Dave Chatters

[Petitions, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents from the High Prairie area of my constituency.

The petitioners request that Parliament support the laws which would severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime; to support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and to support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex as to be inefficient and/or unenforceable.

[Petitions, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions under Standing Order 36. The first petition is from residents in the communities of Athabasca and Smith in my riding.

The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including the amending of the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

You said scientific tests.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in resuming my presentation on this topic I should like to briefly review where I was yesterday when I was interrupted by the vote. As I was saying, when thanking the witnesses who appeared before the committee to discuss in all sincerity and earnest the topic before us, trying to influence the government's position on Bill C-94, it was very apparent the members of the committee and the government were not prepared or interested in listening to anything the witnesses had to say simply because their minds had long since been made up to support the minister's political commitment which had long since been bought and paid for.

We went on to talk about the issues the minister had raised in support of her bill. Yesterday the member for York-Simcoe had been babbling on about the Reform Party's being in the pockets of Ethyl Corporation, this evil corporation with its head offices in the U.S. That was absolute rubbish.

Right from the beginning as I met with both sides on this issue and discussed their positions, which was more than the minister was willing to do, it became very clear someone was distorting the facts on the issue. Over the summer months I spent a tremendous amount of time researching the information available and judging the information before us. The more I did that the more I came to believe that the positions of the Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute and Ethyl Corporation were correct and that the motor vehicle manufacturers' position was very flawed.

That was brought to my attention through endless studies done in Canada and the U.S. on the subject. It certainly was the judgment of the Environmental Protection Agency, two courts in the U.S., and a lot of independent testing done on the subject.

I went on yesterday to talk about some of the positions and the flaws in those positions put forward by the government, one of which is that MMT causes damage to the OBD II technology in 1996 cars. The evidence brought forward in the U.S. and Canada in the most extensive series of tests ever done on a fuel additive in the world failed to verify the motor vehicle manufacturers' position on that interference of the OBD II systems.

The issue of sparkplug failure was a favourite issue of the minister in that sparkplugs were failing up to 17 times higher in fuel with MMT than in fuel without MMT. We referred to very extensive testing in the U.S. on the subject, independent testing that failed to find any connection whatsoever between MMT in gasoline and the failure of those sparkplugs. The failure of the sparkplugs was an inherent flaw in that particular brand of sparkplug and had little to do with MMT.

When we were in committee and we asked for evidence to be brought forward from the MVMA to show us where this failure of the sparkplugs was proven, it brought forward a number of pictures of sparkplugs. The first was a picture of a sparkplug that looked almost brand new, which aroused some suspicion. Any sparkplug that has ran 50,000 kilometres or more has some discolouring on the porcelain section and does not look like the sparkplug in the picture.

The other picture was of a sparkplug that was very fouled and in terrible condition. The representative from the MVMA pointed out these two sparkplugs were identical sparkplugs used in identical vehicles, one run with MMT fuel and one without. When we took a closer look at the pictures clearly they were not even the same type of sparkplug. They were different sparkplugs.

Immediately we began to doubt the validity of the evidence being presented when presented as one thing when even laymen like ourselves on the committee could very easily see the evidence was flawed, manipulated and not correct. I do not think the claim of the sparkplug failure had much validity, which raises doubts about the entire evidence.

Then we went on to the issue of tailpipe emissions from the vehicles and how they would affect our environment. In the process of the Environmental Protection Agency study and to satisfy the U.S. clean air act requirements for the reintroduction of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States, Ethyl Corporation conducted the most extensive series of tests ever undertaken on a gasoline additive. The testing program was designed with the assistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. automakers to evaluate and document the effects of MMT performance additives on automobile tailpipe emissions and to determine the implications for air quality if the MMT additives were used in gasoline.

The initial MMT emission test program involved 48 cars, representing a broad cross-section of automobiles driven in North America, operated for a total of more than three million miles. Half of the 1988 cars used a test fuel with additives and the other half used the same fuel without additives. Tailpipe emissions were checked every 5,000 miles.

