1990-06-26

CHANGE OF AFFILIATION OF MEMBER FOR RICHELIEU

["Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 222 petitions.\n[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]"]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, never in all my life have I ever faced a more crucial decision, as a member of Parliament and as a Quebecer. For Quebecers the time has come to choose, and when all is said and done, I must choose Quebec.
Our ambiguous position as a people is not new. Since the earliest years of cohabitation with the anglophone component of this country, we have been treated as a conquered people but, nevertheless, citizens of this great country.
In 1763, James Murray, the first British governor said, in referring to our ancestors, that if they had left it would have been a great loss for the British empire. But what has been done since then to urge us to become full-fledged members of this empire?
Since the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the avowed goal of our new conquerors was to assimilate us. However, out of fear for the Americans and to soothe our feelings, we were recognized as a distinct society, several years later, in the Quebec Act. When at the end of the eighteenth century, repeated demands for our own legislative assembly were finally met, it was without the powers normally bestowed on that body. How magnanimous! How democratic!
We built this country with our blood and sweat. Our thanks was to be humiliated and treated as a people without history and without a culture. As the founding people of this country, we shall never forget the many times we have been humiliated in this great country we
thought was ours: the Conquest, Louis Papineau and the patriots, the Act of Union, Louis Riel, the conscription question in both wars, the War Measures Act, the 1982 patriation of the Constitution without Quebec, and the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord.
History seems to be repeating itself today. I am thinking of that memorable motion presented before the Quebec Legislative Assembly in 1917 by MLA Fran-coeur. He pointed out that the province of Quebec would be willing to accept the break-up of the federative pact of 1867, if the other provinces felt that Quebec was a barrier to Canada's unity, progress and development.
I never thought I would see the day that we would be considered a barrier to Canada's progress and development, despite the "night of the long knives", in 1982. I really believed the risk was worth taking, and that is what made me go into politics in 1984, like most of my colleagues in the Quebec caucus who wanted to defend the interests of Quebec. I was prepared to follow this through to the very end, and I did.
Mr. Speaker, I also believed that the Premiers of the other Canadian provinces would abide by the Meech Lake Accord. I believed that all these politicians were men of their word and would abide by what they had signed. I believed they would never let themselves be manipulated behind the scenes by the Chretien-Trudeau clan. You do not build a country on weakness, and Quebecers will no longer be satisfied with a vision of Canada that, as far as I am concerned, goes back to the Dark Ages.
For weeks I have been literally tom between my loyalty to the Prime Minister and my desire to respond to the imperative interests of Quebec. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that Quebec was unable to re-enter Canadian Confederation with honour and enthusiasm is certainly not Prime Minister Mulroney's fault. If there ever was a prime minister in the history of Quebec, since 1867, who has done everything to try to give Quebec its proper place in Confederation, he is certainly the one, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for

June 26, 1990
House of Commons
doing so. We cannot reverse the course of events, however.
Mr. Speaker, I have far too much respect for my compatriots to give them a false impression of the way things stand today. No more expressions of trust in Canada! No more compromises that would be even more humiliating! My pride and dignity need time to heal, and from now on, I want to devote my energies only to Quebec. Quebecers are experiencing a time of extraordinary solidarity, and I would have lifelong regrets if I were to miss out on this new rendezvous with history.
From now on, Mr. Speaker, I intend to sit in this House as an independent, in a Quebec bloc where I will continue to serve the interests of my constituents in the riding of Richelieu, while at the same time serving those of Quebec. I will never forget the trust and encouragement I received from the people of Richelieu during the past weeks. I want to thank them and can assure them that I will continue to devote the same energy to all issues in my riding.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and my Quebec colleagues for the great satisfaction I had in working with them. All good things must come to an end, however and now the curtain rises on the federal tragi-comical farce. Mr. Speaker, a good memory is essential if reason is to prevail. I remember, and I want our descendants to remember. I will never accept the legacy of Lord Durham. And above all, I want Quebecers to look to the future with pride, dignity, determination and without any constraints on their aspirations.



Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I think that today we must draw conclusions from the events of recent weeks in Canada.
Obviously, the utmost was done to make the whole country accept what all Quebecers always considered to be a bare minimum. I want to say that I am not criticizing Mr. Mulroney; he has full marks from me for his tenacity
and his efforts to bring Quebec into the Constitution with honour, although the enthusiasm disappeared several weeks ago.
It is very clear that Mr. Bourassa went as far as he could possibly go in being open to the efforts made. We must admit that we have all failed. We were unable to repair the constitutional mess that Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chretien left us. We must begin again, on a different basis, the thorough reform of this country's political institutions if we want them to correspond to the ideas of the distinct societies that make them up.
Most Quebecers who joined or supported the Progressive Conservative Party did so as part of what Rene Levesque called the beau risque, or risk worth taking. I think that we were right and I trust that all our efforts were not completely in vain. Several provincial premiers seem to understand Quebec's aspirations better, and that is a gain. They will really need this understanding in the coming months to explain the consequences of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord to their fellow citizens! Quebecers have now begun to take a different approach, with realism, dignity and determination.
Like them, I am now convinced that beyond party politics, we will give ourselves a country in our image. I am convinced that it will be open to the world, ready to co-operate with its neighbours and all who want to leave their children a country they can identify with.
At a time of globalization of trade, such a move may seem inappropriate at first glance, but how much energy and time have been wasted repairing a constitution that divides us! Perhaps a broad political and social consensus is as necessary for economic development as an abundance of capital and technology. To meet the challenges facing us, we must soon acquire political institutions that express and harness our collective will.
With this deep conviction that is widely shared by my constituents in Rosemont, I have decided to fully support the non-partisan movement launched by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard).
I therefore announce my resignation as parliamentary secretary and my decision to sit henceforth as an independent member.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 222 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thriff in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to grant the minister leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Routine Proceedings


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (air conditioners).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce this private member's bill. The purpose of this bill is to allow an income tax deduction for the cost of an air conditioner when it is needed for health reasons. One example where there is a clear medical requirement is for those people suffering from multiple sclerosis.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity- Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 36.
It is my privilege to present on behalf of my constituents from Bonavista, Catalina, Amherst Cove, Keels, Port Rexton, Port Union, and other communities on the Bonavista Peninsula, a concern that my constituents have with regard to Bill C-21. I do not have to remind the House about the status of that bill at this particular point in time.
My constituents continue to concern themselves about the fact that the government is going to get out of the unemployment insurance business. They are worried that it will cost, by the latest statistics, the average Newfoundlander $2,500. They are very concerned about the fact that they will now require 14 weeks of unemployment qualifying time at a time when the economy of Newfoundland is probably at a very low point, particularly with respect to the future of the fisheries.

June 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
They are very concerned. They humbly pray and ask Parliament to withdraw this bill so they can rely on unemployment insurance for the social support that it was meant to be when it was introduced in 1940.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by veterans from my constituency. They are concerned about the actions of this government.
The petitions reads: "Whereas the Government of Canada has introduced charges that will reduce housekeeping services to veterans and substantially increase the cost of long-term care, whereas our veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures", these veterans call upon Parliament to reject the budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to the House a petition certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. It contains the signatures of hundreds of Canadians, residents of my riding of Hamilton West. They call upon Parliament to reject the budget measures that deprive Canadian veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition to present, which is certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. It, too, contains the signatures of many hundreds of Canadians who are strongly opposed to the new goods and services tax. In their opinion, it is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to reject the proposed GST.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and honoured to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions on behalf of some 80 of my constituents who ask Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to table two sets of
petitions today. The first petition is from a number of residents throughout Canada who are still concerned six months later after the demise of VIA Rail. The petitioners call upon the government to not only restore funding, but upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger services.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a second group of petitions signed by hundreds of residents throughout northwestern Ontario, Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Kenora, Dryden, Sioux Lookout and a number of other communities who totally reject the government's goods and services tax and indicate in very strong language that they want it scrapped.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too have the honour to table petitions. On behalf of Canadians from various parts of Quebec and Ontario, these petitioners cite in their petition that the people of Lithuania require the assistance of the various governments in the world to support their desire for freedom and independence.
The petitioners call upon this Parliament to act upon the all-party resolution of March 12,1990, and recognize and support the right of the Lithuanian people to the clarity and dependence of the Republic of Lithuania.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I present a petition on abortion, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of petitioners in the Ottawa area, I have the pleasure to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, their request to this House that as the Government of Canada has seen fit, since Confederation and without hiatus, to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers and now propose to include them in the GST, the government please withdraw the tax on all matters that have to do with the historic principles
June 26, 1990

embodied in the printed word with respect to legislation in this House.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table a petition that calls upon Parliament to drop this legislation dealing with the imposition of a new sales tax on goods and services that Canadians will be purchasing after January 1, 1991.
The petitioners, and there are about 125 on this petition, feel strongly that this new goods and services tax is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians that would hit them, not only with higher taxes, but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I have just come back from Calgary, and I will tell you that the people in Calgary are pretty angry about this.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Routine Proceedings
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 265, 309 and 311.


Mr. Young (Gloucester): Does the government expect, during the next ten years, to make cash payments to each of the provinces and territories under the Established Programs Financing and, if so, in what amounts?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: No detailed forecasts of such payments are made beyond five years, due to the difficulty of accurately forecasting factors such as gross national product, basic federal tax, and population for these years.
Projections of total EPF entitlements, including the cash and tax components, for the program years 1990-91 to 1994-95 are shown in Table 1. All figures are on a basis consistent with the February 1990 Budget. These projections are also subject to the difficulty of estimating transfers based on economic and demographic variables well into the future.


[Stage Direction]
NFLD	PEI	NS	NB	QUE	ONT MAN ($ MILLIONS)		SASK	ALTA	BC	NWT	YKN	TOTAL
1990-1991													
Cash	225	50	350	285	1,585	3,110	430	400	985	1,270	20	10	8,720Tax	205	50	320	260	3,495	4,220	395	365	880	1,080	20	10	11,300Total	430	100	670	545	5,080	7,330	825	765	1,865	2,350	40	20	20,0201991-1992	Cash	210	50	330	265	1,335	2,865	405	375	940	1,220	20	10	8,025Tax	220	50	345	280	3,775	4,575	425	395	950	1,170	20	10	12,215Total	430	100	675	545	5,110	7,440	830	770	1,890	2,390	40	20	20,2401992-1993	Cash	200	45	320	260	1,155	2,720	390	360	925	1,210	20	10	7,615Tax	240	55	375	305	4,100	5,005	460	425	1,040	1,280	25	10	13,320Total	440	100	695	565	5,255	7,725	850	785	1,965	2,490	45	20	20,9351993-1994	Cash	195	45	305	245	950	2,540	375	345	905	1,195	15	10	7,125Tax	260	60	410	330	4,455	5,470	500	465	1,135	1,395	25	10	14,515Total	455	105	715	575	5,405	8,010	875	810	2,040	2,590	40	20	21,640
June 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings NFLD PEI NS	NB	QUE	ONT	MAN	SASK	ALTA	BC	NWT	YKN	TOTAL1994-1995 Cash	185	45	295	240	770	($ MILLIONS) 2,405 365	335	900	1,190	15	10	6,755Tax	275	65	440	355	4,815	5,930	540	500	1,230	1,510	30	15	15,705Total	460	110	735	595	5,585	8,335	905	835	2,130	2,700	45	25	22,460
Note - Projections of entitlements for each successive year are subject to wider margins of error. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Young (Gloucester): 1.	Is the government prepared to announce the cost of its most recent advertising campaign for the proposed Goods and Services Thx and, if so, what is it?
2.	Has the government undertaken a nation-wide radio campaign telling Canadians to expect a copy of "Some straightforward answers about the Goods and Services lax and what it means to you," in their mailboxes and, if so, at what cost?
Quebec
New Brunswick Nova Scotia P.E.I.
Newfoundland

197,735
328,672
45,015
173,884
6,993,648
1,966,686
1,966,686
779,168
52,397
1,229,867
The distribution plan was based on Statistics Canada figures broken down by postal code.
3. Were these copies produced and distributed in (a) bilingual (b) English (c) French versions and, if so, in each case (i) what number (ii) what number were distributed to each province?


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 311-Mr. Harvard:
Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1.	The cost of the recent radio and newspaper advertising campaign (May 7-June 17) was approximately $3,415 million.
2.	The cost of the nation-wide radio campaign (May 7-14, 1990) telling Canadians to expect a copy of-Some Straightforward Answers about the Goods and Services Tax and What it Means to You-was approximately $301,000. This $301,000 is included in the cost figure given in question No. 1.
3.	The following is the distribution breakdown by province and territory for the GST information guide,
"Some Straightforward Answers about the Goods and Services Ihx and What it Means to You."		
Province / Territory	English French	Bilingual
Yukon	11.433	
N.W.T.	11,501	
British Columbia	1,221,555	
Alberta	924,775	
Saskatchewan	398,221	
Manitoba	395,842	28,441Ontario	3,285,015	369,8611.	Since his appointment as Chairman of the Canada Council, what number of days has Mr. Allan Gotlieb worked for the Council, for which he has received pay?2.	Are there objective criteria which must be met in order for Mr. Gotlieb to receive a full day's pay for Council work and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, if Mr. Gotlieb claims a full day's pay, is his word accepted?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: 


[Stage Direction]
1.	Since Mr. Allan Gotlieb's appointment as Chairman on February 1, 1989, he has received honoraria for 44 days of work.
2.	The Council's regulations provide for payment of a full day's honorarium to Council Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen, and all Members for qualified activities. This regulation takes account of the fact that incumbents must travel to attend Council meetings and that no honorarium is paid for travel time, telephone consultations, reading, briefing and preparation time for meetings.
All Members, including the Chairman, submit expense forms and abide by the Council's regulations, which are based on those of Treasury Board, governing payment of expenses.
June 26, 1990
[Stage Direction]
All 44 days for which Mr. Gotlieb was paid an honorarium involved his participation at meetings such as those of the Canada Council, Parliamentary Committees, the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada (of which he is member by virtue of his chairmanship of the Canada Council), official Council prize presentations, etc. Moreover, Mr. Gotlieb has devoted a great many additional hours of work to the Council for which honoraria were not paid.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Cadieux (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: that Bill C-78, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, who is attending the vitally important London conference on the ozone layer, a conference at which I hope that he and other ministers from around the world will have a great deal of success in terms of strengthening the protocol, it gives me a great deal of satisfaction to begin second reading debate
Government Orders
on one of the most important pieces of legislation to be placed before this House in many years.
The Canadian Environment Assessment Act will be the cornerstone of this government's commitment to environmentally sensible decision making. This bill will change the decisions we make in the future by changing the way we make decisions. It will enable this government to give real effect to the concept of environmentally sustainable economic development.
We will ensure, by implementing the requirements of this bill, that the environment and the economy become unified as an integral concept that will allow us to leave for our grandchildren an environment capable of satisfying their needs.
During the last two decades, Canadians have become increasingly aware of the importance of maintaining both a strong economy and a healthy natural environment. To help satisfy these goals, Canadian governments, both federal and provincial, established environmental assessment processes. Environmental assessment is a systematic method of identifying potential environmental consequences and their impact on people. By identifying adverse environment effects before they occur, plans can be altered so that unwanted environmental impacts are minimized or, ideally, eliminated. In some cases proposals must be abandoned if negative impacts are unacceptable and cannot be mitigated.
Environmental assessment as a planning tool has been practised by the Government of Canada since 1974. It has been used to predict the potential environmental effects of proposals requiring a federal government decision. The process was updated in 1977 and reinforced in 1984 when the environmental assessment and review process guidelines were issued by Order in Council.
These processes were never adequately implemented because a series of governments failed to provide a substantive legislative footing for them. The process was never more than a cabinet directive until 1984, not

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
adequately resourced by government and not sincerely implemented by departments. After 1984 it was still very difficult, even for a government dedicated to environmental values to implement fully the poorly conceived and ambiguously worded guideline order, frantically introduced at that time in a futile attempt to bolster the sagging fortunes of the government of the moment.
In 1987 the government asked the Minister of the Environment to consult the public on the need for and manner of reforming the environmental assessment and review process. The minister issued a Green Paper to serve as a basis for that consultation.
Six months of public meetings were held in major centres across Canada, followed by a national consultative workshop in March, 1988. Broad consultations were held with a wide spectrum of Canadians including governments, the private sector, native peoples, environmental and other special interest groups, the legal profession, and environmental assessment professionals.
Participants in the consultations called for an accountable and administratively simple process based in law that is effective, efficient, fair, and open.
This government has responded clearly and strongly to the needs of the country and of the Canadian people. As a reflection of the consultative process and its promise during the last election campaign and subsequent Speech from the Throne, we are proud to introduce a substantive, important package of reforms to Canada's environmental assessment system which will, as the Minister of the Environment stated last week in launching the initiative, make this the most comprehensive and effective environmental assessment process in the world.
The key element in these reforms is the bill we are discussing today-the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; for the first time, a comprehensive, legislative commitment to good decision making. While the focus of our debate will be on the legislation this House is being asked to consider, I wish to point out to members of this House that the government is going even further to ensure that this package fills the needs of today's Canadians. We are not stopping with the introduction of Bill C-78.
Beginning immediately we are requiring that environmental factors be integrated into all government policy
decisions. This is an unprecedented step. I cannot overstate its importance to government decision making. Government policies are often the determining factor regarding what economic development projects are conceived and implemented across Canada. If the policies are not environmentally sensitive, it is much more difficult to ensure that the resulting projects will be, even with tough assessment legislation such as we are introducing.
Henceforth, all decisions of cabinet will require the potential environmental effects to be assessed and considered. To help build public confidence that this is being done consistently and well, the responsible minister will be required to make a clear statement about the environmental effects of the policy initiative at the time it is announced. Also, to help ensure consistency and to enable the public to see the rules under which government is functioning in this regard, the Minister of the Environment has been asked to develop a set of clear guidelines for use by all departments, and the Privy Council Office has been asked to amend cabinet procedural manuals accordingly.
Further opportunity for public scrutiny can be reinforced by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment which can request any minister to appear before it to explain the environmental implications of any new policy or any new program. The government will encourage and welcome this form of public accountability.
This is a great step forward. It is one which is virtually unprecedented in the world, let alone in Canada. We do not hide the fact that neither we nor any other country in the world have all the techniques fully developed for environment-economy integration in policies, but we are going to do it as well as it can be done and improve our techniques along the way. Leadership almost always requires breaking new ground. We have the strength and the resolve to do that.
A second vitally important element of our reform package is a consistent and predictable program of financial assistance to participants in public reviews that may be required in the process set out in Bill C-78 and, for that matter, any public reviews that may be undertaken under the present regime until Bill C-78 is able to be
June 26, 1990

implemented. This is going to be introduced, immediately after funds are approved by Treasury Board. We have learned over the years that whenever financial assistance is provided to review participants the issues are debated much more cogently and the results achieved are much more satisfying to all concerned.
The funding is usually directed as a matter of priority to communities and individuals most directly affected by a proposed development. This enables them to study and understand the issues thoroughly and to prepare well considered submissions to review panels. It minimizes antagonistic rhetoric and promotes useful dialogue.
For each public review the funds for this purpose will be allocated according to strict criteria and on the basis of applications submitted. Allocation decisions will be taken by special committees established for each review made up of credible individuals largely from outside government to help ensure independence. This again is almost unprecedented. The Netherlands, according to my understanding, is the only other country we know of that has a public review participant funding program. This will help build partnerships among decision makers and those affected by the decisions.
A third point I wish to raise at this time before returning to the details of the proposed legislation is a major international initiative the government intends to launch formally very soon to help increase awareness and action on environmental issues world-wide.
Canada, along with many other industrialized nations, provides a variety of forms of support, financial and otherwise, to goods and services exported abroad. To be consistent with its domestic policies, Canada must also consider the environmental effects of its actions affecting other countries. It does this formally with respect to bilateral aid initiatives and will continue to do so. To do this unilaterally with respect to export support actions would be highly unlikely to result in environmentally better decisions in the receiving countiy. What is more likely to happen is that Canadian exporters may not be able to compete effectively. In fact, it is probable that Canadian exporters may not even get invited to the bidding table if they are alone in carrying environmental demands.
An alternative course of action, and one which we believe is more likely to obtain environmental benefits
Government Orders
while not cutting off international markets for Canadian goods, is the development of an international accord in this area with the other countries in competition for the same export markets.
This has the potential to be of great international significance from an environmental point of view. While we cannot set a firm deadline for this process since that would pre-empt the negotiations, the government has requested that the Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs report back to cabinet in three years on the progress made by that time. The expectation is that there would be substantial progress.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, even though we know that Bill C-78 is a strong and comprehensive piece of environmental assessment legislation, we are not letting the matter rest there. The additional initiatives that I have outlined this morning demonstrate clearly to the Canadian people that this government is strongly and irrevocably committed to making all its decisions based on sound environmental criteria and to ensuring that the affected public has a fair opportunity and the means to influence those decisions.
I wish now to return to the bill itself. I would like to characterize the key features of the bill in order to give members an appreciation of the impressive advances it is introducing to the field of environmental assessment. Other government speakers during the course of this debate will certainly go into more detail about the process described in the bill. My intent is to touch on the highlights.
The stated purpose of Bill C-78 is to ensure that project decisions by responsible authorities are based on an informed appreciation of the likely environmental effects, to encourage project decisions by responsible authorities that promote and maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy, to ensure that projects in Canada do not cause serious environmental effects outside the jurisdictions in which they are located.
This is in the context, as the bill itself states, of providing an "effective means of integrating environmental factors into planning and decision-making processes in a manner that ensures that present needs are met without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future generations". This is the concept of sustainable development that is the driving force behind this bill.

