CONTENTS
Monday, October 31, 1994
Consideration resumed of motion 7395
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7397
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 52; Nays, 88. 7403
Bill C-56. Motion for second reading 7403
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7409
Bill C-56. Consideration resumed of motion 7416
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7418
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 7419
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7421
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7421
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7422
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7422
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7422
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7422
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7422
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7422
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7423
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7423
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7424
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7424
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7424
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7424
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7424
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7424
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7425
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7425
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7425
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7425
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7425
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7425
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7426
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7426
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7426
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7426
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7427
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7428
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7430
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7431
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7431
Bill C-56. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7432
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7441
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7443
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7443
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7446
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7459
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7460
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7462
Division on motion deferred 7466
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7466
7395
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 31, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assumed from reading the motion that my hon.
colleague wants to stop immigrants from coming into Canada
when they test positive for HIV.
Today, the way the laws of the land stand, we have testing for
all kinds of viruses and the medical doctors decide who gets in. I
do not think we in the House have outlined the facts as to how
much it costs in each and every situation. Who can decide who
can come in and who cannot? It could be tomorrow that the HIV
test or the medication will cost $10,000. Some might argue that
is too much. Even a cost of $5,000 some could argue is too much.
Where do we draw the line on how much is effective?
(1105 )
For that purpose the government has a law already in place so
medical officers can decide who can be and who cannot be
admitted to Canada on medical grounds. Also the government is
reviewing the extensive information it has on HIV and will
announce a decision soon about HIV cases in Canada.
Our policies have to reflect the social structures, health
systems and justice system we have in Canada. Otherwise it will
be disastrous for us and it will be one sided. We cannot afford to
have that. Misinformation and misunderstandings about HIV
are very dangerous elements that we face today. I hope in the
near future the government completes its investigation and
studies and comes up with a policy that will satisfy the concerns
of everyone in the House and of the population at large. We take
care of our own citizens first and we are compassionate enough
to allow others to come into the country.
The best hope we have is to come up with a solution for HIV. I
think that would make everyone happy. I suggest we keep things
as they are for the time being and allow the system to work. We
need medical discoveries, medical approaches and information
so that we can make wise decisions on the issue. Otherwise there
is nothing stopping us from coming up with a motion next week
that says anybody who has cancer should not be allowed in
because cancer costs too much to treat. Just about every disease
in the world costs money to treat.
Where do we draw the line? Where do we start and where do
we end? Since we do not know that, I am unable to make a
decision on who should be admitted and who should not. On that
basis I oppose the motion and wait for the government to come
up with a solution after researching the matter carefully and
checking the track record of the last five years so we know the
expenses we are talking about for HIV.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to the motion tabled in the House on
September 23 by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. This
motion, which clearly targets prospective immigrants who are
HIV positive, is, by the same token, discriminatory.
To argue that their admission would put an excessive burden
on our health care system is very one-sided, since that is
certainly not the case. The motion discriminates particularly
against people claiming refugee status, since it would make
them inadmissible even before their case is heard by the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
This motion should therefore be interpreted as barring
immigrants, certain classes of visitors and persons claiming
refugee status from entry into Canada.
Detection of the virus in these people would make them
inadmissible and, as a result, prohibit them from proceeding
with their visit to Canada, from immigrating to Canada, and
from claiming refugee status.
Today, the Canadian government intends to take advantage of
its statutory review of immigration policy. In an article
published in La Presse on April 26, 1994, the Minister of
Immigration and Citizenship was already setting the parameters
for this review. He said the government was looking at the list of
diseases for which testing is compulsory, to decide whether the
list should also include HIV.
7396
Under the current Immigration Act, individuals who wish to
immigrate to Canada are subject to admission criteria that do not
discriminate in any way that is incompatible with the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tests are currently carried out
on a routine basis and are compulsory for a number of diseases,
including tuberculosis and syphilis.
The minister went on to say that screening for HIV was not on
the list. However, Canada could deny entry to individuals who
were HIV positive and who had AIDS.
If a physician suspects that an immigrant is HIV positive or
has AIDS, a screening test is done. At the present time, if the
applicant is HIV positive, the application is automatically
rejected.
(1110)
In a study by the Library of Parliament, Law and Government
Division, we read that in a study on admissibility finished in
1992, it was recommended that the whole issue of routine
testing for communicable and other diseases that are a burden on
the health care system be reviewed.
But, for the time being, there is no indication, as my colleague
from Drummond said, that universal HIV screening would save
more money than targeting other diseases. Furthermore,
according to a study conducted by the McGill Centre for
Medicine, Ethics and Law, the economical impact of HIV
infection among immigrants is similar to the impact of coronary
diseases. Finally, researchers at the McGill Centre believe that
mandatory AIDS testing for immigrants would be purely
arbitrary.
That is why I endorse the position of our party which asks the
government to create a committee that would review phase II of
the Canadian strategy on the fight against AIDS. This position
differs considerably from an outright fight against the
admissibility of immigrants. Let me remind the House of some
of the criteria we use to determine medical admissibility; these
criteria are given in section 22 of the regulations related to the
present legislation.
``For the purpose of determining whether any person is...a
danger to public health or to public safety...or might cause
excessive demands on health or social services, the following
factors shall be considered by a medical officer in relation to the
nature, severity or probable duration of any disease, disorder,
disability or other health impairment from which the person is
suffering, namely: any reports made by a medical practitioner
with respect to the person; the degree to which the disease,
disorder, disability or other impairment may be communicated
to other persons; whether sudden incapacity or unpredictable or
unusual behaviour may create a danger to public safety; whether
the supply of health...services that the person may require in
Canada is limited to such an extent that: the use of such services
by the person might reasonably be expected to prevent or delay
provision of those services to Canadian citizens or permanent
residents, or the use of such services may not be available or
accessible to the person; whether medical care or
hospitalization is required; whether potential employability or
productivity is affected; and whether prompt and effective
medical treatment can be provided''.
In 1993, 54 persons were refused for that reason. Therefore,
as written, the present legislation contains all the provisions
required to admit or refuse any applicant for visitor, immigrant
or refugee status. I believe that this motion is, for the moment,
premature to say the least. Moreover, it opens the door to
discrimination towards would-be immigrants by reinforcing
insidiously prejudices against them.
This motion would also be in violation of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, a legislation which is the basis for several
federal and provincial commissions on human rights. Several
decisions and judgments confirming discrimination have been
passed by these commissions under Canadian legislation on
human rights.
That study summarizes the position of the commissions:
``Discrimination against HIV or AIDS infected individuals is a
proscribed ground of discrimination because it is based on a
deficiency or handicap as defined by human rights legislation''.
However, for refugee claimants who must submit to a medical
examination within 60 days of their arrival in Canada, the
minister recognizes that the question is sensitive. ``On the one
hand there are medical considerations and on the other the real
fear of persecution''.
As my colleague from Calgary Northeast was saying in this
House, on September 23: ``The risk of admitting immigrants
with HIV who likely do not even know that they are infected is
one we cannot tolerate''. These are alarmist words, although I
recognize the seriousness of the situation and the pandemic
character of the disease. However, are we going to
systematically screen for AIDS all Canadians coming home
from a trip abroad on the off chance that they might not know
that they have been infected by the virus? Why then specifically
target visitors, immigrants and convention refugee status
claimants?
Since this terrible disease is a global health problem, how else
can we stop anyone, be it healthy Canadians or healthy
immigrants, from contracting a HIV-related disease, if not
through an efficient national awareness and prevention policy?
The solution does not lie in screening only, but mostly in a
vigorous awareness and prevention campaign. This disease is
not circumscribed to immigrants.
7397
(1115)
The way this disease is spreading, healthy landed immigrants
and permanent residents may get infected by the HIV virus even
in Canada.
Compulsory screening for visitors, immigrants and refugee
status claimants is neither a cure nor a way to slow down the
spread of the disease.
In fact, routine screening is a dubious argument which raises
several questions regarding the Reform Party's position on the
Immigration Act.
On October 25, the Reform member for Calgary Northeast
said in this House, and I quote: ``-today the Financial Post
reported on a memo from the government's finance department
which concluded that this government's immigration policies
are worsening the unemployment crisis.
Is the Minister of Immigration going to act on the finance
minister's conclusions or on those of the Reform member and
drastically reduce immigration levels?''
The real aim of this motion is a drastic reduction in
immigration levels.
As my Liberal colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan did
before me, I want to say again that the danger of HIV infection
does not come from foreigners but rather from specific practices
such as sharing drug needles, unprotected sex, transfusions
involving tainted blood, and not mere physical contact.
This is why the Canadian Haemophilia Society, the Red
Cross, the European Parliament, and the British Medical
Association all believe that visitors are not a public health
threat.
Therefore, I will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise in this House today and speak in support of
Motion No. 285, a motion that the government test all
immigrants to Canada for HIV positive status.
Like many of the private members' motions to come before
this House, Motion No. 285 is another example of common
sense. It is a simple and direct motion designed to change the
way the immigration department conducts its business. It should
not be necessary for this House to move such common sense
procedure but this Liberal government and this minister of
immigration have once again refused to put the cares and
concerns of ordinary Canadians ahead of political correctness in
pandering to special interest groups.
There are health implications for Canadians if we let people
into this country with the disease. AIDS is communicable. AIDS
is also fatal and there are no proven treatments or cures. Once
you have it, unfortunately your days are numbered. We
needlessly put at risk other Canadians who may contract the
disease.
We know of many ways that can happen. The disease can be
passed on sexually or through blood or bodily fluids. When I
visit my dentist now, he and all his staff wear latex gloves. They
do not do this because some health regulation forces them to;
they wear their gloves as a preventive measure. They do not
want to take the risk, however small, of coming into contact with
a fatal disease. Why would we as a government take the risk,
however small, of exposing Canadians to the potential for
receiving AIDS from an immigrant?
Why there is refusal to do mandatory testing of all immigrants
for AIDS or HIV is beyond me. We have a specific section in our
Immigration Act which states: ``No person shall be granted
entry who is suffering from disease, disorder, or disability
which will likely be a danger to public health or which would
cause excessive demands on health or social services''. This
section is there for the protection of Canadian society.
Every member in this House will agree that immigration
should be a benefit to Canada and not a threat to public health or
indeed the economy. Clearly the potential threat to both health
and finances from AIDS carriers entering our country is cause
for alarm.
In the debate on this motion so far we have not heard one
rational argument about why HIV testing should not be done on
all immigrants. The member for St. Denis stated: ``Even if they
test HIV positive they can continue contributing to Canadian
society for many years''. It is the refusal of some to admit the
obvious that angers so many Canadians. It is totally
unacceptable and a contravention of the law to allow HIV
positive immigrants into Canada.
The member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan believes that ``it
would be inappropriate to institute a blanket exclusion of
persons with HIV''. He quotes the Human Rights Commission
and states that ``such a practice would be discriminatory''.
HIV is not a discriminatory disease. It will kill anyone it
comes in contact with. I support the right of Canadian citizens
over the right of non-citizens to be free from discrimination.
(1120)
Saturday's Globe and Mail reported that the immigration
minister is going to propose a tightening up of the immigration
system including fewer family class immigrants and a move to
allowing in those with better language skills and job skills so
that the financial burden on our social programs will be reduced.
These are moves in the right direction. The immigration
minister should be congratulated for this reform, and I
emphasize reform.
7398
However, the job is not finished yet. The immigrants to
Canada who have more applicable job skills and speak English
or French but also have AIDS will not be net contributors at all.
They will be a burden on our welfare and health care systems
and their presence increases the potential for others to be
infected. As a guardian of the public purse I believe it is my duty
to examine the costs involved in both the government's stated
course of action and the measures proposed by this bill.
The government avoids performing a $12, I will emphasize
$12, test for AIDS on every immigrant who comes into Canada,
not the proposed $10,000 as was alluded to earlier by a member
from the other side but $12. With the current level of 250,000
immigrants a year that is a saving of three million tax dollars.
What are the costs of failing to perform such a test? The average
health cost of caring for one person with AIDS is $250,000. If
there are absolutely no immigrants coming to Canada with AIDS
then indeed we have saved ourselves $3 million.
However we have no idea how many immigrants are coming
into Canada with AIDS. What if there are a mere 20 a year
reaching our land with this fatal disease? The cost of caring for
these 20 would be $5 million. If the number is 200, the cost is
$50 million. Is it not worth $3 million to conduct this basic test?
The Reform Party promised to be a constructive alternative in
Parliament and offer solutions to the overspending problems of
government. I do not believe we need to allocate new resources
to this important task. We can point out some current
expenditures that could be reallocated for the purposes of
conducting mandatory testing.
The federal Ministry of Health devotes an incredible amount
of its resources toward the goal of AIDS prevention and
elimination. The department spends over $40 million a year on
such programs. Less than half of this money is spent on actual
research to develop treatments or vaccines. Most of this funding
goes toward yet another government bureaucracy, the Canadian
AIDS Secretariat, and special interest groups.
I would like to give some examples of the kind of nonsense
that tax dollars have recently been frittered away on. There was
the $35,000 spent on a centrefold in a homosexual magazine on
the impact of AIDS. There was another $35,000 for a six month
project called ``The Puppets Against AIDS Tour''. A group in
New Brunswick received $128,000 to work for the
empowerment of people with AIDS.
What is the net benefit to Canadians of this type of funding?
What did the empowering do for the health problem? Does it
bring us closer to a cure? Who does it really educate? Would this
money not be better spent on AIDS testing for immigrants?
The goal of any public health campaign is clear: prevention of
disease. One way to prevent the spread of disease in Canada is to
eliminate new sources of the disease.
We have a dilemma on our hands. On the one hand the Liberal
government has a policy in the department of health to prevent
the transmission of AIDS and it spends big dollars doing it. On
the other hand the immigration department has a policy which
allows into Canada an unknown number of AIDS carriers. This
is not the only area of Liberal government policy where we can
see a contradiction.
The ministry of agriculture has looked at this type of issue
already. We have all read about mad cow disease in Britain, a
fatal disorder that attacks the nervous system of cattle. Our
Agriculture Canada people have put down all the cattle imported
into Canada from Britain since the time of the outbreak in 1986.
The reason for this is simple. The disease can be passed on to
other animals. We decided the risk of this happening, however
small, was not worth the few cattle that were put down. It would
seem that when it comes to the potential to contact fatal disease
this Liberal government places the value of Canadian farm
animals higher than it does that of Canadian citizens.
I want to point out one final example of contradiction in
public health policy. We recently witnessed Health Canada
officials at airports across Canada examining flights arriving
from India, a country recently experiencing an outbreak of
pneumonic plague. Much care and attention was focused on
prevention by screening our borders. Pneumonic plague is easily
treatable and poses no serious health threat to Canada. Yet much
was done to deal with the situation. Why the same attention is
not paid to detecting AIDS, a far more deadly disease, at our
borders is just ridiculous.
(1125)
The time for action is now. We must deal with this problem
before more lives are put at risk or taxpayers' dollars are thrown
away. AIDS testing of immigrants is just plain common sense.
Let us do it by supporting Motion No. 285.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to take the time I have available to talk about something
which has been causing me increasing concern as I have listened
to the debates that have been proffered by members of the
Reform Party.
We heard Reform Party members talk over and over again
about the need to represent the interests of what they call real
Canadians or ordinary Canadians, how they as members of
Parliament have a duty and a responsibility to assess opinion
from their constituents and to bring that forward to public view
and discuss those issues that are important to the people they
7399
represent. I agree with that. That is a fundamental role each and
every one of us has when we get elected and come to this House.
We have a second role. We sit in a very privileged position.
We sit in the middle of an information flow and have access to
resources, information and knowledge that few Canadians have.
That imposes a burden upon us, a responsibility to educate and
not to simply pander to those things that are of momentary or
immediate concern. We must evaluate issues. We must examine
them. We must research them. We must come forward to this
Chamber with debates and arguments that are based on fact and
some sort of presentation of a solution that will improve the
lives of people.
To simply victimize groups for cheap short term headlines is
irresponsible. Unfortunately that is what I see in this. It is very
easy. There are many people in the community who are scared to
death of AIDS. It is a terrifying prospect. Surely we who have
access to the experts and access to the information can take the
time to learn about the issue, can take the time to learn about the
work that is being done and bring forward responsible decisions
not to inflame that fear.
We have heard it over and over again: youth crime is out of
control; immigrants are a drain on society; aboriginals are lazy.
That is what we are getting day after day.
The member for Simcoe Centre made a comment about
pandering. If there is pandering going on, it is the Reform Party
pandering to every nasty instinct that people have and doing
nothing to try to advance a different view of this country.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Doing nothing, look in the
mirror.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I would remind members that I sat
and listened very carefully to the member for Simcoe Centre. I
would simply ask that they allow me to do the same. I realize
they might be a little afraid to have this kind of talk. They
certainly do not appear to understand it.
The fact is that daily we in this Chamber confront a great
many very difficult issues. Listening to the members opposite
one would think that every adolescent was committing crimes
when we know that many of our programs for young people have
been very effective. In fact, we know that the majority of young
people are living responsible lives, but we do not hear that from
across the floor.
We do not hear about the successes in aboriginal
communities. We hear about the failures. We do not hear about
the successes in immigration, or the successes in
multiculturalism, or the successes and the strengths that are
given to this country through diversity. We hear about the
problems.
Those members do a great disservice to their own
constituencies. They do a great disservice to the people of this
country when they simply pander to the feeling that somehow
we have become better by hating or rejecting or excluding
people.
(1130 )
I had an experience some years ago. I was talking with a
woman, a professional colleague who is a psychologist. In the
middle of the conversation she broke down. She shared with me
that she had AIDS. She did not have AIDS, but was actually HIV
positive. Her husband was a hemophiliac. He got AIDS through
a tainted blood supply and transmitted it to her. She now has full
blown AIDS and will no doubt not be with us soon.
That is a terrifying prospect, but when we look at that we
know that AIDS is not as virulent or as rampant or as contagious
a disease as some people believe. Yes, it is transmittable. There
are significant health risks. We should examine those risks. That
is a fact and yes, we do. Yet people are so sensitive to this
disease, so concerned about it, that they wave it as a banner in
front of everybody who wants to be terrified by it or every
homophobic individual in the country. All they do is victimize
the people who are dealing with a tragedy in their lives.
I urge members to think about that when they bring forward
resolutions to the House. There is a a screening process. There is
medical examination of immigrants. The government reviews
those regularly. We acted in this House some years ago to stop
putting categorical lists in place because it categorically
discriminated against people. There are policies in place that
call for qualified medical personnel to examine people and make
decisions about their medical admissibility. It is passing strange
to me that the members opposite choose HIV as the one to mount
their fight on. They need to examine very carefully their motives
for entering into this debate.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
must be nice to be part of a government of responsible people
who simply take the attitude: ``Let us all be happy; things are
fine''.
That seems to be the attitude that often comes across. I really
object to that because as my colleague from the Reform Party
said a few minutes ago, if we applied common sense to a lot of
things we are talking about, just straight, old common sense, it
should ring a few bells. Apparently there are no bells to ring on
that side of the House.
Many will say that any member rising in this House to support
mandatory HIV testing of immigrants and refugees entering
Canada is doing so because of moral judgment. Let me first say
that no moral judgment is behind my supporting this member's
bill. My support for this bill is based solely on one concern and
one concern only. That is public safety. Before anyone can
discuss whether all immigrants and refugees must pass a
7400
mandatory HIV test to live in Canada, it is necessary to research
the history and the transmission of HIV.
The unknowns are what we should be concerned about. The
unknowns surrounding the infection of Canadians by HIV and
the transmission of this virus to other Canadians must be
addressed. As most Canadians know, those engaging in
homosexual or bisexual activity and those engaging in
heterosexual contact with persons of high risk are dealing with
the two largest sectors of our society that test positively for HIV.
What is seldom talked about is the third largest sector of HIV
positive Canadians, those who are HIV positive with no
identifiable risk factor.
How can someone who is not homosexual, bisexual, an
injection drug user, or who does not associate with these high
risk individuals become HIV positive? Science cannot answer
that question. Science can say that human immunodeficiency
virus, HIV, is offering one of the most difficult challenges to
those actively engaged in understanding how this virus works.
(1135 )
What is understood is that there are two known types of HIV,
HIV-1 and HIV-2. The predominant virus in Canada is HIV-1
which is considered by scientists as the most serious viral form.
Scientists also say HIV is the most studied virus in history but
much remains to be learned about it. It is known HIV is
retro-virus. It consists of RNA and must invade the DNA of
living cells to replicate. It is believed that HIV may require one
or more co-factors that act together to cause full blown AIDS.
What those co-factors are have not been identified.
It is also believed by scientists that HIV is the most
genetically variable virus yet discovered and that worldwide
there are at least five subgroups of HIV-1, the most dangerous
form of the virus. This virus is known to mutate rapidly and is
known to recombine with other HIV strains. This mutation can
change the manner HIV infects the host and may change the
manner in which the virus can be transmitted.
Of Canadians known to be HIV positive and have developed
AIDS, 4.5 per cent have no known identified risk factor that
would explain why they became HIV positive. That particular
stat worries me and it should worry every member of this House.
There is currently no known cure or preventable measure that
will end the worldwide threat to humanity posed by this virus.
To be infected by this virus is considered a slow death penalty of
great suffering.
We have Canadians who have practised every known method
to reduce the risk of HIV infection and yet they are known to be
HIV positive. Can we allow those outside of Canada to bring
different strains of HIV into this country to readily mutate with
the strains already here? Can the rapid mutation of HIV and
possible unknown variations of HIV cause the infection of those
known not to engage in risk behaviours? Could introducing a
new strain of HIV to Canadians develop a mutated version of the
virus that we presently have that would allow far easier infection
of Canadians?
I do not know the answers to these questions and it appears the
scientists who are studying this do not know either.
Under current immigration regulations anyone presumed to
be a drain on Canada's health care system can be refused
authority to immigrate to Canada and HIV positive status is now
a legitimate reason to prevent immigration to Canada.
I understand this may change if this government accepts a
proposal to allow anyone into Canada who would not be a drain
on the medical system for five years. It is known to take seven to
ten years from infection by HIV to require enormous medical
need. Those not showing symptoms nor admitting to HIV
positive status or are unaware they are HIV positive who are
now entering Canada will require either large medical expenses
in the future or maybe a threat to spread the HIV virus.
Public safety also means no one has the right to spread a
health threatening virus. It is a legitimate purpose of law in this
nation to protect individuals and communities from health
threatening possibilities and the cost of HIV infection.
Public safety also dictates this government maintain a public
health system that will be available for our citizens. In 1992 the
average demand on our health care system per citizen was
$2,247. An individual with progressive HIV infection after
seven to ten years will require an expenditure of $70,000 to
$100,000 per year. Every HIV positive person who requires
known medication will use up to 40 times the medical expense
used for every Canadian.
The unknowns of how HIV mutations will affect positive
individuals and transmission of the virus from positive
individuals to others are still being investigated. The total
potential cost to the health care system by HIV positive
individuals is not known.
Whether we can afford this total cost when we all know cuts
will be necessary to health care financing if Canada is to keep
our health care system accessible to all is not known. All these
issues concern public health and safety and must be stated to
Canadians. I believe that Canadians have no argument with
allowing immigrants and refugees to live in Canada if they will
not be an unnecessary and extravagant drain on their tax dollars
or a threat to their health. I believe allowing individuals into
Canada without knowing who may spread the virus or whether
their cost to the health care system may be so large that the
majority of Canadians will be denied adequate health care
assistance in the future is too great a risk for the majority of
Canadians to accept.
7401
(1140)
Since exposure to HIV infection may lead to AIDS which is
plainly life threatening, it is a legitimate purpose of law to
protect individuals, communities and this nation from the
spread of the virus. That is why I support the member's bill
requesting mandatory HIV testing for all immigrants and
refugees entering Canada. I believe the majority of Canadians
would agree with me.
In 1968 my wife and I and my small child arrived in Canada.
When we were at the immigration office it was explained that we
had to have certain things in terms of money available and a few
other things.
Mr. Bellemare: Were you tested?
Mr. Thompson: If the member will be quiet for a minute I
will tell him about the medical requirements.
I was required to go the doctor as were my wife and baby. We
were given probably one of the most thorough medical
examinations we have every gone through with the clear
understanding that if there was anything wrong, any medical
reason from tuberculosis on down or any kind of heart disease
problem, whatever it may be, it would be cause for grounds not
to be able to enter this country.
We accepted that as being wise. Had we not passed we would
not have come.
Mr. Bellemare: They should have given you an attitude test.
An hon. member: Little boy, what are you going to be when
you grow up?
Mr. Thompson: Once again, it is just common sense that it
was done. We accepted it and we are very grateful that we passed
the test.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous
consent of the House that we go to Statements by Ministers,
interrupting whatever business may be in progress at one
o'clock this day, as arranged.
The proposal is that at one o'clock whatever business is
before the House be then interrupted so that we can go
Statements by Ministers for the purpose of allowing the Prime
Minister to make a statement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter the debate on this motion by the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast. I congratulate the hon. member
for bringing this matter to the House. I am certain that HIV
testing is a major concern of most people in Canada.
There is a great deal of concern about this disease. I believe
the whole medical profession is evolving in its attitude toward
the disease and in trying to find a cure for it.
I can speak from personal knowledge because I watched the
son of a friend die from this very debilitating disease. I watched
that young man lose weight, go into trauma. It was a very
traumatic experience for us all. The effect it has on families and
friends cannot be measured by anyone who has not experienced
that.
In addition, I have also had the advantage of travelling around
the world a bit. One country I was able to visit was Kenya.
Kenya as some may know has a major problem with this disease,
much more than we do. In some ways it has reached epidemic
proportions in that country. In spite of my own experiences with
the disease and watching people suffer from it, I have to reject
the motion of my friend. I reject it not from an uncaring point of
view but rather the importance of getting this thing right.
In other words it is very important that we start monitoring
our immigrant population coming into our country. However,
we must get the system correct. By getting it right, I mean the
minister is now conducting a review of this whole area. In that
process he is consulting medical practitioners. He is basically
trying to get the system correct from day one.
(1145)
Most Canadians recognize this is a very serious disease.
However, authorities are somewhat split on how important a
disease it is and how it affects the host population. For instance,
this disease cannot be spread by personal contact; most medical
practitioners do not believe it has reached crisis proportions in
our population and do not regard it as a serious public health or
safety threat.
Why is it important to get things right? This is the whole
essence of this debate. It is not so much in monitoring our
immigrant population, those coming into our country, but rather
the effect we can have on the current population in recognizing
this important disease.
In looking at the Immigration Act, I note in 1952 that our
country disallowed the admission of immigrant populations that
were disabled for medical reasons. That was not that long ago.
How would our resident population of disabled people feel when
their own country denied access to this nation because people
were disabled? I suggest that it would make them feel like
second class citizens. Many in our population do have AIDS. We
7402
must use every resource we have to try to do away with this
important disease.
It is also crucial we do not give the opinion, from the
government point of view, that there is something inordinately
wrong with these people, that if they want to come into the
country they would be denied, that they are second class
citizens.
I know that the disease itself, even in testing positive for HIV,
does not mean that you have the disease. As a consequence,
today as we talk, there is no clear way to effect the admissibility
of immigrants coming into this population; there is no real way
to measure whether they have the disease.
I note that currently the practice is that where there is a
suspicion of the disease, the authorities do require testing, and
they do deny admissibility. However, it is done on a selective
basis, it is not done on a comprehensive basis which maybe the
hon. member had anticipated.
In conclusion, it is very important that we get it right. I do not
think we are really disagreeing with the importance of the
monitoring process; what we are talking about is how to get it
right. We have to get it right not only so that we monitor people
coming into our country but we get it right in our attitude as to
how to deal properly with this very important disease in our own
country.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the
right of reply. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for a
two-minute conclusion to this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me be helpful to you.
The member for Durham had concluded his remarks. I assured
myself that he has closed debate.
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast who is the mover of
this motion is asking the consent of the House, and I think in the
spirit of this 35th session of Parliament that people agree-
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House understands
fully that the member is closing off debate. No one else will
speak to this motion and the question will be put forthwith in
two minutes.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
urge all members of the House to support this motion. It is time
that we sent a strong, non-partisan, non-political message to the
immigration minister and to the government. It is time to put
Canadians first. It is time to enforce the preamble to the
Immigration Act that charges us with responsibility for the
protection and safety of Canadians.
HIV-AIDS has been politicized. It has become a partisan
issue and that is a crying shame. We tend to forget that the
politics of this disease has prevented Canada from taking action
to eliminate it. It has cost us untold numbers of lives.
This motion does nothing more than extend Canada's
regulations regarding the entry of people with serious
transmittable diseases to the most serious transmittable disease
of all. That is not intolerance. That is not special interest
pandering. It is not regressive. It is common sense.
If we in the House have a duty to exercise leadership in the
interests of doing right for Canadians we have a duty to do more
than just pander to our respective blocks of voters. We have a
duty to do more than gauge the winds of special interest opinion.
This is what my colleague, the minister of immigration, has
done for the past year. It has lead to a year of non-action, a year
in which the legitimacy of our immigration program has been
severely undermined. For immigration to continue in Canada it
must have the support of the Canadian people. It must command
respect. In order for it to command respect in the eyes of the
public, the program must be seen to be protecting and furthering
the needs and interests of Canadians.
Protecting HIV-AIDS, giving it special status simply because
of its politics is the very opposite to protecting the needs of
Canadians. It must stop.
The House should be in the business of creating and
maintaining an immigration program that works for everyone.
We can do nothing less.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 11.51 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has
expired.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(1210 )
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This
being a private member's ballot item, there is an understanding
that we will vote by rows as is traditionally done for private
members' hour and not the system that is used for government
bills.
7403
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will be voting row by
row. It should be a great way to start the week.
As is the practice the division will be taken row by row,
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover;
then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the
House will be called; and those opposed to the motion will be
called in the same order.
(1220 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 94)
YEAS
Members
Assad
Bodnar
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélair
Caccia
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gilmour
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Iftody
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Lincoln
Loney
Maloney
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nault
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Rideout
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Thompson
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)-52
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand
Berger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Finestone
Finlay
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Malhi
Marchand
Marleau
Massé
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Reilly
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Vanclief
Young -88
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I wonder if I might
ask a few of our colleagues for verification of their votes,
specifically, the member for Burin-St. George's and
Broadview-Greenwood. Could they indicate to the Chair if it
was their intent to vote in favour of the motion?
The member for Broadview-Greenwood?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
stood and I was in favour of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for
Burin-St. George's?
Mr. Simmons: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to support the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
_____________________________________________
7403
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.) moved that Bill C-56 to amend the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be read a second time
and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, we are debating today how to make
good legislation even better. This bill sets out to improve one of
the most outstanding environment acts in the world. With the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its important
amendments, Canada will be a world leader in environmental
thinking and practice. We are also making this country a better
place to be.
7404
[English]
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was first
planned by the current Leader of the Opposition in 1989 when he
was Minister of the Environment. We were in opposition at the
time. I was the Liberal critic for the environment.
Our party supported the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean in
his efforts and voted in favour of the act. We put aside our
partisan differences and voted for legislation which was good
for the environment and good for Canada.
We supported the hon. member and wanted the law
proclaimed. Indeed it was a red book promise because the law,
as it previously existed, was complicated, arbitrary,
unpredictable and incomplete.
[Translation]
We needed new legislation to simplify the process and
strengthen it.
Mr. Landry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do not have
French translation and cannot follow what the minister is saying
in English.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will certainly look
into this and take the necessary steps to remedy the problem. In
the meantime, I would ask the hon. Minister of the Environment
to carry on with her speech.
[English]
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the new law will ensure that the
environmental impact of projects is taken into account before
the projects go ahead. The new law nourishes and reinforces the
link between environmental health, economic health and human
health.
The act finally addresses the important issues which are so
crucial to Canada. The new system is straightforward and
streamlined. Small scale, routine matters will be dealt with
through a simple screening process. We do not need to spend
taxpayers' money to hold a grand inquisition for repairs to the
roof of a building.
On the other hand, large projects or environmentally sensitive
projects will receive the comprehensive public study they need.