In committee various witnesses put forth a lot of very technical evidence. I pointed out earlier that the validity of the evidence concerning sparkplug misfiring was suspect and there was also that same suspicion regarding the data concerning tailpipe emissions. I will give the House another example of that suspect evidence.

In committee the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, a member of the government, raised these concerns regarding the data presented concerning tailpipe emissions. From the blues of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of October 24, 1995 he said: "What interests me is that this

chart shows very clearly that Canadian cars using MMT have a significantly lower NOx emission than those used in the United States not using MMT. Am I not seeing improvements with MMT as opposed to the opposite?"

The witness responded by saying: "I think you are seeing a false improvement as a result of MMT".

The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth responded by saying: "It is your chart. If that data is false then surely the other data that shows improvements in the emissions of hydrocarbons and CO2s and carbon dioxide, then these other two charts are also suspect. What I am trying to get at is what does any of this data mean? If you say that one is false, are these two therefore right or are they all false?"

In spite of his serious suspicions to the evidence before him this member failed to raise any concerns with the content or validity of the bill in the clause by clause review or at report stage and here we are at third reading. Will the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth now vote to hold the bill until further independent research is done to verify that suspect evidence?

We studied this matter over the summer. The Environmental Protection Agency participated in this test program in determining the test protocols and the definitions involved. Also many independent testing facilities were used to analyse the data using similar protocols and procedures to those laid out by the EPA.

The data were subjected to rigorous, independent statistical analyses to evaluate the impact of the additive over 75,000 miles of vehicle operation.

An additional test fleet of 44 cars of 1992 and 1993 models were tested and yielded similar results to the 1988 fleet. Four models of the 1992-93 test fleet were driven 100,000 miles without any catalytic system problems due to MMT. All the MMT cars met exhaust emission standards at 100,000 miles. Two other 1988 models were also run to 100,000 miles without exhaust failure due to MMT.

These programs took nearly five years and cost millions of dollars. It is the most extensive series of tests ever performed in support of a fuel additive waiver. The evidence is pretty strong as to the effect on tailpipe emissions of MMT.

The next issue in question which has been raised by the minister in the House is health. In committee we heard experts from Health Canada's monitoring and criteria division who presented their conclusions from a December 6, 1994 risk assessment which focused on new epidemiological studies and a Canadian exposure data entitled "Risk Assessment for the Combustion Products of MMT in gasoline". The study concluded that the use of MMT in gasoline does not represent a health risk to any segment of the Canadian population.

Specifically the report states: "Airborne manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline powered vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in quantities or under conditions that may constitute a health risk". The study also concludes there is no connection between levels of ambient respirable manganese and MMT sales or use in unleaded gasoline, whether examined by geographic area or by season.

The last and probably most important issue in the whole debate in the House and in committee was based on the uniformity of gasoline in the North American market. On April 25 of this year the hon. Minister of Industry stated: "It is crucial that we have uniformity standards". The hon. minister is referring to the fact that at the time MMT was not used in the U.S.A. but was in Canada, and for that reason it was important to have the same gasoline in the North American market.

I would like to know now if the minister still agrees with this statement because the U.S. court of appeals has now ordered the U.S. EPA to grant Ethyl Corporation's application for a waiver, paving the way for the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States. The EPA has until early December to appeal. Our sources say that is unlikely.

Several U.S. refiners have provided written notice of their intention to use MMT. Ethyl has received orders pending the appeal date from not only the U.S.A. but from Mexico, Argentina, Russia, Bulgaria, Indonesia and Peru. Most of the rest of the countries of the world are still using leaded gasoline, which makes the issue irrelevant for them.

The uniformity of gasoline additives within North America would now require Canada to maintain rather than restrict the use of MMT. If the Minister of Industry still stands by his statement, I hope to see him vote against the bill in the House on third reading. If he no longer stands by his statement, the House would really like to know why he now believes that uniformity in the North American market is no longer crucial.

With this question of uniformity in mind, why do we not hold the bill on the Order Paper until after the appeal period has expired, particularly now since the American automakers have approached Ethyl to do independent testing in the U.S.? Does the government believe the uniformity of gasoline is no longer crucial in North American markets?