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
The bill requires government departments and agencies to give projects for which they have decision-making authority the degree of assessment warranted in the circumstances. If projects are determined to have no environmental relevance they will be excluded. It is important to note, however, that the bill is designed to have very broad application. Any exclusions require specific decisions based upon narrow criteria to avoid abuse.
All projects characterized in a list, which will be issued by regulation, as having potentially major environmental significance will be required to undergo mandatory environmental study and reporting. The Minister of the Environment will then make a decision as to whether a formal public review will be needed. All such mandatory environmental studies will entail consultation with the public and a review by government agencies with appropriate environmental expertise. It is anticipated that this provision will have a profound effect on the way developers interact with those potentially affected by development. They will have to start talking at an early stage to those affected in an effort to find mutually acceptable solutions to identified problems. Developers will want to do all they can to submit a mandatory environmental assessment report to the minister which identifies solutions, not just problems. Dialogue of this kind will improve, trust will build, and better solutions will emerge.
For other projects, that is those not on the list, an environmental screening will be required which may lead to a public review or to the project proceeding with appropriate mitigation measures.
If a public review is needed, the environment minister may choose between a mediation and a public review by a panel. In certain cases both may be needed.
A new agency will be created to administer the legislation and to advise the Minister of the Environment in the implementation of the process. The agency will be called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and will be fully independent of Environment Canada, unlike the present federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
A new provision is being introduced in this bill designed to safeguard the environment of one jurisdiction
from actions initiated in another. With this provision, if the trans-border environmental issue is serious and the parties have been unable to come to an accommodation regarding the way it should be assessed, the federal environment minister may require a federal review and may issue a stop work order on the project in question until the minister is satisfied that the trans-border environmental effects are acceptable. This is a potentially very important provision, not only because of the trans-border safeguard but also because it contains authority to protect certain lands of interest to Indian people which are not necessarily on designated reserves.
I would now like to summarize the important advances being made in Bill C-78 for the whole field of environmental assessment in Canada.
First, the Minister of the Environment makes the key process decisions regarding the need for a public review. This decision is currently taken by the minister responsible for the project and sometimes leads to accusations of the fox guarding the chicken coop. Bill C-78 places this responsibility where it belongs.
Second, all major projects must undergo mandatory assessment which must include public consultation. This is currently discretionary.
Third, assessments of major projects must include a consideration of cumulative environmental effects of the project relative to other projects affecting the same environment, alternative ways of carrying out the project, the reasons for proposing the project, and effects of the project on the sustainability for future generations of any renewable resources that might be affected by the project.
Each of these requirements on its own would be seen as very significant improvements. Taken together, the advance in my opinion is truly impressive.
Furthermore, public registries will be created and maintained for all assessed projects and will normally be located in the vicinity of the project so that those who might be affected by it can understand it and influence it.
Moreover, public review panels will be fully independent of government. Currently, although most members of panels are from outside government, the chairman or chairperson is a public servant. In the future the chair will also be from outside government.
June 26, 1990

Public review panels will have subpoena powers, enforceable by the Federal Court. Currently it is necessary to rely on the goodwill of participants, and from time to time not all useful information is made available.
A new provision will be introduced to enable appointment of a mediator to resolve environmental disputes when the conditions are right and when there is a willingness on the part of all key parties to find a solution.
All major projects will require the preparation of follow up and monitoring plans. Until now this has been one of the most significant deficiencies of environmental assessment processes everywhere in the world. To our knowledge, there are only two other countries in the world which allow for follow up. According to my understanding they are the Netherlands and the United States of America.
Opportunity will be provided to assess the effects of projects on lands off reserves in which Indian people hold interest. This has never been recognized before.
The ability to ensure protection of the environmental interests of one jurisdiction against the actions of another is a very important advance which will do a lot to ensure harmony among jurisdictions, if only to keep the federal government out of their hair. I am sure that many provincial jurisdictions will applaud this innovation.
Many opportunities are provided in the bill for co-operation with provinces through joint public reviews and administrative agreements to avoid duplication and confusion.
Special procedures will be adopted for Crown corporations to ensure coverage by the law. Currently, coverage is voluntary. A new agency, separate from Environment Canada, will be created to administer this process.
I scarcely need to repeat that this is a very impressive package of reforms. No one who has followed environmental assessment evolution over the past 15 years can deny the advances which are represented in Bill C-78. These improvements constitute in many ways a bold move for any government since some of the requirements set out in the bill and in other parts of the reforms will require the introduction of as yet unproven methodologies.
But we believe that the issue-survival of the planet- is so important that we, must push our knowledge and
Government Orders
our capacities to the veiy limit. This bill will do exactly that. The government is proud to have introduced it. For that reason I am confident that members opposite will also be eager to join with us in the legislative committee in ensuring that the bill gets the speedy passage which it deserves.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also welcome the arrival of this bill. We think it is at last a step in the right direction, and a highly desirable one considering some recent events which reflected veiy badly on the Minister of the Environment, who preceded by two the present one, of this government, and also on other ministers of the Crown who were involved in two major projects which have had an important role in ensuring that the government finally would introduce this legislation in the House.
I am referring specifically to the Rafferty-Alameda project, Mr. Speaker, with which you are certainly fairly acquainted and to the one with which you are most acquainted because it is in your region, namely, the Oldman River dam.
Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary decided to give a political and partisan connotation to his intervention and referred to political convenience. We will analyse that after we put this bill into the proper framework.
This bill does not come forward in a vacuum. It is the result of several steps which date back several years, in particular to an important step which was taken in 1983 which provided the groundwork and the foundation for two important decisions by the Federal Court. It was the EARP guidelines order which was promulgated in the summer of 1983 and provided the foundations to which I am referring.
It is interesting to note that it was during the election campaign of 1984 that the Progressive Conservative Party promised an environmental assessment process. The promise, however, was readily forgotten. I submit it would still be forgotten in the large bag of unfulfilled promises had it not been for Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman River dam.
Therefore it is important to put on record in order to substantiate what I just said part of the decision that was made by the Federal Court on April 10, 1989, when it

Government Orders
made its decision on a case between the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the Minister of the Environment and the Saskatchewan Water Corporation. The judge on that day concluded that, in his opinion, the federal Minister of the Environment is required before issuing a licence under certain legislation to comply with the guidelines order that govern environmental assessment.
The judge went on to say that by not applying the provisions of the order the minister has failed to comply-imagine a judge indicating that a minister of the Crown has failed to comply-with a statutory duty and that he has exceeded his jurisdiction and therefore the applicants, namely, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, are entitled to their order.
The judge went on to comment further that the EARP guidelines order indicates that certain procedures, namely, the preparation of an environmental assessment and review, must be carried out when dealing with a proposal that may have an environmental effect on an area of federal responsibility. The project being such a proposal, and the minister being a participant in that he issued the licence and by not complying with the order has, in the opinion of the judge, not performed his duty. Therefore the applicants were entitled to the order and costs after taxation. It was Judge Cullen who gave this decision.
The references to the Minister of the Environment are for the one who failed to be re-elected in the 1988 election.
It is also important to refer to another decision by the Federal Court of Canada handed down on January 24 of this year. The applicant in this case was not the Canadian Wildlife Federation, but Friends of the Oldman River Society. The respondents were two federal ministers, that of Transport and Fisheries and Oceans. At the provincial level, it was the minister of Public Works, Supply and Services of Alberta.
On page 19 of the decision the judge concluded that the guidelines order, which is the order that had been promulgated by the preceding government-in other words, the Liberal government-was intended to bind the minister in the performance of his duties and
functions. It created a duty which is super-added to the exercise of any other statutory power residing in him.
The judge went on to state that the source of the minister's jurisdiction and responsibility to address environmental questions in areas of federal responsibilities springs not from that statutory law but from the guidelines order itself. The judge concluded that the minister had a positive obligation to comply with it.
It is against this background that today, six years later, we engage in this debate on second reading. When the parliamentary secretary makes reference to political convenience, it might be not only desirable but charitable on his part to look in his own backyard before pointing the finger at others.
In examining the bill, and we will have ample opportunity to do that in committee, we come across certain passages which I would like to highlight so as to express, at least at this point, certain reservations that might then facilitate discussions later which are of certain substances. I would refer you, first, Mr. Speaker, to the preamble where it states: "-the Government of Canada seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between economic development and the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality".
This balance referred to in the preamble is the thinking that prevailed long before the Brundtland report. It is dangerous thinking if the government is, as the Parliamentary Secretary proclaimed a few minutes ago, committed to sustainable development. That commitment-and I wish the parliamentary secretary could find a moment to listen-is in conflict with the preamble in which this balance is described. If you pursue a balance between the economy and the environment, you are not really pursuing sustainable development. You would instead be pursuing a balance between two factors which are seen in the mind of the writers of this preamble as being in conflict with each other, something which they should not be.
I submit to the parliamentary secretary that the preamble ought to reflect the policy of this government, as it should, and rightly so. I am glad in a way that in his speech the parliamentary secretary made reference to sustainable development which is not included in the bill itself as a concept. We cannot find it in the preamble. We


June 26, 1990

cannot find it in clause 4, the clause that relates to purposes.
Instead, we see a regression in thought by way of this reference to a balance between economic development on the one hand and the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality on the other. The two, I submit, are not separate entities. The two are not objectives that have to be held in balance. One is the premise to the other and, therefore, one would want to Shave an economy that is tailored and flows from the environment, rather than an economy that is in balance with the environment. We will not achieve sustainable development by looking at the two as separate entities, as is spelled out in the first part of the preamble.
I must give credit to the government for the second part of the preamble which is very well put. It is almost word for word taken from the Brundtland report.
The third part of the preamble is as a result of a conceptual flaw, so to speak, which sees the environment as separate from the economy. It reads:
The Government of Canada is committed to exercising leadership within Canada and internationally in anticipating and preventing the degradation of environmental quality and at the same time ensuring that economic development is compatible with the high value Canadians place on environmental quality;
Not only is this very vague, but it would have read much better if it had read, from the second whereas: "and tailored to environmental requirements". That concept would give future ministers and the courts a clear idea as to what the government intends to achieve with this particular bill.
The concept of a balance in the preamble sets the government off on the wrong foot. It is unfortunate. We will erase it in committee and, I hope in co-operation with other members, we will attempt to rectify this faulty preamble.
In clause 4, there is the very important set of purposes which need to be addressed. First, what is not there is a reference to sustainable development. Again, the parliamentary secretary did make a reference to it in his speech. I am glad he did. I hope that the reference in his speech today will somehow provide enough political motivation for a modification of clause 4 so as to include the concept of sustainable development in the purposes of the act.
Government Orders
Second, the clause dealing with the purposes reads: "to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration". I submit it should read: "to ensure that the environmental effects of projects are fully assessed and understood". That would mean more than just receiving careful consideration. Careful consideration can be given to anything and then just ignored. Having gone through that process and having gone through the motions, consideration has no doubt been given. What really matters here is a full assessment and a full understanding of the project.
The second purpose under paragraph (b) is fine, as well as the third. I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on paragraph (c) because it commits Canada internationally in a manner that, as he mentioned in his speech, may have been done by the Netherlands and another nation but not by the United States of America. This is to the best of my knowledge and I stand to be corrected.
Once this section of that act is promulgated and proclaimed-the portion that commits Canada to assuming a high standard of environmental responsibility with respect to its neighbours-I urge that it is taken up, promoted and advanced at international fora, not only the UN, but also the OECD and at any other opportunity where we would want to have a reciprocity to our own domestic legislation, particularly on the part of the United States, Mexico, or any other major industrial nation of the world.
I would add that there is one purpose that the Government of Canada subscribed to only a few weeks ago at the Bergen conference. That is the "precautionary principle" agreed upon by 34 ministers of the environment. This is missing. I urge the parliamentary secretary to use his access to the corridors of power to see if the precautionary principle could be included as a purpose of this bill. It is missing but would make considerable difference if adopted as a purpose and guideline in the legislation.
In this context, it is also interesting to note that just a year ago the member of parliament for Ottawa South, despite valiant efforts, failed to have an amendment adopted in committee and also in the House to introduce the concept of sustainable development when the bill creating the Department of Industry, Science and Technology was voted upon. We were stunned, even at that time, to see the Minister of the Environment of the day voting against such a sensible amendment, consistent

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
with the policies the government of Canada has embraced at home and abroad.
At that time the member for Ottawa South was told in debate that only Environment Canada should promote sustainable development and he should not mess around with other departments. This was, and still is, an admission of failure on the part of the government to understand what it has committed itself to when speaking for and embracing the concept and objectives that come with sustainable development.
The political will of the government came to a serious test with Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman River dam. I would like to indicate that the courts also told the government that the guidelines are mandatory and binding, not discretionary, and therefore could not be ignored.
At the present time, construction of the Oldman River dam in Alberta is continuing. As far as I can ascertain, $1 million a month is paid to the Government of Saskatchewan to stop work on the dam. The work there has not been stopped despite a court order. This raises some serious doubts about the political will behind the proposition we are debating here today.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that, when it comes to projects to be assessed and the specifics of the excluded projects, one could drive a truck through Clause 6(a) as it is written. We will certainly attempt in committee to tighten up that clause.
I also refer to the weakness of how the projects to be assessed in Section 5(d) is presently written. That clause would be much stronger if it did not have the qualification at the beginning referring to subparagraph 55(l)(g). That very much weakens the impact of that particular assessment.
It is worth noting that, if one looks at the legislation that would trigger the powers to be used under this bill, one has to look at the regulations. I am sure this will be dealt with very effectively by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena. He was very articulate and effective
in commenting on this when the legislation was introduced and I am grateful to him for having done so.
In subparagraph 55(l)(g), in particular, we find that the key legislation that would trigger this particular bill is not indicated yet. That tells me that there is indecision or division in cabinet. In other words, one would want to ensure that the key legislation which a government has at its disposal would come under the umbrella of this procedure called the environmental assessment process.
We find that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is not yet, or may never be, brought under this legislation. Canada Post Corporation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and the Export Development Corporation are not part of the legislation covered by this bill. The Federal Business Development Bank, the Harbourfront Corporation, and the National Capital Commission would seem to be exempt, as well as the Northern Canada Power Commission. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority seems to have escaped the net, as well as VIA Rail, Canadian National Railways, the Montreal Ports Corporation and Petro-Canada. These would be the major actors, so to speak, which ought to be brought under the umbrella of this legislation if it is really to have muscle and if it is really to implement the political thrust, determination, and commitment the parliamentary secretary referred to earlier.
Let me also make a reference to paragraph 55(l)(j), and repeat that Schedule 3 corporations, from which I read a moment ago, do not come under this bill. None of the 75 clauses that comprise this bill apply to them.
We will not know when the regulations will be written, what they will specify, and if they will ever be proclaimed as they affect these corporations. In other words, we are being asked to take a leap of faith that something of this kind will come into effect. Through the parliamentary secretary, we urge the minister when he appears before committee to indicate to us exactly what plans he has to include the statutes of other agencies under Schedule 3.
It is my understanding that the National Energy Board Act, the Fisheries Act, the Atomic Energy Control Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Canada Oil and Gas Act, the National Parks Act, the Railway Act and the Railway Reallocation and Crossing Act are being considered. We invite the parliamentary secretary to
June 26, 1990

ensure that when we go to committee we have a clear understanding as to which acts will be brought under this umbrella because they are not specified.
Another question must be raised under this section. Will there be a public role? The bill does not give us such assurance and we would like that added when we enter into the study of the bill in committee.
I also refer very briefly to section 55(2) because there is a problem of clarification, to say the least. The question is related to the exclusion of physical activities, whereby the minister, when making regulations, may exclude certain physical activities. What will be considered inappropriate when it comes to physical activities? That is the question. The interpretation that could be given to this section is so broad that it definitely raises some doubts as to the loopholes that this particular section offers.
Also, I find it important to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the significance of the decision of the minister concerning section 20. Some words have been added to section 20(a)(i) which did not exist in the unnumbered version of the bill. These words have weakened the original version by adding "that may not be mitigable". This particular addition weakens the impact of the section as a whole, and also because the term "mitigable" can be interpreted in so many different ways.
We would also like to have in this bill powers given to the minister of the day to recommend, at least to cabinet, refusal. The powers to refuse, at an early stage, are some that deserve thoughtful attention because it would be easier to achieve or to stop a project than when it is too far downstream, so to speak, and too late in the day.
Therefore, under this act, the minister ought to be given such authority, possibly under section 20, so that the project can be sent back to the drawing board. I would submit for the parliamentary secretary's consideration some wording to the effect that the minister of the day would have the authority to recommend refusal to cabinet. Then this act would have the additional strength that is required to command the attention of the totality of government as to the importance of implementing the environmental assessment process, as already done by virtue of the two decisions by Judge Cullen which seem to me to be, not only extremely lucid but also very clear
Government Orders
on the role that the Minister of the Environment of the day ought to play when it comes to the environmental assessment process.
Also, I would like to refer the parliamentary secretary to section 25, the mediation and panel reviews. This is written in a manner that appears to include anybody who is not directly affected. Therefore, we wonder, if section 25(a)(i) where the words "directly affected" are spelled out were to become law, would it mean that at the point when mediation has taken place, is taking place or will take place as in the case of Rafferty-Alameda, the Canadian Wildlife Federation would have had standing in the court?
Would it have been excluded? Would Friends of the Oldman River have been excluded at the mediation or panel review phase if this clause had been proclaimed?
One must say that one would not want to prejudge mediation. The wording of section 25(a)(i) would seem to indicate that the minister could prejudge the outcome of a mediation specifically without giving it a chance to take place. I suppose that here experience is being drawn from labour negotiations, and I would say to the parliamentary secretary that a judgment a priori sometimes has not led to the best possible results.
The bill is one that gives us something to discuss and to move ahead with because definitely it is badly needed. As such, we welcome the fact that it has finally seen the light of day six years after the promise was made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the 1984 election.
The credibility of the bill would be considerably enhanced if the concept of sustainable development would find its way into the preamble and the purposes. It would be considerably more enhanced if this reference to a balance between the economy and the environment were to be replaced with appropriate wording. We could work this out in committee, particularly, if the concept would emerge at last in the thinking of this government that there cannot be a healthy and long sustainable economy unless it is based on a well-protected and well-managed environment. There is no dichotomy between the two and there is no conflict between the two in the long term. I presume the test of the political will of