It is absolutely essential that projects in our national parks,
nuclear power plants, dams, mines and new industrial
developments undergo comprehensive environmental impact
studies.
[Translation]
The act introduces the new principle of mediation. To the
extent possible, we want environmental problems to be resolved
by consensus to everyone's satisfaction.
(1225 )
[English]
Screening, comprehensive study and mediation will eliminate
the waste and bureaucracy that unfortunately sometimes results
in much time being spent on minor or easily resolved issues.
A project will only reach the stage of review by an
independent public panel if there are difficult environmental
issues which cannot be resolved in any other way. When the
environmental impact is important enough to be subject to an
independent review, the act allows for full public involvement
and requires a more stringent assessment of the project.
For all projects we want everything out in the open and we
want to ensure that the public interest is paramount.
[Translation]
It comes as no surprise that, referring to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean said, back in December 1989: ``This will
probably be the best legislation of the kind in the world''. No
wonder that, last month, the Leader of the Opposition described
this act as his baby, adding that he had fought very hard for it in
cabinet.
[English]
Maybe we should not be talking about babies.
[Translation]
No wonder that the Leader of the Opposition said: ``I am not
against this legislation. I never said a thing against it''. And the
present Leader of the Opposition suggested last month: ``We
must find a way to harmonize provincial and federal
jurisdictions. These two levels of government have to work
together, otherwise it will be chaos''.
To opponents of the act, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean
said in 1990: ``We have jurisdiction. We take our
responsibilities. If work is carried out in James Bay that can
affect the nature and composition of Hudson's Bay's water, the
federal government has the right, indeed the duty, to stop work,
otherwise the courts will step in''.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act emphasizes the
importance of federal-provincial co-operation and the
harmonization of our respective systems. I am committed to
working with each of the provinces to that end.
We are willing to work with the provinces; the federal
government did in fact sign a harmonization agreement with
Alberta, and next week I will sign a second agreement with
Manitoba. We are also negotiating with Saskatchewan, British
Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces.
7405
I know that everyone in this country is concerned about the
environment. Whatever our political differences, we all want a
livable world for our children. We may not always agree on the
approach, but we want the same results. It was clearly stated in
the red book that we would reinforce the power of review panels
by letting Cabinet deal with federal projects, and I am going to
go even further.
If I may, I would like to quote from the red book: ``Individual
Canadians have expertise and a valued perspective to contribute
to environmental policy-making. These assets are often not
tapped because of financial or legal restrictions. A Liberal
government will amend the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act to legally recognize intervenor funding as an
integral component of the assessment process''.
These were public commitments. Today, we are delivering the
goods.
To those who are still questioning the act, I will quote the
Leader of the Opposition, when he was talking about the old
offer: ``Current guidelines are not clear regarding
federal-provincial co-operation on joint assessments''. We are
aware of the need for clarification and we are working on it. The
result can be seen today. That is why we have this bill today.
(1230)
I urge the Opposition to listen carefully to what Lucien
Bouchard said about the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act: ``This bill does not encroach on provincial jurisdiction''. It
was not the current Minister of the Environment but the former
Minister of the Environment-when he was a federal Cabinet
minister-who said that we must ensure that there is no
encroachment and step up harmonization efforts in order to
avoid overlap.
[English]
For the last year the federal government has met with and
listened to Canadians, environmentalists, communities,
businesses and individuals. They have asked us to act further to
improve the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and we
have listened in good faith. The amendments we are introducing
today are proof of that good faith.
The bill we are debating today proposes to entrench in federal
law the principle of one project one assessment. It is wrong that
responsible businesses may be subjected to more than one
federal assessment for their project.
We need a strong, open public environmental assessment
process but we do not need it repeated and repeated and
repeated. Today's legislation commits us to ending confusion
and overlap and to reducing cost and complexity.
The second amendment guarantees that communities will
receive the support they need to take part in major
environmental assessments. Local communities with a direct
stake in the outcome of an environmental assessment must have
the resources to participate if their rights are to have any real
meaning. I use the example under the past process of Elliot Lake
which obviously had a very direct interest in how the operations
of Denison were decommissioned.
The last amendment requires the federal cabinet to respond to
any recommendations of independent review panels. This
means that no individual cabinet minister can overrule the
environmental assessment made by an independent panel. This
means that no Kemano projects can be signed behind closed
doors. This means that as a government we are willing to be fair,
to open up the process, to simplify the process, to listen to
concerns and ultimately to take a full cabinet decision. Once
again we have built it into the law in black and white.
We are not only talking about our belief in the principle of one
project one assessment.
[Translation]
This is not only about the right of people from Chicoutimi, the
Abitibi region, Quebec City or Montreal to have their say on
environmental assessments. The bill establishes a participant
funding program to help people who do not have the necessary
financial resources exercise this right. How can anyone accuse
the federal government of undermining the environmental rights
of the people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region, when we give
them the funds they need to participate in the environmental
assessments of the projects affecting them?
This amendment has nothing to do with Ottawa politicians
trying to impose their views. Rather, it is aimed, as the Leader of
the Opposition realized, at giving the people from the
Lac-Saint-Jean region the power to tell the federal government
what they think about a federal project. It is aimed at giving the
people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region the ability to influence
federal decisions affecting them directly in their daily lives.
[English]
We are not just talking about ending backroom pressures to
overturn environmental assessment. We have introduced
legislation to take away the ability of any individual cabinet
minister to overturn those decisions. We have introduced
legislation to make sure that the recommendations of
independent panels cannot be shoved on to the back burner.
(1235)
The new law puts the onus on cabinet to respond to those
recommendations. In the name of fairness and openness and in
order to make sure that everything is completely transparent, we
are acting to make sure that the whole government by virtue of
cabinet is responsible for environmental assessment decisions.
7406
[Translation]
Yes, this bill recognizes the essential federal role in
environmental assessment. As the Leader of the Opposition said
so well: ``The federal government certainly has some powers
which no one contests''. For example, the bed of Hudson Bay
belongs to the federal government. This would not change. So as
I said and I repeat, if work goes on in James Bay which affects
the nature and composition of the water emptying into Hudson
Bay so that marine or other life in Hudson Bay could be affected,
the federal government has the right and even the duty to act;
otherwise, the courts will stop the work.
The Leader of the Opposition understands the law well and he
was right when he described some federal responsibilities. It is
not only legal; it is a matter of environmental reality. When you
throw something into Hudson Bay, it affects northern Quebec.
When you throw something into Hamilton Bay, it affects
Montreal. Consider the International Joint Commission for the
Great Lakes; what we do in these Great Lakes obviously affects
the St. Lawrence River.
If a project on the north shore of Lake Superior is an
environmental disaster, the problems end up not only in the
Great Lakes but also in the St. Lawrence and the people of
Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City and Rimouski suffer as a
result. Environmental blunders in the Great Lakes affect
Magdalen Islanders. Environmental problems do not respect
borders. We have no choice but to face up to our shared
environmental responsibilities. We must all come to an
understanding here in Canada. The federal and provincial
governments must work together, despite our political
differences, to solve these problems, for the greater well-being
of our people.
[English]
It is for the good of the people that we have to set aside our
political differences, set aside our political agendas, and
understand the point made by the Leader of the Opposition when
he was in government and said the time had come to end the
duplication and confusion that surrounded the EARP guidelines.
[Translation]
We must present a common front internationally to solve
global environmental problems. We must work together to solve
our common problems with the United States. We must work
together to solve our problems in the Pacific, the Atlantic and
the Arctic.
We have acted, we are acting and we will act to put in place
what the Leader of the Opposition has rightly called absolutely
major legislation. We must go further. We must overcome our
differences and find a way to reach agreement. I am counting on
my colleagues in the Official Opposition to support the bill
initiated by their own leader, which will benefit all the people of
Quebec and Canada.
[English]
Sound environmental practices are essential if we are to move
to the day when pollution prevention becomes a central part of
our thinking. Sound practices are essential in planning projects
which are environmentally and economically sound. Sound
practices are essential to planning and creating a better future.
The legislation does not solve every environmental problem
in the country. We will need to fine tune the legislation. That is
why we have a one-year monitoring program in place. If there
are real problems, let us move to solve them. If we can make
more improvements, let us move ahead. If we can find new ways
of eliminating overlap, of saving taxpayers' money, and of
co-operating and harmonizing our efforts, let us do it.
The bill moves forward the federal government's
commitment in meeting our obligation to the environment
which all of us share and which all of us cherish. Not only does
the act move in that direction, but certainly the amendments we
are discussing today speak very specifically to making the law
workable for all Canadians in the interests of a sustainable
environment.
(1240)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, which was announced on October 6, is now at second
reading.
This legislation includes three amendments to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, as announced by the minister
on October 6. That announcement almost went unnoticed, since
the paper on social program reform had been tabled the day
before. The minister's decision to make the announcement on
that day was obviously an attempt to create a diversion, given
the controversy generated by the reform proposal tabled by her
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The method used by the minister can certainly not be called
transparent and open. On that day, the minister announced a
piece of legislation which was first developed in 1990 when our
current leader, who was then Minister of the Environment,
tabled Bill C-78 on the environmental assessment process. That
legislation was reintroduced in May 1991 as Bill C-13. In
December of the same year, a legislative committee made over
150 amendments to the original bill. Several provisions and
clauses were deleted, reworded or added.
However, the flexibility which had characterized Bill C-78
had completely disappeared and been replaced by a very strict
legislative intent. Moreover, one of these amendments, which
affirms the federal government's intention to promote
sustainable development, clearly indicates that the federal
government considers itself the sole responsible for the renewal
of resources, even though these fall under provincial
jurisdiction.
7407
Bill C-13 was passed by Parliament in June 1992. The long
delay before the proclamation of the bill was due to the need to
draft the regulations required to implement the act, and also to
the desire of the current Minister of the Environment to
introduce the amendments which we are now examining at
second reading.
Following all these changes, it is clear that the current
centralizing vision does not agree with the original legislation
tabled by our leader when he was Minister of the Environment.
In an article published in Le Devoir on April 1, 1992, Mr. Michel
Yergeau, a prominent lawyer specializing in environmental law,
reminded those who were trying to justify federal interference in
fields of provincial jurisdiction by invoking the fact that the
original legislation had been drafted under Mr. Bouchard's
responsibility, that the then Minister of the Environment was
very aware of the constitutional realities imposed by the nature
of environmental problems.
Mr. Yergeau quoted part of a speech made by the Leader of the
Opposition who stated that in the grey areas, where the
Constitution does not clearly define the role of each of the
stakeholders, we must have co-operation. He added that, at a
time when we realize that the debate on the environment is the
fight for life itself and that this fight must be taken up by the
whole world, and not affect only our own jurisdictions, our
constituents would not understand and even less tolerate a
wrestling match between federal and provincial politicians.
Moreover, the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court in
1992, in the Oldman River case, essentially boiled down to
respect for provincial jurisdictions. The Court ruled that the
assessment process provided for by the order did not apply to
projects undertaken pursuant to federal legislation, and I quote:
``On the issue of the positive obligation to regulate, Mr. Justice
LaForest indicated that it was not intended that the guidelines
order be applied every time a project could have an
environmental impact of an area of federal jurisdiction''. He
added: ``The federal minister or the panel cannot use the
guidelines order as a disguised tool to impinge on areas under
provincial jurisdiction that have nothing to do with the relevant
field of federal jurisdiction''.
(1245)
We must admit that all the amendments made to this
legislation between the time it was first introduced and the time
it was enacted changed completely the spirit of the reform
proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in 1989. Bill C-78 was
designed to harmonize the assessment processes and not to put
under federal supervision the processes already in place in
Quebec and in other provinces.
Despite these revealing statements on the true spirit and
purpose of the original bill, the minister jumped on the
opportunity to give credit to the Leader of the Official
Opposition for this legislation. In fact, the minister always uses
this defensive strategy when we ask questions regarding
environmental matters that date back to the period when our
leader was Minister of the Environment. Could it be that the
minister is looking for a good example or even for a guide to
help her run her department? If she continues to link everything
she does to our leader, Canadians will wonder whether our
leader is still running this department or whether he has simply
become the minister's mentor.
But knowing the minister and her political ways, which are
always of a partisan nature, we have to conclude that this is just a
strategy to slow down the Official Opposition. She uses the
alleged inaction of her predecessors to try and justify her own
incompetence.
The minister obviously thinks that she just has to refer to our
leader's past and we will buy everything she wants to sell us, but
she is wrong. We will reject all of her proposals that do not
respect the environment and we will protest against any
infringement on the provinces' jurisdiction. Already, in 1992,
the Bloc had expressed its strong opposition to Bill C-13
because it did not recognize the existence of a provincial
environmental assessment process in Quebec. I also want to
remind the minister that the Bloc Quebecois made a biting reply
to the promulgation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
I also remind her that the government of Quebec reacted the
same way. Mr. Jacques Brassard, provincial Minister of the
Environment, even withdrew Quebec's representatives from
federal-provincial discussions. The new Quebec environment
minister described this new federal environmental assessment
process as an arrogant attempt at displacing Quebec from that
jurisdiction. He went on to say that this is precisely what
business people were asking his government to avoid, that
business executives think having two assessment processes will
be a disaster for the Quebec economy.
The Quebec minister states that developers of all kinds will be
faced with two processes having two different sets of
requirements. He said: ``It is clearly unacceptable to Quebec. It
smacks of provocation, arrogance and lack of respect for
Quebec''.
As I already indicated, Quebec announced it was pulling out
of discussions initiated by the federal government on
environmental requirements harmonization because those
discussions are a sham. The Quebec minister said: ``They have
gone too far. This bill is a deliberate act of provocation on the
part of the federal government against the new sovereignist
government in Quebec. It amounts to putting the province under
a kind of guardianship''.
7408
The federal minister nonetheless proclaims a so-called new
era of co-operation, but it is nothing but window dressing. It
clearly demonstrates the centralist vision of the federal
government. Certain provinces are used to justify the use of
strong-arm tactics against other provinces. The federal
government signs agreements with some provinces, Alberta and
Manitoba in this case, indicates that negotiations are under way
with five more provinces and, all of a sudden, introduces a bill.
The wall-to-wall theory is used. The Canada-wide approach
is made to apply. National standards are implemented without
any regard for what is already being done in some provinces or
territories. The federal bulldozer starts rolling before
discussions with the provinces are completed. That is precisely
the attitude provinces reject and the public no longer accepts.
(1250)
Unfortunately, ever since they came to office the Liberals
have done nothing but centralize and encroach upon provincial
jurisdiction. The Liberals still believe in a Canada that is the
same from one end to the other, wrapped in the same red tapestry
made from a book of the same colour on which the members
opposite have fed abundantly during the last electoral campaign.
However, as time passes, colour and direction are changing.
Take for example the last green, mauve and grey books that
this government made public with great pomp. Their projects
and propositions once more target ordinary Canadians and show
this government's determination to encroach upon provincial
jurisdiction.
This bill on environmental assessment is no exception to the
rule of this overbearing and totalitarian federalism, as the
former Liberal Environment Minister of Quebec, Mr. Pierre
Paradis, called it. Coming from a convinced and orthodox
federalist, from the same party as hon. members opposite, that
says it all. May I remind you that Mr. Paradis came before the
Senate to try to stop the passing of the bill introduced by then
minister Charest, implementing the federal environmental
assessment process. The minister said that Bill C-13 was
trespassing dangerously on Quebec's preserves.
He also said that this bill would allow the federal government
to encroach upon a provincial jurisdiction. He believed Ottawa
could, from then on, intervene any time it wished to assess a
Quebec project that could have an environmental impact.
This true federalist said that Bill C-13 would allow the use of
every available lever to submit as many projects as possible to
the federal assessment process and even to control all aspects of
assessments done by another jurisdiction. He also said that the
federal process would constantly interfere with Quebec
procedure.
The person who said those things in 1992 was not a member of
the P.Q. or the Bloc, not a separatist. He was a Grit, a Liberal, a
federalist, just like the Minister of the Environment and the
government.
On November 22, 1991, Mr. Paradis wrote to his old friend in
Ottawa, minister Charest, the present member for Sherbrooke.
He wrote: ``Bill C-13, in its present form, far from clarifying the
situation, allows for a useless encroachment of the federal
assessment process on decisions which fall exclusively under
Quebec's jurisdiction, and this can only lead to a wasteful
duplication of assessment processes and, inevitably, to
numerous conflicts''.
The federalist Quebec minister said he wished that Ottawa
would recognize and respect the process used by the provinces
to assess environmental impacts, something clearly under their
jurisdiction.
It was not a P.Q. member who said that, that was not an evil
separatist, it was a federalist who wanted the federal
government to stay in Ottawa and look after its own affairs.
In another letter addressed to another minister of the
Conservative government of the time-we should probably say
of the era, since this party has virtually disappeared from the
map-Minister Paradis wrote on December 17, 1990: ``-the
bill raises important constitutional questions and many
implementation problems''. He was saying clearly that the
federal government had no business saying it had to protect the
environment when trying to regulate areas of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
This legislation would mean that all Quebec projects would be
submitted to a federal environmental assessment. Minister
Paradis was concerned about wasteful and costly duplication
and delays, since the federal process would be added on to the
Quebec process.
Finally, in the March 17, 1994 issue of Le Journal de
Montréal, federalist Quebec minister Pierre Paradis was quoted
as saying on the question of environmental assessments: ``We
have to harmonize the two legislations in order to have a single
window, predominantly under Quebec control, for
environmental assessment''. And he added: ``Quebec maintains
that its jurisdiction must be protected and that it should be in
charge''.
(1255)
The minister was here on March 17, 1994. How could she
ignore a Quebec federalist minister's request?
A lawyer, Michel Yergeau, was of the same opinion when he
wrote the following in the April 1, 1992 issue of the daily Le
Devoir: ``It is not because Ottawa has taken over a matter which
demands a global approach and knows no boundaries that it can
altogether disregard the Constitution. With Bill C-13, Ottawa
7409
uses its authority and unilaterally settles matters in its favour,
of course''.
He then adds: ``To justify such abruptness, Ottawa puts
forward the pressing need to protect the environment in its areas
of jurisdiction. The net result of this unilateral exercise is not
and cannot be good. It must be reviewed and refined''. I repeat:
``It must be reviewed and refined''.
The way things are at the present time, C-13 is just plain raw
material the courts will have to refine on a case by case basis,
which can only create a lot of resentment. In the long run, the
whole exercise will be more time-consuming than sitting at the
bargaining table to settle this issue once and for all. This is a real
timebomb the federal government has planted in the Canadian
legislation. This is also a further threat to the constitutional
reconciliation the government yearns for. It is not even good for
the environment.
This is a rather serious statement on the part of an
environmental lawyer. It seems to me that the minister should
take heed.
Mr. Yergeau says that Ottawa ignores the Constitution. He
talks about the abruptness of the federal government. He thinks
Ottawa is setting a time bomb in the Canadian legislation. The
members opposite who believe in federalism should be very
concerned by these statements. They should at least wonder
about the impact their actions could have on the system they so
implicitly believe in. It is totally illogical to in such a manner as
to destroy a federal system you trust so much.
Of course, we in the Bloc feel that this suits our purpose. If
you go on like this, there will come a time in 1995 when
Quebecers will tell you: We see what you are after and you can
just go back to Ottawa. From now on, we will do our own thing.
This is just perfect. Carry on like you have been doing. All that
is grist to our mill.
In an article published in Le Devoir on March 21, 1992, Lise
Bissonnette said that the passage of the Act to establish a federal
environmental assessment process was a kind of takeover. She
indicated that Bill C-13 added to the Quebec-Canada problem
that has yet to be solved, since it looks a lot like the
Constitutional issue that it exacerbates while giving a lesson to
Quebec. All the elements are there.
Lise Bissonnette compared Bill C-13 to an enormous
machine that can assess absolutely everything, including the
areas most obviously under provincial jurisdiction. She also
said that the terms and conditions of future federal-provincial
agreements would ensure that the provincial process is subject
to the federal process, even though Ottawa only had a small say
in this area.
More far-sighted, Ms. Bissonnette declared that Ottawa was
giving itself the power to jeopardize Quebec's whole energy
policy and thus its choices for economic development.
Finally, she concluded her article by saying that Ottawa, by
giving itself such wide, preponderant power that could take
many shapes and forms, would control not only the quality of
life but also a large part of economic development.
Today, the minister and the federal government are faced with
the clear consensus in Quebec against the CEAA. The Quebec
Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois all
expressed their strong opposition to this Act. But no matter what
we do or say, the federal government will go ahead. Should we
take comfort in realizing that such lack of understanding and
respect leads to separation? As it did so many times in the past,
the federal government leaves Quebec no choice. It is a take it or
leave it situation. Quebecers will have to choose soon. That is
what some people involved or interested in this issue said at the
time.
(1300)
Mr. Speaker, I know that I must stop here. Will I be allowed to
continue later?
The Speaker: My dear colleague, yes, according to the Clerk,
it seems that you have a few minutes left. I would also ask you to
always address the Chair, not the members opposite.
It being one o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier today
with unanimous consent, the House will now proceed to
Statements by Ministers.
_____________________________________________
7409
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has set high standards of integrity and
probity for itself. I have made integrity a number one priority
personnaly.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: Setting such
standards for the holders of public office is essential in renewing
and maintaining the faith of Canadians in their public
instructions.
This is the case in particular of ministers who must remain
above reproach at all times and in all of their activities, whether
it be as ministers, members of Parliament or private citizens.
That is the burden of public office, and one that we all gladly
accept to bear.
Last week, the actions of the Minister of Heritage were
discussed in this House. Legitimate concerns were raised which
we all share.
7410
Everyone understands the rule that no one is to call judges
concerning cases they have under consideration. This applies to
everyone-ministers, MPs and ordinary citizens.
The rule concerning relations with the judiciary is
unequivocal and has been in force for over 10 years. No minister
may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning
any matter which they have before them in their judicial
capacities, except through the Minister of Justice or through
duly authorized officials of, or counsel acting for, that minister.
[English]
But the situation is not as clear with administrative tribunals.
The guidance we gave ministers in this area was that on those
rare occasions when any minister might wish to communicate
with members of the quasi-judicial bodies concerning any
matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities,
they should only do so through the duly authorized officials.
In addition to considering quasi-judicial matters, these
bodies may consider a whole range of administrative, regulatory
and policy matters.
Even in relation to quasi-judicial matters before them,
administrative tribunals defer from the courts. As part of the
decision making process, some tribunals welcome
representations from ordinary citizens and members of
Parliament. These representations are put on the public record.
When a representation is sent to the CRTC it is a public
document. For example from September 1993 to October 1994
the CRTC held 18 public hearings. It received 15,422 letters in
support of licence applicants. Seventy-two were from members
of Parliament, from all parties in this House. Representations
were made by many Liberal members, including ministers,
members from the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the NDP,
the Conservatives, and one independent.
(1305)
Clearly we are not confronted with anything like calling a
judge. What we are dealing with is the dilemma of ministers who
also must fulfil their duties as members of Parliament who were
elected to represent their constituents. That makes this whole
area of relationships with administrative tribunals much more
complex than with the courts.
I have learned a lesson too. This government has done a lot to
give our ministers clear guidelines to do their jobs and avoid
conflict of interest, including the historic ethics package we
introduced in June. But now it is plain to me that the guidelines
for dealing with administrative tribunals were not clear or
complete enough.
[Translation]
Last Thursday, after Question Period, I gave instructions that
all ministers and secretaries of State review their files and the
operation of their offices to establish whether there existed any
other cases like that of the Minister of Heritage, not only with
respect to the CRTC but also with respect to other administrative
tribunals.
We have found several cases of a similar nature:
The Minister of Citizenship and immigration, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Indian and Northern
Affairs and the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa
have each written, over the last year, to the CRTC in support of
license applicants. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has
also written on behalf of his constituents to a number of
administrative agencies, including the Pensions Plan Review
Tribunal and a board of referees concerning unemployment
insurance benefits, as he has always done during his long career
as member of this House.
This is what we know so far. There may be others. But whether
there are five or a hundred, the issue is the same.
[English]
As Prime Minister I am dealing with ministers who did not act
for personal gain, who did not act for partisan purposes. In each
case they acted in good faith for their constituents. Let us put
what they did into perspective. There is no scandal here, no
violation of integrity, and no breach of public trust.
How did this happen? I believe it is because we have not been
clear in distinguishing between the role of a cabinet minister and
members of Parliament in our guidelines when it comes to
dealing with administrative tribunals. The government bears
responsibility for that, and so do I.
I promised Canadians we would provide an honest
government and we have. I promised them we would provide an
open and accountable government and we have. But I did not,
and never could promise an infallible government.
I said before that this government will make mistakes, but
they will be honest mistakes and we will always move to correct
them. That is what we are doing today.
On Friday I gave instructions for more complete guidelines to
be developed in consultation with the ethics counsellor to ensure
that ministers deal with administrative tribunals in an
appropriate manner. This morning I wrote to each minister and
secretary of state instructing them that until the new guidelines
were in place all dealings with administrative tribunals must be
done through the ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson.
[Translation]
At Cabinet tomorrow, I will be reviewing the whole issue with
ministers. No one wants to disenfranchise the constituents of a
minister.
7411
(1310)
For example, on Saturday morning, I spent three hours in my
riding of Saint-Maurice receiving my constituents. I even
received some constituents from an opposition riding,
Trois-Rivières. The Chamber of Commerce and mayor of
Trois-Rivières came to see me. It is not even in my riding, but I
thought that as minister responsible for the region, I would not
punish the mayor who wanted to see me and just tell him to go
and see his Bloc Quebecois member; because he wanted to see
me, I received him.
Was I wrong? Was I right? I think that it is part of my duty to
receive, as much as possible, people who want to see me. On the
other hand, no one wants ministers to unduly influence
administrative agencies. The challenge is to strike the right
balance in imposing constraints on a minister that are not
imposed on an ordinary member of Parliament.
Staff for ministers and secretaries of state will also be briefed.
Finally, I believe this is a matter of legitimate debate and I
undertake to hold a debate in the House of Commons before
these guidelines are finalized. All members of this House have a
responsibility to put my ministers-and me personally-under
the closest possible scrutiny. We welcome that scrutiny, but that
does not mean turning legitimate concerns into matters of
scandal where none exists.
[English]
All my career I have believed that honesty is the best policy,
that a government and a Prime Minister must level with
Canadians, tell them the truth, and treat them with the respect
and intelligence they deserve. That is what I am doing here
today. I am proud of this government's record of honesty and
integrity. We have worked hard to earn it. But honesty and
integrity also mean facing up to moments like this. That is the
responsibility that this government and I will never betray.
One of the values of our parliamentary system and our
administrative system that is very important to me is that all
cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, must first be
elected in a riding where he or she is seeking the support and
confidence of thousands of people like any other member of
Parliament. After that he or she becomes the Prime Minister or
is called to serve in the cabinet. The first duty of all of us is to
make sure that the people who have voted for us are duly
represented in this House of Commons and that their interests
are defended. It is difficult sometimes.
For example when I was member for Beauséjour and Leader
of the Opposition, a group decided to close a radio station. A
representation was made before me. Some local people said:
``We want to keep a radio station in operation in Shawinigan.
Will you support us to get a licence if it is closed?''. It was not in
my riding but I knew these people. They knew there was interest
in keeping a radio station operating in Shawinigan and I told
them I would support them. They were in the business and
wanted to buy the assets and operate it.
(1315 )
Fortunately somebody else bought the station and I did not
have to support them. However, the local citizens of my riding
wanted to keep a radio station in operation. They thought a
person like me who was still a member of Parliament could help
them to maintain a link of communication for the local citizens
through a radio station. That is the type of thing and that is done
in public.
A letter that a member of Parliament or a minister writes to
the CRTC is not a private letter. It is not a confidential letter. All
these letters are public documentation in a public trial that
everybody can look at, just like the 14,000 people who wrote in
support of applications.
When I asked my ministers-there may be a couple of others,
I do not know who wrote letters like that in support of
applications-I found that one of them, the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans, wrote in support of francophones in his riding who
want to make sure that all the news programs for French news
are accessible to the francophones of his riding.
Apparently he wrote too late, but the reality is that he was
representing the interests of a little group of francophones
isolated in the southwest corner of Newfoundland who wanted
to communicate with people who speak French, the other
official language of Canada, at home as completely as possible.
I am happy to report what I have been able to gather over the
weekend to clarify the situation. From here on, while we are
developing the proper guidelines, ministers will have to keep in
mind all the time that we are members of Parliament and we are
at the same time ministers and what are due or undue public
interventions such as those I have mentioned.
I think it was in response to requests by their constituents in
open fashion in open files. That is why I did not ask anybody to
do anything. However, we will give proper guidelines after I
hope a debate in this House of Commons so that the members of
Parliament can tell us how to resolve this obligation to serve the
nation as a minister and to serve the people who have voted for
these ministers before they were called upon to serve in the
cabinet.
[Translation]
With leave of the House, I would like to table a copy of the
letters that ministers have written to the CRTC. These are public
letters whose release in no way violates people's right to
privacy. I would like to table these letters immediately.
7412
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just reiterated his
commitment to integrity and ethics in government.
We salute these noble remarks, which he has repeated on
many occasions, notably during his assessment of his
government's performance in the past year. But I would daresay
that last week, the Prime Minister, who was preparing for
situations in which he would have to rigorously demonstrate his
commitment to ethics, faced for the first time-after giving
many speeches and making numerous commitments to uphold
public integrity; and we understand how difficult it must have
been for him-a situation in which he had to make a decision
and translate talk into action.
(1320)
With all due respect, I submit that for an honest leader of the
government like the Prime Minister-which is something I
recognize and congratulate him for; I think having an honest
leader of the government is encouraging to all of us and
important to all citizens-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: -it was an opportunity for the Prime
Minister to go beyond his role as party leader and fully assume
his primary responsibilities as leader of the government, namely
being a vigilant and ruthless-repeat, ruthless-guardian of
ethical standards. He had an opportunity to make an example, to
ensure the continuity of ethical standards that have always been
followed by Canadian government leaders by asking his
minister to resign. I understand how difficult it must be. I
understand how difficult it must be, especially when there is a
personal relationship-as often happens within political
parties-between individuals who work together for a while in
the public interest. But one must sometimes look beyond
personal relationships with fellow party members when
fundamental values are at stake. I say that the Prime Minister-I
say it with as much restraint as I can-failed his first test in
honouring his commitment to integrity.
Let us have a quick look at the facts. On March 15, the
Minister of Heritage wrote the Chairman of the CRTC to, I say,
support a licence application. My claim is strengthened by the
fact that the addressee himself wrote that he saw this letter, this
action, as a letter of support. This is in the public file. On March
29, a letter thanking the minister for his support was put in the
file. It was perfectly normal to think that the letter was one of
support, since the minister was requesting that due
consideration be given to the application, asking the CRTC to
keep him abreast of any developments in the matter. Indeed, the
minister, who is the CRTC's boss, asked to be kept informed
about an application in which he had such an interest that he
wrote a letter about it. Moreover, the minister offered, in
writing, to provide any additional information the CRTC might
have required.
It took six months for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
feel somewhat remorseful, decide to apologize and write to the
CRTC to say that the March letter was not intended to convey
support to the application. This is what the minister did. A
minister's actions are judged by the Prime Minister. One of the
duties of the Prime Minister is to ensure that ministers behave
properly and comply with his own code of ethics and principles
of integrity.
The Prime Minister was, to say the least, slow to react, since
he found out on October 1 what happened but did nothing for a
whole month. He waited until the whole issue became public and
there is every reason to believe that we would never have known
about this violation of basic rules of ethics for ministers if the
letter had not been made public. The Prime Minister waited until
the whole thing became public to suddenly start saying that this
was an unacceptable mistake. It was too little too late on the
Prime Minister's part.
What is he doing now? Today, the Prime Minister is drawing a
fine line between judicial and administrative tribunals. The
Prime Minister is a lawyer. He has always been in public life and
he knows public law. He is perfectly aware that a large number
of decisions made by the CRTC fall under the jurisdiction of
ordinary courts of law. What makes a tribunal a tribunal is that it
makes decisions on rights, on their delegation and creation, on
disputes, and on complaints or penal complaints and charges.