The refineries were among the groups that appeared before the committee to discuss this bill and to lobby in opposition to the bill simply because of the increase costs to the refineries in the event of banning MMT. For the benefit of members opposite who seem to

be in a great frenzy to promote the use of ethanol in gasolines, the refineries clearly stated that should MMT be banned in Canada, ethanol would not be used as a substitute for MMT. Economics would simply dictate that instead of using MMT a much enhanced refining process would be required which would cause greater volumes of crude oil and greater emissions from the refining process of a number of undesirable elements, including carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide.

Also concerning environmental pollution, there were a number of studies by Calgary based T.J. McCann and Associates Limited and Environ International Limited of California-MMT is banned by name in California-showing that the likely range of increase in nitrous oxide emissions if MMT were to be banned would be equivalent of adding 32,000 to 50,000 tonnes per year to the environment, the equivalent of putting over a million additional cars on the road by the year 2000.

Last May Environ of California concluded that Environment Canada in the McCann study underestimated the annual increase in tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions that would result from the removal of MMT, saying it would result in between 49,000 and 62,000 tonnes more nitrous oxide into the environment.

Putting these studies into a non-technical format, removing MMT would increase nitrous oxide levels from automobiles by up to 20 per cent, an action which contradicts Environment Canada's environmental management plan and Canada's signing of a 1998 international treaty promising to freeze nitrous oxide emissions at 1988 levels.

Canada's major cities are faced with increased pollution levels. I find it hard to believe the Minister of the Environment is pushing legislation that would increase pollution. She knows nitrous oxide emissions are the cause of urban smog. Therefore she should be supporting any means to reduce nitrous oxide. Now she will probably tell the House that the new OBDs will reduce pollution and therefore will counteract the increased levels of nitrous oxide.

I remind the minister the OBD systems in no way affect the emission or pollution levels. They are simply a monitoring system and will not therefore affect the emission control systems in the amount of pollution they allow into the environment.

I note there is no support for this bill from the provinces, specifically my province of Alberta as well as Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. I have also in my possession a copy of a letter from the minister of natural resources from Quebec urging the government to reconsider its position on MMT considering recent events in the U.S.A.

Also, what is truly amazing is the complete turnaround of the official opposition, which supported the government's initiative on

second reading. Despite the fact that its members were a rare sight at the committee hearings, on third reading they appear to be supporting our position on the bill and opposing the government.

I and other members of the committee who studied the bill, if open minded, would have to come to these conclusions. The evidence presented as to the effects of MMT on OBD II is at best inconclusive. The use of MMT in gasoline has no detrimental health effect on Canadians, as confirmed by Health Canada. If the use of MMT has any measurable impact on the environment, it would be a positive impact due to the reduction of the smog producing nitrous oxide.

If fuel harmonization in the North American market is crucial, as the Ministry of Industry stated in the House on April 25, in view of recent events in the U.S.A. the bill will not aid in the harmonization but will provide the opposite result.

The bill sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the Canadian environment. If we are to continue the great progress in the reduction of automobile emissions we have seen in the last number of years, we must have a harmonization or a co-operative effort between the auto manufacturing industry and the manufacturers of automobile fuels. If the bill is any indication of the way the auto manufacturers plan to co-operate with the fuel manufacturers, it certainly does not bode well for the future progress in the technology of automobile emissions.

We must postpone passage of the bill while independent testing is conducted on the effects of MMT on OBD II and also to give us time to assess the situation in the USA after the time expires of the appeal court decision.

Therefore I will be voting against the bill at third reading. I certainly will be watching to see how Alberta's only representative in cabinet and the representative for Alberta's resource industries will be voting, as well as the member for Sarnia-Lambton, who has been amazingly silent on this whole issue, considering he represents the constituency where the Ethyl plant is located and where the resulting layoffs from the government's decision will no doubt occur. I will be watching this very closely.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise again to take part in the debate on Bill C-94.