Government Orders
this government will come in committee when we discuss the bill clause by clause.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-78 today.
Unfortunately, it is a bill that fails on many tests. I will spend the next few minutes going through the history of how we got to where we are and why there will have to be substantive changes to the legislation if it is to be accepted widely by the Canadian public, as I think the government would like.
The federal environmental assessment and review process known as EARP was developed in response to a December, 1973 cabinet decision to provide for evaluation of environmentally significant undertakings subject to federal control. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that was during a period of a minority government. In fact, we got some fairly good legislation under way during that period of time.
The main outlines of the process were approved by cabinet in April of 1974. Minor revisions were made by a cabinet directive in 1977. In its initial form EARP was entirely administrative. A 1979 amendment to the Government Organization Act gave EARP a statutory basis for the first time by authorizing the Minister of the Environment to establish and operate an environmental assessment process.
Since 1979 the federal Minister of the Environment's duties have included the following responsibility:
- to ensure that new federal projects, programs and activities are assessed early in the planning process for potential adverse effects on the quality of the natural environment and that a further review is carried out of those projects, programs and activities that are found to have probably significant adverse effects-
In 1983, following 10 years of experience with EARP, the federal cabinet ordered a formal evaluation of the program. This resulted in the proclamation of an Order in Council on June 22, 1984 under the Government Organization Act. This Order in Council replaced the previous cabinet directives that established the program.
It is that 1984 cabinet guidelines order upon which the Federal Court ruling was made on the Rafferty-Alame-da and the unanimous ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal on the Oldman.
The EARP guidelines order is applicable to any proposal that,
(a)	is to be undertaken by an initiating department;
(b)	that may have an environmental effect on an area of federal responsibility;
(c)	for which the government of Canada has a financial commitment; or
(d)	that is located on lands, including the offshore, that are administered by the Government of Canada.
It is on that 1984 cabinet guidelines order that many Canadians are waiting to obtain assurance from the Government of Canada prior to Parliament rising that the guidelines order will not be tampered with.
Since Bill C-78 is now moving through the House, I would hope that today the parliamentary secretary or someone in the cabinet would give an assurance that the guidelines order will not be tampered with as we await the passage and proclamation of C-78, a piece of legislation which I said requires some rather drastic modifications. Let me spend a few moments on that.
My friend who just spoke pointed out that the Conservative Party did promise during the 1984 election that some kind of EARP legislation would be brought forward soon. That was six years ago.
Let me run quickly over the last couple of years. After a year of hearings in 1987-and I think this is germane because of these so-called Green Plan hearings that are going on-how may Canadians have an expectation that that process is actually going to produce some kind of useful and functioning environmental legislation and fiscal framework?
This gives some idea of how this particular government will always find ways to stall. After that year of hearings on EARP in 1987, on October 20, 1988 the federal government announced that it would strengthen the federal environmental assessment and review process known as EARP which was a mere Order in Council.
The press release of October 20, 1988 quoted the then environment minister, Tom McMillan, as saying: "We are prepared to subject every federal undertaking and every undertaking on federal lands to a thorough environmental impact study."
June 26, 1990

This followed the year-long Canada-wide consultations between the federal government, industry, the academic community, local government, environment, and other citizen interest groups of which I have spoken.
This was reiterated because a year later, workable EARP legislation had not been put in place and both Tom McMillan and his successor Lucien Bouchard got blasted by Canadians over the decision to proceed with the Rafferty-Alameda project without the promised EARP review.
In fact on June 20, 1989 Lucien Bouchard told the House of Commons he would be introducing "very, very important" legislation by fall. That was the fall of last year. However, as of the beginning of this year we still only had the guidelines in place, although they had been somewhat strengthened by the Federal Court ruling on Rafferty-Alameda which made it clear that the guidelines were both mandatory and binding.
A further step was taken on March 13, 1990 with the unanimous ruling of the Federal Court of Canada on appeal that both Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were negligent in not conducting an environmental assessment of the Oldman dam. Although, as we heard earlier today, construction is not halted on either of those projects even though on the Rafferty-Alameda the federal government is paying some $1 million a month for Saskatchewan not to proceed and yet both the Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman dams are proceeding supposedly only in relation to safety related matters. But, of course, the definition of "safety related" appears to coincide rather nicely with the concept of completion construction. Completion construction seems to all be safety related, no matter what area it comes in.
We need assurance that the guidelines order will not be gutted or changed prior to the passage of Bill C-78.1 do not hear anyone from the government side contradicting that, so I assume that will be the government position until Bill C-78 is passed, unless we hear otherwise during this debate.
Let me quote what some people had to say on June 19 when this bill was unveiled by the new Minister of the Environment, the President of the Treasury Board. "It is
Government Orders
fill-in-the blanks legislation". That was stated by Elizabeth May, a lawyer and spokesperson for the Sierra Club. "Too much has been left out", that was stated by Stephen Hazel, a lawyer and spokesperson for the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. He also said: "As it stands, it is narrower than what we have now".
Ray Robinson, the head of FEARO, the existing body that administers environmental assessment stated: "It is fair comment to say the scope of the act cannot be determined by what you have in front of you". There you have probably one of the people in Canada most expert in understanding the history of environmental assessment, of the panels that are presently under way and the ones that have already held hearings across the country.
Of course, this is the fifteenth draft. This legislation was brought forward and gutted, brought forward and gutted, brought forward and gutted, until finally it was the kind of amorphous Swiss cheese that Conservatives like the most where there appears to be something there, there appears to be some functional piece of legislation that could actually go out and evaluate nuclear projects, tanker spills, water quality or mega projects.
In fact, as one finds as one reads through the legislation, which is something that all Canadians should do, every time you find something that is constructive that appears to give some legitimate access to a process, almost the very next section will provide for exclusionary powers or lists of excluded projects or ministerial discretionary powers to provide other lists or special discretionary powers for the federal government to opt out of a process and give it over to a provincial or territorial process. So there is this constant building up of expectation in the legislation and then much like a gigantic legislative game of snakes and ladders, just as you finish climbing that ladder in hopes of finding a good, fair and just democratic process, there is this giant tube that you must slide down again that gives all the powers back to the political level on behalf, generally, of industry and government.
Under the existing rules, the 1984 guidelines order, which are supported by federal court rulings, it is required that all projects that might affect an area of federal jurisdiction must be reviewed. So we can see that we have in fact gone backward. We have not gone

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
forward and come up with a more comprehensive piece of legislation. In fact, the draftpersons were forced, I suspect at the point of the cabinet's gun, to go back and particularly gut the statutory provisions in relation to Section 55 and the other provisions that I will come to in a moment.
Under Bill C-78, projects the federal government funds or is directly involved in may be reviewed as well as projects involving federal lands. There is a world of difference between what the Federal Court has said about the guidelines order and what is actually in the legislation.
The list of federal statutes to which the legislation applies is not included. A moment ago, my friend from Davenport pointed out that in the documents that were released on June 19, some are suggested. The Minister of the Environment said with certainty that the Fisheries Act will ultimately come under the ambit of Bill C-78.
In one of the cabinet documents that I have here it states that as of December, six months ago, $14 million has been spent doing the various consultations, studies and so on related to this legislation. After spending $14 million the bureaucrats were unable to come up with a list of federal legislation that has some environmental bearing on some federal jurisdictions or some bearing in relation to permits that could or might or should be involved in projects across the country.
They suggest the National Energy Board Act, the Railway Act, the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, the Atomic Energy Control Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Fisheries Act, the National Parks Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Act are the only ones that the cabinet seems to think might perhaps be included. I suggest that the list that should be included in this as a statutory reference is several dozen in length and I would hope that the government will come forward with a full, complete and unadulterated list of those that will be included before we in fact even have to deal with this legislation in committee.
The other deep concern that Canadians have about this legislation is that in terms of government policy, perhaps the most important tenet to be carefully scrutinized under environmental assessment legislation has been purposely excluded. There will be assessments
done but they will be done in house and the only thing the public will ever see is the conclusion, perhaps a one or two line conclusion of the assessment when it comes out. That is not a very stirring approach.
Even the approach taken by the Government of New Zealand is better where there is an environmental commissioner or, as I have suggested, a national environmental auditor who in fact would be arm's length from government, much like Canada's Auditor General, and be able to go in and audit the environmental assessments that are done.
Let us take an example. The Minister of Energy right now wants to provide billions of dollars to certain fossil fuel projects, after slashing available funding-supposedly the level playing field concept-to renewable energy and to conservation. That funding was slashed to only $200 million over five years, but it is proposed to give billions of dollars to fossil projects that have never undergone the most basic environmental assessment.
What has happened is we have what are known as the scrambled industrial omelettes. On those that Mr. McMillan and Mr. Bouchard struggled with, the Raffer-ty-Alameda and the Oldman, they did not do what they were supposed to do in the first place and even when ordered by the courts did not do what they were supposed to do, and we are being told now, as members of the Flouse and as Canadians, to trust the government, that the government in fact will do proper auditing and accounting of the environmental impacts of government policy.
That particular area of this legislation is so poorly and so weakly drafted that I do not think any Canadian will find it acceptable until either we have a publicly accessible in house evaluation, or at least an arm's length evaluation through an environmental commission or commissioner or environmental auditor. Nothing less will do.
As my friend was talking about earlier, this legislation does not even give credence or pay respect to the Brundtland commission, the definition of sustainable development. The former Secretary General, Jim McNeill, just works across the street from here and could have easily been given a phone call and asked where, in the opening sections of this legislation, should we put purpose sections, interpretive sections and
June 26, 1990

clauses to make sure that the true impact and meaning of sustainable development is included in this legislation.
Another point made by my friend from Davenport was in relation to the precautionary principle, another absolute fundamental that is now recognized world-wide by leading environment ministers and environment organizations and generally thinking people that there must be a precautionary principle included in legislation such as this that gives immediate power to the minister, at the very least, to put an absolute halt to projects, including those that have already begun.
This legislation excludes the scrambled industrial omelettes like the Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman. It excludes all of that policy that is now coming to the fore, the fossil projects and all of these other projects that are absolutely kooky when taken in the context of sustainable development. We have all of that stuff grandfathered out of the legislation. And now, in terms of having truly visionary and forward looking environmental legislation that would deal with policy so that in fact it is sound, that is excluded. It gives the opportunity for exclusionary lists of projects.
I can already hear the chatter in the various industrial clubs across the country: "Oh, hey, that EARP legislation is before the House. Did you manage to get yourself on the 55(2) list?" That will be famous. Everybody in the boardrooms will be asking their lawyers: "Did you get us on the 55(2)?", the mandatory exclusionary list. That will be oil projects, nuclear projects and all of these other ones. It will be the 55(2) club and you will not even need Roch LaSalle to get on that one. You will not have to pay five grand to go to dinner. You will just have to make your contribution to the local PC association, five, ten, fifteen grand, and you become a 55(2). You never even need to worry. Daishowa will want a 55(2) today for Alberta, AL-PAC, every one in the fossil section, uranium mining companies, pulp companies that create 40 per cent of the main pollution in Canada; they are all going to want to be 55(2)s.
What I think happened is on the fourteenth or fifteenth draft, this came back to cabinet because Mr. McMillan had been summarily booted out of cabinet with such a proposal and booted out of the House of
Government Orders
Commons too. Then Mr. Bouchard had been booted out of cabinet. The day he resigned, very few environmentalists had even heard of this yet. His resignation, because it took place while the market was open, cost over $1 billion. That is how much Canadian currency dropped. That is how much the Bank of Canada had to intervene because Mr. Bouchard chose to resign while the markets were open. More than Environment Canada's entire annual budget was flushed down the drain by a minister who claimed to care about the country, to care about Quebec and to care about the environment. He lost on all three in my view by doing what he did when he did.
Let us go back to this legislation that is full of these incredible holes. Bill C-78 has been described by many as legislation in retreat. I quote what The Financial Post had to say: "Ray Robinson, FEARO's executive chairman said under the new act the environmental assessment process is an advisory process. The government does not have to accept the recommendations of the review panels. Government hopes to pass the act by the fall of 1991".
So now we are getting signals about what the government is really all about. This process began in 1983. By 1984, the government promised to implement legislation. After three years in office it then had a year of hearings and then made promises for another two years. Finally it brought the legislation forward. The legislation has been gunny-bagged. Even the gunny-bagged legislation is not supposed to come in for another year and a half. One can only wonder how anything could possibly move that slowly, other than a slowly melting glacier.
The Ottawa Sun, on the day that the legislation was released, quoted my friend from Davenport as saying that the bill was a step in the right direction. A very timid step, Mr. Speaker. The Montreal Gazette went on to quote him as saying: "It deserves intensive and speedy study so we can make it the law of the land".
It certainly is going to require intensive work because the legislation is almost totally inadequate. It allows the government to get out of having due process on almost any project, no matter what the magnitude.
This legislation, as drafted, would not in its present draft apply to the largest industrial project ever proposed in the history of North America, James Bay II. This

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
legislation would not apply. It is discretionary. It will not apply to the largest industrial project which will flood 5,000 square kilometres of the province of Quebec, cause enormous methane releases to the atmosphere, wipe out the only freshwater seal population in the world, harm the whale populations in James Bay, divert many river systems so that they will flow in the opposite direction to which they already do and require the clear-cutting and the dumping of thousands of square miles of forests. This has been demonstrated in the March edition of Science Magazine as being the largest, single, carbon sink on planet earth, the northern boreal forest. It used to be thought that it was the oceans. Now, because of advances in science, we know it is the forests.
Amory Lovins appeared before the Standing Committee of Parliament, and the Canadian media did not even cover the fact that he had done a study for the northern tier states which showed that simply by revamping with new motors and with state of the art conservation and by redoing the buildings, the industry, and the homes only on the Island of Montreal, more power could be saved than would be generated by James Bay II. In fact, there would be an incremental bit of power that could be sold to the northern tier states at lower than the cost of any James Bay I power now available after almost a decade and a half of amortization.
The country is being led by a good chunk of the business community that can only be described from an environmental perspective as the lunatic fringe. In terms of their accounting procedures they completely exclude outside impacts on the environment. Pulp companies generate 40 per cent of the marine pollution in Canada. They consider the rivers, lakes, and oceans of Canada to be an open sewer for their free, uncosted benefit.
The atmosphere of planet earth is being considered as a gigantic garbage dump for those who want to dump acid precipitation. For those who want to move toxic and hazardous materials that they cannot take to a land fill, they put them in the atmosphere and they blow into another country, out on to the ocean, or out into the countryside.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CFCs. The Minister of the Environment is in London and we have already had leaks. We understand the Canadian position is
substantially weaker than the all-party unanimous agreement on CFC and halon reduction. All three parties in this House are onside. The Minister of the Environment runs off to London to take a weaker position.
Who is his friend? Is it Dupont? Is it Allied Chemicals? Why would a minister not take the position which could only be described as a lowest common denominator? That report certainly did not represent the highest rate of reduction of CFCs and halons that we could possibly attain, but that is not being pursued.
This legislation has to be seen through the transparencies, the way it has been so carefully crafted that wherever there is strength there is a complete return of that power to the political level and wherever a particular project is seen as politically sensitive like the Rafferty-Alameda, even though it is wrong, even though it is contrary to the law, even though it is in violation of a court order, it still proceeds. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge; you know what I mean. The Prime Minister calls Grant: "Hi Grant, I won't get in your way. Don't worry. I know you are getting politically upset. Go with the project". "Oh, Mr. Getty, the Oldman. Go ahead. Just build it on safety. That is right. Construct it all the way, but before you drop the last grain of sand, stop, and we will study it and see whether or not it is good, bad or indifferent".
That is madness. We know too much about the environment now. We could well all perish within our own lifetimes because of some of the things that we are doing to the globe's environment.
Forty thousand children under the age of 12 will die today from starvation and preventable disease. Is anybody doing anything about it?
The cartoon that was run recently in The Regina Leader Post told it all: a picture of a small, shrivelled up, starving child reading about Earth Day and saying: "Oh, well, if they care as much about us as they do about the environment, will we all survive?"
With 40,000 a day starving to death, I somehow doubt these geniuses on the government side who say: "No, we cannot really go through all these screening processes. We really need to be able to keep our radioactive material, 100 million metric tons at Elliot Lake, unsafely. We really need to be able to dump all of our pulp mill pollution into the rivers".
June 26, 1990

To have not come forward at this point in the world's history, let alone Canada's history, without adequate environmental assessment legislation is a serious underestimation of what Canadians expect now of government.
The head of FEARO, Mr. Robinson went on in an interview with The Toronto Star, June 19, 1990, to talk about government departments being unable to agree whether reviews would affect their areas. He said: "Of course everyone is turf protecting". That is used as the reason the necessary pieces of legislation to trigger the activity of this legislation have been purposefully left out. The Minister of the Environment states that they will be included over time to make the legislation dynamic. Perhaps the minister should get out a thesaurus and find out what is the opposite of dynamic, because that is what this legislation is without that being included.
I think I have covered Rafferty and Oldman enough, but northerners are concerned about things like the impact of organochlorines, furans, and dioxin in the Peace and Athabasca rivers flowing up and particularly affecting their aquatic life, fish, birds, and so on.
What does this legislation do? Would there be an EARP triggered under this in relation to either a singular pulp mill in the province of Alberta or any other province or territory? The answer is no.
Would there be one triggered because of the cumulative impact of 5, 10, 15, or 20 pulp mills on the same systems? The answer is no.
Would there be one triggered because of the clear cutting of a third of the province of Alberta, 220,000 square kilometres, out from under the noses of Albertans? Would there be anything under this because of its potential impact on reducing the carbon fixing efficiency and capacity of a country like Canada? No.
What is this legislation, really? This is a public relations exercise, and it should not be seen as anything other than that.
What about west coast tanker traffic? We have had the Nestucca spill. We have had the Exxon Valdez. We have had spills in downtown Vancouver, right in the harbour.
Government Orders
Would there be a possibility of triggering an EARP under this one? No.
Could you even go to the courts to get a judicial review? Mr. Speaker, you only have to look in this legislation to find that only where there is extremely narrow grounds can you ever do what public interest groups have been doing in relation to the Oldman or the Rafferty-Alameda. We know why and I will come to that in a moment when I quote from the Bill Oppen memo, the famous Alberta memo about what the provinces wanted gutted from any legislation that would come before and through this House.
Would this do anything about global wanning? No. Ozone depletion? No. Acid rain? No. Great Lakes water quality? No. Arctic pollution? No. Poisoning of the belugas in the St. Lawrence? No. The loss of an acre of forests in Canada every five seconds? No.
What about the 20 per cent? In 1988 we had an international conference in Toronto and a scientific agreement suggesting that Canada and other countries would have a 20 per cent reduction from 1988 levels by the year 2005 in releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That went too far. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not like that. When the former Minister of the Environment went to Bergen, he said that Canada would at least freeze carbon dioxide levels to the year 2000.1 understand he was promptly phoned by the PMO and told he had to eat those words.
It was not too long before he resigned. That again was the lowest common denominator. If we are not even going to freeze carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, life, at least human life, will not survive.
No one likes to talk in terms of that kind of fundamentally accepted scientific reality. People should read the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One thousand of the best known climatological scientists in the world have agreed that we need 60 per cent to 80 per cent reduction in all of the greenhouse gas families in order to stabilize the atmosphere.
What is this government doing? The greenhouse gas emissions, including CFCs, have gone up every single day, every single hour, every single month, every single year it has been in office, and it claims to be environmentally committed.