(1325)
The CRTC does more than determine policy. It acts as a
judicial tribunal when applying the law. It makes decisions
based on civil, financial and public law that directly affect
Canadians, since these decisions concern the management of all
aspects of broadcasting and telecommunications. It is also
empowered to deal with complaints.
In this respect, the CRTC is subject to the same arm's length
rules as judicial tribunals, and I would say even more so,
because these quasi-judicial bodies have become so important
that very often, the decisions they make are more important than
the judgments of a civil court. For instance, the CRTC has the
authority to decide whether or not a company will go bankrupt
and whether a broadcasting or telephone monopoly will be
awarded to one company rather than another. We all know that
the financial stakes may be considerable, and citizens are
directly affected by the implications, so these decisions are
crucial.
One can hardly stand up in this House especially when as
Leader of the Government, one is thoroughly familiar with the
situation, and claim that an administrative tribunal is less
important than a judicial tribunal and that the strictly arm's
length relationship that must exist to ensure the independence of
judicial tribunals does not necessarily apply to tribunals like the
CRTC. The distinction does not hold water.
7413
Second, the Prime Minister's attitude today is rather
surprising. Here we have the holder of the highest office in our
parliamentary democracy, who already made an extremely
controversial decision not to accept the minister's resignation,
although most newspapers who carried editorials on this issue
asked for the minister's resignation and criticized the Prime
Minister for not demanding that resignation, and now, today or
yesterday, I am not sure which, but some day we may find out,
the Prime Minister hears there were four other cases in addition
to this one.
And today, he comes before us, neither repentant nor deeply
apologetic, and refers to the fact that four other ministers were
involved as an extenuating circumstance, as though there were
safety in numbers.
Third, we have the Prime Minister making this incredible
distinction, while at the same time muddying the waters with
respect to the duties of members and ministers. I submit that the
Prime Minister did Canadian democracy and the public
perception of Canada's democratic institutions a great
disservice when he appeared to erase the fine line between the
duties of members and ministers.
The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that this entire
debate is about the fundamental principle of the separation of
powers. Our democratic institutions are all founded on the
separation of powers: the legislative power, the judicial power
and the executive power. The walls that separate these powers
from one another are absolutely solid and impenetrable, because
democracy requires us to dilute power and thus prevent the
concentration of all these powers in one person, which is how
dictatorships are born.
A strict division of powers is essential to the development of
democracy, respect of civil rights and operation of public
liberties. A minister cannot encroach on the judiciary. Why?
Why is the rule so strict? Why is it that we do not have to prove
dishonesty? Why is it that we do not have to prove corruption?
How come the simple fact of over-stepping this boundary
carries a sanction? Why? Because the principle to be protected
is absolute, it is the principle of the judiciary's independence.
Democracy rests, first and foremost, on the rule of law. We all
know that when the state violates the rights of an individual,
when two individuals disagree, instead of resorting to violence
or some other manifestation unacceptable in a democracy, we go
before a wiseperson, someone totally independent, appointed
for life, who will render a decision we can trust. I think that this
country should pay tribute to the quality of its tribunals.
All governments try their best to make sure they only appoint
to the bench people with an impeccable reputation, competent
and honest. This is a rule which, up to now, has been observed by
all parties. This is vital, because the day the judiciary is
compromised, democracy as we know it will be over, we will not
be able to resolve anything in a proper manner. Therefore, we
have to respect judicial powers and we have to recognize the
necessity of a separation of powers.
When the Prime Minister tries to pretend that there is no
difference between the job of an MP and the job of a minister, he
confuses two other powers, he crosses in an unacceptable
manner the line separating the executive and legislative
branches.
(1330)
When a MP is chosen to be a minister, he enters a new phase,
crosses the line between the executive and the legislative and is
asked to behave with great rigour so as to respect the separation
between both duties, both categories.
If a member is unable to understand that the fact of becoming
a minister adds to his duties the obligation of being rigorous and
respectful of these fundamental rules, he should not be a
minister, he does not have the skills to be one, and should either
resign or be dismissed.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: All these lame attempts at comparing him
with an opposition member, even a government member who
would intercede with an administrative tribunal on his
constituents' behalf, do not wash because the Leader of the
Opposition does not belong to the executive. The Leader of the
Opposition is confined to legislative work and to representing
his constituents. The Prime Minister knows full well that he
twisted the facts, distorted these institutions when he confused
both.
Do we really need new rules? Do we need to tell you that a
minister who has broken the aforementioned rules must resign?
There are many precedents, and in a British judicial system such
as ours, precedents make the rule.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs knows full well that he cannot
contact judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals. He did it once and
had to resign. The member for Sherbrooke knows it too, he
learned it at his expense.
The Speaker: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, he should stop
lying to the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. As you know, dear colleagues, it is
unacceptable in this House to ascribe one member's motives to
another member. It is certainly unacceptable to accuse a member
of lying.
I would therefore ask, with all due respect, the Prime Minister
to withdraw his comments.
7414
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, what I meant is
that he is confusing the two. Judicial is not the same as
quasi-judicial. I clearly explained the difference between the
two.
[English]
The Speaker: I am sure we want to hear both sides. Members
of Parliament will have the chance to express themselves in the
House. I would, with all respect to the Prime Minister, ask him
to withdraw those words where he said that the Leader of the
Opposition lied.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I just wanted to set the
record straight, Mr. Speaker. If I said the word ``lie''-
Some hon. members: Withdraw those words!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I am pleased to withdraw
those words. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should
stick to the text; there is a difference between judicial-
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, at this time, the Leader of the
Opposition has the floor.
[English]
I return to the Leader of the Opposition to take up where he
left off. We have heard a withdrawal of the words which were in
question. They are categorical. I accept them as the Chair and I
return to the Leader of the Opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I told the Prime Minister that
there was no distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial
bodies to the extent that they decide on rights. These are rights
which were decided.
The heritage minister and the four other ministers who broke
the rules all interfered with licence applications which the
CRTC decides in order to create civil rights. In so doing, it is
exactly the same as a court of law.
I continue and I conclude, because I have a time limit.
(1335)
What we learned this morning is that despite all these
declarations of respect for integrity, this cabinet also hid at least
four other cases of violations of fundamental rules. I demand
that these be followed up. I demand that we go beyond a simple
ministerial statement which attempts to smooth things over.
There must at least be an investigation by the ethics counsellor.
He should check all the files, make the rounds, meet the
ministers who are at fault and the other ministers, because we
are told that there might be more. The Prime Minister told us
that there might be up to 100 cases. That is more cases than
Cabinet ministers. So the ethics counsellor must investigate.
Secondly, the ethics counsellor should table in this House all
the documents that he finds and be summoned before an
appropriate parliamentary committee for a fundamental
discussion, with witnesses, of an issue that affects the integrity
not only of the government but of Canada's democratic
institutions.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I
would like to say that I am very honoured and privileged to
respond to the statement of the Prime Minister.
The way things work around here, different parties have a turn
at being in government. We have had the Conservatives and
Liberals over and over. I have to admit that sometimes when I
look across I am overwhelmed at the magnitude of the
responsibility ministers and the Prime Minister have. I
sometimes wonder what we will be like when we get there.
We received a copy of the Prime Minister's statement only in
an official language which does not happen to be my own.
Except for a few paragraphs, most of my speech is going to be
extemporaneous since I spent most of the time available to me
getting it translated into the language I could understand. I hope
you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, if some of the points I make
and develop are perhaps not as well developed as we are
accustomed to on this side of the House.
The Prime Minister has spoken of the necessity for integrity,
honesty and openness. He speaks of that not only today but has
done so on a number of other occasions. I was never a member of
a political party before I was elected here. One thing that drew
me to the party to which I belong, the Reform Party, was that it
stressed very strongly the concepts of integrity and honesty. I
assure the House and the Prime Minister that his continually
talking about integrity and honesty strikes a chord with the
Canadian people because they want it and I want it.
The question here is not whether we want it. In the notes that I
took I see his speech included talking about integrity and
honesty. That is really not the debate. We already agree on that.
However, the question is how to do it.
Without being disrespectful, what we have heard today is a
longer answer to a question in Question Period without the nasty
interruption of another question. We heard an explanation,
trying to put oil on the waters and smooth them out. We are
seeing massive damage control.
(1340 )
I would like to take a few minutes to get down to the basics of
this issue. The question before us was triggered by a particular
incident that has occupied the House for the last week. First we
need to ask ourselves if we would be here debating this and
would we be doing it in this way if it were not for this incident?
Would the government be as eager to push forward this agenda
if it had not been driven to it? Perhaps this is reactionary but we
7415
need to get on with it. We need to make sure there is integrity in
government.
We need to back up one step. One of the reasons the Canadian
people and the opposition so strenuously object to what has
happened is back one step further. It concerns the way
government works.
We all recognize that in our system of government all of us as
members of Parliament are essentially powerless to influence
true decision making. On a number of occasions we have put
motions which have made eminent good sense to anyone who
stops to think about them. Yet to a person, all of the members in
the government have voted the way their leadership and their
party, including their ministers, have directed on an issue. I
accept that as fact. That is what has been happening. I can
observe that. I have come to that conclusion.
In the perception of the Canadian people, ministers are very
powerful. Indeed they are. That is why one needs to object when
a minister gives even the inkling that he is exercising that
excessive power in order to influence matters on behalf of his
constituents, a role that is not available to ordinary MPs in
opposition or in government.
We need to ask the government what has happened here. The
Prime Minister has correctly stated that just because one is a
member of the cabinet one should not be disenfranchised as a
member of Parliament. I agree with that principle. The cabinet
minister, as a member of Parliament, must be able to represent
his constituents in legitimate matters. It is the variation that is at
question here.
This particular incident occurred when a minister made a
statement on ministerial letterhead and because he is the
minister overseeing that area it can properly be viewed as being
undue influence.
The ethics code does not permit that. I was able to pull this out
quickly from one of my files. I quote from the ethics package:
``Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the
highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in
the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are
conserved and enhanced''.
That principle is violated when several people are contending
for a licence and one has behind him the power of a ministerial
letter and the other one has an ordinary MP representing him.
Because it is in the same department I believe this is a violation
of the principle and ought to result in more than just an apology
and ``let us try to do better''. We need to go beyond that.
I also want to quote from the same document with respect to
preferential treatment: ``Public office holders shall not step out
of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their
dealings with the government where this would result in
preferential treatment to any person''. In this case it is evident
that this has happened. It is wrong and it needs to be corrected.
We also have the question of the ethics counsellor.
(1345 )
I hope the Prime Minister was honest, and I have no reason to
question it, when he said: ``We want to have not only the
appearance of more integrity, but we actually want more
integrity whether it is in appearance or not''. I have no reason to
doubt the authenticity of the minister's motivation there. I am in
agreement with it.
I will not relate all of the details of what has been going on in
the past few days, but when we have an ethics counsellor who is
being consulted only in retrospect after decisions are made and
then, so it appears, only to help put oil on the waters, that casts
great doubt on the whole procedure. I think it is a violation of the
principle to have an ethics counsellor be responsible to, take his
directions from and answerable to the Prime Minister only.
I do agree that the Prime Minister needs all of the assistance
he can get. I believe he needs to have counsellors in the area of
ethics and certainly in the areas of operating this government.
He needs all the help he can get but could we perhaps in addition
have an ethics counsellor with the same order of independence
and accountability to Parliament as, say, the Auditor General
has in financial matters?
I think it would be eminently fair, very helpful to the
Canadian people and would certainly help all of us in this place
as members of Parliament to understand and believe the
government if there were an independent inquiry, not pushed
around by political interests but one which would be truly
independent and respond openly and honestly with the
assessment of what has happened, a recommendation of what
should be done now in order to solve this situation, what we need
to do, what rules we need to change, what legislation we need to
bring in and what people we need in order to make it work better
and more correctly.
I conclude by simply saying that this is a very, very
unfortunate blight on this Parliament. It is an area where doubt
is and has been cast on the government. We can only say that it is
important for us as soon as possible, as cleanly as possible and
as openly as possible to bring this to a conclusion and allow the
minister to resign. Let us get this done the way it ought to be
done and produce in the minds of people a genuine trust in the
government.
7416
7416
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
pick up from where I left off.
This is what some people who were involved and interested in
the issue said at the time. However, all these representations,
warnings and concerns proved to be of little help, since the
current Minister of the Environment announced that legislation
on October 6.
The amendments which are proposed by the minister and
included in Bill C-56 do no change anything to the centralizing
objectives of the federal government. The regulations made
under old Bill C-13 are nothing to reassure those who want to
invest in Quebec. Except for the construction of houses for
non-migratory birds or field shelters, an almost endless number
of projects could trigger a federal environmental assessment.
The Minister of the Environment knows full well that the current
Leader of the Opposition is not the one who drafted these
regulations.
(1350)
It is her government that decided to take control over
Quebec's economic development by subjecting to a federal
assessment projects of vital importance for our province,
including mining development as well as the expansion of
power plants and hydroelectric projects. The strategy used by
the minister to that end is both very simple and very predictable.
The minister makes arrangements with a number of provinces
to take control of fields where those provinces have not
exercised their jurisdiction. She then signs an agreement with
those provinces and there you have it: that agreement becomes
just as valid for Quebec as it is for the other provinces. This is
the automatic response of this centralizing government.
And the Liberals behave that way in other sectors as well.
Since they took office, they have constantly introduced projects
aimed at giving the federal more control over the provinces. The
big federal machine is systematically trying to gain more
control in every sector, in spite of its own problems and its
serious functional and political deficiencies.
Members sitting on the other side are pleased. They keep
singing each other's praises, they keep chanting ``Long live the
federal government; long live our strong centralizing
government; long live the big federal machine''. However, the
other side of the coin is very depressing and raises serious
concerns among people. And people are right to be worried. The
federal government is like a steamroller levelling everything
and jeopardizing vital entitlements. People fought to gain these
rights and now they have to fight again to preserve them.
In fact, with their big boss who speaks of dignity and pride,
their bread and butter supplier, the Liberals are driving a huge
steamroller over the less affluent and middle-income taxpayers.
The provinces are also getting crushed under this huge
steamroller. Naturally, the rich, the large corporations, the
financiers, all those who are for centralizing to excess find
pleasure in watching the steamroller do its job. It is a real shame,
Mr. Speaker.
Small is beautiful and people first are concepts unknown to
the people opposite. Yet, on the evening of October 25, 1993,
these same people had promised us the moon. But getting back
to the subject, let me quote them.
When they were in opposition, the Liberals opposite used to
speak against the bill on the federal environmental assessment
legislation. This will illustrate the striking transformation
elected members undergo when they move across the way. It is
tragi-comic.
Bach in those days, the present Liberal member for Winnipeg
North Centre was saying: ``We must ensure that the powers put
in place are explicit enough to make it possible to develop
environmental standards that can withstand provincial pressure.
The government is not protecting Canadians, with this bill at
least, against the aims of the provincial and federal
governments. The people have been let down in so many ways
already that, if we do it again, Parliament will score more poorly
than ever''.
That is what he thought of this bill passed by his government.
It was no good then, but now it is OK.
The Liberal member for Eglinton-Lawrence, who still sits in
this House, said on October 22, 1990, and I quote: ``It is, in fact,
legislation without teeth''. [-]The key word was ``redraft'' and
not make amendments that are going to provide acceptable frills
to this bill but to alter completely the whole dimension of this
bill. [-]One of those items refers to the fact that the compliance
component of the bill certainly is very lacking. There is absolute
indifference to the concept of making various jurisdictions of
government comply, particularly when they set up their own
review mechanisms''.
Our colleague from Egmont, Prince Edward Island, was
saying: ``Bill C-78 does not meet the legislative requirements
relating to environmental protection. Considering how
important and urgently required this legislation is, we cannot be
satisfied with such an ill-defined and toothless bill. This bill
does not meet the expectations of Canadians nor those of the
government's own environment and economy committee''. It is
so seriously flawed that it should be withdrawn or redrafted. But
I am sure he will vote for this bill.
7417
The Liberal member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso said:
``In addition, I have many concerns about the philosophy behind
the bill and about the bill's effectiveness''. As I listen to this
debate, I am convinced the government should go back to the
drawing board before it asks us to pass this bill. Many basic
aspects of this measure should be rethought, and quite frankly, I
must say the bill is far from perfect.
(1355)
The Liberal member for Nepean went even further when she
said: ``Unfortunately, the weakness of the legislation before us
makes for a sceptical public and questions the motives of us as
legislators and the seriousness of the government's intent in
enacting this resolution''.
The current Secretary of State and Liberal member for
Northumberland said, in referring to Bill C-78, and I quote:
``Mr. Mulroney's government's latest environmental legislation
is fundamentally flawed. Canada will return to the dark ages of
environmental law if Bill C-78 passes in its present form''.
The present Minister of Industry said in the House: ``The
heritage of Canadians is too important to be left only to the
provinces. I do not see even a wish to acknowledge that it has the
power to intervene in development projects which are going to
be environmentally harmful. This bill is an inadequate response
in the context of many events occurring in Canada''.
One of his cabinet colleagues, the Minister of social program
cuts, mentioned that his Liberal colleagues had been devastating
in their criticism of the flaws of this bill. He said this measure
would do no good at all. He hoped that someday, we would have
a government that would be able to negotiate a new agreement,
with responsibility shared by federal and provincial authorities.
``I think that our own creative juices should be employed for
finding out how we can share jurisdiction for environmental
assessment'', said the present minister. It is rather comical that
at the time, this minister talked about sharing responsibility,
when we consider the negative response from the provinces to
his social security reform.
Finally, the first prize goes to our beloved Minister of
Finance, and I will give you a few samples of what he said. ``Bill
C-78 is so flawed that it will weaken existing standards for
environmental assessment. The bill is lacking in all respects.''
``So we have a bill that died on the Order Paper and which the
government, with its supreme arrogance and total lack of logic,
now wants to resurrect, although the measure was unanimously
rejected by Canadians. As unrealistic governments go, this one
takes the cake. And if there is one government proving it, it
surely is the present one with its attitude towards Bill C-78.
First, this bill is based on a completely false assumption. But the
government wants to hold fast to a vision developed in the
1850s and to continue to believe we can produce goods without
worrying about waste and the frittering away of our resources,
as if it had no importance whatsoever''.
``Both the business representatives and the environmentalists
heard in committee think this bill is unacceptable''. ``When we
come to office in two years, I can assure you that no member will
ask himself if the water he drinks is harmless. This bill will
cause more problems than it will solve. It should go back to the
drawing board.''
We should not be astonished by the radical turnabouts of the
Minister of Finance. He is the wind vane of the Liberals.
That is what some governement members were saying when
they were on this side of the House. Should we believe they were
all victims of the same phenomenon and all have to get a feeling
of the wind, like the Minister of Finance, before making up their
minds?
The most serious aspect of this sudden change of mind on the
part of the Liberals is that the Minister of Environment now
praises this bill and congratulates our leader for having initiated
it in 1990. She says he is the father of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act and pats him on the back every
opportunity she gets whereas, at the time, the Liberals were
certainly not patting him on the back, quite the contrary. They
were strongly against this bill, as their statements on the subject
show. That is typical of the Liberals. They are real
weathercocks. No, worse than that, they are opportunists.
As far as this Bill C-56 is concerned, the federal minister
wants to make sure that, as much as possible, only one
environmental assessment will be made for each project. Of
course, and again this is easy to anticipate, she will fall back on
our leader to justify her bill, but we all know that the bill tabled
by our leader in 1990 has been extensively amended and that-
[English]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
7417
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 50
years ago last week the United Nations was formed. While there
have been many changes to the form of the UN its basic goal has
remained the same.
7418
Together nations of goodwill can offer assistance and help in
the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Peacekeeping is a Canadian
invention and I am ever so proud to have eight members of the
Elgin Regiment located in my riding going to war torn Bosnia to
assist the civilians who are not war lords nor combatants but
simple civilians caught in a crossfire.
Canada working through the UN has a long and distinguished
history. The United Nations, while desperately needing
rejuvenation, remains the world's best hope for conflict
resolution.
I wish the young men from my riding who have chosen to wear
the blue beret all of God's protection as they carry out this noble
task.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for the entire Catholic community of Quebec to learn
today that the archbishop of Montreal, the Most Reverend
Jean-Claude Turcotte, was named cardinal.
Monsignor Turcotte, third cardinal from Montreal in
Quebec's history, is joining the Sacred College of cardinals
responsible for electing a new pope when the Holy Father dies.
Aged 58, Monsignor Turcotte will be able to influence the
direction of the Church in Montreal and Quebec for many years
to come.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate warmly His
Eminence Cardinal Turcotte. He will no doubt manage to
convey to the higher levels of the Church's hierarchy the
concerns and values of openness, mutual help and tolerance of
Quebec society. Monsignor Turcotte's dedication to the poorest
of the poor is widely recognized.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker since 1986 thousands of cattle in Great Britain have
contracted what is commonly known as mad cow disease.
Mad cow disease has an incubation period of up to eight years
and can be detected only in its advanced stages. There is no
evidence that it can be spread by animal to animal contact, but to
be safe Agriculture Canada started banning the importation of
cattle from the U.K. in 1990.
Every year thousands of immigrants enter Canada without
being screened for HIV. Although many years can pass before
HIV carriers develop full blown AIDS, the virus is readily
detectable by a cheap, effective blood test.
Is it not in the best interests of the immigrants themselves and
their families, as well as the Canadian public, for them to know
if they are carrying the deadly HIV virus?
In light of the vote taken two hours ago on Motion No. 285, it
is now apparent that Agriculture Canada's concern for the health
of Canadian cattle is greater than the health minister's concern
for the health of the Canadian people.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a new and exciting artistic event in Atlantic Canada is
being prepared for launching in June 1995.
The town of Wolfville, Nova Scotia, in my riding of
Annapolis Valley-Hants will be host to the newly created
Atlantic Theatre Festival.
Recently I had the chance to attend a fundraising event for the
festival. I am confident it will be of great cultural benefit to the
region while providing tremendous social and economic
spinoffs.
The successful organization of the festival is an example of
what can be achieved when all levels of government and
community interest groups work in co-operation to achieve a
common goal.
I offer my congratulations to all those involved and in
particular to Michael Bawtree, the festival's founder. I know
their hard work and dedication will lead to great success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
welcome to our parliamentary interns. The Parliamentary
Internship Program is in its 25th year.
[English]
I welcome all these new young people. They are bright, hard
working, energetic and highly motivated. They have made and
continue to make a tremendous contribution to all of us. We wish
them well as they celebrate their 25th year of providing service.
I have said before and I would like to say again that I wish I
were in a position where I could facilitate that each member of
Parliament who wanted such a young man or young woman to
work with him or her would be able to do so.
[Translation]
I want to congratulate everyone who has supported them.
[English]
The private sector especially deserves a great deal of credit
because with the support of government and with the young
people it has created a program that is among the finest in
Canada and perhaps throughout the world.
I thank all these young men and women.
[Translation]
Thank you all, young people, for your assistance.
7419
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Ottawa Valley chapter of the American Society for Quality
Control is hosting its annual conference today at the Congress
Centre in Ottawa.
The American Society for Quality Control is the largest
quality control network in the world. The society is committed
to promotion of total quality in the public and private sectors of
our economy. The pursuit of total quality management will
enhance Canada's national well-being and global
competitiveness.
The session on total quality management in government will
be held from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. today. The federal sector is
represented by Harry Swain, deputy minister of industry; the
provincial sector by Premier Frank McKenna; and the municipal
sector by Mayor Brian Turnbull. The fact that Brian Turnbull,
the mayor of the city of Waterloo, is representing the municipal
sector reflects the leadership that Waterloo has offered in the
area of TQM at the municipal level.
As we strive to meet the deficit targets set by the finance
minister, we must ensure that TQM is practised by all
departments of the government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is getting lost in
studies, which all contradict one another.
Having commissioned a study on the financing of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from Nordicity Group Ltd.,
the minister, obviously unhappy with their recommendations,
commissioned another study, from Omnia Communications this
time, to conduct a critical analysis of the work done as part of
the first one.
The second study found that the first one was based on
concepts so outdated and assumptions so shaky that the results
were inevitably invalid.
Perhaps the Minister of Canadian Heritage should have
conducted the study himself to read into it whatever he wanted.
It is outrageous to spend public funds this way. How much did
these contradictory studies cost and how much will the next ones
cost?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
abuse of Canada's immigration system goes on unchecked by
the government. In fact Ottawa is to blame for much of the
abuse.
On September 9 a Fijian visitor with relatives in Vancouver
armed with a refugee lawyer claimed refugee status in Canada.
Officials did not know, however, that he needed kidney
treatment that he could not get in Fiji.
He checked into St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver. Rather than
being placed on a waiting list or being sent home for treatment,
federal officials ordered the hospital to put the man at the top of
the list for dialysis, despite the fact that six terminally ill
Canadians were bumped from the list.
This is an outrage. The refugee system seems to work best for
those who want to abuse it. In this case it could cost Canadian
lives. I demand that the minister immediately intervene, tell his
officials to reverse their decision, put the lives of Canadians
first, and prevent those with terminal illnesses from coming to
the country and claiming refugee status just to get medical
treatment.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is
evolving as a nation and it is time we reflect on our symbols of
nationhood. Canadians want to be part of the process of deciding
such a national figure as our head of state.
In cursory surveys I have conducted in public schools in
Durham, I have discovered that few of our youth can identify the
Governor General. This is partly because they or their parents
have not participated in his selection.
Of twenty-four OECD countries only three appoint their
heads of state and Canada is one of them. I note the election of
the head of state would not require a constitutional amendment
but could be done by convention. I suggest that we elect the
Governor General at the time of a general election. As an interim
step we could have the House vote on a short list prepared by the
Prime Minister.
I believe this methodology would give the position of the
Governor General more credibility and strength in our
federation.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today over 3,000 innocent
Sikhs, children, women and men, were killed in the streets of
New Delhi. Unfortunately 10 years later no one has been
convicted.
7420
To ensure that justice is done and that such violent acts against
innocent minorities are not repeated, on behalf of all Sikh
temples in Ontario I urge fellow members to join with me to
view a photo exhibition on the riots and human rights violations
in the Punjab today in the Commonwealth Room immediately
following question period.
I hope that through such efforts Canada can urge the Indian
government to bring to justice the perpetrators of the New Delhi
riots.
* * *
(1410 )
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the rash decision by Hibernia management to transfer a
large chunk of work from the Marystown shipyard to Saint John
makes no sense and has to be reversed.
That was the message that a delegation from the Burin
Peninsula and I conveyed this morning to my colleague, the
Minister of Natural Resources. I thank her for undertaking to
look into our concerns.
The proposed removal of work from Marystown has nothing
to do with a lack of expertise, as suggested by my friend from
Laurier-Sainte-Marie. On that one he is dead wrong, as I
believe he now realizes.
The good news is that the Offshore Petroleum Board is going
to review the Hibernia management decision. I am confident it
will determine what I believe to be the case, namely that the
whole affair has more to do with industry politics than it does
with deadlines. The work can be just as quickly done at
Marystown as it can be at Saint John and should be.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a
recent conference of leaders in the natural gas industry, the
Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy revealed the government's
new strategy for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Instead of reducing Canadian emissions of greenhouse gases at
the source, Canada is offering financial aid to reduce emissions
in various developing countries.
Such a strategy sends a clear message to the industrialized
countries that they do not have to act themselves to reduce their
own emissions of polluting gases. This new strategy is nothing
more or less than an admission of failure by this government,
which refuses to put on the table and analyse all concrete
measures to reduce the greenhouse effect in Canada, as it
promised to do in 1992.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker:
A certain minister of the crown
Forgets the simple rule,
That requires him to step right down
If he has been a fool.
``As heritage minister, I hang my head,
I've made a little blunder,
Please just clarify the rules a bit
Don't tear my world asunder.''
For what price do we all place
On friendship and loyalty,
In Liberal circles there is a space
For ministers who think they're royalty.
``Above the rules for mortal men,
No way will I resign,
Behaviour like this we see again,
Who cares if the backbenches whine.''
``But when we sat across the floor
It was a different story,
Now that we sit upon this side
We act just like a Tory!''
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I was fortunate to take part in a
presentation ceremony during which a cheque for $37,634.61
from the estate of Carl McNeill was presented to the
Government of Canada.
Mr. McNeill was a 100-year old resident of my riding who
was worried about the legacy of debt that had been left to the
younger generation. Mr. McNeill left specific instructions in his
will that the money be given to the federal government in order
to pay off his share of the national debt to ensure a better future
for others.
Walter and Marian MacDougald, long time friends and
neighbours of Mr. NcNeill, presented the cheque to the Minister
of Finance this morning. In addition to Mr. McNeill's donation
to the government he also left a substantial amount of money to
the University Hospital in London and the Salvation Army.
Carl McNeill set a tremendous example of the kind of
patriotism and national loyalty for which all Canadians can
strive. I thank him on behalf of all Canadians for his generosity
and concern for our great country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell you that on the weekend I took
part in a meeting of the General Council of the Liberal Party of
Canada in Quebec City. Over 450 people from all regions of
Quebec met there to celebrate the first anniversary of the Liberal
government's election and to start to prepare their strategy for
the coming referendum campaign in Quebec.
7421
The participants had an opportunity to discuss such important
issues as the reform of social programs with members of
Parliament and took part in the finance minister's pre-budget
consultation. At the end of this meeting, the party members were
delighted with the visit from their leader, the Prime Minister of
Canada, who had come to give them the signal to mobilize for
the coming referendum. It was invigorating to see all these
people, representing tens of thousands of party members in
Quebec, meet to share their determination and their faith in a
united Canada. Congratulations to the organizers and the
participants who managed to make this great gathering a real
celebration.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the word is
out. Government auditors are being asked to be more gentle and
more mild. They are being asked to emphasize the good things in
their reports and to tone down their criticisms. Why are they
doing this, you ask. It is because the Access to Information Act
now means that the people are actually getting to see these
reports.
Could it be the Liberals are afraid of being exposed? Is this
why the Prime Minister has appointed his own personal ethics
lapdog adviser, for damage control instead of a real
independent, answerable to Parliament ethics counsellor? Is this
government just as afraid as the Conservatives were that the
public will find out what is going on behind closed doors? Are
the Liberals keeping their high standing in the polls only
because they are hiding the facts?
It is high time that we get some real openness, real honesty,
real accountability in government. Canadians are beginning to
question whether it will come from this government.
_____________________________________________
7421
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in an unprecedented confession, the Prime
Minister has admitted that four more ministers-I repeat four
more-were guilty of interfering with the CRTC's
decision-making process with respect to applications for
licences.
Are we to understand that flying in the face of all precedents,
the Prime Minister decided not to ask for the resignation of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage because he realized he would
have had to get rid of four other ministers as well who also tried
to exert undue influence on the CRTC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not like that at all. In the case of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, I was advised at the beginning of the month,
as I said before, and I made my decision at that time; if I had
decided to ask for his resignation, I should have done so then and
there. The other ministers gave me the information personally,
on the weekend.
When I looked at the guidelines I gave all ministers in
November when they accepted their appointment, as I explained
in my speech earlier this afternoon, a very clear distinction was
made. Communications with judges are forbidden; the guideline
was quite clear in this respect. In the case of quasi-judicial
bodies which themselves very often invite the views of all kinds
of people before reaching a decision, we had a different rule. I
asked the ethics counsellor to look into this and make some
suggestions. I hope we will also receive some suggestions from
members of the Opposition. I heard about the situation
regarding the other ministers after I asked them to check their
files.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister felt it was appropriate to
remind his ministers that it was necessary to protect the
independence of courts of law, why did he forget to mention that
quasi-judicial bodies, which often hand down decisions that are
similar in nature, are even more vulnerable to ministerial
interference from their responsible ministers?
My question to the Prime Minister is this: This morning, he
mentioned all kinds of figures. He even referred to five or even
10 or 100 cases, but that makes no difference. How could he give
the impression that the mistake made by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage was not as serious since at least four other
ministers did the same thing? Does this mean that for him,
frequency attenuates the seriousness of the act?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I
made it clear last week that when he was informed that it was
interpreted as a supporting letter, although he as the minister did
not want to support the application, he himself took the
initiative of writing to the parties concerned and made it clear he
did not intend to support any applications before the CRTC. We
discussed that particular case because he was the Minister
responsible for the CRTC.
