Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As off target as they were, the hon. member talked about some projects that involved sewer work, work on the systems. However I think he missed the real intent of the bill.
The member of the Reform Party tried to address that there are a number of major cities in the country that fail to treat some or all their sewage. In other words, major cities such as Vancouver, Victoria, Halifax and even Montreal are dumping large quantities
of raw sewage untreated into the harbours. This is what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is trying to get at in the bill.
Most towns and cities across the country have sewage treatment and sewage carrying facilities. It is difficult to believe that in 1995 major cities in Canada fail to treat their sewage in any way and dump it raw into the oceans and rivers.
I mentioned the dumping of raw sewage occurs in Halifax, Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal. It is interesting that it also occurs in Montreal. Hon. members will be interested to note that despite the fact Montreal has a very serious problem with its sewage, it was awarded the NAFTA environmental secretariat by the Liberal government. I assume a city would get such an award because it practises good environmental standards. Yet the city of Montreal, a very serious offender in the dumping of raw sewage, was chosen by the Minister of the Environment to receive the environmental secretariat.
Why would the minister overlook a serious environmental problem and award a secretariat on environmental issues to the city of Montreal? Could it be just another appeasement to the province of Quebec that was not deserved in the first place?
In 1994 it was reported that 17 major cities in Canada failed to treat some or all of their sewage. While provincial governments set the standards for sewage treatments, it is up to the municipality to actually treat the sewage. Many cities have lagoons that provide minimal treatment. In some of the cities I mentioned raw sewage minus the solids is dumped directly into the ocean or water basin. Needless to say, the dumping of raw sewage poses a serious health hazard.
In dealing with health hazards, one of the most notable examples occurred earlier this year on a reserve in Manitoba when a number of residents fell seriously ill because the treatment facility of their town had fallen into disrepair.
Pollution resulting from sewage not only damages our health but damages our economy. Members are aware the cities I mentioned are in many cases large tourist attractions in Canada, particularly Victoria and Vancouver, where probably a few million tourists come to enjoy their aesthetic qualities. However they are shocked to find a practice that allows the dumping of raw sewage into the harbour. This does not bode well for the tourist industry. Members will be aware that in some areas tourism is crucial to the economy. Vancouver and Victoria are good examples.
Pollution from sewage is very damaging to the fishing industry. Sewage degrades the water quality and dissolves oxygen levels resulting in damage to marine life and polluted shorelines. Our fishery plays an important role in the Canadian economy on both the east and west coasts. While overfishing has damaged the fishery to a great extent, it is shameful that it continues to be damaged by our own wilful neglect in not setting some standards for treating raw sewage.
The member for Comox-Alberni and I certainly think it is time to take the matter of untreated sewage seriously. The red ink book of the Liberals talks about the detrimental effects of untreated sewage. It promises to assist provincial, regional and municipal governments to finance new or renewed sewage treatment infrastructure.
In order to facilitate a clean-up, the Liberal government introduced its infrastructure program to look after some of these problems. This program was introduced despite the fact the government did not have any money, provincial governments do not have any money and the municipalities do not have any borrowing authority unless by a referendum or some other process given to them by their citizens.
This program was intended to address some of the serious problems in sewage treatment and sewage transport and that is good. If specific areas of concern were addressed, then we would probably have less problem with the infrastructure program than we do even despite the fact that it was done on borrowed funds.
Where money was intended to go to water systems and infrastructure at the municipal and provincial levels, instead we find that a lot of these funds have been used for what we could consider quite frivolous and unnecessary things. This should be of concern. For example, funds have been used for things like circus training centres, snow blowers and boccie courts. The Canadian public is angry that we are spending $2 billion at the federal level, $2 billion at the provincial level and another $2 billion at the municipal level, money that we do not have.
There are such projects as $500,000 for a canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's riding; $18,000 to improve the sound system in a curling rink; $72,000 to build two outdoor tennis courts; $14.4 million for a building for circus training; $15 million for renovations to Edmonton's hockey rink; and $173 million to build a trade centre in Toronto. When average Canadians think about infrastructure, they think about roads, sewers, culverts and things that allow communities to grow and to look after some of the waste problems they have.
The infrastructure program has become quite a joke in many areas. The spending goes on and on yet sewage is still being dumped into lakes and oceans. It is unacceptable that the government did not place some stricter criteria on the spending of moneys in its infrastructure program.
With respect to the amendment made by the Bloc member, all we have here is the Bloc asking for something for nothing again. The Bloc is saying if the government puts money in for a sewage treatment plant or whatever in the province, if the province or the municipality chooses to opt out they simply get the cash instead to do with it as they like. This idea is another example of the Bloc wanting something for nothing. It defeats the purpose of any kind of infrastructure program funding in the first place.
I ask hon. members in the House to support Motion No. 425 put forward by my colleague from Comox-Alberni.