First I thank all the witnesses who came before the committee to discuss and make presentations on this subject. It really was unfortunate that it was apparent right from the introduction of the bill and the hearings in committee that members of the government were not really interested in hearing, listening or learning any of the facts behind the issue. They were destined to support the political agenda of the Minister of the Environment or they would face the wrath of the minister. We on this side of the House certainly know how intimidating that can be.

From the very beginning it was apparent to me that either one side or the other on this issue was distorting the facts brought before us. Therefore my staff and I spent the summer doing extensive research into the issue. The more we studied, the more convinced we became that the minister was not so much concerned about protecting the environment as she was about fulfilling a political commitment.

I will review some of the facts that led me to this conclusion. On the issue of the onboard diagnostic computer system, the contention brought out in committee was the question of whether or not MMT gums up the OBD II systems.

In December 1993 following the largest fuel additive testing program in the history of the U.S. EPA, it was concluded that the use of MMT would not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system including onboard diagnostic systems.

The EPA, the U.S. court and subsequently the U.S. Court of Appeal rejected concerns about the impact of MMT on OBD systems as presented by U.S. automakers. U.S. automakers have experienced significant difficulties with the certification of OBD systems in United States where MMT is not currently used in unleaded gasoline.

The U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board have recently changed their regulations to allow for certification of vehicles that do not comply with the OBD II requirements. The U.S. EPA stated in the federal register that automobile manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated difficulty in complying with

every aspect of the OBD requirements. Such difficulty appears likely to continue into 1996 and 1997 model years.

In Canada, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association appears to be blaming OBD II system difficulties on MMT. MVMA members have lobbied the Canadian government threatening to disconnect OBD warning systems and pass costs on to consumers unless the government passes legislation to ban MMT. The Canadian government appears to have responded to the threats without noting that vehicle manufacturers have failed to achieve OBD II certification in the U.S. for most new car models.

Furthermore I should like to know how the minister could explain her statement that if vehicle manufacturers carry through on threats to remove OBD systems it would result in a tenfold increase in vehicle emissions. This is simply representative of the rhetoric coming from the minister and from that side of the House with no real facts to back up those statements. This false claim shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical issues involved and underlines the need for an independent technical assessment of the MVMA claims.

OBD systems do not reduce emissions on vehicles. OBD is a monitoring system designed to notify the driver when emission control equipment does not operate properly. Removal or more likely the disconnection of OBD systems would only serve to prevent a dashboard malfunction indicating light from illuminating, which is exactly what is happening already in the United States without MMT. No emission control equipment would be removed from the vehicle.

The issue of sparkplug failure was used by the minister with great gusto to demonstrate her reason for banning MMT. General Motors Canada has claimed that MMT is responsible for warranty claims for sparkplug failure being 17 times higher in Canada than in the U.S. It is alleged that higher claims are due to manganese deposits on sparkplugs causing the plug to arc under certain conditions from electrode to the outer shell rather than from electrode to electrode.

Arcing leads to sparkplug misfire which can contribute to drivability problems. The Minister of the Environment has cited these claims to help justify her proposed legislation to remove MMT. However she failed to point out that automakers' claims related to one type of platinum tipped sparkplug used primarily in a one-engine version used in GM automobiles. The sparkplug in question was discontinued by GM indicating the problems were related to the design of the plug, not MMT. No casual link was ever established between MMT and sparkplug problems and no warranty data have ever been made public.

To further assess the validity of GM's concerns independent testing was conducted by the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, using the platinum tipped long life plugs used in all 1994 2.2 Chevrolet Cavaliers. The goal of the study initiated with General Motors Corporation in the U.S. was to determine the differences between new sparkplug failures and the plugs were provided by GM.

The sparkplugs were fired under a power supply that increased output to the plugs in a ramped manner. Current leakage until the plugs fired was measured and movies were taken to document whether arcing occurs between electrodes or from electrode to shell.

The sparkplug test program-

[Missing Children, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last May I wrote to fellow members of this House to encourage them to include a picture of missing children in their householders. The idea was to make these pictures of missing children more visible to many more people, thereby increasing the probability of their being found.