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
Let us take a look at what was said in this famous Alberta memo from Mr. Oppen, because he got just about everything that he wanted. This was a meeting in Vancouver that involved a number of provincial bureaucrats acting, I take it, on behalf of their ministers. Here are the sort of things they wanted.
There must be the capability through administrative agreements for Canada to defer to a provincial process.
That is very nice; just simply turn it over to the provinces.
The act, or the regulations, must contain an exclusion or grandfather clause for projects that are either under way or that have previously been reviewed.
They wanted that and they got that.
Reasonable time limits are to be imposed on reviews-This would only be appropriate in the case where a project is 100 per cent federal-The provinces need to be a party to the development of the exclusion and compulsory review lists.
That is part six and the soon to become famous 55(2) list. There will be lines with all of the Tory bag persons, I guess to put it properly, across the country saying: "Hey, how much to be a 55(2)?" They will be lining up to get on that exclusionary list. Certainly the provinces were very much in favour of that.
With respect to the interim measures, the provinces will demand that action be taken to amend the existing EARP Guidelines Order in order to remove environmental policy from the courts.
Well the provinces certainly got that.
Alberta has also asked that the issue of delegation of administration of the habitat and pollution provision of the Fisheries Act be considered within the context of these consultations as a related issue.
Some of the provinces even want federal legislation entirely turned over to them. It is not enough that they have a gutted and gutless act. They actually want the entire statutory and constitutional powers of Canada turned over to them.
What is missing? Let me quickly list it for you, Mr. Speaker. I know we are starting to run out of time, which is too bad because one could go on at some length about legislation that is so interesting, particularly because of its failures. However let me just make a few suggestions. These were suggestions made by Bill Andrews, Executive Director of the West Coast Environmental Law Association, regarding an earlier draft that came out, but they certainly still apply to this one.
I recommend that following points which are omitted from or mentioned but not supported in the subject document.
First, that the forthcoming legislation include a mechanism for environmental assessment of existing projects, policies, and programs. That is not there.
Second, the criteria for environmental assessment policies and programs be set by regulation with public input. There does not seem to be anything that would allow for that.
Third, that the Minister of the Environment be authorized to issue an environmental permit without which an activity subject to the environmental assessment process would not be able to proceed.
Fourth, that it be mandatory that a monitoring plan be included in an initial environmental evaluation or an environmental assessment report.
Fifth, that there be a provision for auditing of the monitoring that is conducted according to the environmental assessments.
Sixth, that there be a parliamentary commissioner on the environment to monitor the implementation of the environmental assessment process.
Seventh, that the legislation require that Crown corporations meet the environmental assessment standards applicable to other federal operations and that these corporations not have a special privilege to opt for a provincial environmental assessment process.
Eighth, that the primary decision on whether to send an activity to public review be taken by the Environmental Assessment Agency with an appeal to the Minister of the Environment.
Ninth, that there be a statutory provision for public input on draft agreements with provinces and other jurisdictions regarding environmental assessment procedures and standards prior to the finalization of these agreements.
Tenth, that the authority of a panel to impose costs against a proponent include expenses incurred by public participants in additional to those funded by the Environmental Assessment Agency.
Eleventh, that environmental assessments be imposed on federal spending on support for exports.
Twelfth, that the decision of the initiating department regarding whether or not to conduct an initial environ-

mental evaluation be subject to an appeal first to the Environmental Assessment Agency and then to the Minister of the Environment.
These all seem like 12 very logical recommendations that will have to be included in Bill C-78.
So one can see, Mr. Speaker, even in the few brief moments that I have had here this morning-and I know I have kept you spellbound-there is an awful lot of hard work to be done simply to drag Bill C-78 up out of the gutter where it got trampled by cabinet.
There was probably a fairly nice strategy and piece of legislation developed by Mr. Robinson and others who worked on this and spent $14 million studying how to create a stand alone environmental assessment process that would work.
Unfortunately cabinet came along, as I said, and said: "Let's get those statutes out of there". It jerked the Fisheries Act and everything else out and then said: "Well, the provinces don't ever want an Oldman or Rafferty-Alameda decision, so let's jerk that judicial access out of there. Now we have got to have an exclusionary list. There is no better way to get pulp companies and others on side than by developing this exclusionary list. It might cost you a few bucks to get on that list, but let's keep that trap door open". We have to close those trap doors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired.
It being one o'clock I do not leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the steadfast loyalty of the Hon. Brian Mulroney to Quebec. In the history of Quebec, he is the only prime minister of Canada who has defended
Quebec's constitutional interests with such energy and tenacity.
Meech is dead. We must look not to the past but to the future. We still have a lot to do.
An incredible consensus has developed among Quebec's political leaders and the people of Quebec. We must show our solidarity and work together to protect and promote Quebec's interests and the future of Canada.
Yesterday, Quebec celebrated its national holiday with dignity. Untold crowds of happy and proud Quebecers showed a solidarity never seen before. They expressed their pride in being Quebecers and they did so loud and clear. Mr. Speaker, there were more people on tie Sainte-Helene than on Prince Edward Island, more people on Sherbrooke street in Montreal than the entire population of Newfoundland.
Jean Chretien is hardly the man to ensure that Quebec's status is properly understood and that Quebec is recognized as a distinct society.


TRIBUTE TO JEAN CHRETIEN
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Saturday night at the Saddledome in Calgary, some 5,000 solid Liberals elected the Hon. Jean Chretien as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, on the first ballot.
Not long ago-in 1986-the Prime Minister of Canada said in this House the following about Jean Chretien, and I quote: "He loves Quebec, believes sincerely in Canada and has his own special way of expressing his feelings".
To people like me who believe in this beautiful country, this Canada of ours, he is a ray of hope. Thank you, Jean Chretien, and congratulations!


TRANSPORT SAFETY
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last a report was released about safety on the B.C. ferries. B.C. ferries carry more than 19 million passengers each year.
The report was prepared by a committee appointed both by the union and the corporation. The report unanimously condemned the Coast Guard for its complete failure to maintain safety practices on B.C. ferries.

June 26, 1990
The report pointed to the carrying of dangerous cargoes outside the rules, overcrowding of B.C. ferries, the resulting lack of safety equipment and the failure to have adequate training programs.
It is the job of Transport Canada and the Coast Guard to ensure the protection of passengers and crews on B.C. ferries. The reaction of the Coast Guard, through a Mr. Peter Booker, was first to say he had not read the report; second to say that 90 per cent of it was wrong; and third, to criticize the president of the B.C. Ferry Marine Workers for his comments.
Accordingly, I call on the government to take this report seriously and to act to protect the people of British Columbia.


FARM SAFETY WEEK CAMPAIGN
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron -Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to draw special attention to the Canadian Safety Council's eighteenth annual Farm Safety Week campaign which will take place from July 25 to July 31, 1990.
The Hon. Don Mazankowski is pleased to endorse the campaign which this year highlights the theme of farm machinery, safe operation, transport and maintenance and stresses- safe working habits on the farm.
Every year when man and machine interact in the farm workplace, there are fatalities and serious injuries which could be avoided, particularly those tractor-involved mishaps which account for about 70 per cent of all fatalities and injuries.
We commend the Canada Safety Council in its efforts to minimize serious accidents and to bring safety information to the attention of farming communities and agriculture-related businesses.
In invite members of the House to join with me in saluting farmers across the country for their hard work and vital contribution to Canada's well being.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this government decided to blame Premier Wells for its
failure on the Meech Lake Accord rather than accept responsibility. The facts are that this government ignored, between 1987 and now, each and every recommendation to improve and correct the accord itself. As a result of such indifference the aboriginal people are left out of Canada's constitution. Imagine! This is not all. Millions of other Canadians are also left out.
Why blame Premier Wells? Because the Prime Minister desperately needs a scapegoat. Who is to be blamed when last Friday Senator Murray did not return the Premier's call? Why did the government reverse its position on the firmness of the deadline?
What this government hates to admit is the fact that the Meech Lake Accord died in the Manitoba legislature, where a courageous man, Elijah Harper, said no on behalf of the first people of Canada and on behalf of all those who believe that the first people must be in Canada's constitution.


SKILLS AWARENESS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, to compete effectively in the global market-place, Canada requires a highly skilled, flexible and educated workforce.
To meet this demand there is a fundamental need to address the growing shortage of skilled workers. In my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, the Lambton Industrial Training Committee has taken up this challenge. Entitled "Skills OK", the committee has recently launched a well organized and thought provoking awareness campaign, including this very attractive T-shirt, that talks about about "Skills OK", promotes skilled occupations as desirable career goals for our youth, and the member for Kent could probably take advantage of this. "Skills OK" seeks to demonstrate that skilled trades should not be occupations entered into by default of other perceived better careers. Rather, these are more than simply jobs. They are important and worthy careers which, in themselves, are integral to the future economic growth and competitiveness of this country.
I salute the activities of the Lambton Industrial Training Committee and urge others to emulate their efforts.

June 26, 1990


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, we saw recently what international pressure could do in a country like El Salvador, when President Cristiani rescinded his decision to privatize the university there.
What we would like to see beginning now is that same kind of international pressure with respect to the parliamentary elections which will be held in El Salvador in 1991. What I would like to do today, as a result of meetings that I have had with the MNR here in Canada and the trade union movement from El Salvador, is urge the government to devote as much resources as needed to ensure that the election in El Salvador is every bit as free and fair as the election that was held in Nicaragua.
I realize that the government in El Salvador is not as friendly to the notion of a free and fair election but, nevertheless, the international community and in this case Canada must show some leadership to begin providing the resources now to do the important pre-election work, as well as the election work, to ensure a free and fair election in El Salvador.


LIBERAL LEADERSHIP
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, Liberals from all across Canada made a clear choice, electing the Hon. Jean Chretien as Leader of the Liberal Party.
His first ballot victory is an indication from the party of the support for the vision he has for Canada. His experience as a parliamentarian, his patriotism as a Canadian and his strength as a leader are all welcomed by Canadians. Under the direction of the Hon. Jean Chretien, the Liberal Party will gain the strength, unity and vision to bring the Canadian family together.
We, as Liberals, are an open party representing Canadians from all walks of life. We encourage open dialogue and we debate one another with vigour, but our goal is always for a strong and united Canada that will stand together for our children and future generations. I believe that is the goal that the Hon. Jean Chretien, the new Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, can now help us realize.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Mr. Chretien personally for his victory at the Liberal leadership convention.


NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have something to say to the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells. I ask him why he betrayed his signature on the Meech Lake Accord, which he signed bn June 9, 1990.


CROATIAN ELECTION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House three members of the cabinet of the Republic of Croatia. The new cabinet was sworn in on May 30, 1990, the result of the first free election in post-war history. On that occasion there were six members of Parliament, from all sides of the House, who went to Croatia to observe the elections.
In the gallery today is Mr. Manolic, who is a member of the Presidency; Dr. M. Babic, who is Vice-President; and Mr. G. Susak, who is Minister of Immigration.
On behalf of the House, Mr. Speaker, we welcome them to Canada and wish the Republic of Croatia all the best.


BILL C-21
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 is a bill designed to do many things, not the least of which is to provide for an opportunity for mothers and fathers to be with their newborn infants for a period of up to 30 weeks.
Why is the Senate not passing this bill? Does the Senate have a problem with this legislation? Are members of the the Senate not sensitive to this problem because they are not capable of becoming new parents? Do they not believe in the importance of the family and essentially the importance of the opportunity for a child

Oral Questions
to develop a close relationship with its parents in the first few months of its life?
I assume the answer is no, to all of the above. I assume that the Senate is saying no to all new parents in Canada. Prospective parents in Canada deplore this insensitive non-action and I personally find the Senate's non-action despicable.


LIBERAL LEADERSHIP
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Calgary, Liberals from right across this great land had their leadership convention and chose the Hon. Jean Chretien as their new leader.
Here is what one well-known Canadian said about Jean Chretien, "-a great Quebecer and a great Canadian, a brave and dedicated member, the extremely likeable man who made an unforgettable impression on all Canadians, a witty and compassionate person. He loves Quebec and believes deeply in Canada and has a unique and thoughtful way of expressing that".


Some hon. members:: Who said that?


Don Boudria: All right, it was the member for Charlevoix, the right hon. Prime Minister who said that.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, as it happened, the day after Meech failed, the people of Quebec took to the streets to celebrate their national holiday.
Yesterday's incredible demonstration where they marched towards their destiny and their future, with or without Canadian partners, was also a message from Quebecers to their political leaders.
They thanked the Prime Minister of Canada for doing his utmost, right to the end, to defend the aspirations of Quebec with honour and dignity.
To Jean Chretien and his mentor, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and his acolytes Carstairs and Wells, Quebec gave the following warning: It will remember for a long time, indeed forever, that they were the ones who really buried the Meech Lake Accord.

And as the new leader of the Liberal Party rightly said, "We have a lot of work to do".


KOREAN WAR
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, what was once known as the forgotten war was nationally remembered on Sunday when hundreds of Canadians gathered at the National War Memorial and at cenotaphs across Canada to mark the fortieth anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war. The veterans of the Korean war, just like those who served in the First and Second World Wars, were certainly being remembered in practical terms by this government.
Let us recall the good news announced just this month by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, an agreement for 200 long-term hospital beds in British Columbia, services under the Veterans Independence Program for one year for spouses of deceased veterans, increased income protection for spouses of veterans in long-term care institutions, the payment of interest for the first time on trust funds administered by Veterans Affairs, special trusts for needy veterans, payments of attendants' allowances for one year to spouses of certain veterans and, finally, the raising of the ceiling for funeral assistance.
The Canadian men and women who served in Korea deserve programs and benefits which are second to none in the world and this government is delivering.


CANADA DAY
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, next Sunday, we celebrate our 123rd anniversary as a country. Let us take the time to appreciate what we have been, what we are, what we can become.

There are many older countries that are just starting to appreciate some of the fundamental rights and freedoms that we have now. For example, with the crumbling of the wall between the two Germanys, East Germany taking its first real step toward democracy. The release of Nelson Mandela is a significant gesture toward human rights and racial equality.

June 26, 1990

Canada is indeed at a critical time in its history, but let us celebrate what we share as a people: our people, our rich resources, our fundamental rights and freedoms, our diverse cultures, our reputation for tolerance not only at home but abroad, and our ability to improve what we have built together thus far. Let us celebrate what we are and what we can be.

Let us all celebrate together!


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo -Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the efforts of a group of citizens in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin. These ordinary citizens from Quesnel, B.C., have launched a group called MEND-the Movement to End National Disunity-in an attempt to promote friendship between all Canadians.
The group has already organized a public conference call between elementary schools from each of our provinces and territories involving over 3,000 students. Petitions have been collected. Letters of support have been written by schools and church and business groups to their Quebec counterparts, offering hands of friendship.
These people themselves cannot solve the problem of national unity, but their love of their country and for all of their fellow Canadians serves to remind us that it is ordinary Canadians who built this country and it is ordinary Canadians who remain its greatest asset.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I thank my colleagues for their applause but I direct their attention to the statement made by the Deputy Whip confirming the results of the leadership convention last week and the kind words spoken by the Prime Minister about our new leader some years ago.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his speech to the nation on television last Saturday regarding the failure of the Constitutional Accord of 1987, the Prime Minister said: "It is a time to mend divisions, and heal wounds, and reach out to fellow Canadians." Those are the words of the Prime Minister on national television last Saturday.
However, this morning the Liberal House leader was informed that the government did not intend to call the Hibernia legislation for report stage and third and final reading today, or at any time this week, even though the House is going to adjourn this Friday until September.
How does it fit in with the Prime Minister's desire to heal wounds, mend divisions, and reach out to Canadians by stalling on an important economic project with major industrial benefits for Newfoundland, Quebec, and all of Canada?
Will the government call this Hibernia legislation for third and final reading today? If it does so, I assure the government that it will have the co-operation of the Official Opposition in passing this legislation immediately in the interests of Newfoundland, Quebec, and all of Canada. Will the government undertake this act of nation-building today?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is the last week prior to the summer adjournment and there is an understandable desire by members on all sides of the House to leave and go back to their constituencies as soon as possible. I naturally consulted my colleagues as to what their needs were in terms of priorities for the summer agenda.
The Minister of Energy informed me that, in fact, the discussions and negotiations with regard to Hibernia were in no way conditional upon this legislation going through all three final stages.
The EARP legislation which we started today is very important. The amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act are very important. If we can get those two, we can do what Opposition members, our members, and members of the New Democratic Party would like, namely, to adjourn for the summer.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the government that as far as the Official Opposition is concerned, we are quite ready to stay here and pass this legislation because we think it is important as an act of nation building for Newfoundland, Quebec, and all of Canada. We regret that according to the Minister of Energy it is not one of the priorities of the government.

June 26, 1990
Oral Questions


NATIVES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, last week, in an attempt to save the 1987 Accord, the Prime Minister sent Senator Murray to meet aboriginal leaders in Manitoba with a six-point program to respond to their concerns.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to continue the healing process by reaching out to aboriginals and implementing those points in the program for which constitutional negotiations and amendments are not necessary.
Would he agree this is important in order to end dissension, heal wounds and reach out to this very important group of Canadians?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that, before and during the negotiations on the Meech Lake Accord, there were many meetings with the aboriginal peoples on a bilateral basis between the Government of Canada and their representatives, and I want to give the House and the country the assurance that there will be many more. We have a number of bilateral problems to resolve, and we will do everything in our power to see to it that a settlement is reached that is fair and equitable to the aboriginal peoples.
It is truly unfortunate that the constitutional process provided by the Meech Lake Accord for aboriginal peoples no longer stands, as a result of the decision by one of the provinces last week not to proceed with a vote on the Meech Lake Accord. However, we will nevertheless meet, on a regular and satisfying basis, with aboriginal leaders in order to promote greater social justice for this constituency.

The Leader of the Opposition began by referring to some kind words that I apparently had for Mr. Chretien some years ago. He need not have looked back that far. On Sunday, I wrote the following to Mr. Chretien:
I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the Honourable Jean
Chretien, on his election as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I offer Mr. Chretien my full co-operation in the important duties
he assumes today in Canada's democratic life.
Mila joins me in wishing happiness and good health to Mr. and
Mrs. Chretien and their family.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


HIBERNIA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the words in the Prime Minister's statement are obviously most welcome.
If the Prime Minister will not allow the House to reach a final decision-if not today, then before the end of the week-on the Hibernia legislation and, specifically, if he will not undertake to put into effect those items in the six-point program he offered the native leaders in Manitoba that do not require constitutional amendment, then how can Canadians take the Prime Minister seriously when he says he wants to mend wounds, heal divisions, and reach out to Canadians? Does the Prime Minister's attitude not mean that many Canadians are right when they say that the Prime Minister has lost the moral authority to govern and should act accordingly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that some people, including my hon. friend, have made such elegant comments as those he has just repeated.
It will be for the people of Canada-

-for the people of Quebec and of Canada to judge at an appropriate time-

-to decide at an appropriate time who stood for Quebec's interests and who stood for the interests of a united Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: Let's have an election.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The hon. member from Toronto says: "Let's have an election". The last time he said that was in August of 1988 and look what happened.
The problem with the point of view that my hon. friend puts forward is that in Newfoundland the vote is not allowed in some areas.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he will hear no criticism from me. All he has to do is hear the, comments made by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard and members of his own caucus in regard to an important position that was not taken in the last week. Right or wrong, Canadians know where I stood. I was not hiding under a pool table in somebody's rec room.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
June 26, 1990



Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says it is up to the people of Canada to decide, and we agree. The quicker he calls the election, the better.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on June 7 in the House of Commons, the Minister for International Trade, the hon. member for St. John's West, said the following with respect to the Hibernia bill in urging members to pass it quickly.
He said:
If Parliament does not enact this legislation before we rise, during the month of June, then of course we will not be back until September and there would be real doubt as to whether or not a year would be lost with reference to the Hibernia project and the project, itself, could be in some jeopardy as a result.
My question for the Prime Minister is straightforward. The Hibernia project legislation is listed on the Government Orders and we are prepared to deal with it at third reading. Why is the government refusing to introduce that bill to the Parliament of Canada today, June 26?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I recall to his memory the statement I made at the time Bill C-44 was before a legislative committee of this House. I was asked very specifically at that time by the hon. member for Edmonton East-and I believe I have his riding designation correct-whether or not the government needed Bill C-44, the enabling legislation on Hibernia, to complete the Hibernia negotiations as well as to "flow money relative to the agreements".
I said at that time, well before last weekend, that the direct answer was that the legislation was not needed.
I also said at that time, and I have the transcript of the committee hearings here, that obviously there was a preferred route, but that I had a number of issues to deal with regarding Hibernia relating to industrial benefits, the lender risk sharing, or the LRS as it is now being referred to, environmental hearings, the completion of the agreements between the consortia and the two
Oral Questions
governments and that the legislation was the last piece of work needed for the finalization of Hibernia.
I say to the hon. member that the mandate is quite clear. We are going ahead with meetings on Hibernia. We are going ahead with the issues that are still outstanding. Obviously, our negotiations right from the beginning have been to maximize benefits.
I also remind the hon. member that it was because of the Atlantic Accord which this government signed, and which the Premier of Newfoundland as a lawyer proposed, that the offshore does not belong to the provinces. It is that issue which makes Hibernia possible in the first place.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are not going to get into a petty dispute.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I want to remind the Prime Minister, who I know is listening to the catcalls, that this is a megaproject for Canada. The lion's share of the benefits of this project are outside Newfoundland. The major single player is the Province of Quebec, and I do not dispute that or oppose it. This is a time of healing. But you cannot heal a nation by a divisive action like this.
Will the government reconsider this motion to withdraw Hibernia, pass the bill and begin the process of healing a nation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Hibernia legislation and in particular the industrial benefits that flow from it, I remind the hon. member that when the statement of principles was signed in July of 1988 there was a benefit for Newfoundland to be negotiated, and there were benefits which were to flow to other parts of Canada, not only to Quebec but generally to the eastern Canadian yards. The hon. member would know that. At that time there were 500,000 hours identified in the SOP as "best efforts".
I say two things to the hon. member. First, in our negotiations to the present time we have restored the hours for Newfoundland. Second, we have dramatically increased the hours for other parts of Canada. That is a lot more helpful than any premier saying that this is worth about two fish plants.