In the case of the other ministers, they are not responsible for
the CRTC but they are members who represented certain
interests of their constituents. And that is the dilemma I want to
resolve. I have asked Mr. Wilson to prepare some guidelines on
the subject, and I hope there will be a debate in the House so that
people can help us make the distinction, because in the case of
the CRTC, they invite people to express their views before
licences are issued. A constituent, his member and in fact
members of all parties in this House made representations, and
a few ministers, who also happen to be members made the same
kind of representations. Perhaps we will have to find a different
mechanism so that such members are able to act in the interests
of their constituents without compromising their
responsibilities as ministers.
7422
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if a minister is unable to make a distinction
between his duties as a minister and his duties as a member, he
deserves to be demoted to the rank of ordinary member.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister
whether he realizes that the mistake made by four other
ministers as revealed this morning is a serious one. And in that
case, does he not realize that what his Minister of Canadian
Heritage did is even more serious, because, in addition to being
a member of Cabinet, he is the Minister responsible for the
CRTC and as such was supposed to protect the CRTC against
undue interference from his four colleagues?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the case of the minister, he himself indicated that he
did not intend to intervene to support the application. In any
case, the letter did not indicate that he was going to do so but
simply that he wanted to be kept informed of further
developments.
As for the ministers who wrote, they did not write to the
minister. They wrote a letter, which is now a public document,
either to the secretary or the chairman of the CRTC. As soon as
such documents are received by the commission, they are put in
the public file, which any journalist or member of Parliament
may check at any time. These were support letters like the
14,000 other support letters the CRTC has received with respect
to applications during the past year.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister seems to be making a distinction between a letter
of support and any letter of representation. The letters sent by
the colleagues of the minister of heritage are indeed letters of
support, of direct interference in the affairs of the CRTC.
The Prime Minister had made a commitment to demand
irreproachable conduct from his ministers and he even made it
one of his priorities in the red book. Yet, he failed his first test
miserably. He chose to forgive and forget without first
consulting the ethics counsellor.
How can the Prime Minister, who claims to be concerned
about integrity, explain to this House that he did not personally
direct his ministers, as soon as they were sworn in, to consult the
ethics counsellor before getting into trouble like the minister of
heritage and other ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ministers are urged to consult the ethics
counsellor, who was appointed only a few months ago. The
guidelines we gave them were clear: No communications
whatsoever with the judiciary. This prohibition has been in place
for at least 15 years.
As for quasi-judicial bodies, they may be contacted in some
circumstances but only through the appropriate authorities. So
they did not address their letters to the minister but to the
commission's secretary general, who does not make any
decisions or rulings. I think that only one wrote directly to the
chairman.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wrote on behalf of a
small francophone community in his riding that would like to
receive French-language television. They are criticizing a
member for representing people who want to preserve their
language, French, in difficult circumstances, but I am of the
opinion that the minister would have failed in his duty as a
member had he not defended his French-speaking constituents.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): How nice, Mr.
Speaker! The minister of heritage wrote the Chairman of the
CRTC on behalf of a small community in his riding. Frankly,
does the Prime Minister not admit that, as this whole affair
clearly shows, the government ethics counsellor should be
accountable not to his office but to the House of Commons, to
ensure that he has some effectiveness, real power and a decisive
role?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, among the duties of the ethics counsellor is the
requirement to submit an annual report to the House of
Commons. This is part of his duties, of the responsibilities
assigned to him.
I am surprised to hear the tone of voice used by the Bloc
Quebecois, whose parent company calls people in, humiliates
them, makes them confess, forces them to change their political
convictions or fires them because they are not separatists. It is
worse than it ever was, even under Duplessis.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's
statement this afternoon. He went to great lengths to compare
the actions of members of Parliament to the actions of the
member for Laval West with regard to their inquiries into the
dealings of the CRTC. What the Prime Minister conveniently
left out is that unlike these other parliamentarians, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage is ultimately responsible for the CRTC.
The Prime Minister is actually saying it is okay for ministers to
lobby quasi-judicial bodies like the CRTC.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing this interference to
continue without taking any action on the matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said clearly last week that when the minister realized
his letter asking to be kept informed was perceived as a matter
7423
of recommendation, he wrote on his own to state clearly that he
did not want his letter to be interpreted that way.
I said that his letter was an honest mistake on behalf of one of
his constituents. I would have preferred that it had not been
written, but I recognize that nobody is absolutely perfect.
I said that we needed better guidelines. The guidelines are
very clear for ministers calling judges. It is completely and
clearly described. You cannot do it. That rule has applied to all
ministers for at least 10 or 15 years. In the case of quasi-judicial
bodies, because they are different and relate to a lot of different
cases, we gave more flexibility.
In the case of the CRTC, the CRTC invites people to write to it
to give their opinion about who should or should not get a
licence. The CRTC received 15,000 such letters last year, five
from ministers.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would not say it was an honest mistake. I would
say it was a dumb mistake because the minister was in charge of
the CRTC.
The Prime Minister's rhetoric this afternoon would hold more
weight had he fired the Minister of Canadian Heritage before
reworking the ministerial code of conduct. As it now stands the
Prime Minister's actions smack of political expediency and
desperation.
Will the Prime Minister appoint a truly independent ethics
counsellor so that existing preferential rules will be followed
and will not have to be revised every time one of his cabinet
ministers gets into trouble?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said earlier that the ethics counsellor reports to the
House once a year.
There is a principle which is very clear in my mind: At the end
of the day whatever advisers I have around me, whatever
counsel I receive about a decision, I have to take the
responsibility. I have taken the responsibility. When the
minister realized he had made a mistake he tried to correct the
mistake on his own.
An hon. member: Six months later.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It was not six months after
that. The problem was that he did not realize it had been
construed like that until the end of September and he acted
immediately. I said I would check the guidelines and I realized
the guidelines needed improvement. I hope the hon. member
will help us find the proper balance. It is the Reform Party which
states that if members of Parliament do not do their jobs
properly they should be recalled. This is great. They do not want
members of Parliament who are ministers not to do their jobs as
members of Parliament.
(1430)
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we are asking the Prime Minister to be responsible.
He is responsible for his ministers and we are asking him to take
that responsibility seriously and ask for the resignation.
The current guidelines for ministers are common sense. A
minister should not be seen to be giving preferential treatment to
his or her friends and should not use this influence for personal
or political gain. It is as simple as that.
Will the Prime Minister put the brakes on a damage control
machine, muzzle his strategist and do the honourable and
responsible thing and demand the resignation of the minister of
heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I said no and this week I repeat, no.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister was informed as early as October 1 of the
mistake made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and decided
to forget about it and not seek the advice of his ethics counsellor,
Mr. Howard Wilson. The government consulted Mr. Wilson only
at the very last moment, that is last Thursday, when the
minister's mistake became public knowledge.
Are we to understand that, on October 1, the Prime Minister
had already decided to keep his heritage minister, without
having consulted his ethics counsellor?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only repeat what I said last week, namely that I
was informed of the issue, I examined it and I presumed that
everyone concerned had been consulted before a
recommendation was made to me by the Privy Council Office.
I assumed that Mr. Wilson had been consulted when, in fact,
he had not. However, this does not change the nature of the
decision. I then decided that, as the minister had himself taken
action to correct the situation, and even though I was not
pleased, he could continue to fulfill his role as minister. I told
the truth last week when I said that I thought Mr. Wilson had
been consulted even though this was not the case. I did talk to
him on the phone afterwards and he agreed with me. At least,
what he told me did not make me change my mind.
In any case, ultimately I am the one who is responsible. I
cannot share that responsibility with anyone: I am the Prime
Minister of Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we heard a version last week and in the version that
he is giving now the Prime Minister says that he talked on the
phone to Mr. Wilson.
7424
What did Mr. Wilson say to the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry. I did not express myself clearly. I asked my
staff-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I talked several times to Mr.
Wilson since then. At that time, however, I asked my staff: ``Did
you phone?'' They said: ``No.'' I then replied: ``Phone him''.
When I rose in this House, my staff had provided me with
information on Mr. Wilson's opinion. Later, over the weekend, I
had an opportunity to talk to him and discuss how to proceed in
the future. This is what we did.
Mr. Bouchard: He is contradicting himself!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): No, I am not contradicting
myself at all. I said that I talked to Mr. Wilson over the weekend.
And when I rose in this House, as I said last week, I had asked-
Mr. Bouchard: You are confused!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): If you listen you will not be
confused.
So, Mr. Wilson's opinion was given to me, and it was to the
effect that this was acceptable.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
My office learned in discussions this morning with the
secretary general of the CRTC, and I quote Mr. Darling: ``The
commissioners on the subcommittee may have been influenced
by the minister's letter''.
When the Prime Minister decided to support the actions of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage was he aware that the secretary
general of the CRTC believed that the minister's letter may have
influenced the process?
(1435 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, probably not in this case because the application was
denied.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that answer is obvious because this whole process has been
tainted. They had no other choice.
The Prime Minister even today has used the minister's second
letter of September 30 as a defence that there was no
intervention and that nothing was done wrong. We also know
now why this second letter was missing from the CRTC file.
The secretary general of the CRTC says that the second letter
was never put in the file because it came too late to be
considered by the CRTC. This means that when the CRTC made
its decision it was always under the impression that the minister
had intervened and it remained so.
Given this new information, how can the Prime Minister
possibly continue to defend the integrity of his minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is proof that the first letter had no effect at all.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister said that he had
consulted the ethics counsellor. Last Friday, we learned that the
ethics counsellor was only consulted on Thursday morning, only
a few minutes or a couple of hours before the speech by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Today we are told that the Prime Minister talked to his ethics
counsellor, then the Prime Minister claimed that he did not
express himself well and that, in fact, he had not talked to the
ethics counsellor. If I understand correctly, the Prime Minister's
advisors talked to the ethics counsellor.
I would like to know what the Prime Minister's advisors told
him of the discussion they had with the ethics counsellor. Have I
made myself clear enough?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said is that my office contacted the ethics
counsellor. When I arrived in the House of Commons, we had
the ethics counsellor's advice. This is what I said.
His advice was given to me personally, and I said in this
House that there were no grounds in the opinion he gave to make
me change my mind. Over the week-end, I had the opportunity
to talk with the ethics counsellor about what we should be doing
in the future.
To avoid further controversy, for the time being, the ministers
will have to send their recommendations to the ethics counsellor
who will decide whether or not it is appropriate to send them to
the various agencies concerned, while keeping in mind that
every minister is also the elected representative of around
100,000 citizens.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said earlier that the ethics
counsellor agreed with him, and then stopped. Since he did not
really agree, I presume-we have to guess-the Prime Minister
added: There were no grounds in the opinion he gave to make me
change my mind.
It might be because his opinion was different from that of the
Prime Minister. We must be able to form our own opinion and
the only way we can do so is for the Prime Minister to tell us,
7425
today, what was the message he received from his ethics
counsellor.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assumed full responsibility for the decision and I have
nothing to add. I decided that the minister had corrected the
situation as best he could at the end of September or the
beginning of October, I accepted his explanations and I chose to
keep him in the Cabinet.
This is my responsibility, not the responsibility of any
counsellor in the government. I cannot share that responsibility
with anyone.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this rhetoric
about restoring integrity to government is beginning to sound a
little hollow.
Perhaps this government is taking a page out of Mackenzie's
book when he wrote: ``Integrity is necessary but not necessarily
integrity''. The Prime Minister said, the red book proclaims, and
all the Liberal candidates were talking about it, ``open
government will be the watchword of the Liberal program''.
(1440)
If the Prime Minister really believes in and is promoting an
open government, why did he not inform this House when he
first became aware of the heritage minister's letter to the CRTC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not feel it was necessary. The letter was a public
letter. The letter was in a file that everybody could consult.
There was nothing secret about it. You could go and check this
application. The minister's letter was the same as that of
anybody else who had written representations in the same file.
The CRTC welcomes opinion from citizens. The letter from the
minister was with the pile of letters that were in the file. It was a
public document. I did not feel I was obliged to reveal anything
that in theory was known by the public.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
observing here a tennis or ping pong game, back and forth, of
responsibility. No one is willing to accept it. The minister does
something and does not accept responsibility. The Prime
Minister has a responsibility and he is not accepting it.
How is this Prime Ministerial responsibility defined? What
are the responsibilities? Where does the buck stop? Are we
going to get it there or there?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am have been saying for five days that the buck is
stopping here. Right here. That is all.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what is going on here is extremely serious. We heard from the
Prime Minister himself that there is profound disagreement
between him and his ethics counsellor.
Would the Prime Minister tell us what recommendation the
ethics counsellor has made to him in relation to the actions of the
Canadian heritage minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those are communications between the ethics
counsellor and myself. I said in this House that he told me
nothing that could influence me to change the decision I had
taken previously.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are
we to understand from the answer, or rather the lack of answer,
from the Prime Minister that the ethics counsellor did advise
him either to ask for the Canadian heritage minister's
resignation or to force him to leave Cabinet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that nothing he told me would lead me to
change my mind. The responsibility belongs to the Prime
Minister in any case, and no matter what advice is given to the
Prime Minister, he is the one who decides and in this case he did
take his responsibilities.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Prime Minister said that initially he had contacted the
ethics councillor. Then he changed his story and said that
someone on his staff had contacted the ethics counsellor but
only at the last moment.
Can the Prime Minister tell us who exactly contacted the
ethics counsellor and will he provide the House with a transcript
of those conversations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not taping conversations. There is no tape of any
conversation.
I said last week that the commissioner had been consulted. He
has been consulted. That is all and I made the decision. That is
what I told you last week. It is what I am telling you today and it
is what I will say next week if you ask me a question.
(1445)
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would ask you once again
please to direct all your comments through the Chair.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess it is kind of like the ethics guidelines themselves. They are
not written down either.
I listened to the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon
very carefully but found nothing in it to assure Canadians that
this will not happen again. The ethics lapdog is still subject to
the whims of the Prime Minister's office.
7426
Will the Prime Minister now do what he should have done in
his statement and replace the current ethics counsellor with an
independent one responsible to Parliament and not the Prime
Minister's office?
Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor will make a report to the House of
Commons once a year but there is a reality. The only person
responsible to the nation for the ministers cannot be anybody but
the Prime Minister of Canada.
I want to tell the hon. member that I will never run away from
my responsibilities. I am responsible for the integrity of the
cabinet and I will take all the steps necessary to make sure that
there is integrity.
All of us have a problem. We have to make sure that ministers
can at the same time respect the commitment they have made at
the time of their election to represent their constituents well
while they are ministers. This is the problem we are debating at
this time.
I want to have the views of members of Parliament on this
issue. We cannot deny the people living in the riding of a
minister adequate representation here in Ottawa as these
ministers promised when they sought their support at the time of
the election.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Canadians who pay their taxes are justifiably concerned when
they hear about Canadians who are able to escape taxation either
through the underground economy or loopholes of one sort or
another.
What is the Minister of National Revenue doing right now
about Canadians who it appears do not pay their fair share of
taxes?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member we have
responded dramatically with respect to the underground
economy and those Canadians who do not pay their fair share of
taxes because they evade the existing tax system.
On Friday last I signed an agreement with the province of
Ontario, the largest single provincial economy, to combine our
efforts against the underground economy. We have done this
with seven other provinces. We have new agreements with
virtually all the business and professional associations so we
can better combat the underground economy.
As a result of these measures we have pulled in many
hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue which was
not expected by the previous government.
I can assure you also, Mr. Speaker, that because of the success
of the 1,200 auditors we have put into this area we will be
redoubling our efforts in this regard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister
systematically refuses to tell us the ethics counsellor's opinion,
as transmitted to him by his officials.
Is it not true that the ethics counsellor gave a different opinion
from that of the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said several times that the counsellor's opinion
was transmitted to me and that nothing forced me to change my
mind.
In any case, whatever opinion he could have given me, the
ultimate responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. I took my
responsibilities because the minister had acted as quickly as
possible in a situation which, in my opinion, was not fatal,
because he had not made any recommendation.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what exactly did the ethics counsellor say?
(1450)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor always tells the Prime Minister
that the latter must take his responsibilities, which he did.
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On October 27 the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated he
was approached by a constituent, and I quote from Hansard,
page 7273:
-to write a letter drawing the attention of the CRTC to his application for a
radio licence.
The constituent, Mr. Daniilidis, has stated in conversations
with Reform Party research staff that he never asked the
minister to write a letter on his behalf.
Can the Prime Minister explain this contradiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he certainly went to visit the minister. Perhaps they
discussed the weather. Perhaps they discussed the application,
and the minister wrote a letter asking for information on this
file.
7427
I was not there. I was not privy to the conversation. However I
know the minister was visited by his constituent and that lead to
the letter that is the object of this discussion.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister then is suggesting that the
constituent in fact did ask for a letter. That is very difficult to
understand.
Will the Prime Minister initiate a private and independent
investigation into this whole affair so we can finally get to the
bottom of it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a public document. The hon. member should just
go to the CRTC and look at the file. It is public. We do not need
an investigation.
It looks like the research group of the Reform Party is not very
good.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister refuses to inform the House on the exact content
of the recommendation of the ethics counsellor. Since this is an
issue of integrity and public ethics, will the Prime Minister
admit that it is now in the public domain?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Of
course, Mr. Speaker. It is in the newspapers and in Hansard.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister not realize that he jeopardizes his own integrity
by hiding the content of that conversation and does he not
realize that he should reveal the facts as he knows them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry but the Leader of the Opposition said earlier
that he did not question the integrity of the Prime Minister and I
said that the issue was in the public domain. We have discussed
that. The letter was written by the minister and has been made
public. The second letter that was sent has also been published. I
have tabled that letter in the House of Commons and the minister
has explained the situation to the House. How could we possibly
be more open? The counsellors advise the Prime Minister; the
advice they give me is for me alone, they are not for the public; I
am the one who must make the decision.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said today that the minister of
heritage's letter did not influence the CRTC but on the other
hand the secretary general of the CRTC stated that it may have
interfered with their decision.
How does the Prime Minister explain this discrepancy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it had a lot of influence. The application was denied.
The minister did not recommend but if you claim he did, his
letter was not of great weight because the applicant did not
receive the green light from the CRTC.
I do not know why you can make an argument like that.
(1455 )
The Speaker: I would once again ask you to please address all
of your comments to the Chair. It makes it a lot easier for us.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this whole situation surely is a comedy of errors. A
minister of the crown has obviously breached the public trust
and the Prime Minister gives him a Laurel and Hardy handshake.
Given that the Prime Minister will not make public what the
ethics counsellor advised, how do we know there is not a
discrepancy here as well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained 10 times that the ethics counsellor gave
advice to the Prime Minister and other advisers. The Prime
Minister cannot get up in the House and say: ``I made that
decision, but it is not my fault; it is the fault of my advisers.''
Everyone will laugh.
At the end of the day the Prime Minister is responsible and he
is the one who decides. That is exactly what I have done. Nobody
can accuse me of running away from my responsibilities. I do
not want to blame anybody else. I take full responsibility.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister said that the eligibility criteria for the Program
for Older Worker Adjustment are in part arbitrary. An older
worker in need will only receive benefits if he was laid off along
with several other workers. Under some circumstances, it could
be along with a hundred other workers or so.
Does the minister intend to address the needs of the older
workers within his social reform?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for the question.
As the member knows because he read the paper, there are at
least four or five references to the way in which we would like to
improve the programs for older workers. Unfortunately some
people in the House have not read the document as yet and
therefore are not fully aware of the proposals that have been
made.
7428
Furthermore, we have established in New Brunswick a job
core program which is specifically designed as a strategic
initiative to deal with the problem of older workers. Evaluating
that project will determine whether it has application across the
country, providing for a major area of redevelopment for older
workers.
In reference to the specific proposal made by the hon.
member, I can report to him that applications made by about 75
per cent of all laid off workers who apply in the province of
Quebec under the pilot program are accepted, which is the
highest level of acceptance anywhere in the country. Last year
we had bought close to $200 million worth of annuities for older
workers of Quebec.
It shows that the program is working effectively. As it is a
federal-provincial program and we need the co-operation of the
provincial government, it is going to be very important that we
have the co-operation of the Quebec government to assist us in
social reform, so we can have a much better older workers
program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will remember that, before
appointing the ethics counsellor, he consulted with the leaders
of all the parties represented in this House and requested their
unanimous consent before making this appointment.
In this context, does he not realize that the advice of the ethics
counsellor is not for his sole benefit, but for that of the House as
a whole and, as such, is of the public domain? I would therefore
ask him to show the transparency expected of him and tell us
what the ethics counsellor, being the provider of enlightened and
public advice that he is, suggested he should do in such cases.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I consulted the Leader of the Official Opposition and
the Leader of the Reform Party before appointing Mr. Wilson, to
give them the assurance that he would fulfil his duties properly.
His job is to advise the Prime Minister and the ministers, in their
capacity as ministers, as well as members of Parliament,
lobbyists and anyone in a situation of conflict of interest. When
he advises me on how to run Cabinet, it is to help me make a
decision as Prime Minister. He is an honourable man and, I
repeat, when his opinion was reported to me, it did not make me
change my opinion. I am pleased that the hon. member reminded
the House of Commons that, before his appointment, the Leader
of the Opposition and the Leader of the Reform Party,
considered he was a man of sound judgement and integrity and
that he had done his job well.
(1500)
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
7428
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the Government's response to
17 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members
that November 1 marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of
the Conference on International Civil Aviation to be held at
Chicago, Illinois.
It was 50 years ago tomorrow that representatives from 52
countries, including Canada, met to map the future of
international civil aviation. Their deliberations led to the
signing on December 7, 1944 of the multilateral convention on
international civil aviation and the eventual selection of
Montreal as headquarters for the newly created International
Civil Aviation Organization.
[Translation]
The International Civil Aviation Organization is a United
Nations specialized agency responsible for establishing
international standards, recommended practices and procedures
covering the technical, economic and legal aspects of
international civil aviation operations. The organization's
membership is made up of 183 contracting states.
November 1st is not only a proud day in the history of civil
aviation; it is also a proud day for Canada. The International
Civil Aviation Organization is the only UN agency with
headquarters in Canada.
We were chosen as the home for this important agency
because of our instrumental role at the Chicago Conference.
Canada continues in its leadership role in civil aviation and
remains a strong supporter of the International Civil Aviation
Organization.
[English]
We salute those who gathered at Chicago five decades ago in
the closing days of the second world war. In particular, I would
7429
like to recognize three distinguished Canadians who took part in
those deliberations and who are still with us today.
Former Ambassador Escott Reid helped draft the conference
documents. He now lives near Toronto.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Fournier, the youngest of the Canadian delegates to
the Chicago Conference, now lives in Montreal.
[English]
Mr. Stanislav Krejcik was a member of the Czechoslovakian
delegation. He is now a Canadian citizen living in the province
of Alberta.
[Translation]
Canadians know firsthand the paramount importance that
safe, regular, efficient and economical air transportation plays
in building communities, and in contributing to development
and economic well-being. We are grateful to the International
Civil Aviation Organization for helping to ensure the safety and
security of air transportation worldwide.
(1505)
Commemorative activities, including flag raisings at airports
across the country, will mark tomorrow's anniversary of the
opening of the Chicago conference. And in December, in
Montreal, we will hold celebrations marking the signing of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation.
[English]
It can only be hoped that the same spirit of mutual
understanding and co-operation that has made the International
Civil Aviation Organization so successful for over 50 years will
continue.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the
International Civil Aviation Organization, commonly known as
the ICAO.
Quebecers are particularly proud that this important UN
organization chose Montreal and the Province of Quebec for
their administrative headquarters in 1944.
In 1944, air transport was marginal with only 9 million
passengers. Flying has now become a vital means of
transportation for the global economy. Every year, over 1.2
billion passengers fly in total safety. Air transport remains the
safest means of transportation, an achievement we owe in large
part to the ICAO. I wish to let this organization know how
grateful I am for this.
Nobody can predict what flying will be like in 50 years. The
number of passengers will certainly continue to increase, and
technological progress will bring dramatic changes to this mode
of transport. I am convinced that the ICAO will be up to the
challenges of tomorrow, just as it was able to meet those of the
past.
The ICAO is a perfect example of what sovereign nations
around the globe can do when they co-operate. Through the
ICAO, 183 member states managed to put in place a safe air
transport system for their people. It is a major achievement.
Given the importance of flying as today's and tomorrow's
mode of transport, it is more critical than ever to ensure its
safety. Collaboration and co-operation among the member
states will remain paramount.
In closing, I want to thank and congratulate all those who
contributed to the creation and development of the ICAO in the
first 50 years of its existence. I would like to extend to this
organization my best wishes for continued success in the next 50
years.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to rise today to thank the hon. Minister of
Transport for bringing the 50th anniversary of the opening of the
Conference on International Civil Aviation to the attention of
this House.
In the absence of our critic for transport, the member for
Kootenay West-Revelstoke, I too would like to extend the best
wishes of my party to former Ambassador Reid, Monsieur Jean
Fournier, and Mr. Stanislav Krejcik.
We as Canadians can be proud of the fact that the International
Civil Aviation Organization is located in Montreal. We should
never take for granted the high esteem in which our country is
held in these matters.
International Civil Aviation Organization standards, more
commonly known as ICAO standards, affect safety and security
standards even at airports serving many of our smaller
communities. These same airports are now in the process of
being transferred from the federal government to local
authorities and in some cases even to private operations. I hope
the minister will ensure that reasonable standards are
maintained both at privatized airports and in the potentially
privatized air navigation system, while also ensuring that the
system does not become overly regulated with bureaucratic
policies.
I am sure that ICAO will continue to lead the way to ensuring
safe international standards throughout the aviation world and
that other organizations, both governmental and private, will
recognize the need and capabilities of countries to work together
to resolve items of conflict in other areas.
(1510 )
On a personal note, all of us in this House, especially those of
us from ridings that are basically only accessible by air realize
the importance of safe air travel.
7430
I wish to congratulate the International Civil Aviation
Organization for its fine work on behalf of all of us. I wish it well
in the future.
* * *
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present to the House in both official
languages the report of the special joint committee of the House
of Commons and the Senate on the review of Canada's defence
policy.
This is the first comprehensive parliamentary review of
defence policy in the history of Canada. Here we present our
conclusions on the principles, purposes and objectives that
should guide Canada in setting defence policy.
We believe the Canadian Armed Forces is a national
institution we can all be proud of because of its past record. As
well, it is of vital importance in the future to Canada's position
as a world trading nation given our strong interests in peace and
stability.
We have made recommendation to shape a defence policy that
reflects the balance between what Canadians would like to do
and what we can afford.
I would like to thank the close to 300 witnesses who appeared
before us over the last seven months and those who sent us briefs
and suggestions. I also want to thank those members of
Parliament of all parties who worked so diligently and so
co-operatively to produce this report. There was a great deal of
consensus among us and I am confident this report will stand the
test of time.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to
continue what the hon. member just said, I would add that the
Bloc Quebecois also participated in this review of defence
policy and the Bloc submitted a dissenting report on some
points, which is in the same book.
[English]
Mr. Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if
we could seek the unanimous consent of the House to hear
representation from the Reform Party on the special joint
committee report by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the proposal of the hon. member for Labrador. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my Reform colleague and I being new to Parliament
had not previously participated in any parliamentary
committees.
We consider it a great privilege and also a lot of work to
proceed with this study. It is my impression that the members of
the committee were very apolitical in the approach to the studies
that we conducted.
As the member for Labrador has said, we heard from
witnesses from Victoria to St. John's and from NATO to Zagreb.
The results of our study are that we have taken into account the
defence needs of Canada. We have tried to reconcile that with
the fiscal responsibility that we have to abide by. I am hoping
that the outcome will find favour with most people.
Those who are looking for a revolutionary report will be
disappointed. However I think when they look at the report and
examine it, they will find that it is logical, it is common sense
and it will support Canada in our defence needs through the
beginning of the next century.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the municipal council of Plessisville, I am pleased to
present a petition with 60 signatures.
(1515)
The petitioners want the Canadian government to inform the
municipal council of Plessisville before procedural changes that
would affect the local employment level are made. Also, these
petitioners ask that equitable home mail delivery service be
maintained for all residents of Plessisville.
The residents of Gérin-Lajoie, Trudel and Dupont streets
must be treated fairly. They are not second-class citizens and
are therefore entitled to the same postal service as other
residents of the town.
I am pleased to support these users of the postal service and
Mayor Jacques Martineau of Plessiville, in the riding of
Frontenac.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present a petition from constituents in the
communities of Cache Creek, Ashcroft, Clinton, Spences
Bridge and Hanceville, British Columbia.
My constituents call upon the government not to amend the
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 homosexuality.
They also call upon the government not to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination.
7431
I concur with these petitioners.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to present to Parliament two separate
petitions signed by constituents in my riding of Red Deer.
With respect to the first petition the citizens express their
disapproval to the government regarding any privileges
extended to same sex relationships.
The petitioners humbly pray and request that Parliament not
amend human rights code, the Human Rights Act or the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to
the second petition, the citizens express their sentiments and
great concern with respect to the aiding or abetting of suicide,
active or passive euthanasia.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and request that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from seniors in my riding who point out that
much of what we have in Canada today is in great part as the
result of their sacrifices and what they have contributed to
society.
They point out that they are growing in numbers. As they
grow in numbers programs such as health and pensions et cetera
will be under additional stress. They want to accentuate the fact
that they need comfortable housing, social and community
involvement, as well as affordable medical care.
These petitioners on behalf of seniors want to underline that
whenever governments are changing programs or making any
decisions, they should keep in mind the contribution seniors
have made to this country.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of my constituents in Provencher to present two
petitions. The first is from the Ukrainian Catholic Women's
League.
They respectfully pray that Parliament continue to reject
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada and that the
present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of
Canada which forbids the counselling, procuring, aiding or
abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously
and that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that
would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is on behalf of a church in Steinbach, a
community I represent.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, 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 amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions. The first calls upon Parliament to recognize
the public threat of dangerous offenders and to amend the
Criminal Code to have such offenders detained indefinitely at
warrant expiry when it is believed that they may cause serious
physical, psychological harm or death to another person.
This petition is signed by people from all across southern
Ontario.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has to do with the sanctity of life.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
(1520 )
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present two petitions, the first one on
behalf of Dr. Eron Horton and Glen Reist of the Mississauga
Gospel Temple in my riding. The second one was given to me by
Dr. Lester Laird, also a constituent 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 for same sex relationships or homosexuality.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
7432
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7432
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Prior to resuming debate I
wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
33(2)(b) because of the two ministerial statements Government
Orders will be extended by 53 minutes.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today.
As a member of Parliament and Reform critic for the
environment I am pleased to be able to serve as a check on
government legislation to be assured that it is in the best interest
of all Canadians and to ensure the continued protection of our
environment.
As opposition critic it is not my intention to simply criticize
for the sake of being critical. I will support legislation that is in
the best interest of the environment and ensure this government
is taking the proper steps toward protecting the environment
with a fair balance between the economy and the environment.
However if these factors are not taken into account I will oppose
the initiative and offer constructive criticism.
During the first year of this 35th Parliament the government
has been slow to move on many issues, including the
environment. There has been of late a lot of talk and
grandstanding but not a great deal of action.
I am pleased with the direction of this bill. It is a good start.
However there is a great deal of work to be done in the area of
environmental assessment. To summarize we need to be
proactive and not reactive in our approach to the environment.
Rather than cleaning up our mistakes after the fact we must take
steps to prevent environmental damage before it occurs. We
must get out of the wait and see what happens approach and
begin to look into the future to make constructive and bold
moves now.
As members of Parliament we must lead by example and do
all that we can to protect what is vitally important to the future
of Canadians, our own environment. We must ensure that the
environment that we leave to our children is as good or in better
condition than that which we inherited.
