill on which I asked the question, known colloquially as the Helms-Burton bill, has in it several items that are very problematic to us as Canadians. They prohibit U.S. persons from extending financing to businesses that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government. A U.S. person is defined in the bill in such a way that it could extend to subsidiaries in Canada. It denies entry into the United States of persons, individuals or shareholders of corporations who traffic in U.S. property. It gives to the United

States courts the jurisdiction to decide compensation claims for property confiscated by any foreign government.

In all respects we have serious problems with these propositions. It represents in many ways a secondary boycott which the United States has said in the past it totally disapproves of in respect of the Arab boycott of Israel. It represents extraterritorial measures against Canadian corporations carrying on lawful business in this country and with Cuba. It gives to the United States courts a jurisdiction that frankly would introduce extraordinarily difficult measures in respect of dealing with the United States in United States courts.

These measures reflect a view of the United States congress that is willing to take measures against the interests of the United States in many respects, against international law, and against its international obligations to Canada and other nations. As such, it is a dangerous precedent because it reflects a sense of the United States power which says it is above the rules it has set and in which all of us participate.

I would be anxious to know what measures the Government of Canada can take to tell the U.S. Congress what we can do to protect ourselves. How can we use the Extraterritorial Measures Act which we already have? How can we respond to Congress to let the U.S. know that we in this country intend to pursue our rightful place in the international community in a way that respects our interests and our proper commercial relationships with a friendly country?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosedale and the chairman of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will agree with me that Canada and the U.S. share common objectives of democracy, human rights and market oriented reforms in Cuba. However, we differ on the best way to achieve such goals. Canada favours engagement and dialogue.

Currently there is legislation before the U.S. Congress which would extend the U.S. embargo against Cuba. When the legislation was first introduced in February, the Canadian government examined it and found provisions which could be harmful to Canadian interests. We made our concerns known to both the administration and Congress. As well, businesses and other groups on both sides of the border have opposed the legislation. Many other countries have also expressed concerns over the legislation.

Canada's key concerns related to proposals which would restrict imports of sugar and sugar-containing products from countries which import sugar from Cuba and which would allow U.S. citizens to make claims in U.S. courts against foreign companies investing in property expropriated by the Cuban government. This approach to claims would be contrary to generally accepted principles of international law and could have repercussions on international investments beyond Cuba. The proposals would restrict entry into the U.S. of officers of certain foreign companies which have business dealings with Cuba.

What is the current situation? Different versions of the bills have been passed by the House and the Senate and these now have to be reconciled in a conference committee. Canadian efforts were successful in having the proposed sugar restrictions removed from both versions of the bills.

Our other key concerns have been partly addressed. While the version of the bill passed by the Senate removes the provisions on investment claims and temporary entry, these remain in the House version of the legislation. Canada is continuing to press for the controversial provisions dropped from the version passed by the Senate to not be reintroduced in any final version of the legislation.

It is not clear when the conference committee will present a reconciled version of the legislation or if the common bill would be able to muster enough votes to pass both the House and the Senate. If passed, the final stage would be to send the bill to the President for his consideration. As the hon. member knows, the U.S. administration shares many of Canada's concerns. The U.S. Secretary of State has told Congress that he will recommend that President Clinton veto the bill if an unacceptable version is passed. Should the objectionable provisions be reinserted, Canada would urge a presidential veto of the bill.

I compliment the hon. member. I know he has many connections, communications and dealings with colleagues in the United States. He has also been playing a very important role in helping us to keep a Canadian foreign policy, while letting the United States keep its foreign policy in relation to Cuba.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on November 8 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs why Canada withdrew its sponsorship of UN resolution L-3 which seeks a stop to nuclear weapons tests.

Nuclear tests are presently being carried out by the French government and are being planned by the Government of China. Both governments are contravening the spirit of the extended nuclear non-proliferation treaty and negotiations toward a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

It might be recalled that on September 5 the foreign affairs minister issued a news release in which he deplored the tests. He stated: "Canada's policy on testing is clear: no testing by any nuclear weapons state and speedy progress toward concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty". In keeping with this policy, on

October 31, Canada and the United Nations chose to co-sponsor UN resolution L-3 which seeks a stop to nuclear weapons tests.

Suddenly, on November 7, Canada and the United Nations decided to withdraw its co-sponsorship. The reason? It would appear that the sponsorship was a mistake. Whose mistake is the question.

The next day, November 8, the Prime Minister from New Zealand re-emphasized Canada's position, stating that Canada deplores the actions of the French government and that Canada hopes the tests will stop rapidly.

Today, on November 21, the question is: How can we deplore nuclear testing at the level of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, except to co-sponsor an important UN resolution against testing and then a week later withdraw our co-sponsorship of a resolution that is not only consistent with the views of government leaders, but also consistent with our stated unequivocal policy on nuclear weapons testing?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Davenport on the subject of Canada's position on nuclear testing.

I can assure the hon. member that today, November 21, 1995, Canada's position on nuclear testing rests on a bedrock of Canadian tradition in support of a comprehensive test ban treaty. On this issue, as the hon. member said, our position has been consistent and clear. It remains unchanged to this day: no testing by any nuclear weapons state.

The government has repeatedly stated Canada's deep commitment to the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Such a treaty should prohibit all nuclear testing regardless of size, in all environments for all time. For Canada, this remains our most important and immediate arms control and disarmament priority.