June 26, 1990
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is reported that the immigration agreement between the federal government and Quebec may be signed in a few days. Can the Prime Minister tell us what is in this agreement and the other agreements that the Government of Quebec would like to negotiate directly with Ottawa?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the agreement in question between the Canadian government and the Government of Quebec follows the process developed nineteen years ago, I think, since Cullen-Couture and even before that, of agreements between the Canadian government and the governments of Quebec and other provinces, six other provinces, in the field of immigration.
So today, we will maintain this tradition of bilateral negotiations which in the past twenty years or so, as I was saying, has resulted in a series of agreements with six or seven provinces involving issues of immigration and integrating immigrants into a new environment and so on.
It is in that context that we have been negotiating with the Government of Quebec for a long time now.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the bilateral negotiations that the Prime Minister is referring to, on June 18 the federal government made an offer to the aboriginal people which included six various points. By offering that, the Prime Minister was indeed acknowledging there are legitimate grievances on behalf of aboriginal people.
Having accepted that there are legitimate grievances, will the Prime Minister begin immediately to address outstanding treaty rights and tell us what his agenda is for talks with aboriginal people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should know what our agenda is for aboriginal peoples. This is the government that has signed the largest land claim settlements with natives in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, the largest and most generous in history.
We also increased expenditures in favour of aboriginal peoples up to in excess of, I believe, $4 billion per year. This is an increase of $200 million from last year to this.
I have indicated on a number of occasions that had it not been for the absence of Quebec from the constitutional table in 1985, I believe we would have obtained that constitutional amendment so vital for justice for aboriginal peoples. This is why I think we were all so saddened when the Meech Lake Accord failed to pass because it held out such extraordinary hope and promise for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, certainly the first step for the Prime Minister and his government to take to show good faith with aboriginal peoples would be to restore the funding that was cut in the last budget.
I have another question for the Prime Minister. After the negotiations on June 9 I think all the First Ministers coming out said: "We do not want to do this process again. It is not a process that we feel is a constructive one". Events since have shown that it was a process which in the end failed.
Does the Prime Minister not see that one of the ways for further constitutional development to take place in a positive atmosphere would be to establish immediately a standing committee on the Constitution in the House of Commons? Is the Prime Minister prepared to take this positive step?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look at any constructive proposal that my hon. friend has in regard to ways in which we might advance the causes to which she refers.
I think it is difficult to improve upon a constitutional document signed by the Prime Minister and the 10 First Ministers of Canada whereby the First Ministers undertake to bring this matter for resolution by June 23.
June 26, 1990

In spite of a formal signature of a premier on this document, it was not honoured. This is deeply regrettable and says a great deal about the challenges that Canada has encountered in the past.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister and the federal negotiators met with the First Nations in Manitoba he offered a six-point proposal, two of which were non-constitutional items.
One was the definition of treaty rights which the aboriginal people have advanced for years. The second had to do with the establishment of a royal commission on native affairs.
Has the Prime Minister withdrawn these two items?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Ask Clyde Wells.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Don't you like aboriginal people? What's wrong with you?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has raised a very serious matter. The question she kind of suggested from her seat was: "Don't you like aboriginal peoples?" The answer is very much. Ask Clyde Wells because a lot of this was unsuccessful because of the fact that it did not pass.


Mr. Allmand:: That is absolutely stupid.


Marcel Masse: That's the truth. You stabbed Canada in the back.


William Warren Allmand: Roll the dice again.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind hon. members that the hon. member for Western Arctic has put a question. The right hon. Prime Minister is rising to respond. The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I point out to my hon. friend that the-


Sheila Finestone: Why don't you send Lowell Murray to answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by my hon. friend is very important for the aboriginal peoples, which is why the offer was made.
Oral Questions
It stated, in summary, that my government is ready to act expeditiously in relation to and provide financial resources for each of the following, as soon as the Meech Lake Accord is ratified. We then listed the six points.
As I indicated at the time in response to questions in the House of Commons, I believe that the 80,000 Metis Federation of Manitoba viewed this package as the most generous and comprehensive in favour of aboriginal rights ever put forward by a Government of Canada. It was therefore with deep regret that the Meech Lake Accord was not passed in order to give rise to the execution of each one of these.
I know my hon. friend raises two other points that were not touched by constitutional questions that are susceptible of being looked at bilaterally. I will take notice of her suggestion and will be happy to review it with officials and report back to her.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Aboriginal people in Canada are anticipating a severe backlash from this government because of their principled stand to protect and advance their rights.
Since the Prime Minister has an obligation to deal with all Canadians and, in particular, a fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples, will he assure Canadians that no retaliatory measures will be taken against the First Nations? Canada wants to know.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend is raising the rhetoric on this-


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Concern, not rhetoric.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think she will acknowledge that given the record of this government we do not have any lessons to take from the Liberal Party about protecting the rights of aboriginals.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the eighteenth of this month, the president of the Metis Federation-


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Give me a break!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Maybe my hon. friend thinks that 80,000 Metis in Manitoba do not count, but I am concerned about all aboriginals, justice for all aboriginal peoples, including the Metis in Manitoba.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As my friend, the leader of the NDP raised moments ago-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: -recent media reports suggest-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: The animals are restless today, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I would say to the hon. member for York West that on some days you have to be very careful in your preamble.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it did not take too long after our convention to have these guys shaking in their boots.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: Unlike the Prime Minister, we rolled lucky sevens this weekend, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: Recent media reports have suggested that the Prime Minister has discussed with the premier of Quebec the possible transfer of authority and money to the province of Quebec for immigration settlement services which represent approximately 30 per cent of the immigration budget.
Would the Prime Minister confirm for the House just what exactly is on the table and whether this arrangement in substance is the same as that provided by the immigration reference in the failed constitutional amendment?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the only reason people on this side are shaking is from laughter at the new partnership between the hon. member and the NDP.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The discussions on the immigration agreement began some three years ago. I am not in a position to provide details to the House at this time. It is in keeping with the traditional agreement that we had with Quebec in the Cullen-Couture agreement. We are negotiating with other provinces on immigration agreements. That option is open to other provinces as well. I would be very happy to give the details to the House as soon as they are complete.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. I think the minister touched upon this matter.
Given that other provinces such as Ontario and B.C. together receive over 70 per cent of all immigrants and refugees to this country, is the Prime Minister ready and willing to allow other provinces to have similar arrangements? Do these arrangements also include other matters such as setting immigration levels and levels for refugee movements?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with immigration is that Quebec, with about 25 per cent of the population, receives only about 15 or 16 per cent of the immigrants, and many of the immigrants to Quebec leave for the English-speaking provinces later. The French-English demographic balance of Canada is thus in danger of being undermined. That is why the Minister of Immigration pays particular attention to the problems of Quebec these days. But that in no way prevents us from reaching agreements with other provinces, as we and previous governments have done, because immigration is an important cultural and economic development tool for all of Canada.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, Canada has a very special responsibility for the First Nations, the aboriginal people in this country, that



June 26, 1990

is quite distinct and different from that of the provinces and the territories.
My question to the Prime Minister is very simple. He has dealt with the six points, and he is going to look into them. What I am asking the Prime Minister is whether or not he is prepared to make special efforts in the area of comprehensive and specific claims. That is an area where aboriginal people need justice. They have waited a long time to get it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first, let me acknowledge the accuracy of the statement of my hon. friend. The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada has a very special and important relationship and obligation to the native peoples of Canada. It is one that we have sought to honour and will always continue to honour on behalf of all of the people of Canada.
With regard to the point raised in terms of land claim settlements, my recollection is that the last ones were the largest in histoiy. They cover some 575,000 square kilometres, a territory larger than the four Atlantic provinces combined.
We put in $1.3 billion. I believe that at the time the Chiefs indicated that this was the most impressive grant and negotiation ever undertaken in histoiy with the Government of Canada. I am particularly proud of that.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Prime Minister is on the same two points.
I am sure he is aware that despite more than a decade of negotiations the Nishga Tribal Council in British Columbia has been able to make no movement in relation to the federal or the provincial Crown. There are several hundred outstanding specific claims. Some have been awaiting a negotiated settlement for more than a century.
Will the Prime Minister undertake over this summer to set in place a federal process which will get comprehensive and specific claim settlements under way in every province and both the territories?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find the statement by my hon. friend veiy confusing. He appears to have said that the federal government has made no progress, I think he said, in regard to comprehensive land claims with the Nishga
Oral Questions
Tribal Council in British Columbia. I believe that is what he stated. Yet it was negotiations undertaken by this government which led to the framework agreement on the comprehensive land claim with the Nishga Tribal Council in July of 1989.
We have made some very remarkable progress, and we plan to make even more.
I think we can do all of these things and substantially ameliorate the record of the Government of Canada and the people of Canada in the obligation that we all have toward the native peoples of Canada.


CN REAL ESTATE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Once again, management of CN Real Estate in Montreal is trying to run roughshod over the people of Amos with its decision to increase the annual rent for a community parking lot from $1,000 to $22,000. Will the minister inform CN management that this 2,000 per cent increase is excessive and ask them to go back to the drawing board this week and reconsider the town's request for a normal increase in rental costs?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, CN's policy is to calculate rental costs for all its properties, in Amos and elsewhere, on the basis of market value. The company is continuing its discussions with representatives of the town of Amos.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want to remind him that the Charest committee considered and unanimously rejected every argument for a way of getting more time than the June 23 deadline for the achievement of the constitutional agreement.
If the Prime Minister had some cards up his sleeve, and if there were ways of getting more time for ratification of the agreement, why did the Prime Minister not do the honourable thing and tell his colleagues, the other First Ministers, while he met with them in Ottawa during

June 26, 1990
Oral Questions
that week, that there was a method for extending the time for ratification?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend has not seen the final document. The first article states:
The Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland
undertake to submit the Constitution Amendment, 1987 for
appropriate legislative or public consideration and to use every
possible effort to achieve decision prior to June 23, 1990.
It is signed by Clyde Wells, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My Speaker, why did the Prime Minister not tell the First Ministers that he had a gimmick in reserve for giving them more time? If more time was available for Manitoba under this novel legal argument, why was there not more time available for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador?
If last Thursday he could find a way of rolling the deadline back from the period of Saskatchewan's ratification to September 23, why could that extension not be sought even today at the Supreme Court of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed by my hon. friend's suggestion that perhaps more time was needed in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In point of fact, if he will consult the transcripts he will see that Premier Peterson of Ontario, Premier Devine of Saskatchewan, Premier McKenna of New Brunswick and I as Prime Minister of Canada went down and spoke to the Newfoundland legislature on the formal promise of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador that a vote would take place Thursday night or Friday morning, and it did not take place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Finance stated that high interest rates in this country were partly a result of the constitutional impasse.
I now have the following question for the minister: Could he inform the House whether his government intends to pursue its monetary policy that keeps interest rates and the Canadian dollar at levels that are too high, a situation that is be coming very dangerous for the Canadian economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated some two or three weeks ago that there was a risk premium that was built into interest rates because of the uncertainty surrounding the Meech Lake Accord. That was a matter of fact at the time. That uncertainty is still there. There is still a risk premium, I would imagine, in the level of interest rates today.
I have said on a number of occasions that the more important reason for the level of interest rates that we are experiencing today is the level of inflationary pressure in the economy. Until we get that inflationary pressure out, we will have to endure these higher interest rates for a somewhat longer period of time.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's answer and in view of the fact that in the February budget the prediction for an average annual interest rate during 1990 was somewhere around 11 per cent-the fact is interest rates now are nearly 14 per cent-does the Minister of Finance not believe that the time has now come, in view of economic and constitutional reality in Canada, to either bring in a revised budget or to bring in a new budget based on the facts?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question on numerous occasions in the House, a number of times when asked by the hon. member himself.
I indicated that there are offsetting factors here. Our revenues in 1989-90 were higher than expected, so we are going into fiscal year 1990-91 with a higher level of income and a higher level of revenues for the Government of Canada. There is an offset against the higher costs from our higher interest rates.
June 26, 1990

We are watching this on an ongoing basis. If it is appropriate to have some mid-term correction, we are prepared to take that action.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
On May 29, I appealed to the minister for financial assistance for the B.C. fruit growing industry, which is facing imminent financial collapse because of cheap U.S. imports. The minister advised at that time that pending the release of a report from an inquiry into the B.C. fruit industry he was prepared to make available a portion of the moneys set aside for agricultural assistance.
Now that the commission report has been released, will the minister confirm that he is willing to release these federal funds for the purpose of financial assistance to B.C. fruit growers? Will he sit down with his provincial counterpart and look at an appropriate program of financial support? Will he assure B.C. fruit growers that they will be given the financial security that the industry so desperately needs?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the report has been released. We have not had a chance to study it in detail, but my understanding is that it centres around the fact that the industry can be more competitive if it deregulates, decentralizes, and takes on a more market oriented approach and that it is time to engage in some structural changes rather than just simply propping up the industry through ad hoc government intervention.
My understanding is that as a result of the release of the report the provincial officials are going around the agricultural population getting input and feedback on the proposed series of recommendations. At an appropriate time we will be in a position to sit down with our provincial counterparts. As I indicated in my previous answer, we are prepared to sit down with our counterparts in the the provincial government. As soon as that process is completed we will do so. We simply await their call.
House of Commons


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, rather than acting on the minister's request the inquiry report has recommended the cutting of support programs for the industry. If the provincial government follows these recommendations the farmers will be left twisting in the wind.
Will the minister assure B.C. fruit growers that even if the Vander Zalm government is willing to abandon them the federal government will step in and provide the financial support that is so critical for the industry to survive?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to criticize the commission's findings after a thorough discussion with the industry and a thorough inquiry into the whole fruit industry. I think it requires a certain amount of time.
I thought the hon. member was suggesting that the federal government co-operate with the provincial government in coming to the aid of the fruit industry. He now suggests that the federal government should go it alone. He cannot really have it both ways.
As I said in my earlier answer, we are prepared to sit down with the province to work out a program that will be helpful and will facilitate the longer term structural and adjustment change that has to take place within that industry. I can assure him of the full-fledged co-operation of the federal government in that regard.


CHANGE OF AFFILIATION OF MEMBER FOR LONGUEUIL
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I entered federal politics for the first time in 1984, and I renewed my commitment in 1988.
I did so, first and foremost, in order to take an active part in implementing one of the most important proposals in Quebec's history. I did so because I was convinced I was taking part in a noble enterprise. I did so because I sincerely felt that it was possible to bring Quebec back into the constitutional family with honour and enthusiasm.

June 26, 1990
House of Commons
Like many other Quebecers, I was convinced that the Meech-Langevin Accord was an important first step, a step with which I could agree, despite certain concerns. I was convinced it was one step towards a flexible constitutional formula under which Quebec would be able to grow and prosper.
However, as recent events have borne out, this was not to be, despite the fact that we all placed our trust in this process and devoted all our energies and enthusiasm to this cause, with honesty and sincerity.
In this respect, we all know that the Prime Minister has shown extraordinary courage and energy. He has our respect and admiration, that goes without saying.
Only those who, at this critical point in our history, insist on engaging in petty politics refuse to recognize this fact. To those who think that someday they will govern Canada on the basis of an obsolete vision of this country, I say that Quebec's motto is: Je me souviens.
Today, I think it is clear that the process agreed on in 1987 cannot produce satisfactory results either for Quebec or Canada. It is simply impossible, because of the political and constitutional context we have inherited.
We must seek another way.
As a Quebecer, I am convinced this new way must first of all be defined by Quebecers, based on the interests of the people of Quebec.
I think this is the only feasible formula for considering a new form of participation in the Canadian federation. To be viable and satisfactory, however, it must be a different federation. It must be based on the participation of groups reflecting the many realities of Quebec and of Canada's regions.
That is why I feel obliged to resign from the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party, and from now on, sit as an independent member. As such, I will be in a better position to act in a manner that is consistent with my initial commitment and to defend the interests of Quebecers in Ottawa.
At this point, I wish to thank the Prime Minister and congratulate him on his courage and perseverance. I want to say that I was proud to be a member of his team and to work for this fine and noble cause.
I can also assure him of my support for efforts and initiatives that are a response to the needs and aspirations of Quebec.
To my colleagues I want to say: I appreciated this chance to work with you, and I will continue to do so, if you wish, in order to promote the interests of Quebec in Ottawa.


CHANGE OF AFFILIATION OF MEMBER FOR SHEFFORD
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour and privilege of representing the people of Shefford in this House for over ten years, and never did I have to qualify or question my loyalty towards Quebec or Canada. Nor did I ever have to question my loyalty towards the Liberal Party of Canada in the past ten years. Yet today, as a Quebecer, I find myself at a crossroads. As a Liberal I also find myself at a crossroads. During all those years since the Quebec referendum I believed it was possible to achieve renewed federalism within the existing institutions.
And during all those years, Mr. Speaker, I believed that the Liberal Party of Canada was the natural bridge between our country's two linguistic communities.
Mr. Speaker, my motivation and my commitment stem from the speech delivered by Pierre Elliott Trudeau on May 15,1980 at the Paul Sauve Arena. I felt bound by his solemn commitment towards Quebecers, and I should like to repeat those words which were so important in my career and for the destiny of Quebecers.
On May 15, 1980 Mr. Trudeau said: "We will not stop until it is achieved". He was referring to constitutional renewal. "If it is no, we all said it will be interpreted as a mandate for constitutional change and renewed federalism". He said: "I am not the only one saying this, so do the 74 Liberal members in Ottawa"-including me-"and the premiers of the other nine provinces. We will tell Canadians in the other provinces that we will not accept that the no be interpreted as an indication that everything is going fine and that things can remain as before. We want a change and we are putting our seats on the line to have that change".

Mr. Speaker, not only did I put my seat on the line, I put my youth, my energy and whatever talent God gave me to work towards the renewal of the federation and to achieve this dream which was shared by so many Quebecers.
I was very active in 1981-82 when the Constitution was patriated, believing as I did that it was the first step towards genuine renewed federalism. I soon realized that the work was incomplete because Quebec had been left aside.
In 1985, Mr. Speaker, when Robert Bourassa was elected, a federalist premier, at the same time as the Prime Minister across the aisle had been in office for a few years, the Quebec-Ottawa axis was finally free, finally open. And today, Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the Prime Minister is an ally of Quebec.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-C. Lapierre: In 1987, not only was the 1981-82 failure admitted but the good faith of all participants gave us the Meech Lake Accord. And I also want to acknowledge the intrinsic merit of our then leader, the Right Hon. John Tbmer, who was also capable of reaching beyond partisan considerations and appreciating the fact that Quebec was entitled to its place in this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the champagne we drank that night as Quebecers proud to be Canadians soon turned sour. So much for our illusions.
Since 1987, the five minimum demands of Quebec have proven to be too much. Since 1987, certain ghosts of the past re-appeared on Canada's political scene, associated with those I call "the government in exile" which enjoys much legitimacy in the Senate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, they did manage to derail the process over which all federal politicians in Canada had made a solemn commitment before Quebecers in 1980.
Mr. Speaker, I will indeed go beyond partisan limits- this is new to me, but I will have to get used to it-and tell the Prime Minister that they laid mines all along the road until the final explosion last weekend. I want you to know that Quebecers do not look upon this drama as the
Privilege
failure of one man, but much more as the failure of the system and the triumph of bad faith.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, today I feel sad, humiliated and betrayed.

