Bill Gilmour

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, June 20th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 425

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to my motion before the House today.

The motion deals with the need for the government 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 sewage facilities. The motion is about setting a minimum standard right across Canada for sewage treatment.

As Canadians we often take for granted the vastness and magnificence of our environment. As much as we struggle to balance environmental with industrial and economic concerns we hold our environment in high esteem.

Reform environmental policy supports the balance between environmental and economic concerns and encourages Canadians to develop, renew and conserve our resources and environment to ensure the next generation inherits an environment equal to or better than that which the last generation received.

Essential to a clean and healthy environment are clean rivers, oceans and water bodies. When our water bodies are threatened with over pollution it hurts our environment, our fisheries, our economy, tourism, industry and municipal growth.

For these reasons municipal sewage facilities, set at a minimum level of primary treatment, are essential to maintaining and protecting our environment. That is why I am introducing the motion today.

I will give some background on the state of sewage treatment in Canada today to illustrate why the motion is necessary.

In most provinces the provincial government sets the standard for sewage treatment and for disposal of municipal solid waste and provides the regulatory function. Municipalities are responsible for the actual treatment of sewage and for collection and disposal of garbage. In 1993 approximately 57 per cent of Canadians were served by waste water treatment plants. That compares with 74 per cent for the Americans, 86 per cent for the Germans and over 90 per cent for the Swedes. We are obviously well behind.

Many cities have lagoon facilities which provide minimum treatment. Waste water flows through the lagoon, allowing long residence times for the settling of solids and the microbial degradation of organic matter. This is basically a system where raw sewage, less the solids, is dumped directly into the ocean or water basin with no treatment. This is the system used in the city of Victoria as well as in Halifax. We have the problem on both coasts. I will discuss the objections to this system of dealing with sewage later on.

Victoria is the only city from Alaska to the Mexican border which still dumps untreated sewage into the ocean.

I will give a quick summary of the three types of sewage treatment which include primary, secondary and tertiary treatment facilities. Primary treatment, which I am calling for, is the most basic stage of sewage treatment and is the minimum level I propose in my motion. Primary treatment involves the settling and chlorination stage prior to effluent discharge.

A more advanced stage of treatment is secondary treatment, which uses an activated sludge process to hasten the rate of waste water treatment. Large masses of actively growing bacteria are retained in large tanks and fed waste water. High levels of mixing and aeration facilitate microbial action.

Treated water then goes through a settling stage to remove the micro organisms and is chlorinated prior to release to the receiving body of water. Edmonton, Fredericton, Hamilton and Winnipeg use this more advanced form of waste water treatment on the majority of their municipal sewage.

Tertiary treatment is the most sophisticated form of water treatment practised in Canada. An anaerobic microbial fermentation step is added after the activated sludge process. The final effluent is relatively clean and in desert areas such as Israel is used directly for crop irrigation. Tertiary waste water treatment is used in Calgary, Kitchener, London, Oshawa, Ottawa, Regina, Sudbury and Toronto. In the maritime provinces a large percentage of municipalities do not have any sewage treatment and tertiary treatment is virtually non-existent.

The annual volume of untreated sewage in this country would cover the entire 7,800 kilometre Trans-Canada highway to a depth of nine metres. That is a lot of you know what, Mr. Speaker.

The effects of raw sewage dumping are being debated in cities such as Halifax and Victoria, which both discharge sewage into large water basins. In cities such as Regina, which dumps into small rivers, the effects are potentially disastrous. Sewage removes so much oxygen from the water that fish cannot survive and decomposing sewage may render the water undrinkable.

The government is in the process of major infrastructure spending with funds initially targeted for projects such as sewage treatment facilities, roads and water lines. Many towns and cities remain without any sewage treatment while tax dollars are being directed toward art centres and hockey rinks. Where are the priorities?

The government has made some significant promises regarding sewage treatment facilities in the country. The Liberal red book states on pages 66 and 67:

One of the country's biggest sources of water degradation is untreated municipal sewage, aggravated by decades of neglect of sewage and water treatment infrastructure. A Liberal government would assist provincial, regional, and municipal governments to finance new or renewed municipal sewage and water treatment infrastructure. This federal commitment would be conditional on municipalities encouraging water conservation and developing a sound financial regime for infrastructure maintenance in the future.

Federal assistance to municipalities for sewage treatment has been discussed in the House for over 25 years. In 1960 amendments to the National Housing Act provided for federal aid for municipal sewage projects to be administered by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Up to two-thirds of the cost of projects would be lent by the federal government. Municipalities would have to repay only 75 per cent of the loan if sewage work was completed by 1963.

The purpose of the 1960 legislation was to provide incentive to make an early start on these problems while it was still relatively inexpensive. Municipal sewage became an ongoing problem with annual allocations of $50 million to $75 million administered by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

The system was put into place 25 years ago, yet today Canada remains with almost half of its residents without any sewage treatment whatsoever. Now costs have skyrocketed. The longer municipalities wait, the more expensive it will become.