Last week, in the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly, Canada voted in favour of a resolution strongly deploring nuclear testing. Canada was also a lead co-sponsor of the resolution which calls for the early completion of an effective CTBT. Together these resolutions represent Canada's firm position on testing.

Canada played a leading role in securing the indefinite extension of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons last May. The indefinite extension of the NPT provides the foundation for real disarmament.

Among the decisions agreed by all the countries of the NPT review conference, was the need to complete a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty no later than 1996.

Canadian actions since then have been calibrated to ensure that everything possible is done to meet the commitments taken in May and to reinforce the integrity of the non-proliferation treaty.

Canada's active role in the CTBT negotiations in Geneva and our efforts to develop the necessary political support for the early conclusion of the CTBT within multilateral fora such as the OAS and the recent Commonwealth heads of government meeting have been buttressed by the welcomed announcements made by the U.S.A., U.K. and France that they support a zero threshold comprehensive test ban treaty. A zero threshold CTBT would ban all tests for all time.

We believe that these public affirmations by three of the five nuclear weapon states will greatly assist the negotiations in reaching an early and successful conclusion to the CTBT.

In conclusion, let me repeat yet again that Canada's position on nuclear testing is clear and firm. We oppose all testing and remain committed to a CTBT in 1996.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues facing prairie people today is the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. The vast majority of prairie producers support the Canadian Wheat Board and yet they feel that its future is being threatened. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which has been the federal minister of agriculture's complete reluctance to stand up for the board whenever it needed defending.

The latest threat, however, is the continued freelancing of wheat into the United States by individuals who seem to think they can ignore the law to further their own goals.

There have been numerous organized attempts to cross the border from Canada into the United States to sell wheat. These are strictly prohibited by Canadian law. In doing so, these freelancers are exacerbating trade tensions between Canada and the United States, are risking the complete shutdown of agricultural trade between Canada and the United States, or at the very least are risking the imposition of yet another cap on the sales that currently occur under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Things are not getting any better out there. Canada has enjoyed some very good wheat sales into the United States. Millers and pasta makers want our high quality durum and the Canadian Wheat Board has been taking full advantage of that in promoting the high quality Canadian product throughout the U.S. marketplace.

But U.S. farmers do not like this. There is a lot of political and public pressure on U.S. congressmen and senators to stop the cross-border traffic in wheat. Canada could very well find itself squaring off with the United States in the near future, not just across our border, but in the world marketplace as well. This is looking more and more likely as the new U.S. farm bill comes into being.

The Americans are looking at maintaining a dominant role in the world marketplace. They are looking to increase their grain production. They are expecting to leave their export enhancement program in place. When you add this into the pot with the negative feeling toward those north of the border, that could certainly be bad news for Canada.

In maintaining friendly trading relations with the United States, the Canadian Wheat Board has successfully sold tonnes of wheat into the United States over the years. The wheat has moved quietly and quickly into the U.S. market and Canadian farmers who respect the board have been rewarded with increased payments from the board.

In supporting the board, Saskatchewan's minister of agriculture, Andy Renaud, said: "The Canadian Wheat Board can move grain into the U.S. for the benefit of all prairie farmers, not just a few, and do it in a way that minimizes as much as possible the threat of new trade restrictions".

He also said that the Saskatchewan government supports strong action to stop illegal sales to ensure that the U.S. market remains open for all farmers.

The Americans, and in particular the American multi-national grain corporations, realize the strength of the board and have been campaigning to force us to get rid of it. The board has been so successful that the U.S. feels threatened by it. Now some Canadian farmers are joining forces with these Americans to try to kill the board.

They falsely believe that without the board they will have better success at marketing their own grains in the United States. The board is defending itself in the marketplace, but it needs help from Canada's minister of agriculture. Good words are one thing, but actions are more important.

At a recent grain industry general meeting, the minister said that those who cross the border with grain for sale are law breakers and that those who violate the law are harming their cause to get changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

In response, I urge the minister not to make changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. And one more time I ask him, is he prepared to take whatever action is necessary to defend single desk selling and enforce the rules and regulations as they have been set out in Canadian law?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his comments.

I say at the outset that many, if not all my constituents, are going to be surprised to see me stand up and answer a question on prairie farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board, but as you know the duties of a parliamentary secretary are many and varied, particularly during the adjournment debate.

The Canadian Wheat Board Act and Canadian Wheat Board regulations, as the hon. member knows, state that any export of wheat and barley requires an export licence issued by the Canadian Wheat Board. The law is very clear on this point.

The Customs Act, administered by Revenue Canada, is applied in support of the Canadian Wheat Board program, requiring exporters shipping wheat and barley to the United States to first obtain an export licence. It is very clear.

Proceeds from the sales of the unauthorized exports are not deposited into the Canadian Wheat Board pooling accounts. Therefore, when this occurs, producers who comply with the wheat board export program receive no benefit and are hurt by the resultant loss of the potential export opportunities engendered by the legal freelancers, as pointed out by the hon. member.

Within the democratic system of government in Canada there are other ways to work for change without deliberately engaging in unauthorized and illegal activities which may create unnecessary problems with the management of our international trade relations.

The western grain marketing panel process was put in place so that grain farmers, industry and other shareholders, could have an opportunity to participate in a number of grassroot forums to discuss the current grain marketing system, including the Canadian Wheat Board.

On behalf of the minister of agriculture, I would advise those who are dissatisfied with the current marketing system to participate fully in the western grain marketing panel and its process to improve the system and to do what the hon. member is suggesting is a more orderly method of conducting business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 7.56 p.m.)