I said sad, humiliated and betrayed. For those who thought that Meech was too much, take note that from now on it is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, beginning today and henceforth I want to support Quebec's endeavour and play a role in the new scenario which will automatically follow the demise of the Meech Lake Accord. With my fellow citizens in Quebec, I want to take part in the definition of a comprehensive collective project.
Mr. Speaker, I do not seek to blow up the barricades, I do not seek to destroy the country, but I want to make sure that, beginning today, together we can design a new political contract in this country.

We have been had. We need to establish a new level playing field, one on one, not one in eleven. We will have to design a new political contract among ourselves.

Unlike some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am a Quebecer first and for my children's future in Quebec and in French, Jean-Michel and Marianne, I am compelled, for the sake of freedom of speech, to sit henceforth as independent member for Shefford.


Mr. Danis:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House to allow me to revert back to tabling of documents.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has asked if we could revert to Tabling of Documents. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
June 26, 1990

Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of a question of privilege earlier today.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member, but I will point out that I waited quite a period of time. I did not know what the hon. member's intention was.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not see the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand on a question of privilege today because I believe my privileges as a Member of Parliament have been affected by an action taken by the Government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I say as a Member of Parliament for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte in the province of Newfoundland, in case there is any doubt, that I am proud to stand here and talk about my privileges as a Canadian because I am a Canadian first.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on June 7 in the House of Commons there was a debate in which I participated with many members, but in particular with the hon. member for St. John's West, and also the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in which there was a debate on Bill C-44, the Hibernia bill.
Mr. Speaker, I, together with other members were urging members of the New Democratic Party even though they were examining amendments to ensure quick-


An Hon. Member:: Order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Let me explain. I have a right to be heard. You may shut down Hibernia, but I will be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we were encouraging all members, members of the government, members of the Official Opposition to deal with a particular bill. Mr. Speaker, 19 days later with no explanation, that bill has been pulled from the Order Paper. It is gone and the government has indicated again today that it will not be recalled.
Under Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, there are established for all members to see the privileges of members of Parliament. Among those privileges are sections having to do with influencing a member unduly, threatening a member, and bribery.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you-I want to make my case-under Sections 67, 68, 69, 70 and so on, that when the government of Canada, as it has today in Question Period, brazenly and blatantly in response to questions on process-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could listen, just for a moment, to the difficulty his intervention is putting the Speaker in.
The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege. As hon. members know, a question of privilege is aimed at something that has happened that makes it impossible, or very much more difficult than would be reasonable, for an hon. member to carry on his duties.
The hon. member may or may not have a complaint. There were questions asked in the House earlier today involving that very issue, but surely the hon. member would agree with the Speaker that this is now a question of debate.
Whether the government should or should not have withdrawn something from the Order Paper is something that happens all of the time. It is a matter which is often dealt with in Question Period and it is a matter that often affects negotiations in this place, but it is very, very hard for the Speaker to accept that, under the circumstances, it is a question of privilege.
The hon. member will have to come veiy quickly to the point. I do warn the hon. member, I do not see a question of privilege at the moment.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear now, as of today, that in this country it is impossible for a member to represent his constituents, represent their views, and represent their interests. If you do not speak right, vote right, if your province or provincial legislature does not behave right, blackmail is-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are nothing but a trained seal who is a liar and a cheat. Only a coward remains silent in the face of dictatorship-
June 26, 1990


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has expressed a complaint. It is not a question of privilege and I think hon. members will appreciate the circumstances under which the hon. member feels that he did want to raise a matter, but it is a complaint, not a question of privilege.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, apart from the first point which you have now disposed of, I think the hon. member knows full well and I think enough members in this House heard, that he used unparliamentary language. The words "liar" and "cheat" are outside of the purview of the use of parliamentary language and the hon. member has been in this House long enough to know that. While he might want to make certain points, I would ask that he withdraw.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to withdraw those words, because even though we have been neutered in this place, I want to stay around to participate in the debate. I am not letting this nonsense that is being practised today by this government go unchallenged, so I withdraw.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-78, an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78, an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, at second reading.

I want to continue with the debate this afternoon on Bill C-78. Opposition critics were very quick to find fault with this legislation when it was tabled in the House of Commons for first reading on June 18, 1990.
Government Orders
The NDP environment critic even had the temerity to suggest that the legislation was as full of holes as Swiss cheese.
Rather than find fault with the hon. member's bad taste, I would prefer to thank him for his analogy. After all, Mr. Speaker, Swiss is a world-class cheese and so too is Bill C-78 a world-class environmental assessment bill.
In my remarks to the House today I would like to focus on the scope of this bill in order to put to rest any concern that this legislation might be a retreat from the current guideline order. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This government is bringing forward legislation designed to bind government decision-making in a way that will ensure that every minister becomes, in addition to his or her regular responsibilities, an environment minister.
In such circumstances, a government that was less than fully committed to the environment might have sought to limit the scope of this legislation so as to leave its decision-making largely unfettered. Such has most assuredly not been the case with Bill C-78. This is a bill that is designed to expand the scope of the current environmental assessment process, not to restrict it.
This government is fully aware of the importance of the environment to Canadians. It is committed to protecting and maintaining environmental quality in all parts of Canada. The Canadian environmental assessment act will apply to virtually every project in which the federal government has an interest or an involvement. It will ensure that the environmental effects of all federal projects are fully understood before final decisions on whether or how to proceed with them are made.
The very broad scope of this legislation makes it abundantly clear that this government is prepared to leave no stone unturned in its efforts to bring a profound environmental ethic to all of its decisions and to all of its actions.
The scope of Bill C-78 is established right at the outset with the definitions of "environment", "environmental effect", and "projects".
Bill C-78 defines the environment as encompassing all of the components of the Earth including land, water and air as well as all layers of the atmosphere, all organic, and inorganic matter and living organisms, and

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
the interacting natural systems that we commonly refer to as the ecosystems.
This definition of environment not only provides the broadest possible scope for environmental assessment, it also recognizes that all natural systems are inter-related, thereby setting the stage for the theme of sustainable development which is evident throughout the legislation.
The second definition of critical importance to the scope of this legislation is environmental effect. Bill C-78 defines environmental effect as any change that a project may cause in the environment, as well as any effect that the environment may cause in a project. But the definition does not stop there. It goes on to make it clear that the consideration of such effects is not restricted to those that may occur in Canada, but it is also to include those that may occur outside Canada.
Even further, environmental effects will not stop with the environment, but are to include the effects of environmental change or damage on related health and socio-economic conditions. That means on people. Again it can be seen that this legislation is intended to have a very wide scope indeed.
The third and most important definition relating to the scope of environmental assessment is that of project. Bill C-78 defines a project as any physical work or physical activity that a proponent proposes to carry out.
This definition includes the construction, operation, modification, decommissioning, and abandonment of physical works such as factories, dams or pulp and paper mills, and the undertaking of physical activities such as low-level military flight training, for example. Clearly, the scope of the legislation is impressive, as should be obvious even to my hon. friends sitting opposite.
While definitions are an important element of any legislation, the real measure of the scope of application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to be found in the body of the legislation. Clause 5 of the bill outlines the cases where an environmental assessment of a project will be required. I would like to take a few minutes to describe the types of projects to which this legislation will apply because it is important that the House have a good appreciation of just how comprehensive the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act really is.
The act will apply to any project for which the federal government is a proponent. Such projects would include the fixed link to Prince Edward Island from New Brunswick, the north warning system in the high Arctic, and the possible expansion of Pearson International Airport at Toronto.
The act will apply to any project for which the federal government makes or authorizes payments, provides a guarantee for a loan, or provides any other form of financial assistance other than by means of general taxation measures. Such projects would include major offshore oil and gas developments, projects funded through regional development programs such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or Western Economic Diversification, and foreign projects sponsored and supported by the Canadian International Development Agency.
The act will apply to any project for which the federal government sells, leases, transfers, or otherwise disposes of Crown lands. Such projects would include those that take place in Canada's offshore frontiers, those that take place on territorial lands in the North, and those that take place in national parks and on military reserves.
Finally, the act will apply to the issuance of permits and licences and the granting of approvals under various federal statutes and regulations which have the authority to deal effectively with the environmental effects of projects. These statues and regulations will be listed in a regulation made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Minister of the Environment has already indicated that this list will include appropriate provisions for such statutes as the National Energy Board Act, the Railway Act, the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, the Atomic Energy Control Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Fisheries Act, the National Parks Act, and the Canada Oil and Gas Act.
The Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office is currently undertaking a thorough review of all federal legislation having environmental powers with the intention of proposing an expanded list by the time that the legislative committee begins its clause-by-clause review of this bill. In addition, it is the intent of the government to add to this list on a continuing basis as new legislation is passed and current legislation is
June 26, 1990

amended and updated. It is for that reason that the list will be established by means of a regulation rather than as a schedule to the act.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it will be the rare project falling within the purview of the federal government that is not subject to a very thorough environmental assessment before the federal government makes its final decisions.
To this point, I have focused my comments on the definitions and the types of projects that will be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. While these have painted a very impressive picture of the scope of the legislation, I would also like to say a few words about the broad scope of the environmental assessment process itself. I would particularly like to emphasize that it is in this area that very substantial improvements have been made to the current guidelines order that this legislation is intended to replace.
In the current guidelines order, the scope of the environmental assessment process is restricted to the environmental effects of projects, any directly related social effects, and to the concerns of the public. In special cases under the guidelines, where the Minister of the Environment and the minister of the initiating department consider it appropriate, an environmental assessment may also include a consideration of the general socioeconomic effects of and the need for the project.
Let me turn, by comparison, to the scope of the environmental assessment process in the proposed legislation. When I finish describing this new process, I will defy anyone, including my friends opposite, to tell me that Bill C-78 is a retreat from the current situation. Instead, I will challenge my hon. friends on the other side of the House to open their minds, recognize the facts, and admit that this legislation represents a substantial improvement over the current process.
Clause 11 of Bill C-78 describes the factors that must be considered in conducting an environment assessment of a project. These are divided into two groups: those factors that must be considered in any project assessment, and those factors that must be considered in the
Government Orders
case of projects that are subject to a mandatory study, a panel review, or a mediation.
The environmental assessment of any project must, at the very least, include a consideration of four critical factors. The first of these factors is the environmental effects of the project. But this factor does not stop there, as it does under the current guidelines order. A consideration of the environmental effects of a project under the new legislation must include a consideration of the effects of any malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project. It must also include a consideration of any cumulative effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects that are being carried out, or are likely to be carried out in the same vicinity.
This single factor alone represents a substantial improvement and a substantial broadening of the scope of environmental assessment relative to the current situation. For the first time, explicit recognition will be given to the fact that projects are subject to both mechanical failure and human error. Proponents will be required to build such considerations into their project plans in a manner that will anticipate the occurrence of malfunctions and accidents and prevent their effects from being felt in the environment.
Also for the first time, explicit recognition will be given to the fact that projects do not occur in environmental isolation, but can contribute, in a cumulative manner, to an over-all reduction of environmental quality. Proponents will be required to examine the environmental effects of their projects, both on their own merits and in relation to other existing and planned projects in the vicinity. In this manner, it will be possible for the first time to ensure the achievement of effective environmental quality goals and objectives.
The second of the four basic factors is the significance of any environmental effects that are likely to occur as a result of a project. A determination of the degree of significance will allow project proponents and federal authorities to focus their efforts on those effects which pose the greatest danger to the environment and on those measures that can most effectively reduce or eliminate those effects. In this manner, environmental

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
assessment will move from a subjective hit-and-miss art to an objective and cost-effective science.
The third of the four basic factors in environmental assessment under the new legislation pertains to the comments and concerns of the public. While this factor is similar to the one under the existing guidelines, the way in which this factor operates under the new legislation will be much improved. Bill C-78 provides far more numerous and more structured opportunities for the public to receive environmental assessment information and to participate in the environmental assessments of projects that are subject to the legislation. In short, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will establish a far more user-friendly process than the current guidelines order.
The final of the four basic factors that must be considered in the environmental assessment of any project is mitigation. There would be little sense in anticipating the environmental effects of a project if there was not a parallel requirement to take the necessary steps to control or eliminate those effects. The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will ensure that the proper mitigation measures are considered during the planning stages of projects and that effective measures are put in place at the start so that projects are safe from the time they are undertaken.
In short, the government is committed to anticipating and preventing environmental damage, rather than reacting to and curing, or attempting to cure, damage that has already occurred. This principle lies at the base of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and it makes infinitely good economic as well as environmental sense.
Those are the four basic factors that must be taken into consideration in the environmental assessment of any project under the proposed act. Impressive though they may be, they are not sufficient to achieve effectively the goal of sustainable development. Therefore, for major projects that will require a mandatory study, a panel review or a mediation, four additional factors will have to be considered.
The first is the purpose of the project. It will be important, in considering the environmental implications, to have a good appreciation of the need for and the advantages to be gained from that project.
The second additional factor for major projects is a consideration of alternative means of carrying out the project. It is often a fact that the most economical way of carrying out a project may be very environmentally damaging, and the most environmentally friendly way of carrying out a project may seem to be very costly. Alternatives must be considered.
The third additional factor for the environmental assessment of major projects is follow-up programs. In particular, emphasis will be placed on verifying the accuracy of the environmental assessment and determining the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate the environmental effects of the project.
The final factor which must be considered is far from the least. It is a consideration of the short or long-term capacity for the regeneration of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by a project.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this government undertook a long time ago to honour its commitment to sustainable development as proposed in the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission.
With the promulgation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, this commitment will take on a meaning that will extend its application to all major projects the government is involved in.
In this way, Mr. Speaker, we are living up to our commitment to make Canada, by the year 2000, the world's most environmentally friendly country.

In conclusion, since Bill C-78 was tabled on June 18,1 have been appalled by some of the statements attributed to supposedly informed environmental activists and opposition critics. These people have been very quick to offer their opinions on the scope of the legislation and to
June 26, 1990

suggest that the legislation represents a significant step backward from the current guidelines order. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act represents a bold initiative in the field of environmental assessment that will place Canada at the leading edge of responsible environmental stewardship. It represents a very significant expansion and improvement to the current guidelines Order in Council, and I trust that my remarks in the House today on the scope of the new process will put to rest any concerns in that regard.
Bill C-78 is a critically important legislative initiative that will provide environmental and economic benefits to Canadians for years to come and will place Canada in the forefront of economically concerned countries by the year 2,000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your interest in and attention to this bill which is so important for our country.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend from New Brunswick.

I would like to compliment the member on that marvellous Environment Canada speech, but I would like to ask a few precise questions about the legislation itself.
I know the hon. member supports the concept of intervenor funding, but it is not found in Bill C-78. I wonder if he might want to express some support now during second reading for that principle which he thinks so highly of.
The second question is in relation to what is known as the exclusion lists and the mandatory lists. They are not included in the legislation. I am sure the hon. member, who has a background in resource management, knows that one has to be precise and one needs to know. That all comes under Section 55, but unfortunately most of it is proposed to be done by Governor in Council. I think the member would agree that we need to fill in what is on this exclusion list or exemption list and what is on the mandatory list.
I think the hon. member would also agree that statutes to which this legislation refers should be listed. The
Government Orders
minister himself said that the Fisheries Act will be included. There are about a dozen acts suggested as being included. We are now aware that there are dozens of federal statutes that should be included. Does the member not think that those statutes should be included now? Should we not include intervenor funding now in the legislation? Should we not include those projects that are on the exclusion list and those that are on the mandatory list now so that everyone in the country knows, and should we not include the statutes to which this will apply whether it is for federal permits or federal jurisdictions?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, with respect to intervenor funding, the minister in his statements concerning this new bill has made it clear already that intervenor funding and public participant funding will be available. The estimate is that $100 million in additional funding will be involved to carry out the full provisions and implications of this act.
I would just like to read some of the conditions by which participant funding will be distributed to applicants.
Applicants must be directly affected by the proposed project or show a clear association with those who are.
Applicants with greater need will be favoured. They must also commit their own time and resources.
Applicants who are capable of making a unique and original presentation will be given priority.
Applicants who organize co-operative presentations will receive priority.
Applicants must prepare a clear plan of activity consistent with the terms of reference of the review.
Applicants from all sides of an issue will be equally considered.
The intentions of the government in this regard are very well stated and laid out. By leaving the matter open and subject to regulation, as with the list of statutes to be affected by the legislation and the other criteria that the hon. member has identified and suggested be in the bill, it seems to me that with the dynamics of the environment changing so rapidly, with all of us acknowledging that there are new environmental concerns today that we did not quite appreciate last year, it is very important that the Government of Canada be in a position to move swiftly to address those environmental concerns with flexibility and not be inhibited and locked into legislation

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
that perhaps is too narrow or not comprehensive enough.
With respect to the exemptions from the legislation, the types of projects that are contemplated for exclusion have already been advanced by the minister. These include projects that are carried out during emergencies, projects that have been demonstrated to be environmentally inconsequential, projects where the federal involvement is minimal, projects related to matters of highest national security, physical activities but not physical works for which an environmental assessment would be inappropriate, and physical activities which are not within the definition of a project and falling within the definition of the act.
It seems to me that in the statements and elucidation of this bill that has already been provided by the minister and other speakers in introducing it and by officials of the department, the questions of the hon. member are well answered. The flexibility of regulations are far more effective in terms of environmental assessment development in this case than would locked-in concepts be in legislation.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide some information on the funding. We have been told by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of the Environment in the House that whatever money is necessary to implement a Green Plan, which is intended to be presented some time in October or November, will be available and in fact is available in the budget. Now we are told there is another $100 million. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us where that money is coming from. Is it in the current budget, or are we waiting until next year to have this legislation acted on?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question definitively. I certainly would take it as notice and endeavour to get the precise answer. I would expect that there has been provision made in the 1990 budget for the establishment of the new agency. The introduction of this legislation certainly has been anticipated for quite some time.
I am a member of the committee with the hon. member which has examined the estimates. I do not have them with me so I cannot answer her question, as my memory does not serve me well in that regard. It may
well be that supplementary estimates will be required to address this very important and exploding subject of the environment and all that is involved therein. I will take that question as notice and get a more precise answer for the hon. member.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that we have just gone through a constitutional process where the major criticism was that the whole process was not transparent enough, that people did not know what was going on, and that too much was done in the backrooms by politicians, and also in light of the commitment during the election campaign that decisions of government would be subject to an open and full environmental review, how can the member rationalize the fact that decisions by cabinet will be escaping that review process and essentially Canadians will be told that we will have to trust the cabinet with respect to the impact of cabinet decisions on the environment.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is no process so clearly accountable than is the cabinet process of government. Frankly, it seems to me that the implications of our environmental assessment activity will be made clear to the public, and will be subject to public examination.
As a matter of fact, the bill conveys a very solid, strong commitment to full public participation. That is one of the principal criteria of the act. I support the democratic principle of responsible government. I believe the cabinet, in its daily exercised responsibilities, is the most responsible and accountable process.
As somebody has said previously, democracy does not seem to work well all the time, but it is certainly the best system we have.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak today on Bill C-78, an act to establish the federal environmental assessment process.
It has been a long time coming, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of the Environment has certainly produced a document of great effort, with the best of intentions, but I am afraid that it has clearly fallen short of the expectations of most Canadians who have been making demands for decisive environmental assessment legislation.
June 26, 1990