Despite efforts to date there are several reasons sewage remains untreated in many areas. One reason is Canada's large land mass and relatively low population which often mitigate the need for expensive, centralized sewage treatment facilities.

Another reason for the low level of sewage treatment is that many Canadian communities located adjacent to oceans and large rivers discharge raw sewage directly into water bodies, as in some cases the solution is to simply dilute the sewage.

In small amounts this may not harm the environment as organic matter can supply nutrition to aquatic organisms and benefit the fishery. However, once communities reach the municipal size, primary sewage treatment should be a requirement.

If we do not encourage a minimum standard of primary sewage treatment we risk damage to the environment, tourism, recreation, fisheries and health. In large amounts raw sewage can devastate the area by drastically degrading water quality, limiting dissolved oxygen levels, harming marine life, polluting shorelines, removing areas from recreational use and endangering human health.

The Liberal Party has recognized that a national waste water program exists and has pledged financial assistance to provincial, regional and municipal governments to finance new or renewed municipal sewage and water treatment infrastructure, but infrastucture spending is bypassing much needed sewer upgrades.

For example, Halifax and Victoria are still without any sewage treatment while at the same time government spent over $12 million in infrastructure funds for improvements to the Olympic Saddledome in Calgary and a hockey rink in Winnipeg.

In the big picture, basic infrastructure such as water and sewage treatment clearly has to take precedence. It is time for the government to renew its commitment to the public. Infrastructure spending should be targeted to local improvements which would benefit the entire community, not just a select few.

Clearly the biggest problem is expense and we all know it. There is no doubt that sewage treatment upgrading will require additional funding. When we look at the environment, environmental costs must be weighed with economic costs. In many instances taking action will be far more economically beneficial than the costs of the long term environmental damage of doing nothing.

Effective municipal waste treatment facilities are an expensive proposition for any municipality as they involve the provision of basic infrastructure as well as treatment facilities.

To counteract the cost, some cities such as the city of Toronto have proposed user pay fees on sewage discharge. That is one way to collect for the cost of cleanup and upgrading. It is one of the many options that warrants consideration.

In deciding which areas necessitate primary sewage treatment facilities, the environmental benefits of treatment must equal or outweigh the environmental costs. I am not proposing that all towns and cities undertake a program of primary treatment because there are many towns that are too small to benefit from sewage treatment programs.

For example, towns with small populations often do not generate enough waste to necessitate sewage treatment facilities. My proposal applies only to the minimum standard of municipalities which by definition have a minimum population of 1,000 residents.

Many studies have shown that secondary or tertiary forms of treatment are not necessary in all cases. In Victoria, for example, studies concluded that the treatment of waste water discharge into the strait would provide no appreciable health or environmental gain to the city or to the strait and that primary treatment was all that was necessary. That is what I am calling for in my motion.

Provincial governments have known about the bio-hazard of municipal sewage for generations, but many choose to ignore the problem. Concerns with the volume of minimally treated waste water were first identified in 1975. Yet many municipalities routinely fail to comply with permits on the discharge of sewage from outfalls.

The Fraser River is B.C.'s most endangered watershed with a sewage discharge amounting to 450 billion litres per year. If one were to package the sewage into one-litre milk cartons and pile them one on top of each other, a year's discharge would extend to the planet Mars and back with enough left over for 100 side trips to the moon. That is a lot of fertilizer.

Federal fisheries scientist analysed discharges from the sewage outfall at Iona Island on the Fraser in 1985 and found 200 toxic substances, many of them persistent and some with the ability to increase in concentration and toxicity as they migrate up the food chain.

Other substances identified are associated with organ damage, birth defects, cancer and second or third generation reproductive collapse in both humans and wildlife. Obviously these substances simply cannot continue to be dumped into the Fraser. I am pleased to report that one of the larger infrastructure projects of the government involves upgrading the Fraser sewage treatment facility.

A report by the World Wildlife Fund said sewage plants in Ontario and Quebec were receiving, along with billions of litres of waste water, about 100 tonnes of industrial metals and

chemicals each year. This discharge can cause serious damage to the ecosystem and contaminate drinking water.

Provinces such as Ontario have been working on developing effluent quality standards for sewage plants but nothing concrete has developed to date. Six years ago the federal and Nova Scotia governments agreed to deal with the untreated sewage flowing directly into Halifax harbour. Concern was raised seven years ago that the lack of sewage treatment facilities in the harbour would have long term consequences on the fisheries and on growth and investment in the metropolitan area.

Over 30 million gallons of untreated sewage enter Halifax harbour waters every day, with close to 20 per cent of this inflow classified as industrial in origin. This has resulted in documented levels of toxic contamination of the harbour waters.

This sewage and waste dumping into Halifax harbour present health hazards on top of the aesthetic problems with the harbour mired in sewage. The Nova Scotia government and Canada entered into an agreement in September 1988 to upgrade existing sewage infrastructure in the Halifax-Dartmouth area.