Many will recognize that this is the Brundtland definition of
sustainable development and in my view this is the direction in
which we should be heading. We must protect our land and our
resources to ensure that our children have clean water,
sustainable forests and unpolluted crop land. We need to ensure
that when we build a bridge, a hydroelectric plant or a landfill
that it does not harm the environment, that it does not affect our
air, our waterways or our lands.
One way to ensure that projects are safe for the environment is
to systematically identify potential environmental
consequences of projects before they are started. Unwanted
environmental impacts on people, their way of life and their
livelihood must be minimized. Environmental assessment
attempts to predict the effects of potential environmental
proposals prior to their becoming a reality.
To give some historical perspective, I would like to give some
background on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The federal government has used environmental assessment
since 1974 to predict the potential effects of proposed projects
under federal government jurisdiction. Previous federal
guidelines under the environmental assessment and review
process had been drafted originally as guidelines. These
guidelines were only recently elevated to the status of federal
regulation.
(1525)
The federal role in environmental assessment has only
recently expanded to assess projects that have been approved by
provincial governments taking place on provincial lands. Under
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, assessments are
applied to all proposals involving federal money, land or
responsibility, projects for which the federal government holds
decision making authority. Federal Court of Appeal decisions on
the Rafferty-Alameda dam in Saskatchewan and on the Oldman
River in Alberta confirmed this point.
When a provincial assessment has been conducted, every
project, decision or responsibility requires an environmental
assessment where some federal concerns have not been dealt
with or where the federal and provincial processes are not on an
equal footing.
Recently we have seen a number of projects challenged on the
grounds that they involve federal jurisdiction. There are
currently four types of environmental assessment to address
different projects and circumstances. These four types, as the
minister stated earlier, include screening, comprehensive study,
mediation and review by an independent panel.
The first two, screening and comprehensive study, are the
most preliminary and account for approximately 30,000
assessments per year or 99 per cent of all federal projects
assessed. Screening is usually applied to small scale projects
that are quite straightforward. Comprehensive study is usually
applied to larger scale, environmentally sensitive projects.
7433
Mediation is the third type and is a voluntary approach to
environmental assessment by which an impartial mediator is
appointed by the environment minister to help parties resolve
issues surrounding projects. It is only used when interested
parties are few and consensus is possible.
Finally, when a project requires further evaluation it is
referred to the Minister of the Environment for review by an
independent public panel. This is the highest form of review. It
is usually applied to contentious projects. It is the type we read
about in the newspapers. It is important for us to note here that
these contentious projects amount to less than 1 per cent of the
total projects assessed.
These four different evaluation processes provide a range of
assessments to meet different project needs. However, what is a
cause for concern is the fact that it is up to the discretion of the
Minister of the Environment whether he or she may call a public
review. What about the other side? What if the minister does not
call for a review when there is pressure to call for one? There
appears to be a fair amount of discretion regarding the
minister's option to simply ignore or postpone a review.
I have concerns regarding the amount of ministerial
discretion allowed in the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. For example, the minister may or may not call for a review.
The minister appoints the mediator or panel members. The
minister may allow another federal process to be substituted for
an environmental review and, finally, rather than hire an
impartial person to fill the head position of the new agency
created by the act, the minister fills this position through
appointment, another potential source of patronage.
Another concern I have is how this bill will apply to First
Nations. I trust the government will have the common sense to
ensure that our environmental assessment laws are applicable to
all in Canada, to all Canadians. Whether or not this will be the
case is presently unclear.
It appears that First Nations may be exempt from this law as it
is unclear where native self-government fits into this
legislation. We cannot have one set of standards for most of the
country and another set for the remainder. What occurs in one
area of the country impacts all Canadians. The laws should
protect all equally.
By removing First Nations from federal jurisdiction in
environmental assessment we are doing not only a disservice to
the natives but a disservice to all Canadians, present and future
generations.
Up to this point I have been talking about Canadian
environment assessment as a whole. Bill C-56 deals more
specifically with three proposed amendments to the act. I would
now like to deal with each in turn.
The first amendment proposed in this bill is to amend the act
so that intervener funding for public participation in the review
process is guaranteed. I support this amendment as it
encourages increased public participation.
(1530)
The Reform Party strongly encourages public involvement in
government decision making as this allows the opportunity for
the public to have direct input into environmental decisions
affecting their lives. However this amendment must be more
clearly defined as funding is not detailed in the bill. It is my
view that funds should come from existing environmental
department budgets and that the budget should not be expanded
simply to satisfy the amendment.
This type of funding can easily be subject to abuse. Therefore
it requires clear guidelines with minimum and maximum
amounts established. Distribution of funds must be fair,
equitable and reasonable.
In terms of accountability, recipients of funding must have
clear guidelines to prevent misuse of funds and to ensure
taxpayers' dollars realize maximum benefit. This is vitally
important at a time when public funds are becoming much
harder to come by and the public is demanding the best use of
their ever decreasing tax dollar.
There are many stakeholders in the environment decision
making process including federal and provincial governments,
the private sector and, most important, the public at large.
Ordinary Canadians are the most directly affected by the
environmental impact of projects. For this reason intervener
funding is an important tool and resource as it enables
Canadians to participate in the process.
The second amendment to the act seeks to ensure that
responses to public panel recommendations must be decided by
cabinet. This means that decisions to act or to reject panel
recommendations are not made solely by the Minister of the
Environment but by cabinet as a whole. This allows for a more
democratic system of accounting because rather than one person
holding all the cards, all members of cabinet can debate and vote
on the issue. It also reduces the likelihood that environmental
decisions will be subject to the whims of any individual minister
as government as a whole is given authority on whether or not to
carry through on these panel recommendations.
The third and final amendment to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act proposed in the bill amends
subsection 24 by proposing to limit the number of assessments
to one federal assessment per project. This amendment ensures
that environmental assessments relating to the same project but
involving more than one responsible authority, for example
fisheries and industry, are co-ordinated to avoid duplication.
Normally when a project is proposed an assessment would be
triggered immediately. For example, building a bridge normally
triggers several assessments by different departments. In the
past each department would conduct its own review, resulting in
7434
costly overlap, confusion, duplication and a waste of taxpayers'
dollars.
One federal assessment per project will reduce costly and
time consuming situations such as the Oldman River dam
project in Alberta. The overlapping and conflicting assessments
of the Oldman River resulted in numerous court battles and
many delays, all at great expense to the taxpayer. The federal
government assessment was forced through the courts while the
province refused to participate. It was simply an impossible
situation.
Canadians cannot afford to have various departments within
government conducting reviews over and over again. Such
extravagant spending as displayed by former governments is
clearly not acceptable today. Canadians are demanding one
single comprehensive approach to environmental assessment.
One federal assessment per project is clearly a step in the right
direction. However it is not enough to have one federal
environmental assessment. We need to have one environmental
assessment, period; not one federal assessment followed by a
similar provincial assessment.
While we may reduce the number of federal assessments we
still need to address the fact that federal efforts are duplicated by
the provinces. The federal government cannot legislate one
assessment within Canada because it can only legislate where it
has jurisdiction. The provinces also have environmental
jurisdiction. The fact remains that with two levels of
environmental assessment there is simply too much duplication,
overlap, confusion and conflict.
We are still faced with the reality that federal assessments and
provincial assessments may conflict. Even if the two
assessments agree, a second one is clearly unproductive. The
funds going to the second assessment would be better utilized
elsewhere.
We need a common set of environmental standards and goals
for both federal and provincial levels of government.
(1535)
We require federal-provincial harmonization agreements
worked out and signed by the provinces and the federal
government. In this way we will have one set of rules and truly
one joint assessment per project.
It is not enough for the government to say that it is working
toward federal-provincial harmonization agreements. We have
had enough talk. Now we need action. These agreements must be
worked out and signed immediately.
At present there is only one federal-provincial harmonization
agreement in place and that is with Alberta. There are nine other
provinces that still need to sign on as well as the ambiguity with
native self-government ironed out.
It is clearly the time for federal and provincial governments to
begin to work together on environmental matters. It is important
that we avoid turf wars between the two levels of government
and aim toward common goals because the environment clearly
has no borders. When it comes to the environment we must put
our differences aside for the common good of all Canadians for
this generation and generations to come.
Environmental protection should not be viewed, as with some
members of the official opposition, as meddling in someone
else's area of jurisdiction. Environmental degradation affects
the country as a whole. When one area of the country is faced
with severe depletion of fish stocks or another area prospers
from its forest industry, the effects ripple throughout the
country.
When it comes to environmental concerns, all Canadians are
environmentalists as are all members within the House. We may
differ on how to attain various environmental goals but
protection of our environment is common to all of us.
The question is not whether we should base our legislation on
federal or provincial regulation but how best the two parties can
satisfy their concerns and come up with one comprehensive set
of regulations.
Environmental assessment should be conducted jointly with
the provinces where there is an overlap in jurisdiction. When a
federal and provincial assessment has been triggered, both
levels of government should work together to assess the project
rather than each other doing their own study. Clearly this cannot
and will not happen without one set of standards and a common
goal should be shared by both parties.
It is my hope and expectation that the minister has taken the
effort to consult with the provinces and that the legislation and
the amendments being brought forward today have had the input
of each of the provinces. It is vitally important that any new
regulations meet their needs in order for harmonization
agreements on the environmental assessment process to proceed
as smoothly and as quickly as possible.
Given the nature of Canadian federal and provincial programs
overlap is inevitable. Environment was not considered when the
Canadian Constitution was drafted resulting in confusion for
both levels of government. Even exclusive jurisdiction over any
particular area fails to guarantee there will be no overlap. The
division of responsibilities has often resulted in conflict
between the two powers and has compromised our decision
making abilities.
Environmental assessment has been one of the most
contentious areas of conflict between federal and provincial
powers. Both levels of government have legitimate roles to play
in environment and resource management. However both
parties must demonstrate a will to set aside their differences and
work toward the common goal.
7435
One of the government's first priorities should be the
elimination of overlap because duplication wastes public funds
at a time when our dollars are in short supply. A single unified
approach to the environment and environmental assessment in
particular would result in greater effectiveness with less
confusion.
Intergovernmental harmonization agreements co-ordinate
activities and clarify roles while at the same time ensuring that
common objectives and goals are attained. Clearly smooth and
efficient federal-provincial relations depend upon good
working relationships and shared policy objectives. For this to
occur, federal-provincial relations must take a co-operative
rather than a competitive approach.
To illustrate the horrendous cost of duplication, according to a
Treasury Board study 45 per cent of federal programs resulting
in expenditures of over $40 billion overlap and compete to
varying degrees with provincial programs. We simply cannot
afford this duplication of services.
In conclusion, as much as I support the initiative to reduce
environmental assessments to one project and one federal
assessment, I support it only as a step in the right direction, a
step toward one joint federal-provincial assessment. Until the
final step of harmonization is achieved with all 10 provinces we
will not have reached the ultimate goal of truly one
environmental assessment per project.
(1540 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): During the next five hours
of debate members' interventions will be limited to 20 minutes
maximum subject to 10 minutes of questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill
C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. This bill will improve some components of the federal
environmental assessment process.
I will take a few minutes to describe briefly the object and
scope of the amendments before the House and to try and
explain the principles behind this reform.
First of all, I would like to emphasize that these amendments
reflect the commitments made in the red book, which is the
agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada. Our government is
determined to keep these commitments which were made during
the last election campaign.
[English]
In our view the three amendments are not only essential to the
effective implementation of the federal environmental
assessment process but are also in keeping with the expectations
of the main stakeholders.
We introduced a whole chapter in the red book on sustainable
development. We committed ourselves to installing an auditor
general of the environment and sustainable development. The
minister has already introduced reforms in that regard. We
committed ourselves to installing a task force on the economic
instruments that would favour the environment and sustainable
development. The task force is now at work and will present a
report to the ministers of finance and of the environment for
eventual inclusion of their recommendations into the February
budget.
We committed ourselves to an environmental industry
strategy. The strategy has now been introduced to try to help
environmental technologies develop themselves and improve
their strength and efficiency in Canada for the betterment of our
sustainable development strategy overall. We committed
ourselves to a review of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act which by the way is a statutory requirement.
This is now in process.
Perhaps the key element of our sustainable development
reforms and resolve is contained in the proclamation of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to which we
committed ourselves. We truly believe and are convinced that
environmental assessment is the key element to pollution
prevention, to a better environmental standard which leads to
quality of life and a sustainable society.
Two of the amendments presented in Bill C-56 are aimed at
meeting repeated requests by environmental protection groups
from across Canada in recent years. The third amendment is
designed to reduce uncertainty and delays in the application of
the federal environmental assessment process, a concern which
is shared by all stakeholders and certainly by the provinces.
If I could speak to the first amendment which has to do with
participant funding, it provides for the legal guarantee of a
participant funding program designed to encourage Canadians
to take part in public hearings held by environmental assessment
review panels.
Participant funding is a major concern of environmental
groups and is quite understandable. I should explain that the
environmental assessment of major projects that are subject to
public hearings is an extremely complex exercise. Generally
speaking the environmental assessment of major projects results
in several volumes of technical information. For example, in the
case of Great Whale several thousands pages of information had
to be produced and studied. We cannot expect informed public
7436
participation unless the groups representing the citizens at large
who are directly affected by a project have access to funding to
state their case.
(1545 )
Participation in the environmental assessment process
requires staff, it requires technical resources for analysing
reports, drafting a response, preparing briefs and presenting
views at public hearings let alone the travel to various points in
the land. It is a simple matter of equity.
Some environmental groups and public community groups
are faced with tremendous odds when up against huge
institutions and corporations which have unlimited funding to
present their case. The need for participant funding is not new. It
was identified many years ago. The 1987 white paper on the
reform of the federal environment review process entitled
``Reforming Federal Environmental Assessment'' addressed
this need and proposed the establishment of a participant
funding program.
Following national public consultation carried out as part of
the reform, some funding was made available by the previous
government. The funds were administered by the Federal
Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO, and were
provided to participants in the activities of federal or joint
panels reviewing such projects as, for example, Soligaz in
Quebec, the St. Marguerite hydroelectric project in Quebec and
the Vancouver airport project.
However, the previous government refused to make a firm
commitment or to guarantee participant funding for all the
environmental assessments. In this respect the current wording
of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is
unsatisfactory for it simply allows a minister to create a
participant funding program.
The wording of Bill C-56 goes much further. It creates the
obligation to establish a participant funding program in keeping
with the Liberal Party's red book commitment which reads:
A Liberal government will amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act to legally recognize intervener funding as an integral component of the
assessment process.
This is what we are doing by this very important amendment.
[Translation]
The second amendment provides for only one federal
assessment per project. It results from the more general
commitment made by the government to improve the efficiency
of federal government services and to significantly reduce
duplication. This amendment will ensure that, to the extent
possible, only one federal environmental assessment will be
conducted with respect to a project.
In fact, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act already
contains many provisions to avoid duplicating similar
provincial processes. It provides for delegation of authority
where pre-assessments, comprehensive studies and follow-up
programs are concerned. It also provides for signing
harmonization agreements and creating ``single windows'' in
each of the provinces. The Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act also includes provisions to facilitate the work
of joint panels.
[English]
Several years ago I happened to be minister of the
environment for Quebec. At that time I negotiated long and hard
with the federal minister of the time, Mr. McMillan, to try and
get to the very position we are in today in the act, which is to
have some sort of a process whereby the federal government and
the provinces would be able to install joint panels. In the case of
provincial jurisdictions there would be provincial panels with
the federal government sending observers if it had an interest in
the project, or vice versa, or sometimes mixed panels.
I remember a case that was under discussion, the airport in
Saint-Jean, where unfortunately we were not able to arrive at a
conclusion of this process. Now we will be able to.
[Translation]
This amendment has two goals. First, it seeks to co-ordinate
information requirements throughout the federal civil service,
should a project be subject to more than one study under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
(1550)
For example, when a project funded by the federal
government also requires a permit under the regulation, it is
theoretically possible that two different assessments will be
necessary. In such cases, we want to give the developer the
assurance that the assessment will meet the requirements of all
the federal authorities involved.
Time is the other aspect of this amendment. Whenever
possible, we want the environmental assessment to meet the
information needs of federal authorities for the duration of the
project. We want to avoid asking the developer to conduct an
assessment at the planning stage, another one at the
implementation stage, another one when work is temporarily
interrupted and another one when equipment is no longer used
and activities are permanently shut down.
It is true that the legislation in its present form contains some
provisions requiring co-operation among federal authorities.
For example, section 12 stipulates that where there are more
than one responsible authority in relation to a project, they shall
together determine the manner in which to perform their
respective duties and functions. Nothing in the existing
legislation forces them to require only one assessment for each
project. This is totally unacceptable if our goal is to have a
coordinated, effective and consistent process, and I am sure it is
the goal we are all pursuing.
7437
With this amendment, the federal government is doing its
share. The amendment is designed to meet the legitimate
expectations of those who are justifiably opposed to conducting
more than one environmental assessment for the federal
government. Combined with the current harmonization
initiative undertaken by the Canadian Council of Ministers of
the Environment, I am hopeful that this amendment will help us
reach our ultimate goal, which is to conduct only one
environmental assessment with respect to a project, no matter
how many authorities are involved.
[English]
I am sure the third amendment will contribute to curbing
Canadians growing dissatisfaction with government and to
restoring parliamentary integrity.
Again I would like to quote the Liberal Party's red book which
addresses this particular problem. On page 87 it states:
The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that
disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business
behind closed doors.
The manner in which the previous government dealt with
panel recommendations certainly fueled the public's
dissatisfaction with Canada's democratic institutions. Indeed,
when a major project raised public concerns, the scenario was
always the same. A review panel was established. It studied the
possible impacts of the project for months and sometimes even
for years. It consulted the public affected by the project. It then
drafted a detailed report containing specific recommendations.
However, as soon as one of these reports reached a federal
minister's desk, unexplainable things would happen. In some
cases the minister responsible would examine the report and
make a decision without consulting his or her colleagues. In
other cases the cabinet would meet to study the
recommendations of the panel and would decide, for its own
reasons which it did not have to divulge, to ignore the most
important ones. In most cases the previous government's
decisions were completely out of line with the key
recommendations set out in the panel's reports.
Under certain circumstances I agree that this may be perfectly
justified. Unlike panel members, who are appointed and who are
not accountable to the public, the members of government are
elected to make decisions.
This said, it is in our view unacceptable for a government to
entrust a panel of experts with a task of examining an issue and
with consulting the public and then to turn around and reject
their recommendations with no explanation for its decision.
Environmental protection groups and the media were very often
critical of previous governments' decisions.
(1555 )
In most cases they felt that short term economic and political
gains would take precedence over the long term environmental
benefits that form the basis of most recommendations made in
the panel reports.
If the government systematically ignores the panel's
recommendations, it will be difficult to restore the public's
confidence in our institutions, be it in regard to the environment
or otherwise. In fact the principle of public consultation itself is
thus called into question.
It will also be very difficult to convince proponents to comply
with the process and to find qualified individuals to serve on the
panels. Besides, it will not be easy to convince affected
Canadians to take part in the hearings. How can we hope to
encourage public participation if the government is completely
free to ignore all recommendations and if it is not required to
provide the reasons behind its decisions? Under these
circumstances, how will the government be able to convince
Canadians that it made the right decision in the first place?
The point is not to tie the hands of decision makers and to give
non-elected panel members decision making powers, but rather
to restore a proper and judicious balance. If the government
decides to accept the recommendations of an environmental
assessment panel, everyone wins. However, should it decide to
accept certain recommendations and to reject others, it will be
required to provide explanations. If its explanations are clear,
the integrity of the environmental review process will remain
intact.
The problem that arises from the desire to strike a balance
between ministerial prerogative and the recommendations of
environmental assessment panels was addressed in the 1987
white paper to which I have referred before on the reform of the
federal assessment process.
The proposed amendment will require the responsible
minister to draft a response to the recommendations of an
environmental assessment panel. This response will have to be
examined and approved by the governor in council, in other
words by the cabinet.
[Translation]
This bill meets real needs, and it improves the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. The government's goal is to
have only one federal assessment on any given project. The
creation of a participant funding program will encourage
Canadians to participate in the hearings conducted by review
panels.
Finally, the principle of openness in government will apply,
because the government will have to respond officially to the
recommendations made by review panels. Those amendments
will contribute to restore public trust in federal democratic
7438
institutions. The government intends to proclaim the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act in January 1995.
The four required regulations have been published in Part II of
the Canada Gazette on October 19. The amendments before us
should be passed as soon as possible, because all Canadians
stand to gain from their early implementation after the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act has been proclaimed.
[English]
The environment knows no boundaries. It is a matter of
equity. It is a matter of common sense. It is a matter of a
sustainable society for all of us besides the coming generations.
I could not help but find it strange when the critic for the Bloc
Quebecois referred to-
[Translation]
-a guardianship being forced on the province of Quebec. The
Bloc Quebecois also claims that profound changes have been
made since the present Leader of the Opposition introduced the
bill a few years ago. The amazing thing is that, since the
environment minister made her statement on the proclamation
of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, there has not
been a single question asked about that so-called jurisdictional
calamity. There have been questions on all sorts of things, and
countless questions on tobacco. But the environment does not
seem to be such an important issue.
(1600)
In fact, not a single question was asked about such a
supposedly important decision as putting the province under
guardianship. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition himself and
his party's critic had every opportunity to make any statement
they liked on the subject. There were only two, one just before
the 1993 election and another on October 13, 1994, to the
Gazette, in which he said that he was satisfied with the law and
that there was no petty squabble between Mr. Parizeau and him
on this subject, because he approved of the law and thought that
it was a good one.
We must set our petty squabbles aside and realize that the
environment is much larger than all of us, that we must
co-operate and have the will to work together. That is what we
want to do, on this side of the House, by presenting these
amendments. We want to be co-operative, positive and build
things for ourselves and future generations.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a short question of the member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. I will not take all of the ten minutes
and I will leave ample time for him to answer. As he said before
in his speech, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis was
Minister of the Environment in the Quebec government at one
point.
I would like him to explain in clear and simple terms how he
can justify his support for the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act when his former government, through the
former Minister for the Environment, Mr. Paradis-if we can
mention his name in this House-succeeded in obtaining
unanimity in the provincial legislature, not only a sovereignist
vote, not only a partisan vote, but unanimity, on the position of
the then Liberal government of Quebec, his former government,
being against any intrusion on the part of the federal government
in the area of environmental assessment.
I think the former Minister of the Environment could easily
explain the change of opinion he experienced while going from
the Quebec to the Ottawa government.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for Mr. Paradis,
but all I can say is that when I was environment minister in
Quebec, I had appointed an associate deputy minister, Mr.
Divay, who worked actively with the federal government to seek
the kind of administrative agreement which was signed today
between Alberta and the federal government.
In fact, I could quote several cases of joint work which was
done as actively as possible, for example, in the case of
Sainte-Marguerite, in the case of the Lachine canal, which is a
current case where joint panels have been established between
the federal and provincial governments. In fact, I would like to
refer the hon. member for Terrebonne to a statement which was
made just recently to the Montreal Gazette by the Leader of the
Opposition-unfortunately, I cannot find my quote, but in any
case, it is official, it is widely known and I would be very
pleased to send it to the hon. member for Terrebonne-where the
Leader of the Opposition is criticizing Mr. Paradis for getting
angry.
He says in the Gazette: ``I do not know why Mr. Paradis got so
excited, because that legislation is a very good piece of
legislation''. So, perhaps the hon. member for Terrebonne
should speak to his leader and ask him why he thought that Mr.
Paradis got too angry when he intervened on Bill C-13. There
were several quotes from the Leader of the Opposition. I will
quote his statement to Mr. Jean-François Lisée on October 21,
1993. Mr. Jean-François Lisée asked him: ``What is going to
happen? Are you going to oppose Jacques Parizeau if he comes
to power in a few months?'', speaking about Bill C-13, the same
legislation we are talking about today. This was just before the
election, a few days before the election, and he answered: ``Oh
no, Mr. Parizeau will also abide by the law. The P.Q. has
accepted the position''.
But later, just recently, a few days ago, he said repeatedly that
the bill is well-founded, that he does not see in it any federal and
provincial jurisdictional quarrel and that there is a way to find a
common ground if we arrive at some agreements. That is what
we want to do, that is what I tried to do as environment minister
7439
in Quebec. For me, the environment has always been much
more important than jurisdictional quarrels and petty squabbles.
(1605)
I believe that every one must respect each other's
jurisdictions, but we must do it in a constructive way, by trying
to find solutions instead of confrontational elements. That has
always been my position.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has stated that she is working toward provincial
harmonization. I would like to draw on the member's expertise
as a former Quebec environment minister because we seem to
have a number of opposing forces at work. I applaud the
Liberal's initiative to work toward harmonization. However we
have a government in Quebec that is saying that environment is
its jurisdiction. In the member's experience, is harmonization
going to happen, will it happen and can it happen with the forces
that are opposing each other in Quebec?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my
colleague who is a fellow member of the committee on
environment and sustainable development, as is the member for
Terrebonne. We show in committee that we can work in great
harmony and in a very positive climate regardless of party
stripes. It has always been my view that this is the way to do it.
For one year I was president of the Council of Environment
Ministers of Canada. I found there was a tremendous amount of
goodwill. Sure there were quarrels and disputes as regards
jurisdiction. There always will be in a federal system. There
always will be in any system. That is the way the world works.
At the same time, if we put our differences aside, we can find
ways to harmonize our views and our objectives.
For example, the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers
has been actively working. Civil servants from the federal
government and every province have been working together for
a particular harmonization protocol on this very question of
environmental assessment. It has worked very actively.
During the term of Minister Paradis who unfortunately is no
longer minister because the government was defeated, Mr.
Paradis insisted and made sure that a senior civil servant from
Quebec was present and took an active part in the deliberations.
Unfortunately that is no longer the case because since
proclamation of the act Quebec has withdrawn its
representative. All the other provinces are working actively. The
minister has written to Quebec's minister praying that he rejoin
the ranks.
I am certain that agreements can be put into place that respect
fully the provincial jurisdictions. The federal government does
not want to encroach. All it wants to do is to ensure that when
federal prerogatives such as the Fisheries Act are involved that
it complies with the dictates of the Supreme Court, it complies
with the wishes of Canadians and that among us and between us
instead of duplicating our efforts we make them complementary,
integrate them for the benefit of all of us.
I am convinced we can do that. We have to have the resolve
and that resolve starts among us here. If it is transmitted along
and the provincial governments realize that we want to
co-operate, to act together rather than confront, it is going to
happen. I hope it is going to happen too with the Government of
Quebec.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a short question in the interests of time for
the parliamentary secretary who I know has done a tremendous
amount of work on the proclamation of the act.
Talking about provincial jurisdiction and joint panels, joint
panels are something I am very supportive of. I believe the act
has gone a long way to ensuring that joint panels will be able to
do the job.
However, can the parliamentary secretary explain how the
government will attempt to prevent certain confrontations that
will exist with the provinces? The public examples which have
brought us to the act we have today are the Rafferty-Alameda
dam in Saskatchewan and the Oldman dam in Alberta. Both are
examples where the provinces, the proponents of the projects
were adamant about no federal involvement in environmental
assessment. At the same time these projects point out the
incredible need for adequate environmental assessment. The
proclaimed act which was Bill C-13 has gone a long way to deal
with that.
(1610 )
Can the parliamentary secretary give us some idea of how he
thinks the government will deal with conflicts with provinces
which are for the most part proponents of projects that are
problems?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, much has changed since the cases
referred to by my hon. colleague. First there is a Supreme Court
decision which makes it quite clear that when the federal
government has a jurisdiction it not only should get involved, it
has the duty and obligation to get involved. It does not have any
chance or opportunity to escape. It must get involved.
There was a timidity before on the part of the federal
government to intervene where it had a clear case of
jurisdiction, for example on Canadian waters, on fisheries. Now
this case is clear. There has been pressure from the Canadian
public
7440
to say to their federal government that it has to get involved
because it represents a big part of the total jurisdiction.
What will happen now in the case of the provinces and the
federal government is that there will be a sensitization that they
have to work together, that we cannot confront each other any
more. I think this will happen.
There was a recent case in my own province. The Lachine
Canal has been an example of a problem which could have led to
confrontation but a joint panel was extremely effective and
under the provincial system works extremely well. That is going
to become the practical way of doing things in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say to my colleague from
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis that I understood something from
his speech. He is in favour of doing away with overlapping
provided the issue is resolved in favour of the federal
government. I think I understood that correctly. We are against
overlaps, move over, we will take all the room, this way
everybody will be happy. Except he was not quite that blunt.
It is with great interest that I rise to speak on Bill C-56 and the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That legislation was
to create a new agency to assess all projects which could have an
environmental impact. As you will notice, there is no way I can
agree with that legislation. Indeed, as an elected representative
from Quebec and a defender of Quebec's interest, I must express
my dissatisfaction with the federal government's interference
with provincial affairs.
As we all know-and the Minister of the Environment knows
it as well-there is in Quebec, as in other Canadian provinces,
an office of environmental assessment. We call it the BAPE. The
mandate of this bureau is to assess projects that have an
environmental impact, and it has acquired an international
reputation. Quebec is a leader in the area of environmental
assessment.
Moreover, the new Minister of the Environment in Quebec
announced recently that they would legislate to include
assessment of industrial projects into the existing assessment
process, even though these projects were already assessed by his
department. The Bureau d'audiences publiques pour
l'environnement, or BAPE, is a complete, efficient, open and
credible process, which answers very well the needs of the
population.
The federal government, by promulgating this legislation and
tabling regulations on a wide range of projects, imposes a
standard system to all provinces regardless of the work already
done by the bureau, in Quebec. The Quebec assessment process
is operating smoothly and it has proven its worth. Therefore, the
federal assessment process will only superimpose itself, adding
to the many duplications we already have in our federal system.
This bureau will make public administration more cumbersome
and the debt will keep on growing.
(1615)
There will be a Quebec bureau and a Canadian agency, both
dedicated to the evaluation of projects which could have an
impact on the environment. Not only will this situation make
public administration more cumbersome and very costly, but it
will also be the source of tremendous headaches for proponents
who will never know to whom they should report. Moreover,
there is no set timeframe, which could unduly prolong the
federal evaluation process.
On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact, as I said earlier,
that the previous Liberal government in Quebec was strongly
opposed to this bill. Mr. Pierre Paradis, the then environment
minister, who was a strong supporter of Canadian federalism,
denounced this bill, going as far as saying, appearing before the
Senate, that this piece of legislation was a reflection of a
domineering and authoritarian federalism. It is Mr. Paradis, a
strong supporter of federalism, and not separatists, who shed
this light on this bill.
Needless to say, at the time, the National Assembly had
unanimously supported the environment and wildlife minister in
his fight. What we are talking about here has nothing to do with
political affiliation or petty squabbles; it is simply a matter of
plain common sense. Quebecers are outraged by the
ludicrousness of this bill and of the situation it is creating and
will create. The total lack of flexibility on the part of this
government which refuses to take the Quebec process into
account while amending the act, should not come as a surprise.
Moreover, the government seems to forget that the issue of
environmental assessment is part of the federal-provincial
harmonization process, as the parliamentary secretary to the
environment minister mentioned earlier. The process is part of
the agenda of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, but while discussions are still ongoing, the
federal government decides to interfere. What is the point then
of having any discussion? We can easily predict what the famous
four-year, $12 million health forum will result in. The report
must already be written and just waiting to be published. The
government forgot that the federal-provincial environment
harmonization process was on the agenda. To what extent should
we trust this exercise if, at the very first opportunity, the
government overlooks Quebec's demands and
recommendations?
The government is lending a deaf ear to Quebecers, in spite of
the fact that they have unanimously expressed their displeasure
loud and clear.
I would like to quote a member from the other party, the
Liberal member for Ottawa Centre. ``The time has come for the
different levels of government to agree on a somewhat clearer
definition of jurisdictions''. That is a Liberal speaking. ``It
seems to me that the two levels of government should get
together on matters of environment''. We agree with that. ``The
minister should take a deep breath, go back a ways and consider
this goal, that is the co-operation of all parties concerned with
environmental protection''. Quebec is one of them. ``The gov-
7441
ernment must make sure everybody follows suit because if
another level of government does not approve of federal
measures, this bill is doomed to failure''. These are his own
words.