The Minister of the Environment is taking Canadians for fools if he thinks he is going to pacify us with yet another generalized framework of legislation. After three years of study and 15 drafts, the minister has provided us with environmental assessment legislation that is skeletal and without solidity, not what this country needs at this crucial point in the environmental health of our nation.
Canadians have been waiting for new environmental legislation that will replace the old informal guidelines we have been following aimlessly since 1984. This legislation had previously given the Tory cabinet broad latitude in which it has woven a tangled web of misused and ignored guidelines.
Once again, the government has cleverly slipped out of making any real decisions by simply deferring the bulk of the legislation, to be drafted at a later date. This could be two years down the road. This is time that we do not have in our battle to prevent the environmental destruction that is plaguing our country.
As I read through Bill C-78, I noted that it might strengthen guidelines that allow environmental impact studies on projects such as dams, pulp mills, navigable waters or nuclear power plants. I had hoped it might give force to the idea of sustainable development, taking into consideration perhaps industry studied depletion of our renewable resources and the cumulative effect of many concentrated industries.
I am left realizing, however, that there are several weaknesses inherent in this environmental assessment bill and there are many questions that are not strategically answered within. This bill has been purposely designed to avoid telling the public the critical and most important detail of how the government will go about regulating a project. The scope and essence of this bill have been lost because no clear regulations have been set out for us within the legislation.
Once again, we have a loose framework with regulations to be decided upon later in the game by public policy bureaucrats. Does it not make sense that these regulations should be made clear to everyone from the outset? What kind of game is the government playing with the environment when upcoming and developing projects have to deal with random regulations? The rules
Government Orders
are being made up as we go along and that is not playing fair with Canadians.
The Minister of the Environment hails this bill "as powerful in its impact on decision making". I question this line of thinking. The legislation will be worth nothing if cabinet fails to pass regulations listing all specific federal jurisdictions and legislation under which it can be used. Surely the people of Canada cannot be expected to blindly trust the cabinet to establish powers which will only be made public after the bill passes through the House of Commons, any time in the next two years or more.
There is a lack of strength of the environmental assessment agency process within the legislation. After reviewing a study of a particular project and the board finds it to present a risk, the agency can advise the environment minister to direct a panel of outside experts to assess that scheme.
The process starts off with good intentions, but then weakens. This panel could only make recommendations. It could not order a stop to any project. On top of there being a set of regulations to implement, the panel must make its recommendations, not to the environment minister or to the cabinet, but to the minister who wanted the project built in the first place. I see this as a waste of valuable study time. It is a process which seems to be defeating its own original purpose.
One of the government's own officials who helped draw up the bill, openly admits to this weakness, saying that the sponsoring minister may ignore the appointed panel and go ahead with the project. The only mechanism in place to prevent this from happening would be a mere appeal to the cabinet from the environment minister.
We have seen a similar process take place over the past 15 months in the case of the Green Plan. What did we end up with after an appeal from the former environmental minister? Nothing but a paltry framework for discussion. There is no solidity to the Green Plan, and now it seems there is no solidity to Bill C-78.
This legislation is not precise enough. It does not say how extensive the cabinet assessment must be, what standards for environmental protection must be followed, or how much of the cabinet assessment must be made public. Canadians must be wary of the existence of strong forces which we all know are pushing hard to

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
weaken any guidelines, so that the courts cannot intervene in federal projects.
This bill lacks strong enough mechanisms to ensure compliance with the rules that government sets out to ensure the proper quality of assessment be given within the project assessment of the bill. For a policy assessment to succeed, a mechanism with teeth needs to be entrenched within the project assessment, that being the part which is entrenched in the law. Right now, we do not have this.
Perhaps the government could consider appointing a commissioner of the environment who would act in a similar manner as the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Office of the Commissioner of Human Rights. This environment commissioner could act in an automous fashion, being directly responsible to Parliament and directly independent of Parliament.
Passing a law would create such an office to audit policy and project assessment which signified forward thinking in the area of the environment. Within Bill C-78 itself, regulations outlined in section 55 are to be subject to the free discretion of the Governor in Council.
With direct reference to section 55(b) and (d), I feel that it is of utmost importance to define a list of projects that are to be excluded from the legislation and define a list of projects that are mandatory under the proposed assessment law.
The lists should be appended to the bill as soon as possible and before it is passed so that the rules will not be changed in cabinet later. If left to the discretion of the Governor in Council, the regulations risk not being defined as may be necessary.
The hon. minister should be more forthcoming and up front with the people of Canada by indicating early on in this bill a third list which relates to section 55(g): Acts of Parliament.
I am pleased that the hon. minister has included eight federal regular Tory statutes, and I quote: "Some provisions may warrant being covered with Canadian Environmental Assessment Act." The word "may" and not "shall". Once again, however, these are merely suggested in the act, and are not defined as concrete regulations.
The federal areas which are to come under environmental assessment must be clearly laid out and regulated.
These lists, I am sure Mr. Speaker, will become the subject of much heated debate within numerous departments, so for the sake of Canada's environment, they must be established within Bill C-78 from the very beginning.
We are now beginning to see the initial moves on behalf of several provincial governments to set up their own environmental legislation in which to counter any federal power and authority they may perceive to be a threat to their own interests.
The Minister of the Environment from Quebec, for example, has said that his province will be forced to enact its own dormant legislation. He feels that it must move quickly, before federal legislation is in force, to enact an idle section of the Environmental Quality Act.
This federal environmental assessment proposal, which will screen industrial projects for their environmental impacts, will however force the provinces to occupy their field of jurisdiction. Quebec perceives this to be a threat to its projects that involve, for example, the export of its electricity.
With the form of this legislation, we are going to see a scramble by provinces to set up their own environmental impact assessment legislation for large projects like aluminum smelters, pulp and paper plants and hydro dams.
The design of these provincial assessment legislations could over-ride the benefit of federal legislation. The provinces see an urgency to protect their own industrial development and will not hesitate to assert their control of their interests.
Other provinces have jealously condemned the loss of jurisdiction by taking pains to ensure that their environmental assessment legislation is comparable to the federal government. This government will lose the strong position it held with the court decisions.
Therefore, within this legislation, there is an absence of a mechanism which will ensure compliance to Bill C-78.
June 26, 1990

This thorny question of federal-provincial jurisdiction has been largely sidestepped in this bill. The hon. minister promises that the jurisdiction will be spelled out once again in the regulations yet to be proclaimed. The hon. minister is offering us promises with potentially wide range negative impact.
As an example, I will refer to the D'Arcy McKeough dam and diversion which is in the riding of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex and of which he will be well aware. This project was to save the town of Wallaceburg from spring flooding.
The politicians and bureaucrats decided to expropriate the area required without due respect for the owners. Now no one likes the idea of losing his or her property to expropriation, but if fairly compensated and to help neighbours, there are no problems.
Common sense did not prevail, as the government wanted the land for nothing. Those affected by this expropriation formed a committee referred to as SOS, Save our Sydenham. The battle was on. At the examination for discovery, after many days of hearing witnesses, the judge ruled in favour of the SOS committee. To make a long story longer, a project that originally was to cost approximately $7.3 million ended up costing the provincial and federal governments in excess of $40 million.
At that time I sat on both the SOS committee and on the St. Clair Conservation Authority. You can imagine my frustration, due to a conflict of interest, in not being involved when the dam and diversion topic was discussed and watching millions being wasted every year. In the end the dam and diversion were built. The owners were properly compensated and the town of Wallaceburg was saved from flooding in the spring. In the process of not having guidelines, the government blew over $30 million. This is only on a small project.
In discussing Bill C-78, it is also important to draw attention to the fact that Canadian foreign aid, Crown corporations and support for Canadian exports abroad, will be subject to special rules still to be determined within the legislation. Again, it is important to the substance of this bill that policies with international implications be a part of the immediate act.
Government Orders
To close, I would like to point out one final weakness in Bill C-78.1 question whether this bill entails the most efficient and effective method in which to utilize the additional $100 million in allotted government funding. The government has reached the point where it must really turn things around as far as its efforts toward the environment go. This environmental assessment bill could become a cornerstone for Canada if only the government would take a few larger steps further to create a more dynamic piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River (Mr. Funk)-The Goods and Services Tax; the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan (Mr. Stupich)-The Fisheries; the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons)-The Fisheries.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in debate on Bill C-78, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
I must say I am a little bit surprised at the order because, indeed, I thought my colleague across the floor would speak first. I was looking forward to hearing what she might say.
The concern of the people of Canada for the environment was very evident last year when we came back to this House as a new government, newly elected and set up new committees. I noted that every committee was working on environmental issues involved with their particular interest. Out of that concern grew my work on parliamentary reform and global climate change. It emphasized to me that everyone in all aspects of life is getting more and more concerned, and I am delighted that this government is demonstrating its concern and interest by introducing Bill C-78.
Bill C-78 outlines a legal process, establishes ground rules and creates an efficient balanced approach for the environmental assessment process. In addition, this bill guarantees the public that they can participate in the process and be able to influence government decisionmaking. In this way, this legislation provides the most fair and open environmental assessment process in Canada and, indeed, in the world. This government is acting on the concerns of Canadians and the recommendations of the World Commission on Environment and

Government Orders
Development, the Brundtland commission. The World Commission added new impetus and focused growing public demand for reforming environmental assessment processes. In its report, "Our Common Future", the commission concluded that the environmental assessment processes would be more effective if they were mandatory and entrenched in legislation; this is what we have done.
This reform package that we have introduced will ensure that all decisions of the federal government fully integrate environmental considerations where these are relevant to ensure protection of our natural environment and for future generations of Canadians. We believe, indeed we know, that many of the environmental problems we are forced to deal with today could have been avoided if we had simply improved the way in which we have planned in the past and we will do that by planning better in the future. Before we begin a project, it is just as important to know if a project is environmentally viable as it is to know what capital and labour resources are required to make it viable in economic terms.
It is not the intent of this government to use this legislation to stop projects, but rather to ensure that environmental impacts are considered before a project proceeds. This is the only sensible and fair thing to do, to protect the rights of future generations of Canadians to an environment equal or better to the environment we inherited from our parents. This government has gone to great lengths to make sure this legislation is the most fair legislation possible.
Let me start by showing this House how the whole process we have introduced is a fair one. For example, it would not be fair to the Canadian taxpayer to conduct environmental assessments of projects we know would not damage the environment. For this reason, we have proposed an exclusion list to be compiled through public consultation. The list will include projects known not to pose any risk of harm to the environment or where environmental effects are negligible. Projects such as simple renovations, routine operations, purchasing supplies or minor construction would be exempt from this review. However, we also believe it would be unfair not
to conduct assessments on projects we know will impact on the environment, so we have proposed a mandatory study list. Projects on the mandatory study list will be large-scale projects that often generate considerable public concern, such as large oil and gas developments, uranium mines, major hydroelectric developments and large industrial plants.
Perhaps I could add here that I was astonished recently to learn that dams which we have in the past always felt were not harmful insofar as the hydroelectric generation aspects are particularly difficult to manage from the standpoint of mercury contamination of the water for a few years after they are put into operation. Another major part of dam construction that I had never considered before is that of methane generation and the impact of the methane on the warming trend. New information seems to be coming forward and putting different perspectives on things that we thought before were not harmful. To ensure that the lists are acceptable to the widest number of Canadians possible, we have proposed an equal and fair opportunity to any interested individual to play a role in the development of the exclusion and mandatory lists.
Further, it would not be fair to expect industry, environmental groups and communities to spend time and money participating in environmental assessments of projects similar to ones already assessed for environmental impacts. For this reason, we have proposed a process to assign projects of a similar nature to classes for review. We have proposed that projects could be assigned to classes if they are routine, repetitive and known not to cause significant or unmitigable effects. Such projects could include dredging, highway maintenance or rebuilding of facilities on the same site. Further, it would not be fair to ask Canadians to accommodate unnecessary delay because of environmental assessments. We recognize that many projects requiring a federal decision may also require decisions from other interests, including provincial governments, foreign states or other federal authorities with similar review processes. We believe co-operation can ensure the environmental assessment process is efficient and reduces duplication of work and cost to all parties and stakeholders.
June 26, 1990

The act offers a number of mechanisms designed to overcome such duplication and inefficiency to achieve closer co-operation and co-ordination between interested parties having responsibilities in relation to the same project.
The act enables a responsible authority to co-operate in the preparation of environmental assessments with another party or jurisdiction in the case of a screening or a mandatory study. It requires the responsible authority to exercise the appropriate quality control for any assessments so undertaken. It does not, however, allow the responsible authority to delegate any of its decisionmaking powers.
This feature will enable federal authorities to work closely with other parties and jurisdictions to minimize duplication and confusion without sacrificing environmental values. Not only is the process fair, but the opportunities for participation are fairer than ever before. The Government of Canada believes public participation is essential to achieving an appropriate integration of economic development and environmental protection.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will provide a fairer opportunity for public input at all stages of the assessment process. Under the act public participation will be encouraged in a number of ways.
For instance, public participation will be enhanced through early notification. Responsible authorities will be required to inform the public through public registries and newspaper ads of major project proposals at an early stage of the assessment process. Public comments will be invited at that time. Time periods for the receipt of comments and information will be established by the agency.
Also a public registry will be established for each project, containing reports and supporting documents and information used in the assessment of the projects and the course of action following completion of the assessment. The public will have full access to the registries. The Access to Information Act will apply with respect to any restricted information.
Mediation will also enhance public participation. It will involve representatives of public groups which have
Government Orders
a direct interest in or are directly affected by a proposed project.
Mediation is fair on two counts. First, it provides a fair opportunity for interested parties, opponents, and supporters to participate in an environmental assessment. Second, it reduces the time and money required for full assessments in cases where it appears all stakeholders are willing to participate and consensus is considered to be possible.
To maintain neutrality the Minister of the Environment, rather than the proponent or the responsible authority, will appoint the mediator. The mediator will assist and advise participants, not make decisions for them.
Panel reviews will also provide equal and fair opportunities for stakeholders to participate in developing recommendations on a project for the Minister of the Environment. Review panels will conduct their deliberations independently of the government. Review panels will be required to hold public hearings to allow the public to present its views and recommendations.
To assist public participation, the reform package includes a participant funding program to ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to participate and play a full role in panel reviews and mediation.
The purpose of the financial assistance program is to improve the fairness and effectiveness of public reviews by increasing the equality of participation. It will help achieve balance and objectivity of decision making by supporting the preparation and presentation of informed views for decision makers that might otherwise not be available.
Further, Canadians will have the opportunity to comment on each individual act regulated under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This government could have included a list of acts in the actual legislation. This would have provided Canadians with only one opportunity to comment on their inclusion, but the process that we have proposed will allow Canadians to comment on each regulatory statute to be included. Indeed, I believe it gives the government greater latitude to include other acts than it would if we had to choose them all at the present time.

Government Orders
Finally this government recognizes that it is only fair to lead by example. For this reason, while debate continues on the proposed legislation and Canadians make submissions to the legislative committee with regard to this legislation, we will begin immediately to consider the environmental implications of all proposed policy.
The results of the environmental assessment of policies will be integrated into the analysis supporting the policy proposal and will be incorporated into the memoranda to cabinet.
For the first time there will be routine environmental assessments of all federal policy proposals coming before the cabinet. This is a very important element of the reform package which accompanied the introduction of Bill C-78.
In summary, we are debating a bill in which everyone in this House can take pride. I am certain that we are examining a bill which will be a cornerstone of Canadian environmental policy for years and generations to come.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could respond to a very deep concern that there is in much of Canada about the 1984 cabinet guidelines order.
As the member knows, in Saskatchewan the Rafferty-Alameda project is proceeding even though the Government of Canada is paying Saskatchewan $1 million a month not to proceed. Supposedly it is proceeding on the basis that this is safety related work. I do not think anyone would dispute in relation to any large project where there is such a scrambled jurisdictional omelette as the Rafferty-Alameda that safety related work should be completed.
There does not seem to be a distinction between safety related work and completion construction. The same is true in Alberta with the Oldman development despite a unanimous ruling of the federal Court of Appeal that the project should not proceed until an environmental assessment has been done, both on transport matters in relation to the Navigable Waters Act and in relation to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
My question to the hon. member is this: How can Canadians trust a piece of legislation which does not either include the statutes, the exemption list or many other things the government says it will put in it, like intervener funding at some point? We have the Rafferty-
Alameda project running contrary to a Federal Court ruling and the Oldman proceeding despite a unanimous ruling of the federal court of appeal.
What should be done on those two, and should the other statutes not be included?


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot answer all the hon. member's questions. My involvement in environmental affairs is more recent than his own. Indeed he knows all the background to the particular questions he has asked.
It would seem to me that under this act, with the ability to review projects before they get going and before they are put in place, any of the problems he is signifying seem to be occurring with the Oldman dam and the other dam out west would be avoided.
He should be applauding the government for taking action and presenting a bill today that could avoid such problems in the future.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate when an hon. member rises, delivers a speech, and is not as familiar as one might be with the subject matter, or he would know that the answer he just gave the House does not really reflect reality.
The courts have been quite clear that the government has not only the power but the obligation under the existing legislation to conduct an environmental assessment in any area of federal responsibility. This obligation which I will be speaking to shortly is in fact weakened by this legislation and not strengthened.
The government asks us to take a great deal under this legislation on faith. I wonder if the hon. member would tell us how the government intends to demonstrate that faith by complying with the orders of the court in the Oldman River Dam in carrying out, as directed by the court, an environmental assessment by the Minister of Transport and by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that the project is not further proceeding as it is now, totally illegally and without the required permit from the Government of Canada under the Navigable Waters Act.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should be very annoyed, just a little annoyed, or quite what my reaction should be to the member's elitist. Because the member is very informed with her background in environmental processes, she feels that I as a newcomer to the field with an interest and a deep
June 26, 1990

concern for my family, for my grandchildren, should not be able to comment on a bill before the House. I believe that is narrow in perspective and totally unfair to the process. Indeed I am learning about the process as I go on. I believe that is a right and a privilege that I should have freely in this House.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the very important matter of the environment and as a member who serves the area wherein the Rafferty-Alameda dam is located, one of the very disturbing factors is that we get many comments and many opinions cast before people understand the project.
If we are truly to have a good environmental approach, which we all want to see, I think that the opposition and government people will have to take some responsibility in terms of knowing what they are talking about.
I will give you an example. One of the people who has been most outspoken on this issue said that there were 2,400 acres of trees in the valley. There is one little grove of trees in the valley. There are people passing comment without even seeing the project.
It is safe to say that 90 per cent or more of the people there, whether they are Liberal, NDP, or Conservative, say that we need water in that area. This matter has been studied since 1905, and this type of approach does not help provide a good direction for environmental concerns and issues.
If we are to have sustainable environmental development, we have to take a balanced approach and we must know what we are talking about in dealing with individual projects.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see this bill before the House. We have been anxiously awaiting it for a long time. Other members who have been in the House longer than I have been here were awaiting it long before I was. It is indeed a pleasure to have it before the House and to have an opportunity to have it referred to a committee for detailed study and, I would hope, some substantial strengthening and improvement.
As I see the bill, it is in fact a step backward from what we now have in place. The courts have been very clear as to the strength of the guideline orders that are currently in place and have been since 1984.
Government Orders
They have been very clear that the guideline order places on the government and on every agent of the government, specifically on every minister, not the possibility but the responsibility to do a full environmental assessment of any project that touches on a minister's area of responsibility.
The courts have been very clear that the effect of the guideline orders is all inclusive and pervasive. It is therefore very disappointing to see before us in this long awaited legislation a bill that is intended to exclude more than to include, a bill that sets up a framework for the government to do the least possible rather than the best possible.
We have a situation where in fact how good this legislation is or how effective it is in protecting our environment depends very much on how the government chooses to use it. The guideline orders show that the government has chosen in most cases to get away with the minimum it can rather than do the most it can do. It is disappointing. At this stage, particularly with the level of public awareness of a new approach to the environment that is much broader than simply not dirtying the water and not fouling the air, the legislation does not deal with the concept of sustainable development. In fact, it specifically excludes those factors from being taken into consideration. They are important issues such as the unwarranted waste of resources, especially nonrenewable resources. The whole purpose of preserving our environment for future generations and changing the way we behave and operate is so that that objective is achieved. A good part of that is based on, not temporary damage to certain aspects of our environment, but whether we even will have enough resources left in the future on which to survive and thrive.
One other major issue that I feel is excluded from the bill and that I hope we will be able to consider in amendments to the bill when it is before committee is aboriginal rights. It is a shame that a small country such as New Zealand can, at this stage in its history, ensure the preservation and protection of aboriginal traditions and cultures in its comprehensive environmental legislation and a country such as Canada has not chosen to include that as a factor to be considered in carrying out environmental assessments. I do hope members of the House, particularly members of the government, are prepared to consider favourably amendments that will no doubt be brought forward to ensure that aboriginal