The agreement recognized that:

Even though the provision of municipal sewer services is fundamentally a provincial-municipal responsibility, Canada and the province recognize that the current state of sewage infrastructure in Halifax-Dartmouth is of urgent concern and justifies assistance on the basis of a regional development priority; and a significant portion of waste water is generated by federal facilities in the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area.

Some $200 million was set aside to build a sewage treatment facility in Halifax, yet today the project is at almost a complete standstill with over $20 million sunk into consulting and with Halifax no closer to a primary sewage treatment facility. This is where the G-7 conference took place.

Today the estimated cost has doubled to over $400 million, twice that which was first estimated six years ago. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.

Now the Nova Scotia government and the federal government are wondering how it will come up with the extra money. After several promises that this will be completed they appear to be backtracking on their promises. Again I go back to the G-7.

Halifax harbour is but one example of the status of sewage facilities throughout the country. It is now commonplace to hear each summer which beaches are open and which beaches are closed due to high concentrations of fecal chloroform. Now is the time to deal with the problem.

In conclusion, I hope all members will support Motion No. 425 to undertake a country wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities.

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill put forward by my colleague from Davenport.

Bill C-275 provides for the identification and rehabilitation of flora and fauna in Canada threatened or endangered by human activity and provides for the protection of habitat and restoration of populations.

Endangered species is an important Canadian environmental issue that should be carefully considered within a comprehensive, biodiversity strategy. According to one estimate, species are going extinct globally at the rate of several species a day. Since the arrival of the Europeans, only nine species have been rendered extinct in Canada.

Last April reports indicated that Canada had 263 species listed at risk. Some of the endangered species include the whooping crane, beluga whale and the peregrine falcon. The list is growing steadily and only last April eight new species were added. Once a species is lost, it is forever and the actions cannot be reversed.

The Brundtland commission identified one of the prerequisites to sustainable development as the protection of species and ecosystems. The fundamental goal of endangered species legislation must be to ensure that no further native species go extinct and that already endangered species recover to healthy, self-sustaining population levels using the most efficient, effective, fair and balanced means possible.

In 1992 Canada signed the Convention on Biological Diversity. This agreement calls on nations to retain a healthy population of the many varied species in the wild and commits signatories to introducing legislation to protect endangered species. Japan, Australia and the United States all have federal endangered species laws in place at the moment. The development of comprehensive legal protection for endangered species is a first step in meeting Canada's international commitments.

The federal government has jurisdiction over the management and preservation of wildlife on federal lands such as national parks. Provinces have jurisdiction over the management of all wildlife not falling within the federal jurisdiction. Only four provinces, as my colleague has mentioned, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have provincial endangered species acts. These laws enable, but do not compel, governments to develop a national list of endangered species and implement recovery plans. The remaining provinces have no endangered species legislation.

There are 12 pieces of federal legislation ranging from health regulations to trade rules that address species protection. These federal laws must be harmonized. Rather than developing a weak and ineffective set of standards, the federal government should work with the provinces to come up with a common set of standards that will be agreeable to all parties right across the country.

It is my hope that the federal environment minister will work co-operatively with provincial and territorial governments to develop such a strategy. I understand that harmonized endangered species legislation is currently in the works.

Last November the environment minister stated in the House that framework legislation would be introduced this spring. Members have seen a discussion paper and working document but there has been nothing concrete as yet. However, I suspect we will see endangered species legislation in the fall.

With federal legislation already in the works, this private member's bill may best serve as an example for discussion and consideration by the standing committee and the environment minister.

As part of the process, it is important that all interested parties have the opportunity to take part in the consultation process. The government should consult a broad cross section of stakeholders, including rural and urban centres, and consultation must be open to the public.

It is important that when we develop endangered species legislation we give serious consideration to the variety of options available. Laws must be balanced in meeting both the environmental and economic needs of the country.

Habitat protection will be a contentious and difficult issue when dealing with endangered species protection and laws must be fair and balanced. We need to encourage private land owners to protect endangered species and their habitats as opposed to heavy handed legislation that would penalize land owners. Clearly we have to have the land owners on side.

Bill C-275 does not set out how far the minister can go in taking action to protect endangered species and it is unlikely we will see this clearly spelled out until the minister tables the bill this fall.

Canadians do now want laws that will be economically destructive. We recently saw the U.S. Endangered Species Act shut down a large portion of the west coast logging to save the

spotted owl, thus devastating entire communities. Endangered species legislation must be fair and reasonable and not draconian in approach.

Section 9 of Bill C-275 proposes to give the minister the power to forbid or restrict use of, access to, activity on, or the use of any substance on lands that directly threaten the success of a recovery program. It is most important that we ensure private property rights are respected when any activity or use of lands is being restricted.