By its attitude the federal government is mocking the
intelligence and common sense of Quebecers. After having
flouted their legitimate claims, how can the government come
back to the table in order to integrate federal and provincial
assessment processes? In any case, after such an insult, there
will be one player missing at the table, the Quebec Minister of
Environment having recalled his players to Quebec.
As a result, there will be another unavoidable confrontation,
this time on environmental matters. Considering the
government's attitude about this question, the future of these
negotiations is not promising. Moreover, with Bill C-56, the
government is charging blindly in an area where jurisdictions
are very vaguely defined.
As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision
regarding Friends of the Old Man Society, ``in the context of a
federal constitution, environmental management should not be
considered as a constitutional unit coming under only one level
of government''.
(1620)
It is obvious in this case that the government is ignoring the
recommendations it has received from all sides on the issue of
the environment.
Moreover, the minister is trying to minimize the controversy
about Bill C-56 by mentioning that this bill was first introduced
by the Leader of the Opposition when he was himself
environment minister.
As Mr. Yergeau, a lawyer specialized in environmental law,
explained so clearly in an article published in a 1992 issue of the
daily newspaper Le Devoir, many words are being put in Mr.
Bouchard's mouth after the fact. In addition, must we remind
our friends opposite, who can have a short memory at times, that
Mr. Bouchard has since found out that the federal system does
not work and never will? He has had the courage of his
convictions and left the party. That too should be pointed out.
In a speech given on November 3, 1989, the Leader of the
Opposition said that the governments should take note of the
three realities dictated by the very nature of environmental
problems to be resolved. About the second reality, he said-and
I am repeating the quote from my colleague from Laurentides
because it is very important to understand this-that in grey
areas, where the roles were not clearly defined in the
Constitution, co-operation was essential. He added that, at a
time when we were realizing that fighting for the environment is
fighting for life itself and that this fight must be taken up
worldwide and not be limited to our individual jurisdictions, our
fellow citizens would not understand and even less tolerate a
wrestling match between federal and provincial politicians.
This certainly puts matters in perspective, I would say.
Clearly, the federal government approach was not in keeping
with the spirit of the bill. In addition, the legislation introduced
today incorporates major amendments which are in line with the
bill the Leader of the Opposition introduced five years ago, in
1989. The legislative committee to which the bill was referred
made some very substantial changes to it in December 1991, and
several technical changes were made to the legislation between
December 1991 and June 1992. It is therefore inappropriate to
present this bill as coming from the Leader of the Opposition.
Much water has flowed under the bridge since then.
In conclusion, the only consequence of this bill will be, once
again, to foster duplication under our federal system. Quebecers
rose up and unanimously expressed their dissatisfaction through
all the means at their disposal, but the federal government,
again, did not listen to them.
Even federalists recognized the absurdity of putting in place a
second review panel, but no one listened to them. Even during
negotiations to harmonize federal and provincial efforts in this
area, the federal government seized the first opportunity to
reject Quebec's demands. It is bad faith, pure and simple.
We are constantly being reminded that it is a red book
promise. The government failed to deliver on many of the
environmental commitments in the red book. Fortunately, the
Liberal Party recognized the foolishness of appointing an
auditor for sustainable development and the environment as
promised in the red book and was smart enough to put forward
the recommendations included in the Bloc Quebecois's minority
report.
As for the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20
per cent by the year 2000, it was disavowed by the minister
herself. She could not or would not understand that an
environmental goal placed under the responsibility of another
department-in this case, Energy Canada-was totally
inconsistent.
As far as the environment is concerned, the Liberals would
undoubtedly like to see some pages of the red book disappear,
probably through recycling.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what
the Opposition said, including that member and the critic, or the
one who has the critic's role-she criticizes the Department of
the Environment very badly for its efforts to serve all Canadians
so that they can live in a healthier environment.
7442
Again, all I heard was ideological ranting about the arrogance
of wanting to take Quebec's place in the environmental field.
(1625)
They talk about provocation, contempt and arrogance towards
Quebec. They even talk about a kind of domineering, totalitarian
federalism. You know, those are not solutions, that is not a
constructive approach for finding environmental solutions. As
we know very well, Quebecers are perfectly aware that pollution
knows no boundaries. Everything that happens in the Great
Lakes, in the St. Lawrence River and even in the Gulf concerns
Quebec, although some of these places are outside the province.
I believe that Quebec and Quebecers recognize the
importance of finding a common position with the provinces and
countries that occupy North America, namely Mexico, Canada
and the United States. It is false for the member to claim that he
is defending Quebec's interests and that he speaks for Quebec.
Some people on this side of the House represent Quebec ridings,
including myself and many Liberal members, and I can tell you
that we care a great deal for the environment.
I can prove that we Liberals were the ones who dealt with the
Irving Whale and thanks to the close co-operation of my
colleagues from the Maritimes, the Department of the
Environment and the minister, who is from Ontario, we were
able to solve this problem once and for all.
I still find it strange for them to say that the federal
government does not consider the legitimate demands of
Quebec, or of its governments. I find it curious that they refer to
the people to make a distinction: They talk about the people, the
governments and the Bloc Quebecois' headquarters in Quebec
City, but they do not necessarily discuss the issues which really
concern the population. And I find it particularly strange that no
mention is made of existing administrative agreements between
the federal government and the province of Quebec in the pulp
and paper sector.
Such an agreement was signed in August, to ensure that pulp
and paper companies comply with environmental standards not
only in Quebec but also across the country. I believe that success
will largely depend on our way of doing things, on a
co-operative approach between the provinces and with the
United States and Mexico, to ensure standards which will be
beneficial to Quebecers but also to every Canadian. In fact,
Quebec relies on a Canadian policy to ensure a sound
environment for the benefit of its current population as well as
its future generations.
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, what is the question? This is
certainly a nice speech. I congratulate the hon. member. I would
like to know where the members for Outremont and
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine were when the time came
to speak for Quebec regarding a debt of $34 million owed to the
province by their government.
As I recall, they applauded when their Prime Minister and
leader said: ``We will not give you that money back''. And they
were disappointed when the debt was paid to Quebec. That was
certainly not the issue.
If pollution knows no borders and if Quebec should not get
involved, then why should Canada? Let the United States look
after the pollution problem.
I do not really understand that argument which they keep
repeating to us, namely that pollution knows no borders. They
say Quebec should not get involved because pollution knows no
borders. Canada should not look after that problem for the same
reason. This argument is somewhat fallacious and it is not very
solid. I invite the hon. member to attend the meetings of the
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He
will learn a lot.
As regards the pulp and paper sector, an administrative
agreement was indeed signed. Our committee met officials from
pulp and paper companies. These people do not know all the
details yet. The reports do not clearly define how harmonization
will proceed. Some consultations have taken place, but no tax
agreement was signed and that issue is also not clear. This is my
answer to the hon. member. If he has any other questions, I will
be pleased to answer them.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has indicated how horrible the
legislation seems to be.
(1630 )
I am wondering if the hon. member can indicate why his
leader said on May 11, 1990 in the Calgary Herald: ``People
must not expect the government to get out of the assessment of
federal projects''. Then he went on in May 1990 in the Calgary
Sun to say: ``We have jurisdiction, we have responsibilities''.
Most important, the hon. member's leader said on May 11, 1990
in the Edmonton Sun: ``I think it is a very profound
responsibility of this government and any federal government to
fulfil national responsibility, and environment is very much a
national responsibility''.
I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments in light
of these statements.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, these statements attributed to
my leader concern the environment in general and not the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To be able to analyze
or answer a clear question, one must compare oranges and
oranges. The member quotes statements made by the Leader of
the Bloc Quebecois when he was environment minister and
7443
spoke in general terms about ecology and the environment. I do
agree with my leader, as I often if not always do, that
environment is a national issue, an international issue, an issue
for everyone of us to consider.
Liberal members say that they are very concerned about the
environment. Obviously, they are and so are, I am convinced,
the NDP members, and the Reform members. We are too. But
that is not the question.
The question is this: When dealing with environmental
assessment and standards, should Quebec's jurisdiction be
respected as agreed after the Constitution, since there is nothing
about it in either the 1867 Constitution or the patriated one? I
believe that we should respect the areas of jurisdiction which
were defined later on.
I also believe that environmental assessment, as Quebec has
been proving for a long time, and as the Liberal government in
Quebec voted unanimously, should be Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question.
Imagine that the Government of Canada has a national standard
on the environment, say for forestry, but the provincial standard
is not as high as the national standard. Which one would the
member suggest be followed?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I think that forestry is a
provincial responsibility, like natural resources, education-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Standards.
Mr. Sauvageau: Provincial standards are generally higher
than federal standards. The highest standard would then apply.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
further to my colleague's question, I do not think it was
answered.
I would like to pose that question once again, asking about
specific standards particularly in federal-provincial
agreements. Could the hon. member indicate whether or not a
standard which is lower in Quebec is the standard that would
apply, or if it would be the federal standard if it were higher?
The reason I am asking the question is that I think we have to
differentiate what the issue is. A separatist is basically
suggesting that we will accept a lower standard if it is for
Quebec, rather than a higher standard if it was in the national
interest. I would like to know.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer my two
colleagues for the second time. I believe there are national
standards, uniform standards for the whole country. Mr.
Parizeau was saying during the election campaign that it would
be very difficult to have uniform standards in Quebec, in
forestry for example, so imagine what it would be like for the
whole country.
First, as I said before, under the Constitution Act of 1867,
forestry is strictly a provincial matter. Then, there is no
problem. Second, a solution applicable in Vancouver might not
work in Quebec, not to mention Prince Edward Island. If a
standard applies to British Columbia-your area I believe-I do
not think we can conclude that it would automatically apply to
Quebec where the climate is different, the soil is different, many
conditions are different. How would the standard apply?
(1635)
If you were to ask me about fisheries, I would give you the
same answer. I do not think that a national standard could apply
to conditions in Quebec, or in Alberta, or in your riding,
differences are too large.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the Minister of the Environment for introducing
these amendments today which are in keeping with the promise
made in the red book. I would like to make some brief comments
on the interventions by the member for Laurentides when she
spoke after the minister today.
The hon. member started her analysis by referring to the fact
that the bill being introduced today which amends the existing
legislation and the existing legislation have no resemblance
with the original bill known as Bill C-78 that was introduced
when the present leader of the Bloc Quebecois was Minister of
the Environment. She added that some 150 amendments were
made during the lifetime of that bill before it was proclaimed.
That statement is quite accurate; I was here and she was not. I
remember very well that a number of amendments were made
having been proposed by representatives of the NDP, the
Conservative Party and my party.
In that process of amending it we did what is done with any
major legislation, namely we improved it. We improved it
within the limits imposed by the bill itself. Therefore that bill,
known as Bill C-78 and subsequently as Bill C-13, has the
thrust, the scope and the four corners, to use the parliamentary
language, that the original bill had. In that respect the member
for Laurentides unfortunately is wrong.
The hon. member objected to the fact that the final legislation
introduced the term and definition of sustainable development.
In evolving time considering the progress that term has made in
its interpretation it has become natural and almost obvious that
sustainable development was introduced as one of the objectives
7444
of that legislation. I am sure that if the then Minister of the
Environment and now leader of the Bloc Quebecois had been in
the position of the present Minister of the Environment, he
would have proposed the definition to be inserted in the bill
himself. It goes without saying.
The member for Laurentides went on to say that fellow
citizens will not tolerate quibbling between federal and
provincial politicians. Having made that statement with which
we all agree she then devoted the rest of her speech to an
analysis of the situation which revealed a profound desire to
disagree with the federal jurisdiction as if she were a provincial
politician. She even brought into the discussion a judgment of
the Supreme Court in order to make her case.
She was repeatedly dissatisfied or annoyed at the fact that the
present Minister of the Environment in her speech today was
referring frequently to her leader, as if that were a sign of lack of
respect for his present political role, having changed sides, so to
say.
(1640 )
Of course, the hon. member indicated several times that her
main concern in relation to the bill introduced today is one that
she would interpret to perform a role that would be tantamount
to an arrogant attempt to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. We
are not aware of any other province interpreting this bill in that
manner. Actually this bill is supported by and large by
provinces. No one has seen this bill as an arrogant
encroachment.
What the member for Laurentides failed to recognize in her
speech is that if the federal government wanted to encroach on
the jurisdiction of any province it could do so under the
provision of peace, order and good government. It could
intervene anytime but it does not. That is the point. It does not do
so because there is an unwritten understanding that the peace,
order and good government clause is to be used only in extreme
cases when necessity makes it absolutely unavoidable but only
in such cases.
Therefore to proclaim to the world that this bill is an
encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction is sheer nonsense. There
is air, water and a variety of natural resources that all levels of
government share in the name of the Canadian people. No
province is exempt from that. Neither is the federal government
exempt from that basic sense of accountability in relation to
these natural resources.
The member for Laurentides went on to say that this bill is a
demonstration of the centralizing vision of the federal
government. I invite any member of the Bloc Quebecois to get
up in this House and support this statement.
The member for Laurentides went on to say that national
standards are being imposed. Tell us which national standards
are being imposed. We are searching for national standards. The
exchange of questions with the member for Fraser Valley West
already showed how much of an openness of mind there is in the
search for national standards. It is a very difficult exercise. It is
much more complex than the wall to wall standardization to
which the member for Terrebonne referred in his reply. It is a
difficult exercise, no doubt.
The hon. member went on to say that Ottawa could force any
Quebec project to come under assessment. This is stretching it a
bit too far. As I said earlier, Ottawa could do that without this
bill under peace, order and good government if it really wanted
to but it does not do so. To claim that is a political expedient in
this House to unnecessarily whip up feelings among
constituents in Quebec.
The hon. member went on to quote a distinguished but
unknown lawyer in Quebec commenting on this legislation. It is
not difficult these days to find lawyers to comment one way or
another on any piece of legislation. Then she went on to put on
record an editorial by a writer well known for her objectivity,
Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir. Apparently she has written that
Ottawa is taking over Quebec's energy policy by means of this
legislation. How absurd can one be? How can one make that
statement seriously? We must bring this debate down to earth
and analyse the legislation for what it is and what it attempts to
do.
(1645 )
In a flight of desperation, the member for Laurentides
announced to the world that the federal government is
attempting to squash economic development in Quebec. At that
point I had a moment of dismay because I thought it was a very
unfortunate statement on the part of the critic for the
environment for the Bloc Quebecois. At that point she revealed
that she was not speaking as critic for the environment. She was
speaking perhaps as a political person instructed to demonstrate
that federal-provincial relations a priori cannot work in this
country.
However, if she were critic for the environment she would
have not let her guard down and allowed herself to be accused of
seeing the economy as separate from the environment as she did
with her statement. She should know better.
We have reached the conclusion in this Chamber, in all the
parties represented in this House, in their contained literature, at
the OECD in Paris and in Rio in 1992 that there is a strong link
between the environment and the economy. In some quarters the
economic thinking has gone even so far as to say that there is no
economy without the environment, although that vision has not
7445
yet become official in those institutions and agencies. However,
we are moving in that direction inevitably so.
For the official critic for the environment for the Bloc
Quebecois to make a statement in which she dissociates the
economy from the environment I thought was very unfortunate.
She talked like an old-fashioned economist, an economist of
100 years ago perhaps, not as a critic for the environment, not as
a politician who understands the importance of integrating the
economy with the environment, not as a politician who
understands that in the end the environment is the first and
major consideration if we want to have a healthy economy.
The speech by the member for Laurentides, I am afraid to say,
reveals a profound and serious conceptual weakness.
To conclude on that intervention, I found in essence the
speech really was activating the flames of confrontational
federalism instead of searching for the answers through a form
of co-operative federalism which was done I thought so
effectively by many other speakers today and in particular by the
member for Comox-Alberni whose intervention I found
extremely helpful. We may perhaps have different political
views but his intervention in outlining where he finds the bill
weak and where he finds agreement with the bill is extremely
helpful. I thank him for that.
He asked a very key question which was dealt with briefly but
I would like to go over it for a moment. His question was what
if-one of those famous what ifs-the minister does not call for
a review and there is too much ministerial discretion? That is
certainly a point that we have to examine and to which the
parliamentary secretary gave an interesting answer. He said he
believed that in such a case there would probably be profound
public displeasure, profound public and media criticism and that
would be the corrective action that would take place.
(1650 )
It is a very legitimate question to ask. It falls perfectly within
the classic jurisdiction of the opposition to do so. I certainly find
that question worth pursuing in search of a desirable satisfactory
answer.
Another question by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni
was how the bill would apply to the First Nations. He wants
clarification on that aspect and we will certainly seek it.
In essence it seems that this bill is serving the agenda of the
Bloc Quebecois in terms of demonstrating that federalism does
not work because of certain actions taken by Ottawa. That is a
very regrettable political line to adopt. It is unfortunate and it is
not in the interest of Canadians no matter where they live.
If we were to assume just for a moment that Quebec were
sovereign, it would be the government of Quebec that would be
seeking from its neighbours the type of environmental security
and understanding and processes that this bill and the legislation
which this bill intends to amend is offering right now. It would
be one of the first steps of any new government. It is difficult to
understand the logic of the Bloc Quebecois in criticizing a bill
that is already in place, to which improvements are being made,
to an unacceptable measure under federalism but which it would
be pursuing and very actively so if it was sovereign in the sense
it is pursuing it at the present time.
There is a contradiction here which does not make sense and
which I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker,
because it seems that it goes to the root of the debate today on
Bill C-56.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are giving me the signal that my time is
up. I thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport having just spoken I
was very pleased to be here today to be able to hear his words. I
have a great deal of respect for the member for Davenport with
whom I shared a fair bit of time in committee looking at Bill
C-13, the legislation which preceded that which we are
amending today.
I have a couple of questions based on his comments just now.
The member indicated quite correctly as I see it some of the
questions which must be asked about the speech by the member
for the Bloc Quebecois earlier today. In one of those comments
on one of those points, the hon. member for Davenport talked
about C-13 and the way in which it applies in the joint panels,
the jurisdiction issue.
Could the member for Davenport explain a little bit further
this whole aspect about the trigger mechanism that puts in place
the joint panels. Could he give, as a member from Quebec, any
examples at all of where those triggers would interfere with
Quebec jurisdiction. It is my feeling that the triggers quite
properly represent federal jurisdiction and perhaps there are no
provincial jurisdiction issues to be dealt with here. I would like
to know what the hon. member has to say about that.
(1655 )
Second, in his remarks he talked about the peace, order and
good government matter. If I am not mistaken, the member for
Davenport can correct me if I am, in the committee studying Bill
C-13 we tried to amend the act to put in a peace, order and good
government clause but failed to do so.
I believe the peace, order and good government clause he is
referring to exists elsewhere. I wonder if under those
circumstances he would be supportive of looking at the
amendment in committee regarding peace, order and good
government specific to this legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I recognize the
hon. member for Davenport I have a housekeeping matter here.
7446
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing order 38 to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Davenport-Nuclear testing.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his question. Regarding peace,
order and good government I would not recommend that this
amendment be put in the legislation at this particular point in
time. I think it would become the object of incredibly
acrimonious debates and could endanger the entire exercise. It is
better that that provision remain where it is now and that it be
invoked as sparingly as possible. It should be therefore
considered as an item that would not be invoked in single
legislation as in the case of Bill C-13.
Regarding the trigger mechanism, I have extreme difficulties
in answering that question. I would also like to know where that
mechanism ought to be placed and when it ought to be put into
motion. It is more than a technical question; it is a very
important political question. I would like to study that matter in
more depth before trying to give an adequate answer.
I am sure the hon. member with his political and legal
knowledge has one in his pocket. I would rather look at his
before I make up my mind.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, not wishing to abuse the House time
but wanting the full benefit of the member's experience, I
thought I might also ask a question in relation to the specific
amendments in front of us, particularly the amendment dealing
with intervener funding.
When we sat together on committee in the previous
Parliament, the hon. member for Davenport was quite
supportive of intervener funding and in fact had some very
specific comments about how to put intervener funding into
place.
Given the vagueness of the intervener funding amendment in
front of us today, would the member be willing to consider
supporting a much broader and perhaps more detailed
amendment specific to intervener funding?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, there is a well-established rule that
a chair of a committee should play as impartial a role as
possible. Not only that, but the chair should not take a route or a
position before an analysis and examination of a bill takes place
in committee. The member for Davenport happens to be the
chair of the committee on the environment and sustainable
development. It really would not be appropriate to indicate what
he would entertain or support, considering the fact that in most
cases the decision is made by the members with the chair
abstaining.
(1700 )
I am sure the government, having introduced this amendment,
will be willing to look at any positive contributions made in
order to make the legislation more effective.
I would like to give that assurance to the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today.
I must compliment the chair of the environmental committee,
the hon. member for Davenport, who has an outstanding
reputation of being fair and quite articulate on this issue. He did
make a comment about serving the agenda of the Bloc. I do not
know how one can get away from that agenda. I guess they are
just going to call it the way they want and regardless of whether
the issue is in the national interest of Canadians, we are going to
get it from them as far as the separatist agenda is concerned.
I suppose what we have today is a party of good intentions
here with the Liberals and a party of ``what's in it for me'' from
the separatists. That is truly unfortunate when it comes to the
environment.
The member for Comox-Alberni, who is our critic for the
environment, raised some very good questions-they were
addressed by the member for Davenport-about some
precautions that should be taken in a bill such as this.
Precautions such as, how do the aboriginal peoples fit into this?
Do they come under this umbrella? I certainly hope they do.
What kind of costs will be involved in assessments? I realize we
are cost conscious. I am sure the government will keep that in
mind and the idea of a single track, the division of
responsibility.
In my previous job, doing a lot of construction in the hundreds
of millions of dollars, our biggest problem was duplicity of roles
with federal fisheries, for instance. It was really a nightmare
when you are trying to develop projects in the $20 million range,
trying to deal with federal and provincial fisheries and every
other bureaucrat who can get involved in these things. They tend
to just look at the words that are written down in black and white
and overlook the fact that there are some very good projects out
there. They tend to be, I think, overly protective and in some
cases overly pushy.
Rather than just push one way, the environment is a two-way
street. It is something we have to keep in mind.
We support Bill C-56 and I am glad to speak to that support. I
do not often get to say this to the Liberal government, but it has
come a fair distance to the way our party thinks. It is quite easy
to stand here and talk about the failures in the criminal justice
system, immigration and finance. However, you have to give
credit where credit is due and it is due here today.
Why should we not support such an environmental bill?
Canada's identity should be rooted in a fresh appreciation for
our land. We have gone too long without a renewal of our
appreciation for our land. A lot of things that happen today, the
garbage that is strewn throughout our countryside, shows that
we need a fresh appreciation of things. That applies to young
people as much as to business people today. More often than not
7447
a project must be developed and built and environmental
impacts are overlooked. Our vision for the future is inspired by
the importance of our well-being, of exploring, developing,
renewing and conserving our environment. We have to leave our
young people with something. We have to leave them with a
good, clean environment and that is where this bill comes in. We
also have to leave them with a little of their pay cheque, which
the government has not got into its mind set yet but we will get it
there eventually. Meanwhile the government is coming along on
the environment so we will applaud it for that.
(1705 )
We strongly support ensuring that all Canadians and their
descendants live in a clean and healthy environment. I suppose
we all do that, notwithstanding political agendas, with the
exception of this separatist body here from which I am hearing
that there are almost two standards; a federal standard and a
Quebec standard. If the federal standard is higher than the
Quebec standard, this group seems to think that it is okay, we'll
go to the lower standard, as long as it is in their best interests.
That is not good enough today in Canada.
We must have the concept of public education programs, of
environmentally conscious purchasing. The federal government
should take a leadership role in environmentally conscious
purchasing while encouraging the private sector to follow.
I do not know how easy this is going to be for the federal
government. In the organization that I was in before I tried
environmental purchasing. One of the biggest problems was
getting suppliers to give you some environmentally sound
products. They do not produce them in bulk. When the federal
government goes-heaven only knows how much paper this
place uses-to get environmentally conscious products it may
be difficult. However the federal government has an obligation
to push in that direction.
We must buy into the principle of sustainable development,
which balances the need for a healthy environment with the
continued growth and progress of Canada's economy.
Sustainable development can be defined as meeting the needs
of the present without compromising our ability to meet the
needs of the future. ``Environmental considerations must carry
equal weight with the economic, social and technical
considerations of a project''. This is a big statement. The
government should really look at this as one of the main
principles of the environment. Because in most projects,
regardless of whether they are a $30,000 project or a $10 million
or $20 million project, what gets lost oftentimes because you are
trying to cut costs is the environmental consideration.
Somewhere along the line we have to look at it as having equal
weight with the economic, social and technical considerations.
I would like the Liberal government to consider that very
carefully.
We must see the integration of environmental and economic
objectives in all areas of management in which the federal
government has jurisdiction. We must support the integration of
energy development and environmental conservation by
ensuring that the cost of energy development includes the
associated costs of environmental protection and by supporting
conservation of energy and the development of alternative
energy sources for the purposes of environmental protection.
We all know that we have to establish clear federal-provincial
jurisdiction over environmental matters to reduce duplication,
confusion and unnecessary regulations. We also have to promote
partnerships with provincial governments, private industry and
educational institutions and the public to promote
environmental protection.
Our greatest resource today is sitting in high schools and
elementary schools. I have been in that business at one time or
another and very little of a sustainable, consistent curriculum on
the environment is put forward. A lot of schools go out on field
trips and they talk about it, but it is not really a consistent issue
with our young people. That is where we have to start. Our
young people will be the developers of tomorrow and they will
be the ones who will come under the umbrella of these
assessments that will be made under this act.
(1710 )
We support the development of environmental regulations
through consultation of industry and the public. We must
support the multi-partite round table approach as a means of
finding common ground when developing environmental
measures.
Multi-party round table approaches will work if the issue is
important enough to all parties. We do try. We have seen the
attempt to get the health round table discussions going. It is not
working. The provinces are opting out. A lot of it has to do with
the fact that the federal government is not offering enough to the
provinces in the partnership. In the environment we all have an
equal role. A lot of it is not necessarily money. It is articulation.
It is experience.
We should make government sponsored research available to
the private sector. I emphasize the private sector. Once we get it
into the public sector we are back again to all of these grants on
which governments, Liberal and Conservative, year after year
have made mistakes. They tend to become patronage pots.
If we can just let the private sector lead, they will come up
with better, higher quality environmental impact assessments
than will governments. We sometimes fall into the pit and think
that only governments can do a good job. That really is not so.
7448
An hon. member: And post offices.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): And post offices, yes.
We must support industrial research and development so that
in the future emissions from industry will be subject to controls,
such that water discharged from industrial plants will be equal
or better quality than the water taken into the plant for its use
and gaseous emissions will not be harmful.
Can you imagine having a standard, a principle that high, that
the water going out of plants will be of just as high a quality as
the water going into plants? That is amazing. Those are tough
measures. Those are the standards that we have to set up here.
These are the federal standards that my colleague from
Davenport was talking about a little while ago.
If we set the federal standards this high and if those of a
province are lower, I think most provinces would try to get up to
the higher standard, notwithstanding the separatist agenda.
We must support the restoration of programs for those parts of
our environment which have been damaged as a result of
inadequate regulations or a lack of proper enforcement of the
regulations.
This party supports the principle that polluters shall pay for
its pollution controls. This should be stringently enforced and
the penalties will be severe enough that polluters will not
consider them as a licence fee to pollute.
A lot of what I just talked about are principles or guidelines to
which the Reform Party adheres. They are not necessarily
coming from me but I ascribe to all of them. A lot of these
principles that we have fit into where the government is going.
That is nice to see.
There are four types of environmental assessments which
have been covered to some extent. I want to review them for the
folks that are listening and watching and so everyone
understands. We have a screening process to assess projects.
Then we get a comprehensive study. These are incremental. The
screening process is basically for smaller projects. Then we
move to a comprehensive study, then to mediation if required
and then to a review by an independent public panel.
I have negotiated many labour agreements in my day. I have
been in many mediation exercises. I know that is probably the
best solution when we run into problems rather than ending up
with a black and white issue where the parties are win-lose.
Both parties can win in mediation. I commend the government
for coming up with mediation. Let us hope it works.
I want to speak for a few minutes about my concern of where
the environment is going. That hits home for me as it affects the
folks of Matsqui, Aldergrove and Abbotsford in my riding in the
Fraser Valley in terms of air quality. The brown scourge that sits
over the Fraser Valley today from emissions from Vancouver is
not only concerning but downright scary.
(1715)
If we walk out into the backyards of my home or any of the
homes in Fraser Valley and run our fingers across a white table
that has been outside for two or three days, there is black pitch
coming from the skies. There are diseases. There are effects.
We are looking at the assessment of new projects coming into
the country. The government has to take some concrete action on
some old things that are kicking around. Air quality is one of
considerable importance to the Fraser Valley. It is not addressed
here, that I am aware of.
I have a word for the wise. The government should not forget
those things that exist and just think that Canadians will say:
``You have a good bill here''. It affects all things that might
happen in the future. There are things in existence such as air
quality and water quality in the Fraser Valley that are
deteriorating substantially.
I am going to use my remaining three minutes on what is
wrong in the Fraser Valley. I hope it will influence the Liberal
government and maybe get it to move a little better than it has on
other issues such as immigration, finances and the criminal
justice system. I always have to remind government members of
that because they forget so easily over there. Here are comments
that have come out of some in depth studies: ``environmental
agencies are urging lower mainland residents to minimize the
use of their cars until smog levels drop''.
Can we imagine in Canada today that the lower mainland of
British Columbia is getting like Los Angeles? It is hard to
believe. When I moved there in 1981 Mount Baker could be seen
as a pristine white mountain. It could be seen very clearly. Now
on any day there is a brown scourge there. People are afraid.
``The unprecedented request, the first in B.C. since the
regional, provincial and federal governments set up a warning
system in June, came Thursday as another hot sunny day and a
layer of warm air trapped air pollutants over the Fraser Valley''.
It is ironic, is it not, that the federal and provincial
governments set up a warning system about air quality? I am
here to tell the government that we are not interested in warning
systems. We are interested in repair, in fixing the problem. It is
useless to warn residents that the air quality is poor. We want the
problem fixed.
7449
A new public health study suggests that lower mainland
residents are getting sick and even dying from air pollution. The
study is part of an unprecedented $10 million. It is yet another
study, by the way. A multi-disciplinary research effort in the
Fraser Valley last summer looked at what happened to the lungs
of 58 farm workers from Matsqui and Abbotsford who worked
long hours outdoors. That is when pollutants from tailpipes and
smokestacks combine in sunlight to form a powerful lung
irritant called ground level ozone pollution, the same smog that
plagues car choked Los Angeles.
I could go on but I see my time is running out. It is important
to emphasize to government that while the bill addresses the
new projects, and that is great, there is a bigger responsibility.
There are a lot of pollutants. There are a lot of things that must
be addressed that exist today in Canada. I ask the government to
look at those as well.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for his support for
the bill before us today. I would like to inform him that the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development will be in his part of the world one month from
now. We will be holding public hearings in Vancouver on
December 1, 2 and 3. At the urging of his hon. colleague, the
member for Comox-Alberni, we will be examining some of the
issues that he raised in the House this afternoon, particularly the
condition of water in the Fraser Valley River estuary. If there is a
link between the condition of air quality, the smog that he
referred to and the chemicals that are emitted into the
atmosphere by various activities in his region, we will have an
opportunity to look at that as well.
(1720 )
The Liberal administration in Parliament is certainly moving
swiftly along the track that he is recommending this afternoon.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, that is good
news. I would suggest the committee has its hearings outside
and breathe a little of the unfiltered air. Maybe that will move it
on a bit. Perhaps the committee might even want to bring one of
the Bloc members to see that other parts of Canada have similar
problems to those in Quebec.
I have another point. The regulations by which we all live, the
law or the legislation, are being changed. I trust members of the
group that is coming to the Fraser Valley will enlist comments
from ordinary residents and get a bit away from the lobby
groups. I understand that is important, but they also need to talk
to the people who own the houses that are dirty now. They need
to talk to the people who are affected, such as farmers. They
need to talk to the people who drink that rotten water out there
with the nitrates in it.