I am pleased to inform the House that this project has already been successful. I was recently informed by Child Find Canada's office in Edmonton that a missing teenager was safely located as a direct result of tips arising from the people who had seen her picture in a fellow member's householder.

Hats off to every member who is participating in Child Find and other missing children's organizations. I encourage every member to participate, because this program works.

[Excise Tax Act, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-90 which specifically enables the government to increase the already high levels of taxation imposed on Canadians.

It never ceases to amaze me the disregard the government seems to have for the intelligence of Canadians. This bill is an outright betrayal of the commitment in the red book or the election platform of the Liberal Party. In addition to the betrayal, the Liberals promised not to increase taxes to Canadians. There is the dishonesty, the deceit and the rhetoric surrounding the cuts that have to come and inevitably will come whoever is the government some day if we are to reach a balanced budget.

We just heard the best example of this rhetoric that we hear all the time. The member for Durham rises to join the debate on Bill C-90, a bill to increase tax levels. In his speech he says there is nothing wrong with the tax system. All that is wrong is the rates are too high, the second highest in the OECD. Yet he is speaking in support of a bill that raises the level of taxes higher. That is rhetoric and double talk and we hear so much of it.

I would like to discuss a couple of other examples of the betrayal of red book promises. The Liberals said during the election campaign they could solve the problems of the country simply by economic stimulation and job creation. They did not need to cut programs. They did not need to raise taxes. They could solve the problems of the nation by job creation and economic stimulation.

It is now two years into the mandate. We have seen lots of cuts in programs and services but we have not seen problems solved through economic stimulation and job creation. We consistently remind the government day after day of the GST fraud which it has imposed on people. The Deputy Prime Minister told us she would resign within a year if the GST was not gone. She is still here. I saw her in the House today.

The government tells Canadians these things during an election campaign because it knows those topics are popular and that it will get votes. The Liberals tell Canadians what they want to hear. After they get elected they abandon their promises and hope Canadians will forget them before the next election.

Another bit of dishonesty is the story the government told the federal civil service that it would not be cut, that it would protect their jobs and honour the job security clauses in their contract. We are only two years into the government's mandate and it is talking about cutting 50,000 civil servants. What happened to the commitment to the civil service? It seems to have been abandoned.

There was the promise to maintain funding for social programs. The government said that it would never slash and burn like the Reform Party proposals would do. It would protect the precious social programs, the fabric of the social safety net system. Only two years into its mandate, the government has cut and cut far worse than what would have happened under what it called our slash and burn policies. The government's measures have been even more draconian than the Reform Party ever suggested they should be. If the $7 billion cut to provincial transfers in support of social spending is not slash and burn I do not know what we could refer to it as.

I do not think Canadians are so naive or so easily deceived that they are prepared to forgive all this before the next election. The Reform Party is here to do everything it can to see the government is not forgiven. I am sure that come next election time it will have some real answering to do to the Canadian taxpayers.

I hear all the time from the other side of the House about how caring the members are, that they are not hard hearted and without compassion like the Reform Party, that they care about the human deficit. I have never heard such arrogant hypocrisy in all my life. They do not have the market cornered on compassion or caring. The very reason I became involved in the profession with the lowest regard in this country-at least outside of this place-was simply because I care and I am compassionate. I care very deeply about the things the Liberal and Conservative governments have done to the future of my children and my grandchildren in the last 30 years. That is not caring and compassion. It is selfishness. It is the me generation saying that not only will the next generation, my kids and my grandkids, have to look after themselves but the next three or four generations will be paying for the greed of this generation. That is not caring and compassion. It is the me generation.

Today we are debating Bill C-90 which is about tax increases. The area I wanted to talk about specifically is the 1.5 cent a litre increase in tax on gasoline. For the last 30 years every time there is a cash crunch, a squeeze, governments have turned to the cash cow, the sin taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline. It turned in a big way to gasoline in the last budget to make up the shortfall.