Section 11(1) of the bill empowers the minister to pay compensation when actions to protect endangered or threatened species affect a person's property or livelihood. This clause merits serious consideration. When personal property or restriction on the use of property are affected by government action, compensation must be addressed. I am sure my colleague will address this in detail when his turn comes up.

Another area of concern with the bill is section 5(2). This section gives the minister power to implement a recovery program if the minister is advised the cause or probable cause is of human origin. I am concerned this section may be too open ended as it allows the minister to take action before an investigation has taken place. The minister is not required to have proof that actions are warranted or justified. I feel this is dangerous.

Section 5(2) must be tightened up to ensure individual rights are protected. It is not good enough to take action because the minister has been advised of probable cause; rather, cause must be determined and action should, if necessary, be implemented.

In addition, endangered species legislation should apply equally to all Canadian citizens regardless of race or ethnicity. Two sections of the bill imply native Indians may be exempt from legislation or subject to a separate set of rules and regulations. This needs to be reviewed, as there can be only one set of laws applied equally to everyone in Canada.

Whatever rules and regulations are drawn up regarding the protection of endangered species they should be applied nationwide and with equality. The minister should not be negotiating private deals with one group and applying a set of regulations to another.

I am concerned about the potential implications of this section. Legislation should establish one comprehensive set of rules to be applied equally to all Canadians.

I take the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the trade in endangered species and animal parts. The bill addressed endangered species but Canada is also faced with serious problems regarding the trafficking of wildlife and animal parts and continues to be used as a transit route for shipments of illegal wildlife destined for other countries. This is particularly so in my riding of Comox-Alberni on Vancouver Island. Penalties must be severe enough to act as a deterrent commensurate with the commercial value of endangered species and their parts.

I thank the hon. member for bringing this private members' bill forward in the House. Although I do not agree with all sections of the bill, some of the proposals warrant serious consideration and I hope the environment minister will look at some of the ideas contained in the bill as she drafts her legislation. I look forward to looking at the issue more closely when the minister tables the legislation.

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

Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I will just sum up. What can we expect from a member who is going to take his advice from a used car salesman?

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

Madam Speaker, the member simply backs up my point. There is a U.S. ban that has been overturned by the court of appeal and members on the other side fail to recognize that. They just seem to think that it will go away, and here we have an industry that is pushing forward.

The member was pushing the ethanol industry. Ethanol is fine. It is one of the additions, but it is not the answer. It takes more energy to make ethanol than it does to make gasoline. It is certainly part of the formula, but it is not the answer.

The hon. member was saying that he was surprised to see a member opposite stand up with this point of view. Again, it simply shows that the other side knows very little about where the Reform Party is coming from. They are going to see an awful lot more of the Reform Party. I am putting them on notice.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport. We are on the same committee and I have a great amount of respect for the member.

In terms of the diagnostics and the unit that is already being made, I view this as industrial blackmail in that the automakers are saying they already have it on board and since it is already made we have to change the legislation. That is just absolutely wrong. We cannot have the automakers or any industry in Canada ruling the government which is what they are attempting to do here.

Again I will go back to my independent study. The member says that both sides have their studies. I agree but where is the independent study that is in the middle?

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

Madam Speaker, on the first point, about the minister being in the automakers' pocket, clearly this whole process is coming forth through pressure from the automakers, many of whom are in southern Ontario. The pressure is there. The minister has bowed to the pressure, and that is unfortunate.

In terms of the waiver, the minister is making my point, in that what we require is a third party independent look at this situation. I will go back to my former life and use 2,4-D as an example. The member for Davenport will understand the background. No matter which side of the issue, whether the banning of 2,4-D or the use of it, either side could get as big a pile as they wanted of the evidence. It was very difficult to get a clear, independent, middle of the road decision. This is what is required. I believe this is what the Americans are fighting for on this waiver. Again they are just bowing to saying this is exactly what we want.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. Bill C-94 proposes to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

Before I go any further, let me clarify for the House what MMT is. MMT or methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl is a fuel additive. I am really pleased I had my two years of organic chemistry in order to be able to fumble through that. I will be using MMT for the rest of my speech.

MMT is a fuel additive which boosts the octane of gasoline and increases its efficiency. It has been used since 1977 in almost all Canadian unleaded gasoline.

MMT was introduced as an additive to gasoline when lead was banned and its addition has proven to enhance the effectiveness of fuel and has shown environmental benefits. This bill is designed to eliminate the use of MMT which is a lead replacement in unleaded fuels.

Bill C-94 allows the minister to authorize an exception for MMT. It will not be used in unleaded gasoline subject to monitoring requirements. Coverage of the bill can also be expanded by order in council to cover other manganese based substances and the bill will be binding on all persons, including the federal and provincial governments.

The penalties for unauthorized import or interprovincial trade of MMT are harsh and range from a $300,000 to $1 million fine and six months to three years in jail. That is pretty stiff.