They really should not surface scratch the issue. They have to
go a little deeper and get down to where the problems really are.
I hope this is not just another cursory discussion in a community.
I will be there and I will be asking some questions along with a
whole bunch of regular folk.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the member concerns his comments about yet
another study. It is a refrain that we frequently hear from
members of his party. Yet when he is advised a committee would
be going to his riding he seems to be quite supportive. I wonder
if he could explain the inconsistency in that approach for us.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I cannot stop
the government from undertaking timely and wasteful studies. I
doubt very much whether it even looked at the Conservative
studies that were undertaken on the matter before.
There is no question about how much money the government
wastes. If I am stuck with a group coming in to talk, I am stuck
with it. This is a majority government and we cannot stop it.
However I can tell the member that when he comes to the town
where I live there will be people asking questions. The
government is going to get its dollars worth out of our town
because we have a lot to say.
They spend a lot of money over there on studies, grants and
whatnot, but this time they will earn their money when they
come to our town.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple questions which I will put
individually to the hon. member.
I was quite pleased to hear that he and his party support the
principle of polluter pay. It is something that I have supported
for quite some time. It was refreshing to hear that the hon.
member supports the concept as well.
I am wondering, given his respect for the Criminal Code, if he
is prepared to take the issue of polluter pay one step further.
There has been talk over the years of adding crimes against the
environment as a new section of the Criminal Code and applying
Criminal Code type penalties and approaches to crimes against
the environment. I am wondering if the member would also
support that principle.
(1725)
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, actually it is
Reform Party policy that we would go further than fines for
polluters. I am not sure at this point how far in the Criminal
Code we would take it. I am sure it is going to be a subject for
debate within our own party.
The fact is that fines to major corporations make about as
much sense at times as the fines given to drug pushers. Many
drug pushers today get $2,000 fines. They turn around and go
out and sell whatever they are selling, heroin or crack. They
7450
make that in 20 minutes or less. If we look at that in the context
of a corporation making multimillions of dollars, to fine them
small $2,000 or $3,000 fines is a waste of time.
There has to be a better way, and I think the better way is
through other kinds of penalties. It is not only part of our policy.
We will be looking at it in depth as soon as we become
government in three years.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's earlier
comments about the Fraser Valley and air quality, I am
wondering if he has opinions about other issues, that perhaps a
federal environmental assessment could be done in relation to
the Alcan project in British Columbia or the Clayoquot Sound
issue in British Columbia. Are these also issues on which the
member believes a federal environmental assessment process
could be entertained?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, somebody
over there said I have an opinion on everything; they are
probably right.
The assessment of projects, if I have the question right, is
applicable to virtually all projects, big or small. Kemano is a
good example and that is being undertaken now of course. I do
not think it is not the size of the project. I think it is the effect the
project may have on our environment.
I think I have answered the question. I am not quite sure. I will
leave it at that.
[Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
especially happy today to join the Minister of the Environment
in speaking to Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act.
I think that in analyzing this bill, we must pay close attention
to the actions of Opposition members, particularly members of
the Official Opposition. In addressing environmental
assessments, the Bloc Quebecois clearly showed that its
mandate has nothing to do with protecting Quebecers' interests.
In fact, the Bloc stubbornly criticizes the proclamation of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was designed
by its own leader. These actions confirm that the only goal of the
Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, is to look after the
interests of Quebec's separatist government.
As the leader of the Bloc has often said, the environment has
no borders. In an interview published in the October 13 edition
of The Gazette, the hon. member who is the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois said this in English:
[English]
The problem is that the word environment never appears in
the Constitution so the provinces and the federal government are
condemned to work jointly. They have to work together. If they
do not it is chaos.
(1730)
[Translation]
All levels of government share a great and noble
responsibility with regard to the environment. All levels of
government in Canada have a responsibility to ensure that
development is carried out in a rational way while at the same
time respecting the natural balance.
It is clear that Canadians want jobs, but not at the expense of
their children or the environment. Of all the tools available to
protect the environment, the environmental assessment is
undoubtedly the most effective. In fact, environmental
assessment is inexpensive preventive medicine. It gives us
advance warning of the possible environmental impact of a
project and it promotes informed public participation in the
decision-making process.
If members of this House agree that environmental
jurisdiction is shared and that environmental assessment is a
good way to prevent pollution, how can we explain that some
members opposite stubbornly insist on condemning the
proclamation of this bill? Let us briefly look together at the
so-called problems raised by the Bloc's environment critic.
When the Minister of the Environment on October 6
announced the government's decision to proclaim the law, the
Bloc critic condemned this as a federal attempt to interfere in
provincial jurisdiction. Of course, such reaction from the Bloc
Quebecois is quite natural. I must say that I was stupefied when I
heard those remarks about Bill C-56.
In fact, what Bill C-56 does is exactly the opposite of what the
Bloc is again trying to have all Quebecers believe. If the federal
government wanted to meddle in provincial affairs or make
things difficult for Quebec by interfering with its economic
development, it would not propose the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. It would keep the famous 1984 EARP
Guidelines Order and it would use it systematically.
Why? Because that order allows the federal government to
examine the environmental impact of any proposal over which it
has a decision-making power. Do you know how the term
``proposal'' is defined in the order? It is described as any
undertaking or activity over which the government has a say in
the decision process.
In concrete terms, this means every project, activity and
initiative in which the federal government is involved. It also
includes all direct and indirect subsidies to provinces, including
equalization payments, as well as every Canada-Quebec
agreement on regional development, and all federal subsidies to
businesses. That definition also includes hundreds of licences,
permits and authorizations delivered every day by the federal
government.
7451
When he was Canada's Minister of the Environment, the Bloc
Quebecois leader did read the EARP Guidelines Order. He also
read the Supreme Court decisions and he quickly realized that if
the order were to be applied like an act, as instructed by the
courts, the federal government would find itself in an
impossible situation. This is why he demanded that a reform be
implemented as quickly as possible. I must admit that the Bloc
critic did a nice song and dance. She said that the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act was unacceptable because it
differs from Bill C-78 which, as you remember, had been
submitted to Cabinet by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean just a
few days before his sudden resignation from the Conservative
government.
(1735)
For once, the Bloc critic is partially right when she talks about
differences. Dozens of amendments were proposed by the House
of Commons committee and by the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment, which represents the interests of
all the provinces regarding environmental issues.
Let us examine the main amendments together briefly. First of
all, approximately ten changes to the Bouchard bill were meant
to facilitate the alignment of the federal and the provincial
processes. Thus, the Minister of the Environment is now
required to consult the provinces and to co-operate with them
before any review panel is formed. Other amendments give the
federal authorities the power to delegate to the provinces the
preliminary reviews, the in-depth studies, the mitigation
measures and even the follow-up programs.
Therefore, what we have here is a possible delegation of most
of the environmental assessments done by the federal
government. Some other changes promote public participation.
Several clauses were added to restrain the discretion formerly
afforded the federal authorities.
The Bouchard bill was amended so that the uncertainties
about the implementation of the legislation would be reduced,
including in the area of federal activities. But the preamble of
that bill was changed to include the concept of sustainable
development.
Therefore, the Bloc critic is right. The Bouchard bill was
amended in several important ways. I would like her to say, for
the benefit of the House, what amendments are rejected by her
party. In fact, all of the amendments to this famous bill we just
saw and reviewed are consistent with the vision of this
government, a vision where the objective is to make sure we can
act according to the present policy, based first and foremost on a
progressive federalism.
This bill means that we are going to work together with all the
provinces and also with the general public, and that is what irks
the Official Opposition. This bill is a prime example of how
federalism can work when you believe in it. That is the problem
with the Official Opposition. When they talk about federalism,
they certainly do not want this system, which is probably the
best system in the world, to operate properly. That is why they
say every time that if the Leader of the Bloc left the
Conservative government at the time, it was because he believed
and knew that the system no longer worked.
I think it is too early to throw in the towel on a system that is
evolving and responding to the needs of the people. Not just in
Quebec but in Canada as well, people say that federalism has
problems. My answer to that is thank God federalism has
problems, because this means people have changed, people have
evolved, and our duty as parliamentarians at the federal level, as
members of this House, is to reflect on these changes and get
together to ensure that the political system under which we live,
that the federal system under which we are evolving also
evolves in line with the expectations of the public.
This was just a brief digression. I will get back to the bill.
(1740)
And if the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were an
attempt by the federal government to encroach on Quebec's
jurisdiction, as I said earlier, let the Bloc critic explain why four
successive federal Ministers of the Environment came from the
Conservative Quebec caucus and were so closely involved in
this reform? They designed it, tabled it in the House, made
amendments, passed it and defended it during the last federal
election. According to the philosophy of the Bloc Quebecois, we
would have to say that probably all the Quebecers who were
committed to this bill were on the wrong track.
In fact, the question is: Does the Bloc have a monopoly on
brains? Were these people who spoke out in favour of the bill all
wrong? The answer is simple. As I said earlier, the bill is such an
eloquent example of viable federalism that obviously they
would be ill-advised to react positively to the bill, since these
people, and I am probably repeating myself, are intent on only
one thing, and that is the separation of Quebec.
Unfortunately, in the process they have lost the ability to
think objectively, thereby jeopardizing the interests of all
Quebecers. Well, the people who supported this bill were not all
wrong. The comments of the critic for the Bloc Quebecois seem
to point to the presence of a transmission belt linking her office
with the Quebec government's Department of
Intergovernmental Affairs. The problem of the Bloc Quebecois
right now is that it is only a mouthpiece. We could say that it is
the secretariat of the Parti Quebecois. Members of the Bloc no
longer have their own identity, their own way of thinking. They
do not have a specific way of being, a specific philosophy. They
are like puppets controlled by the government of Quebec which
is following a separation agenda.
Since I am informed that time is flying, I will simply say that
this bill, like many an initiative from this government, is a
highly symbolic expression of dialogue. We proved in the past
that when there is a will to co-operate we can progress. Let us
remember, for example, the St. Lawrence-Vision 2000 project.
7452
This is a vibrant example of federal, provincial and municipal
co-operation. Let us remember the agreements under the
infrastructure program which helped renew our social
infrastructure and put a number of people back to work.
Recently, last June in fact, there was an agreement between the
provinces to do away with economic barriers. Is it not proof that
federalism works?
Clearly, this legislation is in the same vein and shows the
same kind of vision. This is why members of the Official
Opposition have every reason to make the people of Quebec
believe that this legislation is useless and even harmful to the
whole of Quebec.
In 1981, 13 years ago, the government of the Parti Quebecois
passed the Environment Quality Act. At the same time, it
adopted regulations listing the kind of projects which would be
subject to hearings by the Quebec Bureau d'audiences publiques
sur l'environnement.
Unfortunately, the Quebec government forgot to proclaim
certain key sections of the regulations and today, 13 years later,
the Parti Quebecois government's process only deals with dams,
roads and marinas. There is no public assessment of industrial
projects, no public assessment of mining projects and no public
assessment of aluminum plants.
(1745)
I would like to conclude, if I may, Mr. Speaker, on a very
important point, namely the harmonization of the federal and
provincial processes. For the past several months, the members
of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment have
been looking for ways to facilitate harmonization. Their
objective is to agree on the implementation of the principle of
one environmental assessment for each project, regardless of
the number of decision-makers. It is an arduous task requiring
the participation of all provinces.
Nevertheless, the Quebec environment minister recently
announced that he was withdrawing his officials from the
federal-provincial consultations on environmental assessment.
This decision could hurt Quebec businesses as well as
Quebecers looking for a job. The president of the Conseil du
patronat du Québec recently condemned this hasty decision on
the part of the Quebec environment minister. Other
organizations are to follow suit.
To conclude, if the Bloc members want to show that they are
more concerned about the interests of Quebecers that they are
about their obsession to separate, they should do two things in
this House. First, they should support the proclamation of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the amendments
proposed by the environment minister.
Second, if these people were acting reasonably and for the
sake of all Quebecers, they would recognize the appropriateness
of this bill for the future of Quebec, the future of Canada and the
well-being of federalism. They would also have the courage to
demand that the Quebec environment minister change his mind
and take part again in the work of the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment on the harmonization of the
environmental assessment process. This is what they would do if
only they had enough courage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before we proceed with
questions and comments, the government whip has the floor on a
point of order.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2),
I wish to inform you that the next speakers from the government
will be sharing their time.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to the member for
Outremont who I think spoke quite well on the bill and other
matters. It is partly the other matters that I want to address in my
opening comments before I place my question.
The debate through most of today centred around issues
within the province of Quebec. With the exception of comments
earlier in the day the government speakers have all represented
Quebec ridings this afternoon so far, including the
parliamentary secretary, the member for Davenport-I
apologize, Mr. Speaker, I just realize the member for Davenport
is from Ontario. I have to rephrase my question.
The comments today have centred around the jurisdiction of
the province of Quebec. The member for Outremont rightly
speaks for his constituents and the people of his province. I
believe the question of jurisdiction while it is an important one
is not the only question that we have to deal with in this House.
I had expected members of the Bloc Quebecois at least in one
of their speeches today as members representing the Official
Opposition to raise some of the issues which are important to the
rest of Canada, issues that are over and above the questions of
jurisdiction.
The member for Outremont must be aware that the province of
Quebec would have to participate in joint panels if this bill came
into force with the amendments put forward today.
(1750 )
How would the member for Outremont advise the members of
his government to deal with the province of Quebec in matters
where confrontation might exist over the issues of not only
jurisdiction but of the joint panels that must be created under the
auspices of the act?
7453
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is an
interesting question, one that was partially answered in my
speech.
As I said, there is already a joint committee sitting at the level
of all the environment ministers of all the provinces. They are
all sitting in order to discuss what we are going to do about the
environment in this country.
[Translation]
They are trying to set national standards so that we can have
legislation or at least an environmental policy that will be
consistent from coast to coast.
As I mentioned in my speech-
[English]
Unfortunately the Minister of the Environment of the
province of Quebec declared weeks ago that it does not want to
participate any more in that process. According to the minister it
is a question of jurisdiction; the environment belongs to the
provinces.
[Translation]
So, as I mentioned in my speech, that question has already
been answered. The problem is that the Quebec Minister of the
Environment refuses to participate in this process and, as I
explained earlier, that is where there is a lack of objectivity.
Every time we try to sit down with the government of Quebec or
the Official Opposition to discuss national standards or other
issues for the benefit of Quebecers and all Canadians, they
refuse to take part in such discussions.
I think it is time we start telling Quebecers that the federal
government is not as bad as some people would like them to
believe and that the present federal government is actually very
open.
This brings me to say a few words about the issue of social
reform. You will understand that we cannot give these people
any credibility when we have just undertaken a social reform
process in which we want to consult Canadians so that they can
participate in the development of a new government policy.
We are just through the first stage, which was the tabling of a
discussion paper. The consultation process will
follow-actually, it has already started. So we are still in the
early stages of this reform and the ministers responsible in
Quebec are already complaining that the federal government
wants to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, that the
federal government is again picking on Quebec. I do not
understand anything any more. If the government presents a
discussion paper and wants to consult people, if this is
interpreted as wanting to invade Quebec, I will have to take
Politics 101 over again.
I do not understand anything any more, but it is obvious. Since
the federal government wants to act openly and present a bill to
reform part of our federal system, namely our social programs,
they absolutely do not want to see this process succeed.
[English]
I must say that it is the same with the question of the
environment. When we are discussing that subject, they do not
want to enter into discussion with our government. They want to
separate. They want to move apart so they will not be with us any
more. As such it is going to be very difficult to deal with them
over the next few years.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts a lot of stake
in consultation. I applaud him for that because I believe that
consulting is an important part of governing.
This bill contains just three provisions. One of those
provisions is the opportunity for participation by Canadians
through an intervener funding program or a participant funding
program. That is a very important part of the consultation
process inherent in environmental assessment.
(1755 )
The amendment in front of us provides a very vague approach
to participant funding. Can the member give us any indication as
to whether he would be supportive of a more specific intervener
funding program to ensure that there are adequate resources
available to those who wish to participate in the process and
those who wish to be consulted during the process of
environmental assessment?
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, on the question of funding for
people who want to proceed and be accepted in the consultation
process, we should have a look at what we are doing. Actually
the minister of human resources in his consultations on social
reform decided that he will proceed with some funding for
organizations across Canada.
I believe that on that specific point we have to respect the
discretionary power of the minister. It depends on what process
we are going ahead with. If it is a huge transformation in that
field against it then the discretion of the minister will be used
accordingly. I am very much in favour of the discretion that we
kept in that bill.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on
Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
I would first like to make a few comments on our environment
in a general sense. First, environment has a special meaning in
my constituency of Surrey North. Surrey is one of the fastest
growing communities in Canada. It has grown and expanded in
recent years because of both immigration and migration. The
immigration is mainly Asian and the migration is mainly people
from the Vancouver area.
7454
The constituency of Surrey North is a mixture of urban and
rural with the urban increasing at the expense of the rural. That
alteration along with the population growth and business
expansion has caused concerns and greater awareness of the
environmental impacts. That desire is truly tested by an
explosive population growth.
One characteristic of the people of Surrey North and indeed
the people of the west coast is the desire to preserve the natural
climate and the environment as best they can. Numerous
environmentally oriented projects are apparent in the daily
activities of west coast citizens. A heightened awareness of the
importance of environmental concerns is demonstrated through
more and more presentations and/or questions being asked by
citizens on such things as air and water pollution, the long range
effects of cutting our trees, right down to their participation in
recycling programs.
Second, another environmental concern is that the wild
animals are losing their homelands due to the human population
explosion and the effects of meeting our own needs for survival.
Only our parks are destined, probably within the next century, to
become homes for our wild animals unless we change our ways.
The British Isles would be a prime example of this. A couple
of centuries ago large animals such as moose and bear roamed
on that land through great stands of trees. Somewhere along the
line lumber gave way to bricks for building the human dwellings
and the moose, the bear, the large cats and other animals that
were there gradually became thought of as being indigenous to
North America.
Another example of the abuse of our environment seemingly
for our need for survival is in the early days of our explorers,
Jacques Cartier's time for example. During that time it was
recorded that the fish were so plentiful off our east coast that his
crew had a tough time getting the oars in the water to move their
dinghy forward.
Today we are all aware of the present situation on the east
coast where the stocks have been so depleted that the economic
foundation and livelihood of a region has been seriously
changed, perhaps forever. Not only is there an economic impact,
the fish themselves are possibly close to being an endangered
species.
(1800 )
Another example would be Easter Island where thriving
civilizations cut trees to build homes and move great stone
statues. Soon there were no trees left. The homes are no longer,
the statues are stationary, and the once thriving civilization is all
but gone.
Balancing the wants of people with the capabilities of the
environment is a challenge which all communities must face. It
is a challenge which people from Surrey have met so far. The
industrial expansion of the past few years has not as far as we
know had a negative impact on our environment. Surrey is a
community that disproves the notion that industry necessarily
hurts environment.
We must realize as a nation that we can have a thriving
economy and a healthy environment at the same time. That is the
sensible approach of the Reform Party. Our blue book states
support for the concept of ``sustainable development'' because
``without economic development and the income generated
therefrom the environment will not be protected or enjoyed''.
What Reformers recognize is garnered from what most
Canadians recognize: the importance of the environment to our
livelihood as a nation; the importance of the natural resources it
provides for our economy and well-being; the variables of the
vast geography and sometimes harsh climate that we must
encounter; and the preservation of the pure beauty of the natural
environment which never ceases to amaze us and visitors to our
great nation. This we must preserve.
At the end of the last sitting I drove from Ottawa to Surrey. I
was taken aback and awestruck by the absolute beauty and
astounding diversity of our country, from the hills, trees, and
unique rock formations of northern Ontario to the wide open
prairies of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, through the
majestic Rockies and down to the scenic beauty of the west
coast. If you are able to ignore the areas of clear cut and look
past the smoke billowing from some factory or mill, the drive
across our country is an experience all Canadians should share.
Only after a drive like that does one realize the magnitude,
greatness and potential of our country.
We must always strive to maintain that close link between
people and their natural environment in this country and
continually improve our understanding of the earth itself and
our effects upon it. We are as individuals much more aware
today of our environment and the effects our actions can have
upon it. We are also very aware that the various levels of
government are actively involved in the decision making
process for many of these very actions involving our
environment.
Bill C-56 including the three amendments is a small step
forward at the federal level to enhance the process of achieving
these decisions. It would be helpful first to take a look at the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act itself.
The act requires the federal government to study the
environmental impacts of a whole range of projects that until
now have escaped public scrutiny. Environmental assessments
have been done in the past and have not carried the weight they
should in the making of the final decision. Economic
considerations have had the tendency to rank higher in
importance in the decision making process.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act creates the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. This agency
replaces the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
This office was criticized for being costly because of overlap
and duplication and for being inconsistently applied. Replacing
one office with another may not in itself improve the situation
7455
but the review and revisions and upgrading of the regulations
governing the agency's role could very well be the key to an
improved performance. The failure of the federal government to
provide clear guidelines led to court challenges of high profile
projects such as the Oldman River dam in Alberta and the
Rafferty-Alameda dam in Saskatchewan.
Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act four
types of environmental assessments are available to meet
different projects and circumstances. One would be screening,
two would be comprehensive study, three would be mediation,
and four would be a review by an independent panel.
(1805 )
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was a bill
proposed and passed by the former Conservative government.
However the act once passed was never proclaimed, meaning
that it never came into force.
In the red book the Liberals promised to amend the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act ``to shift the decision making
powers to an independent Canadian environmental assessment
agency subject to appeal to the cabinet''. That is on page 64 of
the red book.
On October 6, 1994 the government issued a press release
stating its intent to proclaim the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. The reasons for the Conservatives not
proclaiming the act that they passed may not be known for
certain, but a reasonable guess is because of the wrangling
among the industry and environmental groups and among
federal and provincial bureaucrats and politicians over the act in
general and certain regulations in particular.
The former and present Quebec governments opposed this
act. The former Liberal environmental minister for Quebec,
Pierre Paradis, appeared before the Senate in an attempt to block
the bill. And I understand that the present environmental
minister for Quebec is publicly opposing the proclamation of
this act.
On this issue one must sympathize with the federal
government, for two reasons: first, that the citizens of the
country want the federal government to be active in the
protection of the environment; and second, because the
environment is an area not outlined in the Constitution under
federal and provincial jurisdiction. There are to date no clear
guidelines for the federal government to follow in this area.
The federal government must play an active role in the
protection of the environment and develop clear effective
guidelines for environmental issues and concerns. The Reform
Party recognizes the need for federal leadership in this area.
Also the new Liberal government has made changes in the
regulations of the original act and has proposed amendments to
try to satisfy the concerns of some groups. One change in the bill
is the dropping of the controversial provision that would have
forced environmental reviews of energy exports. This change
was apparently welcomed by the oil and gas and hydroelectric
industries but criticized by environmental groups.
With regard to the federal-provincial jurisdiction, the federal
Minister of the Environment is able to develop co-ordinated
environmental assessment procedures for conducting joint
panel reviews, thus preventing overlap and jurisdictional
conflict. The Reform Party supports the co-ordination between
the federal and provincial governments on environment action.
We support the reduction of duplication, confusion and
unnecessary regulation by developing and applying
environmental criteria through a joint federal-provincial
process.
The present regulations of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act divide the project into four categories: a
comprehensive study list; a law list; an exclusion list; and an
inclusion list.
The comprehensive study list describes those types of
projects that must be assessed through a more detailed study.
The law list is a list of licences, permits, certificates and other
regulatory authorizations which are required for certain
projects. An environmental assessment would be triggered in
this case. The exclusion list describes those undertakings in
relation to a physical work that do not require an environmental
assessment. The inclusion list relates only to those projects that
are a physical activity not related to physical work. It occurs
when a federal agency issues a permit or a licence.
At the same time that the government announced its intention
to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act it
announced its intention to bring forward three amendments to
the act. These amendments comprise Bill C-56.
One amendment is to legally entrench the participant funding
program which is an amendment to section 58 of the CEAA.
This allows for intervener funding for public participation in the
review process. I agree that public participation should be
encouraged as long as the funds come from within the current
department allocations or budget.
(1810 )
Another amendment is to section 37 of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. It requires a cabinet decision to
respond to the recommendations of independent environmental
assessment panels. Previously this decision was made by the
minister only. By making it a cabinet decision opens it up for
more debate and scrutiny and makes the decision process much
more democratic.
7456
The last amendment amending section 24 of the CEAA
confirms the principle of one project, one assessment in the act.
This aspect of the bill is very encouraging. It addresses the
possibility of numerous environmental assessments being done
by the various federal departments involved and now groups all
that into one assessment.
One project, one assessment makes for logical reasoning as
well as indicating some fiscal responsibility and some
consideration as to more efficient implementation of the
project's timetable. Instead of each department involved, for
example, industry, transport, environment, et cetera doing its
own assessment over a period of time a panel or committee is
struck with representation from all departments to participate in
one assessment.
This amendment should alleviate the concerns of business to
require permits from several federal departments. Under this
amendment instead of businesses facing multiple reviews they
would be subject to only one federal assessment. Also this
principle of one assessment should lower the cost compared to
having to do several assessments. Another benefit would be to
speed up the process of implementation of the actual plan.
Participants would not have to wait for several months or years
for all the assessments to come in.
An improvement on this process would be to bring provincial
representation in on the same assessment committee. This
harmonizing would prevent the possibility of federal and
provincial assessments contradicting each other. It also
provides for one assessment, not one at the federal level and one
or more at the provincial level.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate two of my previous
statements. First, our environment is of major importance to us
and concerns relating to it should rank high in our decision
making process. Second, Bill C-56 is definitely a small,
progressive step forward in achieving this end.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear the hon. member's
commitment to the environment. Anyone who lives in western
Canada is well aware of the beauty that exists, but all of us know
that the environment involves much more than beauty. It is
home, it sustains us. Anyone who lives on this planet knows that
without the land, the air and the water to sustain us we are
nothing. I am very pleased to hear of the hon. member's
commitment to matters of environmental concern.
My question deals with intervener funding which is one of the
amendments to the act. The member expressed support for
intervener funding and outlined her concerns about additional
spending with regard to intervener funding. While I believe
there are probably arguments to be made in this regard, I would
like to ask if the member has given any thought to the process of
intervener funding.
Who would she consider should examine the list of possible
interveners? Who would suggest to the panel which interveners
would be funded? Should a panel be struck to do this? Would the
panel itself make this decision? Should the Minister of the
Environment or perhaps the President of the Treasury Board be
responsible for making this decision?
(1815 )
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I agree with what he is saying. I can sympathize with
his concerns.
When I was researching it myself it became very obvious that
particular section of the bill was very vague from the actual
process point of view. There does not seem to be any direction as
to how that will actually transpire. I assume the results will be
debated and discussed in committee.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member indicated support for funding of
interveners in the process. As the hon. member is well aware,
her party is taking the position that it is opposed to the court
challenges program.
Could the hon. member comment on what appears to be an
apparent contradiction of supporting intervener funding but not
supporting the court challenges program which in effect is an
intervener process?
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. There are two possible approaches. First, when that
program is actually put in place so that we can have that input in
the panel from the community it becomes a component of the
whole program and should be incorporated in the budget of the
total program. It is not an additional program in itself. It is not
an add on. It is part of the whole program and should be
budgeted accordingly in the overall program.
Second, we are back to good old Reform policy and ideals,
that is grassroots input. We firmly believe it is essential for the
people in the community affected by the project to have access
to express themselves to the committee. Again it should be
formalized or structured access. That could come up in the
process of how the input would come about. The whole program
should be budgeted in total.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me considerable pride to take part in today's second
reading debate on the act to amend the Canadian Environment
Assessment Act, CEAA.
In coming years the decisions we take or the consequences of
those we fail to take with respect to the environment will have a
profound impact on the legacy we leave our children and our
children's children. Will the Canada they inherit be the same
Canada that for the past three years the United Nations has
called the best place in the world to live? Or, will the Canada
they inherit be one in which our natural environment, the source
7457
of many of the comparative advantages we enjoy, be
compromised in order to meet the short term needs of today?
Some might consider my characterization of these options as
mere rhetorical excess, but I profoundly believe these are the
real choices we face.
[Translation]
The previous government spent a lot of time and energy to
develop the legislation we are now discussing. Eight years ago,
the then minister was the first to try to integrate a more rigorous
environmental evaluation process into the laws of the land.
Ironically, his successor, now Leader of the Official
Opposition, was the architect of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. I used the word ``ironically'' because I believe
that all Canadians should be grateful to him for having
developed a bill that is basically good but which the present
Minister of Environment has improved and reinforced.
(1820)
[English]
The Leader of the Opposition's successor actually tabled
CEAA but was unable to galvanize the political support
necessary within his own party to get it proclaimed. The current
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party had his chance to
move CEAA forward. He worked with both House and Senate
committees to make several positive thoughtful changes to the
original legislation but he too was unable to proclaim the act.
Finally the last Minister of the Environment in the previous
government was unable to get his government to focus on the
urgent need for CEAA to be proclaimed.
The record is remarkable. Over a seven-year period no less
than five ministers were unable to proclaim this important piece
of legislation. The legislation represents reform which the
overwhelming majority of Canadian environmental groups,
industry associations, provincial governments and ordinary
Canadians concerned about the environment agree is an absolute
necessity.
There is an important lesson here to which I want to draw the
attention of members. For various reasons certain misguided
interests pulled out all the stops to try to prevent this forward
looking piece of legislation from ever seeing the light of day.
That is why the achievements of the Deputy Prime Minister and
the Minister of the Environment on this file are all the more
remarkable.
[Translation]
Actually, in less than a year, she was able to obtain the
collaboration of interested groups in order to review the four key
regulations that give the law its real scope and make them more
precise, more concrete and more rigorous. The minister has
reinforced the act by bringing forward an amendment forcing
the Minister of Environment to establish a funding program that
will allow an enlightened participation of the public to reviews
and mediation processes.
The minister took steps so that the review commissions'
recommendations receive due consideration by requiring that
they be submitted to a cabinet decision. Following the wishes of
the industry she induced an amendment so that decisions could
be taken more rapidly and in a more co-ordinated way after
environmental assessments, according to the principle of one
evaluation per project. In less than a year, the minister did more
than five Conservative ministers in eight years. Present and
future generations of Canadians owe her a lot.
[English]
The 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development pointed out that the environment is where we
live and development is what we all do in attempting to improve
our lot within the abode. The two are inseparable. The
commission was right and remains so today.
Environment and economy are inseparable. An environmental
assessment is the foundation upon which sustainable
development can and must rest. Conducting environmental
assessments makes both good economic and environmental
sense. By integrating environmental concerns early in the
planning stages before decisions are made, business and
industry protect themselves from having to deal with
environmental problems later on.
[Translation]
Several features of the new environmental assessment system
are worthy of note. The first one is public participation, which is
recognized as essential to any efficient environmental
assessment. In fact, the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act provides the public with many opportunities to become
involved in the various stages of the assessment process.
It provides for the establishment of a public registry to ensure
the accessibility of the documents relating to any ongoing
federal environmental assessment, including those conducted in
co-operation with a province. It sets into law a participant
funding program ensuring that resources are made available to
interested individuals and groups to participate efficiently in the
process.
The second feature that I would like to mention reflects the
federal government's commitment to changing
decision-making practices throughout the federal
administration. Recommendations from public review panels
will be subject to a joint cabinet decision. Another amendment
is designed to ensure that only one federal environmental
assessment is conducted with respect to a project, which will
permit better coordination of the decision-making process in
projects where more than one federal department or agency is
involved.
7458
All these interrelated measures will have the effect of making
federal departments and agencies, as well as cabinet, more
responsible for the environmental impact of their decisions.
These measures are an important step in the development of a
government-wide environmental culture.
The third feature is the creation and maintenance of a public
registry accessible to all stakeholders. This provision will have
a positive impact on environmental assessment, as an art and
science, a new and growing discipline. With each assessment,
more knowledge is gained regarding the complex, symbiotic
interrelations between people, development and the
environment.