The finance minister made a commitment to have a ratio of tax increases to expenditure cuts that was not in the red book. As I mentioned earlier, the red book said no increase in taxation. Now we have moved to a commitment to keep it in balance, so many dollars of cuts to so many dollars of tax increase. That is a serious betrayal of an election promise.

We still have the GST that applies on top of the 1.5 cent per litre tax increase. That is the GST that was supposed to be gone. Therefore, we have a double tax increase on gasoline.

It is important for members of the House to remember where the excise tax on gasoline started. It was back in 1975 when a Liberal government placed the excise tax on gasoline. It was a special tax. It was the first time an excise tax was applied to gasoline and was to be a one-time tax. How many times have we heard that before?

This one-time tax was to cover the gap between oil import compensation payments and the oil export charge revenues. In turn, this compensation system was as a result of the 1974 decision to maintain domestic oil prices at levels below world prices.

In essence, the federal government of the day had adopted a made in Canada oil pricing policy which saw the proceeds from an export tax used to protect consumers of imported oil from the full impact of the international price. A noble intent I am sure. As we so often experience with taxation, we are shown that taxes which are meant to be one time or special or temporary, quickly have a habit of becoming permanent.

One must only refer back to the imposition in 1917 of a temporary income tax and see where that has gone, how temporary it was and how complex and expensive it has become.

The same is true in every sense about the excise tax on transportation fuels. The excise tax has remained in place and its revenue objectives certainly have changed. The tax is no longer used for what it was originally intended but the tax remains and continues to be increased by 2 cents, 1 cent, 1.5 cents every budget that is presented in the last number of years. Obviously it has changed from a special tax for a specific purpose to a general tax for a source of general revenue.

In the last session of Parliament, in the natural resources committee of which I am a member, the members of the NDP introduced a proposal for the committee to study gasoline pricing in Canada. They thought there was some bogeyman causing the price of gasoline to be so high when we were facing a surplus of oil on the international market and low prices for crude oil.

It does not take a genius to look at this. There have been numerous studies over the last number of years that the bogeyman in this scenario is the government. If we look at the price of gasoline in Vancouver at 59.6 cents per litre, 28.9 cents goes directly to provincial and federal taxes. That is not oil royalties or corporate income tax, that is simply gasoline taxes hidden at the pump. The 28.9 cents leaves the remaining cost of that litre of gasoline to cover the cost of exploration, production, marketing and refining and only another 3 cents to the dealer for his costs and overhead.

We can example after example of a gasoline price. The figures provided by the government's statistics for Calgary shows the price of gasoline is 52.3 per litre; 22.4 cents of that goes directly to governments in taxes, leaving only 3.5 cents for the dealer to cover his costs, with the remaining going for exploration, refining and marketing. I have example after example of almost 50 per cent of the cost of a litre of gasoline everywhere across the country being the tax on gasoline by government.

We continue to have these kinds of tax increases rammed down our throats with no choice. Because they are hidden they are often put in and the consumer does not realize the taxes have risen. The cost increases which we have seen so dramatically in the last number of years are not the result of the oil companies' getting together to fix the price of gasoline. It is the result of governments starved for cash continually coming back to that cash cow.

Members can ask their constituents if they realize what percentage of the cost of a litre of gasoline is government taxation. I will wager very few consumers realize the level of taxation. If we are to continue to tax Canadians in this way it is time we were up front and open and let Canadians see where their dollars are going.

When we look at these increases in taxation levels and what they are doing to us internationally there is an important implication of these tax increases as well. Gasoline is one of the things that gives our natural advantage which allows us to be competitive in the global marketplace to compensate for the huge distances and the expensive transportation costs we face in getting our products to market.

It is very important that we are able to take advantage of that natural advantage to compensate for other disadvantages. Our natural advantage is being seriously eroded when the Americans can come to Canada with a $1.30 dollar, buy our crude oil, take it home, refine it and sell it at almost half the price we have to pay. I do not think that is what Canadians want. I do not think that is what the government wants, to simply become and exporter of raw natural resources.