I have several concerns with the bill. I am concerned about the government initiative in this matter in the first place. The government should not be interfering into private disputes between businesses. That is what this is. It should be resolved between the concerned parties and not by government legislation.

I am also concerned about the lack of research behind the bill. The government has refused to conduct an independent technical reviews to address the issues in dispute, as suggested by several provinces, gasoline refiners and the manufacturers of MMT. Instead the government is legislating a ban on a product without any proper investigation.

This is a technical industry issue which can only be resolved through an independent technical review, not by subjective government action. Reform has been very clear that it does not want to take sides on the issue. It has met with both sides, Ethyl and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associations, MVMA, and both sides appear to have credible arguments. Both sides have run exhaustive tests and come up with two different and contradictory results. This is why Reform feels that there is a need to run a third party independent test on the product before any conclusions are reached.

I am concerned that the bill is going ahead despite the fact that government does not have any conclusive evidence that MMT has an adverse effect on the environment. The minister's claim that MMT has been linked to increasing vehicle repair costs to the engine and emission control systems are unfounded. There is no external evidence to support any claim that the removal of MMT will decrease repair costs to the motorists.

The minister also claims that MMT causes on board diagnostic units to malfunction in the new 1996 cars. There is no evidence to support this either. The MVMA claims to have data to support this claim, but Ethyl says that test results from the largest EPA approved fuel additives testing program in history demonstrate that contrary to claims by the MVMA, MMT in Canadian gasoline is fully compatible with the new on board diagnostic catalyst monitoring systems.

Again, no independent third party testing has been conducted in Canada on MMT and the 1996 on board diagnostics. There is also no evidence to support claims that MMT damages the life of

emission control equipment or that the use of MMT in gas increases fuel consumption or pollution.

This legislatio is based solely on the evidence developed and put forward by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, one of the parties directly involved in the dispute. Again, none of the evidence has been subject to third party analysis.

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Associations has not made their evidence available to the general public. One has to ask why. Of what are they afraid?

When asked in the House of Commons for evidence to support this legislation, the minister side stepped the issue, refusing to bring the evidence into the open. Why? Clearly because the minister does not have sufficient evidence.

In fact there is evidence that appears to point to the contrary. Health Canada conducted a study in December 1994 which concluded that the current use of MMT does not harm Canadians. The report stated: "All analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population". Evidence provided by Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT, also contradicts the conclusions of the MVMA.

It is important to note the method the government is using to implement this ban. The legislation proposes to ban MMT through a trade restriction, not an environmental ban. It is important. Why? Because the government has no legislative grounds to remove MMT for health, environmental or technical reasons. If there is something environmentally wrong with MMT then use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Do not use a trade ban. There is something wrong with this picture. If the government is going to ban a substance it should have conclusive evidence that will support the ban which it does not have.

I am concerned about the precedent set by this bill of government interfering in business. The two concerned parties, industry and Ethyl, are both making contradictory claims and have been unable to smooth out their differences on their own.

Before the environment minister stepped in, the two sides were close to negotiating an understanding to bring in third party testing, which is what we want. However, the minister's interference in this issue has brought matters to a standstill. As soon as one side felt the minister was on its side, all talks were broken off. Rather than helping the situation the minister's interference hindered the course of events.

I am also concerned that Bill C-94 sets a precedent for business to drive the government agenda. The MVMA has threatened to raise automobile prices and to withdraw automobile manufacturers across the border if these companies do not get their way. This bill is clearly the response.

Government should not be responding to unfounded threats from the business community with legislation. This is no way to run the country, although it may now be the new way of Liberals doing business.

My concern with Bill C-94 is not who is right or wrong. I do not feel I can take a position on the issue because at this point there is not enough evidence to support one side or the other. My concern with the bill is the manner in which decisions are being made by government. Government should not be making decisions until there is clear third party, unbiased evidence on the table. There needs to be a fair and independent technical review of the facts.

Given that most automobile manufacturers are based in Ontario it is clear why the government has chosen to support the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association in this dispute. Lobbying is the issue here, not MMT.

Government should not base its legislative decisions on lobbying or on where it feels its election interests may lie. MMT is the only gasoline additive available in Canada that is capable of reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by as much as 20 per cent. Nitrogen oxide emissions cause urban smog. A ban on MMT could have the equivalent effect of adding one million cars to Canadian roads by the year 2000 if we do not have an equivalent replacement.

If a replacement for MMT is not identified, its removal from gasoline will prove to be more environmentally detrimental than leaving it there in the first place. This should be of concern because it appears that environment department officials do not know what will replace MMT. This bill only allows six months for its ban to be effective. Six months does not allow enough time for industry to adjust.

Canadians should also be concerned about the cost of the legislation on the individual consumer. It is estimated that taking MMT out of gasoline will cost an estimated $109 million in capital costs and tens of millions of dollars for operating costs. These costs will be dumped on the consumer which will mean an increase in gas prices.