(1825)
[English]
It is not a static process. It is a living, breathing, interactive
one. The use of public registries does more than just provide a
rich source of relevant and accessible information for both
project proponents and those likely to be impacted by a
proposed development.
What is often overlooked is that the public registries provide a
means of ensuring the institutional memory acquired in the
conduct of the environmental assessment is preserved. Indeed
the CEAA reform package we are debating has been carefully
crafted with the notion that environmental assessment is a
dynamic process firmly in mind.
The fact that we have provided expanded opportunities for
public involvement throughout the environmental assessment
process speaks eloquently to this point. We have no intention of
allowing CEAA to become brittle or irrelevant. Its coming into
force constitutes the beginning and not the end of the process of
change. All parliamentarians regardless of political stripe have
a responsibility to make it work and contribute to its success.
The previous government used words like effective, efficient,
fair, open and transparent to describe its intentions vis-à-vis
environmental assessment. We on this side of the House have
acted quickly and decisively to give effect to those words by
improving and proclaiming CEAA.
We have acted because we view sound stewardship over the
environment as extremely important. Our actions serve to give
real definition to the words. That is why all members of the
House can and should support CEAA. We have a responsibility
to act for future generations.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment the member on his speech.
As we are both on the environment committee, I was curious
about his research. I was unable to find the area that deals with
ministerial discretion on whether or not to look at a project. I am
referring specifically to the Kemano project in British Columbia
where the former government basically said it did not need
environmental assessment.
Was there anywhere the member looked when he was looking
for material for his speech that would cover this in the new bill?
I was unable to find any and it leaves me a bit uneasy that the
minister still has the discretion to ignore or postpone an
assessment.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. As I understand the process the minister will be
receiving advice from the environmental assessment agency
that is being set up. I would hope that is how the system would
work.
As the member well knows, the process provides for the bill to
go to committee. These are issues and questions that we can
raise at that level before final reading of the bill.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the involvement of the
current Minister of the Environment and gave her a considerable
amount of credit for moving the bill forward when other
ministers had been unable to do so.
I agree that the current Minister of the Environment has done
what few have been able to do in the past, but I recognize what
some of the problems are. One problem is simply that the bill
came before cabinet on numerous occasions, just as the
regulations came before cabinet on numerous occasions. The
minister and others had to argue with other cabinet ministers
concerning the ability of the cabinet to move the bill forward.
Ministers with economic portfolios have always had a stronger
say in cabinet than ministers of the environment.
(1830 )
I wonder if members recognize that one of the amendments
provides for the greater authority of cabinet to have the final say
on projects; not the panel, not the Minister of the Environment,
but cabinet. Is the member prepared at committee to have a look
at the structure of cabinet where the economic ministers have a
very strong say in the kind of environmental legislation or
regulations we have in our country?
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, one consideration the member
should take into account is that the proclamation and
amendment of this bill was in the red book. It was part of the
Liberal election platform. All cabinet ministers with economic
portfolios or otherwise subscribe to the red book policy.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, but it took a year.
7459
Mr. DeVillers: The member points out that it took a year.
However, as I indicated in my comments, the former
government had eight years and did not proclaim it. It has been
passed.
To answer the question, would I be prepared to look at it at
committee? It is my role in committee to look at all legitimate
issues and to make appropriate recommendations.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
commenting on the remark by the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake who said this took a whole year.
This bill is not the only thing we have done in the last year. In
fact, I was thinking as we went through this legislation today
that I am absolutely amazed at how much of the red book agenda
we have been able to get done in our first year. At the rate we are
going we will have everything in the red book done within the
first two years when the Prime Minister had said the red book
agenda would happen over the term of the government.
I begin by complimenting the Minister of the Environment
and Deputy Prime Minister for moving forward on this very
important legislation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. I believe that the balance sheet of a nation will be judged by
the way we take care of our environment.
The environmental assessment legislation is a systematic
method of identifying potential environmental consequences of
a proposed project and its impact on people, their livelihood and
way of life. If these environmental consequences are identified
early in the planning stages, then plans can be modified so
potential risks are minimized or ideally eliminated.
Environmental assessment is a very logical tool for achieving
sustainable development, that is ensuring that the needs of
present generations can be met while allowing future
generations to meet their needs.
I believe the legislation will lead to a whole new measurement
of the economy. In the past the environment really has not been
driving the economic agenda in our country. In fact, the
environment always got a short shrift.
(1835 )
I actually should go back to when my colleague from
Davenport was the Minister of the Environment in the previous
Liberal government. He was probably the first Minister of the
Environment to give the issue such a determined, sustained
approach. His tenacity in making sure that this issue was always
on the front burner gave all of us in the Liberal Party a real
example. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the
Environment is following through today with that commitment
from the red book.
I noticed in a book that I was reading earlier in preparing for
this debate, written by Julia Moulden and Patrick Carson, Green
Is Gold, that we now have industries that are starting to realize
that if they commit to greening themselves or committing
themselves to the environmental movement that their balance
sheets can be much more profitable.
Even though the member stated that we were a year getting to
this bill, ideally it should have been one we handled in the first
quarter. However the fact is that we have now got the bill in the
system. It will no doubt pass, we will be setting up a whole new
structure and the environment will now take on a priority
position.
I would like to say to members opposite that this is a bill on
which we must all be united. It is a bill that regrettably once
again the Bloc Quebecois will not support, not because its
members are not committed to the environment, but because
once again whenever you come forward with a bill that talks
about national standards, a bill that can galvanize the spirit of
the country, legislation that can pull us all together, the Bloc is
consistent in walking away from it. They find some excuse that
it impinges on the rights of Quebecers.
If there is one thing that everyone is committed to in every
part of Canada it is saving the planet. I believe that Quebecers,
once they understand the true meaning of the bill, will probably
urge some of their Bloc Quebecois members to be a little less
political and a little more concerned about what truly is
important for everyone in our society, especially for future
generations.
I stand here today in total support of this bill.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the hon. member.
He has spoken on numerous occasions in the House on the
environment, business and the economy. I always listen
carefully to what he has to say.
I want to indicate that the matter that I was raising about it
taking a year for the government to bring this bill in was in
relation to the difficulties that ministers have sometimes in
dealing with cabinet on environmental issues.
In the half minute available to me, I want to say that the
minister probably could have brought in the bill in the first
quarter. Consultation with environmental organizations and
industry was concluded relatively early in the process. But the
process of getting the new regulations through cabinet was a
very difficult task. Again I commend the minister but it shows
that cabinet is still a very powerful body when it comes to
dealing with issues like this.
If the government has the will to see that the environment will
be a first priority, then the system works. If this government or
the next government chooses not to have the environment as its
top priority, then the system does not work. We have to ensure
7460
that parliamentarians and Canadians all have an opportunity to
respond to power when there is abuse. I just wanted to clarify
that matter.
The member also indicated the accounting that occurs in the
country. He talked about green accounting. I wonder if the
member could tell me if he supports the principle of green
accounting when we look at the way our country is developing.
It is not an efficient economy based on GNP, growth and
development. An efficient economy is one that is based on
preservation and conservation as much as growth and
development. Is that important to the member?
(1840 )
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I want to
say to the member that I appreciate the question. I believe we are
on a pathway and that this bill will move us along that pathway
more quickly in changing our whole system of calculation.
Some members have talked about-I know we have talked in
our own policy group in my riding-about this new notion of a
human development index rather than a GNP. The GNP system
is not really sensitive to sustainable development. At least to
this point it has not been.
I personally love the idea of exploring a whole new way of
calculating the balance sheet, not only of our nation but of the
planet. The GNP system of old falls off and we convert to a new
human development index where the environment and
sustainable development are the core factor and the driving
factor in the equation.
I believe this cabinet and government is one of the first groups
I have seen in a long time around here that has the courage to
venture into those waters. The reason I say that is I see the
reform we are going through in our social security system. I see
the reform in so many other areas.
We are in a period of real reform on so many different issues. I
am optimistic that in the not too distant future the whole notion
of a human development index will be the new way we measure
our whole economic system.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure to speak to the issue of the environment.
As we have heard today all of us are concerned about the
environment. We are concerned about the air; we are concerned
about the water; we are concerned about the soil around us.
Often we look at the environment and we see the radical end
of things on the scale. Then we see the radical things on the
industrial scale. As all of us recognize it is really the middle
ground, the ground of compromise, co-operation and in many
cases the ground of trade-offs. We have to understand these
trade-offs.
Often someone says: ``You're getting kind of hard on
environmentalists''. I answer: ``Yes, but I don't want to live in a
cave and go out and grow my own food. If I don't want to do that,
then I have to make trade-offs in order to live the way I want
to''.
I have a long background in the area of environment.
Professionally that was my training. I was involved 25 years ago
in the Conserver Society. I went around the country talking
about what we could do to conserve our society, recycling and so
on. I must admit it was kind of an off topic back then. We were
not very popular when we talked about it. A lot of people did not
know what we were talking about.
I came from that age of Silent Spring, of the environmental
impact studies. I worked for the Canadian Wildlife Service.
From all that background I gained a real appreciation of
preservation of the environment.
As well I have learned that the environment is not in the
domain only of socialists and liberals but is of concern to
everyone. I want to assure the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake that when we form the next
government we will be concerned about the environment and
will place it high on our list of priorities.
I want to also address the member on the reforms that are
going on. We are part of that overall reform.
I want as well to quote from our blue book on the
environment: ``We want to establish clear federal-provincial
jurisdiction over environmental matters. We want to reduce
duplication, confusion and all of the unnecessary things that so
often go with government. We believe the government should
provide federal leadership, encourage partnership, encourage
private industry to get involved, encourage educational
institutions and of course encourage the public to be part of
these environmental protection studies''.
(1845 )
The environment is related to all of us and interrelated. There
are many things wrong and those have been identified here
today.
We must of course be equal to everyone and we must go for
equal enforcement. In looking at Bill C-56 I think we go at least
some way to accomplishing what we want to. Certainly the one
assessment will save time and money and will avoid some of the
duplication of so many examples we could talk about.
Participatory funding. Having been involved in that
grassroots level of trying to participate in environmental
involvement, I can certainly appreciate having that as part of
this bill. I think if that is properly administered and decisions
are made properly that that can be a great plus for people
wanting to get involved in projects and understanding them
better.
The decision that the cabinet, not just one minister, will make
the decisions regarding this of course becomes even more
credible today. A lot of us are reading the recent book published
about the last government and that would convince us even more
that we want more than one minister deciding anything.
7461
We have a lot of examples that we need to confirm the need for
a bill like this. We have of course, and this has been mentioned
many times, the Oldman River dam project. The environmental
assessment that should have been triggered and was not would
have saved so many dollars, so much confusion and so many
problems that have now gone on with a project like that. It has
demonstrated and caused a confrontation rather than
co-operation.
We must avoid duplication. It emphasizes we must have
provincial co-operation and third parties involved rather than
just through the courts of law.
Federal-provincial duplication is enormous. This is one area
this bill does not address adequately that I would like to see
possible amendments to. We must resolve these
federal-provincial problems. That is essential with getting on
with the job.
I use an example of a company in my constituency. I have a
letter from the Alberta environmental minister, Brian Evans, in
which he says: ``I can assure you that the issue of duplication
overlap is at the top of the agenda for Canadian ministers of the
environment''. He goes on to say that the agreement that Alberta
has signed will go a long way to help solve the problem.
An Alberta government document goes on to state: ``This
agreement will greatly reduce the burden placed on industry
because of a dual regulatory framework. From now on the
Alberta government will be the primary representative in
dealing and contacts with the pulp and paper industry''. He goes
on to describe other industries. He continues: ``The
establishment of a single window at the provincial level does not
relieve industry from the obligation to comply with federal
regulations. Each level of government retains its respective
legislative powers and can take legal action against defenders''.
While it has moved some way it has not moved all the way.
I will go on with some examples and look at some of the
background where this harmonization just has not occurred. One
thing I would like to stress here today is that we must get the
harmonization of this environmental assessment program. I
think all sides would agree. I am disappointed to hear some of
the dissenters to that whom we have heard from today.
I would also list four items that have been identified for me in
my constituency. There is a big problem with reports between
provincial and federal governments. There is a great variation
between what they are asking for and yet they end up getting to
the same place.
Second, there is a real perception that business is doing
something wrong and that they are always doing something
wrong. The lack of co-operation where one government does
not trust the other one has to be alleviated. We must get away
from the idea that in fact industry cannot pay for and be involved
in some of this analysis. We also must look at the regulations to
be sure they are realistic. Again, I have many examples of
where unrealistic legislation is in place in terms of environment.
(1850 )
The duplication of regulations has played havoc with
particularly smaller oil companies. I can summarize some of
this by listing four major areas. The purpose of most regulations
is reasonable. However they become ridiculous when the
administration of the regulations and the people involved begin
to protect their own turf and refuse to be reasonable or
co-operate with the other branches of government for fear of
losing their power. Again we have many examples of that.
We must also be concerned about their competitiveness
within Canada. The number of reports keeps increasing which
greatly handicaps smaller companies. Having one extra person
to complete reports in a plant involving 10 people is quite a bit
different than adding one person in a company of 500. We must
consider that. We must keep these companies competitive.
I quote an example from one of my constituents: ``In the early
1980s I was closely involved with the major grassroots complex
being built close to Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta. Over a period
of two and a half years the company had to make a total of 4,200
submissions, permits and other formal requests from every
conceivable government branch in three layers of government.
Many of the pieces of information was repeated many times over
because a given permit could only be issued for 30 days. If we
informed one level that the same information was sent two
months ago to, say, the federal environmental group we were
told that confidentiality prevented moving information between
departments and the same information would have to be
submitted in the new format requested''.
At the end of the project a complete listing of the total number
was sent to the Alberta economic development department for
review because no one could believe the number and they were
dismayed and shocked by the number of reports. We must
address that. We must do something about that. We are literally
putting small business out of business because of environmental
regulations and no co-operation between levels of government.
It is reasonable then. We must deal with this. We must address
this problem.
Going on, the lack of co-operation seems to go on and on. I
will not get into all of this because I intend to deal with another
subject. What we must do is end the duplication, the lack of
co-operation, the protecting of different departments' turf that
goes on in this whole area of environmental testing.
7462
I finish this section off by saying I have an example of the
bureaucratic growth that has gone on. In terms of water testing
for a number of oil projects in Alberta the company does a
complete set of independent lab studies. These go on, and I have
copies of them, for some 30 to 40 pages. Then the province
comes along and does the same testing and sampling and it goes
through all of the expense and duplication of 30 or 40 pages.
Then the federal government comes along and does all the same
testing and it does 30 or 40 pages of reports on the same
material. Neither side will talk to each other because each side is
afraid of losing its jobs.
That kind of environmental holding back of companies has to
end. An example of the growth of bureaucracy in licensing is
where reports used to be four pages, today they are 34 pages.
Whether it is air emissions, sulphur emissions, or whatever, the
reports go on and government grows.
If I had to encourage anything I would encourage the
harmonization of this environmental conflict and the
co-operation between all of these levels of government and all
of these bureaucrats.
I would now like to get into another area which I have been
involved with some 30 years now and that is in the
environmental area that I feel involves all of us. A lot of people
sort of laugh when I say I am really interested in this subject and
that is the subject of landfills, the subject of garbage. The
problem that all of us have is universal. It is a problem where
everybody says: ``Don't put them in my backyard, put them over
there''.
(1855 )
It is a universal problem across this country. There is a
problem whether one is a landowner or whether one lives in a
city or town. There are some basic problems that make this a
federal issue. When we phone the Department of the
Environment here, we are told: ``That is not our area, that is a
provincial area''. This is a good example of where there are roles
for the three levels of government.
Let me propose what I have in mind. First, the biggest
problem is from the seepage going on underneath the ground.
We are contaminating groundwater. We are contaminating
lakes. We are contaminating rivers. We are doing things to our
environment that will only come forward 50 or 100 years from
now.
It is fine to build deficits and say: ``Well, we know we are
going to have those to deal with''. Now we are going to tell them
they are not going to have water to use. We must address that.
What is the solution? There are solutions. One problem is they
cost money. I think if people understood the problem and the
potential time bomb they were creating, they would deal with
this.
Recycling, composting and incineration are all areas that
somebody in Canada needs to look at. We could be world
leaders. How can we work this through the provinces and
through the cities? What happens now is the feds say: ``Well, it
is not our area. We cannot touch that because it is provincial''.
I see the federal government providing the umbrella. I see the
federal government providing the research and development,
the technology, the gathering together of information, putting
together the seminars it takes, getting the experts involved. I see
it being the resource for all other levels of government. I see the
provinces providing a unified delivery of the service and then I
see the municipalities as the operators of whatever that facility
is now.
What happens today? Today we have the municipality doing
the research, trying to decide what it should have. Meanwhile, it
does not have the money, the technology or the people. It is not
in a position to try to deal with that subject.
I would like to see in a bill like this the ability and the
encouragement of the federal government to get involved in this
issue. It is an issue for everyone. All of us have garbage
problems. It is one where I think we are putting our head in the
sand in trying to deal with it.
In summary my party and I would support this bill. It could go
much further in the area of environmental leadership. I could see
it taking on, as I say, things like landfills. It should speed up the
process. It should save money. It must get involved in
co-ordinating federal-provincial areas. It allows third party
input and it does protect the individual from government force.
Finally, the environment is a world issue. Being a member of
the foreign affairs committee I can relate to the fact that this is a
global problem. If China builds 18 huge coal generated power
plants, that air will be over Canada in a couple of days. That air
is going to affect us. That is air that we will have to breathe. We
cannot be just a province or Canada. We must be the world when
it comes to environment.
I encourage all politicians to be concerned about China, the
South American rain forest, and sustainable development. We
can all play a role in that. We cannot put our heads in the sand
any longer.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on
his remarks. I want to deal with that part of his speech where he
dealt with the ideas of composting and recycling.
I agree with the member. This is an area where we could be
world leaders.
(1900)
We are world leaders right now. The problem as I see it is that
we do not have the political will to implement some of the
technologies we have in the area of taking care of our garbage in
a proper way. I believe this is so important that taxpayers would
probably support us spending their money to make sure an
aggressive campaign such as the one the member described was
implemented.
7463
I had difficulty in that often we have been conditioned by the
Reform Party that spending is something that its members are
very shy about. Is this an area where the Reform Party would
shift its traditional attitude?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, there are areas in which
we would not cut. We would be selective in our cutting and our
balancing of costs. One area certainly would be environment
where we would see no cutting. Our blue sheet said that possibly
we might see in the area of criminal justice and environment an
increase in spending.
I would like to think the entire House could get behind a
project like this one and show environmental leadership. The
provinces need it and we could get them onside because it is a
universal problem. If somebody can provide a solution for a
universal problem, we could very easily get them onside. We
have to get out there. We can call it a crusade but we have to
handle the problem.
We can have people pay for it. I believe that user pay will
work in this area. Instead of paying $3 for handling their garbage
people would in fact pay $6. I really believe they would if they
knew what they were getting for their money. The big problem
of people and of us not wanting to spend money is that we see
waste and we cannot see value for our dollars.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member for
Red Deer whom I compliment on his speech. He certainly
brought some interesting ideas to the Chamber. I was very happy
to listen to him today.
In particular I was very pleased with the words that he used in
his opening remarks. He talked about this being the ground of
co-operation, the ground of compromise. Those are the grounds
on which I believe the country was built. We live in a very
diverse nation. Different people from coast to coast have relied
on co-operation and compromise to see them through from day
to day and year to year.
The country was built on those grounds. I am very pleased to
see the hon. member recognize those grounds at this time. I can
only hope the same rules will apply to other issues in the
Chamber when we are dealing with issues of great concern to the
diverse peoples who live within our borders.
My question deals with the issue of the Oldman dam that the
member for Red Deer raised. Bill C-13 now provides some
triggers that automatically gets the federal government involved
in a project assessment. When I asked a similar question of the
parliamentary secretary earlier today, he talked about the
federal government being timid in the past in its approach to
some of the issues guarded by the provinces.
Could the member for Red Deer indicate whether he believes
the federal government has a right to intervene when some of
these triggers are in place and provincial governments hesitate
and resist federal government involvement in the projects they
are promoting?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, the real answer to that
question is to get involved early enough. What so often has
happened in the past, whether they have been political deals or
lobby groups or special interest groups or whatever, is that there
has been a real slow response by the federal government.
The provinces have been slow but the federal government has
been slower. The real answer to the problem that the hon.
member raises is the speed of response. We hear about these
projects. That is when the federal government should get in,
provide the leadership role and start negotiations and
compromising with the provincial governments. That is where it
has to happen early rather than late as in the Oldman dam.
(1905 )
Mr.Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary
question. In his speech the member also talked about water
testing, in particular water testing for oil companies in Alberta.
The member may be aware of a project near my constituency
where Esso Resources has been withdrawing water with the
approval of the provincial government from an aquifer that runs
under the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Communities
in my constituency have seen reduced water flow as a result of
the work in Alberta. There has been a tremendous amount of
wrangling between the Saskatchewan and the Alberta interests.
There has been no room for federal government assessment or
work to date.
With the member's experience would he consider the support
of a national water act that would help to bridge some of the gaps
between provincial government interests and others to ensure
that water is available to all Canadians?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, we should realize that
water will be the most important resource we have in the 21st
century. I believe that puts us head and shoulders ahead of the
rest of the world. We have something like 9 per cent of world's
fresh water supplies. We have to keep it fresh and pure.
Not knowing the exact details the member puts forward, I
would think legislation to protect and preserve the water supply
is essential and vital to the survival of the country. I firmly
believe it is the most important resource we have.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have just noticed the clock. It is
my understanding that we have only 10 minutes remaining in the
day. I do have at least the full 20 minutes allocated to me. I
wonder if the House would not like to see the clock and allow me
the full 20 minutes when the House next convenes.
7464
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
prepared to agree with that if the House will then agree to put the
question at that point.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I could ask for
further clarification. Are we only speaking about the 20-minute
intervention or are we also including the 10-minute question or
comment period? It is just the straight 20 minutes.
Members have heard the suggestion of the government whip.
Is that agreeable to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for the
Battlefords-Meadow Lake will have 20 minutes and I will put
the question forthwith upon conclusion of his intervention.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I seem to have achieved something extra to what I
wished. I was suggesting that when the House sits next I would
conclude my remarks. However I am quite prepared to do so
now.
I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this very
important bill. I have had a considerable amount of influence
over the bill during the last four years. I am very much aware
that the bill has been at least seven years in the making. When it
was first proposed to the previous Parliament by the now leader
of the Bloc Quebecois and then Minister of the Environment, I
happened to be the New Democratic member responsible for
environmental protection issues. Therefore I was asked by my
party to sit in on discussions of Bill C-78 and to represent the
New Democratic Party throughout the committee process on the
piece of legislation.
I was quite taken by the responsibilities I was given at that
time because the House will recall there was a great deal of
criticism of Bill C-78.
(1910)
The government began at that point a process that I think
should be recommended for many other pieces of legislation.
What began with Bill C-78 was something called a prestudy of
the bill. In other words before the bill was introduced in the
House the specific bill was presented to the parliamentary
committee to have a look at it and allow for some intervention
before the government actually introduced it and before the
government would claim ownership of the wording of the bill.
The prestudy process gave us an opportunity to examine the
bill without the partisan interventions that occur often when
sides dig in on a debate and will not yield any ground. The
prestudy phase of Bill C-78, short as it was, began the process of
openness about the bill.
When Parliament of the time prorogued and the new
Parliament began, the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-13. I had
hoped at that point that with the prior work that had been done by
the parliamentary committee Bill C-13 would have been
amended by the government before being introduced into the
new session. That not being the case, we were given an
indication that the bill would be amended in committee with the
approval of the government.
We began the process of amending the bill. Again something
happened in committee that I am very proud to say I was a part
of. I would commend it to the government and to future
governments as a way of dealing with legislation in a very
non-confrontational way. The government indicated that it was
prepared to accept amendments from the committee and we
proceeded to approach the bill with that understanding. I
submitted over 110 amendments to the committee for study.
The point that I want to emphasize is that the committee chose
to bring in legal experts to sit with us in the committee while we
went through that amending process. Two environmental
lawyers who had appeared as witnesses were brought in by the
committee, Mr. Bill Andrews and Mr. Brian Pannell. They sat
around the table and advised members of the committee about
the legality and the practicality of amendments.
It was a great exercise and one from which the committee
benefited a great deal. In fact the country benefited a great deal
from it because Bill C-13 was amended with their assistance. As
a result the bill that has now been proclaimed by the government
is the bill we amended. The member for Davenport being a
member of the committee at the time, myself and others worked
very hard to find the best possible bill in the spirit of
compromise that needed to exist to achieve that result.
The environment committee is presently doing a massive
study of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I would
commend the use of environmental legal experts when the
committee sits down to conduct its final review of the act and
write the report that must be written which may indeed result in
some additions, changes or amendments to the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. I believe the process of utilizing
legal experts was of great benefit to us.
Now we are at the point where after a year of waiting we have
Bill C-13 proclaimed, the agency about to be established, a new
environmental assessment process about to begin, some new
regulations in place that are going to guide us through some very
important assessment work into the future, and a couple of
7465
amendments before the House to allow us again the opportunity
to have a look at the bill.
I will raise it in committee as well, but I believe the three
amendments I support, the three amendments in front of us, are
not sufficient to make the bill the important bill it could be.
I mention a couple of things in this regard. The first is with
regard to intervener funding. We have raised it a number of
times in the House today. The intervener funding process is
absolutely crucial to the positive workings of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act itself.
(1915 )
In fact, as we are well aware, proponents of projects generally
have access to the capital they need to see that project through to
completion. They budget for the preparation of environmental
assessment reports. They budget for the public hearings that
may take place. They are prepared to deal with that. However,
without adequate intervener funding there cannot be adequate
assessment quite simply because those who wish to challenge
the proponent do not have the same access to capital as the
proponent does and budgets for.
It is very important that we set out a very specific intervener
funding process to ensure that it is not only adequate but indeed
meets all the criteria that we have established in the past for an
intervener funding program that works positively. I commend
the government for seeing the need to move forward with
intervener funding in more specific terms like this. I hope that in
the committee we will be able to broaden that out.
I also suggest that the committee have another look at the
regulatory process while looking at the act and there is the
opportunity to review it. The regulatory process is what
provides for the workings of the environmental assessment. The
act sets out the guidelines but without the regulations the act is
not much. The regulations make it work. This is why we have
noticed and recognized that the regulation making process itself
has been so controversial, so complex and has involved so much
time.
Members of cabinet, industry, and the environmental
community have all had input into the regulation making
process. However members of the House of Commons speaking
for all Canadians have not had the opportunity to respond to the
final product they have produced. Unlike the act where we can
debate parts of it, we can go to committee and study parts of the
act, in terms of the specific regulations members of Parliament
in the House of Commons do not have the same opportunities to
challenge parts of the regulatory process.
It is time we looked at an amendment I raised two years ago in
this very Chamber. It was an amendment similar to a clause in
the existing gun control legislation that allows for members of
Parliament and members of the other place to call before
committee certain regulations for scrutiny. We should have a
similar clause in the legislation that would allow us to call
certain pieces of regulatory decisions and discuss them in
committee.
The process of ultimate cabinet responsibility should also be
examined. Although I am supporting the amendment about
cabinet responsibility at the moment, I do believe that at a time
when governments are demonstrating they cannot be
trusted-we had a government in this country for nine years that
proved that-we have to ensure it is Parliament and the people
of Canada in the end who have a full understanding and
responsibility for matters like this.
When a panel makes a decision based on a tremendous amount
of information, the government should be looking very
seriously at the results of that panel hearing. When cabinet
makes a final decision on a panel recommendation members of
the cabinet can never have read that recommendation but have
been influenced by many members of industry who perhaps have
been speaking to them in another context but have made their
wishes well known. The secrecy of the cabinet room should not
be the final arbiter of public environmental process.
(1920 )
In any case I do recognize the accountability of government
through the cabinet process. As I say I support the amendment
before us, but it is important that perhaps the committee look at
this process and see if there is not another way of dealing with
this very important and specific issue.
I believe very strongly in the concept of environmental
assessment. I heard the witnesses who appeared before the
committees on Bill C-78 and Bill C-13. Witnesses from the
corporate community indicated very strongly that they wanted
to see an environmental assessment process that was up front
and took the issues on early and did not come at them after the
fact.
The court rulings that have been made across the country have
indicated clearly that the guidelines that existed and continue to
exist until Bill C-13 was proclaimed were inadequate to meet
the needs of the country. Therefore Bill C-13 although it is not
the one I would have written had I been the Minister of the
Environment is very much a bill that moves us forward.
Certainly the amendments in front of us do that as well.
We have the opportunity to move this process forward a great
deal further than the three amendments do. I hope the committee
which will receive this bill at the will of the House at the end of
my remarks tonight will look seriously at taking the bill a little
further than the government is prepared to move at this point in
time.
I appreciate the co-operation of the House in allowing me to
finish my remarks. In that spirit of co-operation and
compromise I will not abuse the time of the House.
7466
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On behalf of all our
colleagues, I thank the member for his co-operation.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion, the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the divison bells having stopped:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government
whip to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly,
pursuant to Standing Order 45 the division on the question now
before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 6 p.m., at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for
not more than 15 minutes.
_____________________________________________
7466
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he would urge the
Prime Minister on his visit to Beijing to raise with Chinese
authorities the need to end nuclear testing for the sake of
planetary security.
The non-proliferation treaty, or NPT, was signed in 1968 by
approximately 160 nations. As part of this treaty countries with
nuclear weapons have agreed to work toward the reduction of
their nuclear arsenals and to work toward a comprehensive test
ban treaty. Developing countries agreed not to develop nuclear
weapons in exchange for information regarding peaceful uses of
nuclear power.
(1925 )
However since 1964, Britain has carried out some 44; France,
210; and the United States more than 1,000 nuclear tests. During
the last few years testing has virtually been suspended. Since
1991 Russia has not tested any weapons nor has the United
States. Britain has not undertaken any testing in recent years
either. All major countries have put in place voluntary
moratoria.
Two weeks ago the Government of China carried out its 41st
test. Therefore in addition to my earlier question to the Prime
Minister, tonight I am asking the minister of external affairs
whether he will personally take an interest in the negotiations of
the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which will
run out in 1995.
Will Canada play a leadership role at the United Nations? Will
Canada on behalf of all Canadians press the UN for a new treaty?
Will that new treaty, first, ban the use of all nuclear weapons and
weapons tests, and second, provide for better enforcement
powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency so that better
comprehensive monitoring of compliance can be carried out on
behalf of the world community?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in continuing to
conduct nuclear tests China is breaking the tacit moratorium
which has been observed by all nuclear weapon states. China has
said it will participate in comprehensive test ban treaty
negotiations. Nonetheless continued testing by China draws into
question its commitment to the early completion of the
comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations.
I would like to remind the hon. member it is true that on
October 7, 1994 the People's Republic of China conducted its
third underground nuclear test since the start of the CTBT
negotiations.
Although Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union, now
the Russian Federation of the United States, have all instituted
national testing moratoria, China has refused to stop testing,
arguing that it needs further tests to catch up technologically
with other nuclear weapon states.
What Canada has done is encourage the People's Republic of
China to engage in responsible, international behaviour with
respect to arms sales and nuclear proliferation. To this end we
have pressured China to end its testing program. Following the
second test, our ambassador at the Conference on Disarmament
in Geneva made a strong public appeal and, as members know,
following the last test the Chinese ambassador was called in by
7467
the Minister of Foreign Affairs and was apprised in no uncertain
terms of Canada's condemnation of continued nuclear testing.
The Prime Minister, who will be heading off to China very
shortly, has been fully briefed on these matters and intends to
raise them with the highest levels of the Chinese leadership.
Canada's relationship with China on non-proliferation
matters are complex. In some areas, like the cut-off and NPT
extension, there is near-term potential for productive
co-operation. On others like testing we will continue to press
China to do the right thing and to join the other nations in
banning nuclear testing once and for all.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.29 p.m.)