This is not the way to create jobs, to create wealth, to stimulate the economy. It is time we support Canadians industries and manufacturers and allow them to take advantage of the natural advantage we have in our abundance of natural resources.

Instead, the government seems to stick to its historical way of raising revenue, that cash cow. I suggest this poor cash cow is milking at capacity and is in danger of dying from mastitis from forced overproduction.

I can go on about the unfairness of this endless taxation. The government should seriously look at what it is doing to the economy through high taxation and what the debt and deficit are doing to the country.

I ask the Prime Minister and the finance minister to heed the words of F.J. Clarke that a politician thinks only of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.

[Wood Bison Trail, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate a Canadian company on a noteworthy accomplishment.

Syncrude Canada, a mining company and major contributor to the economy in Canada, has just opened a nature trail north of Fort McMurray that reflects the mining industry's commitment to Canada and our environment. In the spirit of co-operation and responsibility, the Wood Bison Trail was opened by the premier of Alberta at a ceremony attended by 4,300 spectators.

Most notable is the trail's entrance which is marked by a native carving of bison that stretches 30 feet in the air. It is called the Bison Gateway and was sculptured by the native artist Brian Clark. This monument marks Syncrude's $2 million reclamation project on a mined out area around Wood Bison Trail. As further evidence to this commitment a herd of wood bison has been reintroduced to the area after being extinct for hundreds of years.

I congratulate everyone involved in this project. It is an example of what can be accomplished when government, industry, environment and native groups work together to harvest our resource wealth and leave the area productive for future generations.

[Energy Regulations, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak on my colleague's motion.

The streamlining of regulations has certainly for many years been a popular political topic in Canada. Governments have been talking for years and in spite of that relatively little has happened in streamlining and reducing overlap in regulations between federal and provincial governments.

As far back as 1978, Prime Minister Trudeau entrusted the Economic Council of Canada with the task of reviewing government regulations in certain sectors. Among other things, the study was to focus on the relevance and impact of regulations. The

council proceeded to look at a number of sectors, notably telecommunications and occupational health and safety. This seems to show, as my colleague mentioned, that over-regulation is certainly a problem in many sectors other than the energy sector.

The council generally recommended that routine regulations and agreements be codified and made public at all levels of government. The aim of this recommendation was to ensure a clearer grasp and understanding of the scope of regulations.

In the second recommendation, pertaining to products and development projects, the council recommended that in instances when responsibility for a particular sector was shared between the federal government and the provinces, a single department should be assigned responsibility for co-ordinating the activities of participating departments. Of course that is the single-window approach that the previous speaker mentioned. Businesses would thus waste less time than they do when they have to deal with all the departments of government.

In September 1984 Prime Minister Mulroney announced that he was setting up a ministerial task force to review all federal government programs with a view to making them simpler and more accessible. Nineteen study teams composed of public and private sector individuals were formed and mandated to review 989 programs accounting for expenditures of $92 billion. One of the study teams focused on regulatory programs.

Not specifically mentioned in the program review appended to the report is a list of federal programs considered problematic in terms of provincial relations. Problems identified had to do either with jurisdiction or overlap or with matters of information, policy, et cetera. Of the 134 registered programs identified, 86, or 66 per cent, were categorized as problematic in at least one province or territory, while 27, or 20 per cent, were found to overlap with provinces or territories. The task force observed the highest incidence of overlap in the case of environmental programs.

The study team reviewing regulatory programs concluded among other things that there was evidence of ongoing significant overlap and duplication between the two levels of government. It recommended that initiatives be adopted to improve the regulatory process. Specifically, it recommended that a study of overlap in the environmental sector be conducted. Moreover, the task force called for an immediate review of the overall burden imposed by the various levels of government. It concluded that Canadians were over-regulated and that it was important to cut down the number of regulatory levels.

So members can see that this is certainly not a new subject in Canada for political debate. It has been ongoing for years and years. It is the general consensus, I think, with all parties in Canada that all sectors are over-regulated. As we mentioned, today the energy sector is certainly one sector that is over-regulated.