Several provinces have voiced their opposition to this bill. I wonder how the government justifies the restriction of import and interprovincial trade of MMT with Bill C-88 which proposes to remove interprovincial barriers to trade. Again it does not fit.

The spirit and intent of Bill C-94 represents a unilateral interference into provincial affairs. The province of Alberta has stated that Bill C-94 contradicts the energy chapter of the agreement on internal trade. Article 1209, section 1 states that

no party shall restrict, prohibit or hinder access to its petroleum markets or its petroleum products markets.

Alberta has questioned the environmental benefits of removing MMT and has demanded a fair and timely process to resolve the dispute. Saskatchewan's deputy minister of environment has stated the MVMA has not convinced Saskatchewan and the majority of provinces that there is any evidence to show MMT has an adverse effect on the on board diagnostic systems.

Why is the Minister of the Environment ignoring these concerns shared by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Could it be that perhaps she is in the pocket of the auto industry?

I am also concerned that the environment minister's actions directly contradict what is currently taking place in the United States. The Americans have recently overturned the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association's evidence, the same evidence on which the proposed legislation is based.

Let me repeat that because it is important. The Americans have recently overturned the MVMA evidence, the same evidence on which the proposed legislation is based. The 19-year prohibition of MMT was recently lifted by an U.S. appeals court because the evidence of its effect on the environment has been shown to be inconclusive. Last week the United States district court of appeals issued its mandate ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to grant a waiver to permit the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States.

This reaffirms the findings that MMT does not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control system or damage the environment. The order to grant a waiver follows from extensive program testing of the fuel additive.

I am concerned that the minister is jumping the gun with the bill. It appears that MMT will probably be reintroduced into the United States this fall. At the same time, the minister is taking action to ban the product in Canada. It simply does not make any sense.

Actions in the United States put a large question mark on the efforts of the environment minister to ban MMT in Canada. We have to ask again, why?

In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that I do not support this legislation. I do not support legislation based on lobbying and threats, and I do not support legislation that fails to obtain a fair and independent technical review of the facts.

If this legislation is to go forward, I agree with my colleague that it must go to the environment committee. Extensive witnesses from both sides should be called. The only way that this can be solved is a clear third party independent study to find out what are the basics.

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

Madam Speaker, the member gave a very eloquent dialogue on MMT. He based most of his discussion on the environmental aspects of MMT and said that it was banned in the United States.

Last week the United States district court of appeals issued its mandate ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to grant a waiver to permit the use of MMT in unleaded gas in the United States because it is clearly not an environmental hazard. What does the member for Bruce-Grey have to say about that?

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was good of you to tell me that my private member's bill tomorrow night will be at a rather late hour. I am sure the audience will be enraptured.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-87, an act to implement the convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. It is the enabling legislation for the chemical weapons convention which Canada signed in 1993.

This convention prohibits the production and use of chemical weapons and provides for the regulation of certain chemicals which can readily be turned into chemical weapons. The convention is the result of over 20 years of negotiations.

The international community has been trying to outlaw chemical weapons and their use for over 100 years. This is the first time the whole category of weapons of mass destruction is to be eliminated.

Under international supervision all stockpiles of chemical weapons will be destroyed along with the facilities that produce them. This convention also enables a system of international supervision and inspection which will work to ensure such weapons will not be developed again. Under the terms of this convention, state parties are obliged to pass legislation that not only encompasses activities on their own territory but also prohibits their citizens from undertaking prohibited activities outside their area. States that own chemical weapons will have 10 years to destroy the weapons and production facilities.

Twenty-eight countries have ratified the convention to date and 65 countries will need to ratify the convention before it comes into effect. Canada will be among the first 65 countries out of approximately 132. The chemical weapons convention will take effect 180 days after the 65th state ratifies the agreement and tables it.

It is unfortunate to note however that the United States and Russia, the two countries that have the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, have yet to sign on. Also, several middle eastern countries such as Iraq and Libya as well as North Korea have refused to participate because Israel will not join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This is of great concern given the recent use of chemical weapons in the gulf war by Iraq and more recently the use of chemical weapons to commit genocide within Iraq against the Kurds.

Chemical weapons continue to be a threat to world security. The need for international agreements to remove these weapons of massive destruction is very critical indeed. Chemical weapons are not only a threat to troops in times of war but also to civilians at all times. Only a few weeks ago we witnessed with horror how chemical weapons were tragically unleashed on unsuspecting Tokyo commuters. Shortly afterward, stockpiles of sarin, one of the chemicals scheduled in this bill, were found in Japan.

This convention may not prevent individual incidents of chemical weapons attacks. However, the implementation of the act will make it more difficult for such weapons to be created. In this way it may deter future incidents.

Eighty years ago, on August 15, 1915, Canadian soldiers were the first to be subjected to a systematic gas attack in the trenches in Belgium. On that day Canadian soldiers choked and fell to the ground writhing from chlorine and mustard gas released by the Germans. Many Canadians died that day and many would suffer lifelong ailments as a result of being gassed. My grandfather was among those to be gassed during the great war and he carried the scars for the rest of his life.

Mustard gas was one of the most effective gases used during the first world war. When the vapour touched the skin it immediately caused huge blisters, then blindness and when inhaled, the gas blistered the lungs resulting in death. Only recently the Kurds suffered this same fate from mustard gas.

Canadians are fortunate to live in a country that does not possess chemical weapons or have chemical weapons production facilities. Provisions in the treaty related to chemical weapons or chemical weapon production facilities therefore do not apply to Canada except in the area of trade. The main impact of this convention on Canada comes from provisions relating to industrial activity contained in the three schedules of this bill.

I was going to briefly outline these schedules but I will bypass this section. My colleague outlined the schedules in his speech which will be recorded in Hansard .

The Reform Party supports this bill. Canada has always been a strong supporter of multilateral efforts to promote peace and restrict arms proliferation, especially with the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. Canada's participation in this treaty will encourage other non-participating countries to hopefully follow suit.

A few issues need to be addressed by government before the legislation is implemented. For example, although the government has been consulting with industry for years on this topic, the government still cannot provide any figures regarding the cost of implementing this bill. It is difficult to determine exactly what the government is proposing to do without seeing these figures.

The government has also not been able to provide any specific details regarding the exact size of the new bureaucracy which will be associated with the implementation of the legislation. Canadians need to know the size of the bureaucracy and exactly what is being proposed. It would be useful if the government would supply these items before tabling bills rather than expecting Canadians to simply sign a blank cheque.

Members opposite mentioned on second reading that the legislation represents the most balanced and cost effective means of implementing the convention. However, those statements are meaningless because we simply cannot assess the legislation without first looking at the figures. It is important that we not create another huge level of bureaucracy. Officials at foreign affairs said that it may take as few as five or six staff, and this sounds reasonable.

There are also problems with section 15(3) which need to be worked out. This section states that exigent circumstances would make it unnecessary to obtain a search warrant when an inspector is refused entry. We need to clarify what is meant by exigent circumstances in the bill. As it stands, this could be open to very broad interpretation and may infringe on the rights and liberties of individuals if a definition is not clearly provided.

There are also problems with section 20 which states that every person who contravenes any provision of the act is guilty of an offence. That sounds like a presumption of guilt and given this presumption the implications in section 23 are far too broad.

It also states that where a person has been convicted of an offence under the act, anything seized by means of which, or in respect of which the offence was committed, is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and shall be disposed of as the minister sees fit. The provisions for confiscation are particularly open ended and it is unclear what is meant by them. Is the minister taking liberties to confiscate possessions, property, illegal chemicals or is he merely gathering evidence needed for a trial? I am concerned about these areas and we need some clarification.

We must ensure that individual rights and liberties are protected when we set out powers of inspection. Sections 13(c), 14(b) and 14(c) warrant close examination and careful clarification before they are set into law. Protection to ensure that authority for inspection is not abused must be included in the bill.

There are also questions about who will pay for the costs of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This large worldwide organization will have up to 1,000 staff and will operate with an annual budget of $150 million to $180 million. Members will also have to contribute to international inspection expenses and costs of elimination of chemical weapons and facilities.

It is unclear where these overall costs will come from and how much Canada will have to commit to. It is important that given our current fiscal situation Canada not be too generous in its contributions. We must be frugal because we just do not have the money.

There are several areas of concern in the bill which must be addressed before it becomes law. However, Canada's participation in the convention should and will be absolute. Despite the need for clarification in the bill, I am pleased to say that I agree with its spirit and intent and I am pleased to support the bill before the House today.

[Alternative Fuels Act, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles.

Bill S-7 proposes that by the year 2004, following a scheduled phase in period of over seven years, 75 per cent of the 39,000 federal government fleet of vehicles will be fueled by alternative transportation fuels.

I agree with the environmental intent of the bill and I agree that we need to take action against priority air quality concerns. Our party supports the efforts to reduce pollution, but these must balance economic with environmental considerations. I believe that there are other more economical and effective solutions available than those proposed in Bill S-7.

As my colleague before me has said, there has been an unprecedented effort to ram this private member's bill through the House. I have to ask: Why is that so?

If the government supports the legislation, then why is it not putting it through itself? Why does it take a Liberal senator to initiate the bill? When approached by the sponsor of the bill no minister in the government was prepared to sponsor the legislation. Again, I have to ask why.

There appears to be a controversy between the Minister of the Environment who appears to support the concept of the bill, and the Minister of Natural Resources who does not come out in support at all. The Minister of Natural Resources has expressed concerns about the government not incurring unnecessary and unreasonable short term costs which push up the deficit and that government still needs to understand the economic as well as the environmental implications of fuel conversion.

Obviously the bill does not have the full support of the Liberal caucus. That is why it is coming in through the back door. I have to ask myself: Why is it not receiving the support of the government? There have to be a lot of reasons and they need to be answered before we support the bill.