In the spring of 1986 the government adopted a federal regulatory reform strategy. It called for all new regulations to be subjected to economic and social cost analysis. The public would henceforth be informed and involved in the regulatory process. For one thing, the process would not take so long. Furthermore, the current regulatory process would be streamlined to improve efficiency. These are very familiar terms, which we have heard many times.

One of the 10 guidelines for reform deals directly with the issue that interests us here. In the view of existing regulatory burden and the need to eliminate needless duplication, co-operation with the provinces was deemed to be a government priority.

To prove how serious it was, the government moved in the summer of 1986 to create the ministry of state for privatization and regulatory affairs. Although each department continued to be responsible for its own regulations, the office of privatization and regulatory affairs was put in charge of promoting the government's regulatory objectives.

With respect to program efficiency, considerable progress has been made since the strategy's adoption. For example, the average timeframe for regulatory approval has dropped substantially since the development of this office. According to the office, better inspection and enforcement mechanisms have been developed and overlapping regulations have been eliminated, at least to some degree.

Since 1987 the government has also released an annual federal regulatory plan. This publication gives an overview of forthcoming regulations. In each instance the purpose of the regulation is mentioned, along with the impact it will have.

The federal regulatory plan also includes a regulatory evaluation plan. In 1988 the office published a paper listing all of the regulatory reviews and reforms undertaken by different departments. In all, 77 initiatives were identified. In 1991 the office was disbanded and responsibility for regulatory affairs was assigned to the Treasury Board.

After this general history and overview, we are still left with the same problem in the energy sector as well as in many other sectors. The reality of the 1990s is that we do not want complex and bureaucratic solutions to the problem of over-regulation. We need to adopt a different philosophy. Our primary focus has to be to simplify and eliminate regulations wherever possible. For those that remain we need to share the administrative responsibility with other partners. While quality and service have to remain a primary objective, we expect there will have to be a significant shift in the degree and type of interaction between the federal and provincial governments that create these regulations, regulatory boards that oversee them, and the industry that must comply with them and in some instances be burdened by them.

The best way to examine the effects regulations have on a company is to look at a specific example of what I have been talking about up to this point. The National Energy Board was faced this year with an application by Foothills Pipe Lines Limited to construct the Wild Horse pipeline, which is an interconnecting link within Alberta from the Nova System to the proposed Altamont pipeline at Wild Horse on the Montana border.

The nature of the application and Foothills' approach to the National Energy Board raises fundamental questions with respect to the approval process for future pipeline facility expansion. Foothills' application stretched the limits of conventional National Energy Board facilities approval requirements in several important areas.

Under established approval procedures, a pipeline applicant must demonstrate that the facilities are needed, that there is a reasonable expectation they will be used for a significant portion of their useful life, and that tolls will be paid. The requirements are manifested in the demonstration of five aspects of supporting evidence: adequate supply in Canada to maintain incremental deliveries over time; a market assessment of sustainable demand for incremental gas volume; firm shipper contractual commitments for the new capacity for an extended term; specific contract market commitments to purchase the incremental gas; and specific dedicated supply to service these market commitments. The last two have been subject to some relaxation in other recent applications as long as a binding, firm shipper contract for the new capacity was in place. Where the application represents an expansion to existing facilities, rolled in tolling treatment has almost universally applied.

That is what Foothills was facing in the regulatory process in getting approval for this rather insignificant pipeline extension. What Foothills was seeking was pre-approval and certification to build facilities without demonstrable market support. As an alternative to outright approval, Foothills indicated that it would accept a conditional certificate that would require some further demonstration of shipper contractual commitments prior to construction.

As time is short, I will not go into more detail on that specific proposal. The point is that when the gas market was hot and Foothills wanted to build the extension on the pipeline to service that market the regulatory procedure was so complex and cumbersome that the market in reality was dried up before the regulatory approval system could be put into effect.

Therefore, in effect what we are talking about today is the streamlining of this regulatory process.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are debating a Reform motion to hoist the bill until we get a ruling from the U.S. court of appeal. The member opposite seems to be debating the bill on second reading. It is our motion that is being debated here.