The Reform Party strongly supports the principle of market forces. I do not support the principle used in the bill of pushing the market as Bill S-7 would have us do. We are talking about a considerable number of vehicles, 30,000 in fact. The precedent of government interference in market decisions is unwarranted and unwanted and the bill is a direct attempt to manipulate the marketplace by mandating government vehicle conversion to natural gas.

Government purchasing agents are hired to make the right and the best decisions possible for government purchases. Environmental and economic considerations are supposed to be taken into account when decisions such as fleet purchases are made. If the legislation is as good as the Senator claims and if the environmental and economic benefits are so obvious and certain, then why must it be legislated? Are these managers not paid to make the decisions themselves? Why is it necessary to go over the mangers' heads and mandate these purchases and conversions? Something is not right here.

Alternative fuel vehicles can be purchased openly on the market today. There is no need for the heavy hand of government to attempt to manipulate the market in any particular direction.

Canadian energy policy is best served through the open and fair operation of market forces to manage energy development, production and consumption in an efficient manner which should be subject to standards established to protect against risks to human health and the environment.

Mandating the use of alternative transportation fuels and vehicles is inappropriate as it restricts the consumer from routine economic choices which are fundamental to a successful market economy.

The Reform Party is fundamentally opposed to subsidization within the marketplace and alternative fuels require major subsidies in order to be competitive in the transportation sector.

All alternative fuels are exempt from the 10 cents a litre federal excise tax. Provincial road taxes are also reduced or even not applied to alternative fuels in most provinces. Alternative fuels could not survive in the marketplace today without these government subsidies.

I am also concerned about the bill because I do not believe that mandating fuel choices will achieve its proposed economic and environmental objectives. Mandated or subsidized use of alternative transportation fuels comes at a high cost to Canada's economy and is contrary to the government's stated goal of reduced government expenditure and deficit reduction. Government and taxpayers are penalized twice in the bill, first through subsidies and second, in forgone tax revenues.

If the principles of Bill S-7 were applied to Canadians at large with mandated use of alternative transportation fuels with current subsidies, it would be at a high cost to Canada's economic base because of loss of government revenue. If the bill were applied to 10 per cent of Canadian vehicles it would cost taxpayers over $730 million in lost revenues.

If the policy does not make sense in the private sector, then why should it be applied to the government? I am sure there are other policy options available to the government that will help it achieve the environmental intent of the bill in a manner that can demonstrate that the government is using best practices to achieve its policy goals.

An examination of the bill shows that there will be significantly higher costs and marginal benefits achieved by mandating alternative fuels. For example, the relative time required to get a payback on a vehicle converted to alternative fuels needs to be looked at much more closely. Bill S-7 defines alternative fuels as fuel that is less damaging to the environment than conventional fuels, including ethanol, methanol, propane, natural gas, hydrogen or electricity.

When we are speaking of alternative fuels we are referring to several different formulations and vastly different environmental effects. Some alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas and propane offer advantages in air quality over conventional fuels. However, the advantages of compressed natural gas are minimized when used as a transportation fuel. Compressed natural gas is less convenient than gasoline because of its limited range and the fact that it has to be stored in heavy, bulky storage tanks. Compressed natural gas vehicles are also more expensive to own and operate than gasoline vehicles.

Liquefied petroleum gas is also a cleaner burning fuel but it does not contribute to reduced emissions in any significant way because it has a limited overall supply and like compressed natural gas it requires bulky storage tanks.

When we think of alternative fuels, many confuse it with environmentally friendly forms but this is not always the case. Some alternative fuels are actually more environmentally damaging than conventional or reformulated fuels.

For example, the production of ethanol which uses corn or other grains is more environmentally damaging in its production than gasoline. Electric vehicle technology may be non-polluting itself, but the environmental effects of the energy source for production of electricity, whether it is nuclear, hydro or fossil fuel, has to also be brought into the equation.

Environmental impacts associated with after market vehicle conversions which currently dominate alternative transportation fuel applications have not been favourable in comparison with ordinary gasoline. The environmental attributes of alternative fuels must be assessed on a lifestyle basis of both the vehicle and the fuels.

Significant emissions can occur in the extraction, processing manufacturing and distribution of alternative fuels. This bill attempts to force the hand of the market to make alternative fuels more competitive in the transportation sector rather than allowing purchasers to drive the market through need and demand.

I am concerned by some of the claims associated with the bill that it will save taxpayers money. These claims are false. On the one hand the bill claims to save upwards of $43 million in fuel over five years and $15 million the year after. This sounds pretty good. If it were true I would wonder why the government had not implemented this many years ago.

The bill is being rammed through using the guise that it will be good for the environment when really it is the gas companies that stand to make billions of dollars.

I cannot support the bill because of the attempt to manipulate the market and the fuzzy economics that do not add up to the program that will benefit Canadian taxpayers.