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
traditions and cultures are part of the environmental assessment that comes with any project.
A third major point that will need a great deal more attention when the committee addresses the bill in greater detail is the international factor. The bill very specifically excludes the Export Development Corporation. The Export Development Corporation is responsible for assessing those projects which Canada will fund to develop exports particularly to developing countries. It is irrelevant to include CIDA and CIDA projects abroad, which are overseas development aid projects, in the requirement for environmental assessment and yet not include the Export Development Corporation through which major goods and services are exported to developing countries.
The Environment Committee, through its hearings, has become increasingly aware of the importance of what we do internationally to the point where, if our concern is our global commons-our global atmosphere, our global water supply, our global supply of lands and natural areas-then we have to look very seriously at balancing what we choose to invest in Canada and elsewhere in the world in terms of protecting the environment.
It makes absolutely no sense for us to cut back on environment-destroying technologies in our own country while, through the Export Development Corporation and its assessment of projects, continuing to finance the export of projects to developing countries without any consideration whatsoever as to the environmental impacts of those exports that we have chosen to subsidize or to finance. It simply is a truism to say that anything that goes up into the air over China, India, or Indonesia, comes down in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, or Rimous-ki.
I want to speak about the assessment of cabinet policy. I understand very well the tradition of cabinet secrecy and confidentiality and the reasons why material that goes to cabinet cannot be public. However, given the statements of the government and the concern of the public, I am shocked to find that an environmental statement or consideration is not already a required item on material going to cabinet. I believe that this is an extremely important weakness in the bill in that cabinet decides on the spending of many billions of dollars. It decides on significant expenditures on physical projects that have great potential to damage the environment. It
decides on energy policies which have significant potential either to help or harm the environment.
In my view, the public is entitled to know on which considerations those decisions have been made, what their impact on the environment will be, and whether or not they are good policies from the point of view of the environment. The legislation does absolutely nothing to give the public that assurance. One can achieve that quite easily, respecting cabinet secrecy and at the same time respecting the public's right to know, by simply guaranteeing in the legislation that, once determined by cabinet, every policy will be subject to an environmental assessment review as any other project of any other private sector individual. The results of that assessment will be made known to the public and they will have opportunity for input and comment.
I want to speak about some of the loopholes in the legislation which I certainly hope we will be able to do something about when we come to deal with this and report back to Parliament on the legislation.
First, we start with projects on federal lands. However, we exempt those lands which the federal government has previously sold or any sale of federal lands unless there is a specific project. The government should, as a public owner of land, assume that it has a public responsibility of public trusteeship and when it disposes of land, for whatever purpose it is disposing of or leasing land, it should be subject to an environmental assessment. The sale in itself constitutes a project or an activity of government that should be subject to an environmental assessment.
I am concerned about weak-kneed wording such as "shall include a consideration of" and "mitigation without definition". I am concerned that the scope of factors to be taken into consideration by any responsible authority, and that includes a minister, shall be determined by the responsible authority. In other words, if I am sitting there as a minister sometime wanting to build some major big project, I have the right under this legislation to decide on what terms and conditions the environmental impact of that project shall be considered. Obviously, that has got to be tightened up.
June 26, 1990

We have the words "serious environmental impact use" and "significant environmental impact use", without attempting in any way to define those. A minister at any time could assume that, even though he has identified environmental impacts, they are not significant or they are not serious. Obviously, we have to clean up some of that.
In comparison to the guideline orders presently in existence, I notice the legislation does not give due attention to public concern. Currently under the guideline orders, any project about which there is public concern about the environmental impact must be subject to an assessment. That completely disappears from this bill. I do have trouble accepting the words of the hon. member who said earlier that this bill is a step forward and that it leaves behind guidelines that are ineffective and insufficient and puts something stronger in place. On reading the bill, it is evident to me that is not the case. In fact, if the bill cannot be strengthened, we would do better to stick with the guideline orders and the court interpretations that we now have on those guideline orders. They are comprehensive, inclusive, and far more widespread in the kind of projects that need to be assessed.
In bringing forward this legislation, the government has, in essence, given itself a great deal of power to exempt virtually anything from an environmental assessment. That is something that is not acceptable. This is far too important, not only for the future of our country and for the assets we hope to pass on to our children, but for the future of the world. We are on the brink of destroying the ozone layer that protects life on earth from ultraviolet radiation. We are on the brink of massive climatic change if we do not act. Yet, we have wishy-washy legislation before us that is a step backward from where we are now, not a step forward.
There is a great listing on page 33 of the bill of everything the government can do to exempt projects, ministries, or agencies of the government from the requirements of this act. If the government is serious, it will put forward a list now of legislation, act, ministries, and agencies that are subject to the acts. It will make a comprehensive and all-inclusive list and it will agree that there may be additions to that list by that regulation but removals may only be made by Parliament. That is the
Government Orders
only thing that protects us and ensures public scrutiny of how the government operates under this legislation.
With all those powers, the government is essentially saying: "Trust me. Trust me to do what I say I am going to do." I think we have had good reason in the last six years not to trust the government, particularly since November, 1988.
I need only remind the public and members of the House of the many sacred trusts that have been violated and of the statements by a minister in Newfoundland that the government would not touch unemployment insurance and within months we were slammed by a retrograde UI bill. We have had statements by the Prime Minister himself, pledging his loyalty to his mother and swearing he would not touch old age security. We have had a number of bills before us that do exactly that. They touch pension plans in a detrimental way.
We are being asked to trust the government that decimated its investment in alternative energy from $500 million down to $50 million. It did this at a time when it is going to international conferences and talking about the importance of alternative energy and reducing the dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels. Yet, its actions speak louder than its words.
This is the first year the Department of the Environment itself has recovered from the massive slashing of its funds that has taken place over the years that this government has been in power.
There is the Oldman River dam where, despite a unanimous court decision, the Minister of Transport states it is okay for him to let this project go ahead without a permit required for safety reasons. If he is sincere about that, he should issue a revised permit that sets out clearly what is allowed to be done at that project and that establishes clearly that the works to be done are those related to safety and safety alone. Not having done that, he and his colleagues have shown clearly that they are ignoring the order of the courts and ignoring the environmental assessments required to be done. He has abandoned any control over that project that he is required-not able but required-to exercise under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is the government we are being asked to trust.
I spent the best part of yesterday and today at Green Plan consultations. I heard a great deal of scepticism in a roomful of primarily business people and business organizations, not environmental groups. I heard scepticism about the intentions of the government, because, again,

June 26, 1990
Government Orders
this is the government we are being asked to trust. It had a green strategy that was ready to be brought forward last February.
We, who are members of the environment committee, put ourselves under a great deal of pressure to try to produce recommendations for the minister at a time that would have supported provisions in the budget to implement the green strategy. That was last February. Now, here we are into summer and we are back to an amorphous, meaningless discussion document that lays out no options, gives no costs and gives no analysis of the pros and cons so that thousands of people who participated in these consultations can sit down and, rationally, in a well informed manner, give the government their advice. That is the kind of frustration I was listening to this morning and all day yesterday.
Businesses are saying what businesses have always said: "Tell us the environment in which we have to operate and we will operate in that environment." They want to know the rules, they want to know the regulations, and they want to know that these rules and regulations are not going to change from moment to moment, from month to month or from fiscal year to fiscal year. This bill does absolutely nothing to give them the security that the environment will be protected. It is not only non-governmental organizations and environmental groups that are concerned about the environment. They want to do their part in protecting it but how can they? How can they, when the government can prescribe a list of projects for which an assessment is not required, prescribe a list of classes of projects for which no assessment is required, prescribe anybody to be a federal authority or not to be a federal authority? How can the citizens of this country know what they can expect from this government if it is not prepared to put it into legislation? How can our provinces know what they can expect and what requirements they have to meet if the legislation is not clear, is not immutable and not subject to the political convenience or the whims of a government?
We have already seen how the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology considers the environment. The environment that provides for things that are not immediately of tangible value but have some higher value, poetry, music, what have you, as if care for the environment is something we can do without. We know that this legislation has been weakened. It has been weakened by a cabinet that is weak-kneed and unprepared to do what
the Canadian public wants it to do. I challenge members of the government, as we go into committee with this, to please be prepared to make it clear, precise and strong.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa West has given us a very thorough and interesting analysis of the bill before us. She has put forward some interesting views about aboriginal rights and about the international dimension of this bill. She has reviewed the performance of this government in relation to the Oldman River dam. We know that the hon. member for Ottawa West has been quite active in this House on the question of the Rafferty-Alameda project. In view of the intervention made just a few minutes earlier by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain, I would like very much to hear the views of the member for Ottawa West as to the performance of this government in relation to the Rafferty-Alameda situation.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I really do not have to comment on it, the courts have done that adequately and fully. The courts have said that the government failed miserably and completely to accept and to exercise the responsibility it had under the existing guideline orders and that it has failed since then to act as it should act.
The courts have made it clear that on any project under federal authority, not limited as this bill is to projects on federal land or funded by the federal government, the federal government and the federal minister under whose authority it comes, can and must act to carry out an environmental assessment to protect the interests of the public of Canada and to protect the natural heritage of Canada.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to join in this debate. Following the previous speaker, it is very good to have an opportunity to put some facts forward. It is tempting to go through the comments that the previous speaker made one at a time and answer some of the rhetoric that was put forward. This particular government does not have to take any lessons from the previous Liberal administration. Being a member in Queen's Park in Ontario for a number of years, I am aware that the province of Ontario has had an Environmental Assessment Act since, I believe, 1977 or 1978. From that period of time through to 1984 the government that was in power during federally was a Liberal government. Did that Liberal government act to bring forward environ-
June 26, 1990

mental assessment legislation? Veiy clearly the answer is no.
Just prior to the federal election in 1984 it brought in guidelines which it hastily threw together in the form of an Order in Council. These guidelines were intended to be just guidelines. They were never intended to come under the microscope of the courts. Clearly, although some of the members have stated that this act is not a step forward, I think the facts speak quite differently. I do believe that this is a major step forward. The bill has been under public consideration for some period of time has been put together as a result of that public consideration and I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill.
It is the view of the government, and certainly my view, that the environmental assessment act is a major step forward in our nation's campaign to preserve and enhance our environment. The bill is central to the over-all goal of the government's Green Plan, to make Canada the industrial world's most environmentally friendly country by the year 2000.
Certainly this act has the power in its impact of decision-making that it is the most significant environmental assessment legislation anywhere in the world. The bill will, for the first time, entrench in legislation the federal government's obligation to integrate environmental considerations into its project planning and implementation processes.
Given the immense importance of this legislation, I wish to briefly outline the four key principles used in designing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
First, the government wanted an environmental assessment process that is clear, consistent and effective. There should be no uncertainty in the environmental assessment process.
Second, the process should be efficient and fair. Each project should receive the amount of time and the kind of assessment that it requires.
Government Orders
Third, the government wanted the legislation to anticipate and to prevent problems rather than adopt the less effective and more expensive approach of react and cure.
Fourth, the legislation must encourage open decisionmaking and provide opportunities for the public to play a role in the final decision.
It is this final point, the openness and the increased public participation which I want to spend a few brief moments talking about. I believe that public participation in the environmental assessment process is central, and indeed essential, to achieving both a strong economy and a healthy environment.
I am pleased to say that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will provide greater opportunities for all Canadians to participate at every stage of the environmental assessment of individual projects. Further, the act strengthens the public participation in assessment of major projects. The act outlines several ways in which public participation will be improved. It stipulates that the public must be notified early in the assessment process of all major project proposals.
Canadians will be invited to comment on the project proposals at this time. Similarly, the bill stipulates that the public must be notified when the Minister of the Environment receives an assessment report.
As well, for the first time open public registries must be established for all assessed projects. These registries will be a holding tank for reports and documents used in the assessment of the project. Decisions taken on proposed projects, including any mitigating measures and follow-up programs required, must also be kept in the public registries.
I think it is important that we make this very clear. All submissions, anything relating to a project, is in this open public file. Any correspondence, any materials that relate to that project are available for the public to read and they can use that material in formulating their own ideas and their own submissions for those projects. I think this is one of the most significant advancements here and it is on all projects.
The establishment of open public registries is a significant improvement in the Canadian environmental assessment process. Registries currently exist for some projects. However, they are maintained on a voluntary ad hoc basis.

June 26, 1990
Private Members' Business
Of course there will be many opportunities for Canadians to participate directly in the assessment process through the public review of major projects. Public reviews will generally be held on major projects which pose significant risks to the environment and about which the public has serious concerns.
The act introduces mediation as a new option for public review. Mediation will involve representatives of public groups which have a direct interest in, or are directly affected by, a proposed project. Through mediation, representatives will attempt to reach consensus on the potential environmental effects and measures for mitigating these effects.
Mediation is the preferred choice whenever all stakeholders are willing to participate and a consensus is considered possible. A major advantage to mediation is that Canadians who are most involved with, and most concerned about, a proposal can communicate directly with one another.
Major projects which are not suitable for mediation will be subject to public hearings by review panels. These hearings will allow all interested Canadians to present their views and recommendations.
It is important to note that under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Minister of the Environment will decide on the need for public review. Under the current Order in Council guidelines, only the minister responsible for the project had the authority to order a public review.
Now it is in the hands of the Minister of the Environment alone, not in the hands of the various ministers who are responsible for those projects in the past.
I am pleased to remind the House that this government has established a formal participant funding program to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in these mediations and public hearings.
This multimillion dollar financial assistance program will open the environmental assessment process to Canadians who might not have had the financial resources to otherwise participate in public reviews.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 10 minutes remaining in his debate, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments, should we proceed with this bill tomorrow.

It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT MODIFICATION OF THE BENEFITS PAYMENT METHOD
Guy St-Julien: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the regulations made under the Family Allowances Act to allow monthly benefits for the month of September of each year to be paid for each eligible child after the first but before the sixteenth day of September, in order to help Canadian families financially at the start of the new school year.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today in this House on behalf of all Canadians so that, from now on, they receive their family allowance payments for the month of September at the beginning of the month in order to help them financially at the start of the new school year.
I wish to remind the hon. members that the federal Family allowance program is aimed principally at providing financial assistance to parents with dependent children, to help them with the cost of raising their children. This program aimed at complementing the income of Canadian families provides for monthly benefits for children under the age of 18.
At the end of 1988, Mrs. Claire Lecault of Amos, asked me to make representations to the Canadian government so that family allowances be paid at the beginning of September each year, before the return to school.
Other people in my riding came to see me several times to discuss the project, at the beginning of 1989.1 have received a petition signed by people from

June 26, 1990

Senneterre, Val-d'Or, Hull, Ottawa, Saint-Jerome, Gatineau and Obaska, asking the federal government to pay family allowances at the beginning of September each year before a new school year in Canada, to help families who have one child or more in school.
I presented that petition numbered 342-0007 in the House on April 4, 1989 and got the following response from the Minister of National Health and Welfare: "The Family Allowances Act provides that monthly allowances be paid for every eligible child. Regulations (section 8) require that allowances be paid after the ninth, but before the twenty-fifth day of each month."
The Income Security Programs Branch processes approximately 9 million cheques monthly, and is responsible for the administration of family allowances (Section 3,6), old age security payments (section 3,0) and Canada Pension Plan payments (Section 2,4). The present computerized systems are not flexible. Radical changes are under way for the family allowances system and the old age security system.
Changing the date of issue of the September family allowance cheque, for the first or the second day of the month, would require amendments in the regulations. It would also require a change in the expiry dates, and the period of time during which changes can be made in the accounts would be shorter. For instance, there would be less time to change the address on a cheque between August and September.
The addresses on the September family allowances are used by Revenue Canada for the anticipated allocation of the child tax credit. If an earlier date in September was settled on, Revenue Canada would end up with a greater number of no longer valid addresses.
The minister answered my petition: "This suggestion is not unreasonnable per se and the Department's officials will assess it carefully during the computer systems review. However, considering the significance of the required changes and the inter-relationship of these programs, the Minister of Health and Welfare cannot guarantee that this suggestion will be implemented".
On June 20, 1989 I introduced motion M-502 now under consideration, as follows:
Private Members' Business
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the regulations made under the Family Allowances Act to allow monthly benefits for the month of September of each year to be paid for each eligible child after the first but before the sixteenth day of September, in order to help Canadian families financially at the start of a new school year.
Mr. Speaker, from the correspondence I exchanged with the Minister of National Health and Welfare in early 1989 concerning the payment of family allowances, I should like to read the following sentence in the minister's response: "Still I am always prepared to entertain the suggestions of our recipients because, as a rule, they help to bring about major amendments to our laws". My constituents of the riding of Abitibi did make a suggestion, that is, change the date to early September.
I have another letter. I wrote to the minister on February 8 to ask him for the findings of a study on the feasibility of paying family allowances at an earlier date. On May 2, 1990, he answered back that the Income Security Programs Branch of his department was in the process of entirely reorganizing the family allowance computerized system and of putting into place a direct funds transfer service that should be operational later this year. He also made this very clear: "As interesting as your proposal may be, it would take several years before it obtain the full attention it deserves from the government, that is all the time required to complete the reorganization of the family allowances.
Meanwhile, your proposal was analysed on a preliminary basis. According to that analysis, if we were to deliver the family allowance for September cheques earlier, it could create some administrative and operational difficulties in a system which was designed to steadily distribute some 3.7 million benefits to 6.6 million children. The time required to issue the August and September cheques and to make the necessary changes of addresses or recipients for these months would be reduced by half. Moreover, recipients should be notified in advance of the new payment date of family allowances to prevent cheques from remaining in mail boxes for several days.
Finally, your suggestion implies some costs. The simple fact of paying some $220 million in benefits two weeks ahead of time could cost Canadian taxpayers about half a million dollars in interest charges alone.

June 26, 1990
Private Members' Business
In spite of these problems, as the minister himself indicated in his letter, the idea of paying family allowances early in September is interesting and deserves to be explored further within the family allowance reform project. "
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced it would be quite easy to recover these interest charges from other governmental departments.
I am sure some hon. members will suggest to the government various means for the recovery of such costs.
When dealing with family allowances, Mr. Speaker, the House should be reminded that they mean $21.31 for a first child, $53.08 per month for a second child, about $133.08 for a third child, and $213.08 for a fourth child. We know that low-income families must spend an average of $70 per child to send their children to school, to buy them books, clothes etc.
As the minister indicated, thorough changes are being implemented both in the family allowance and old age security Pension schemes. Mr. Speaker, this would be the perfect opportunity to make the changes which many low-income families in this country have asked me to suggest.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all ministers and all hon. members to support this motion, so that the necessary change may be made this summer to the regulations, so that family allowance cheques for September may be issued on the first or second day of the month, to help Canadian families send their children back to school.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup for supporting my motion.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak in favour of the motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the regulations made under the Family Allowances Act to allow monthly benefits for the month of September of each year to be paid for each eligible child after the first but before the sixteenth day of September, in order to help Canadian families financially at the start of a new school year.
I congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi for putting forward this very thoughtful motion.
Many expenses are incurred by parents at the beginning of the school year in September. There are new clothes to be bought, new school supplies to be had and bus passes to be purchased. At some schools there are school uniforms to be bought and tuition fees to be paid.
For these and other reasons it is necessary that we as legislators do what we can to alleviate the financial burden with which parents are confronted at that time of the year.
I therefore fully support this motion which would have the effect of expediting receipt of family allowance benefits by parents for the month of September each year. Receipt of the cheques at the very beginning of the month would make a positive difference for families whose cash flow at that time of the year is low. Families who may have experienced the need for borrowing to meet these expenses will have additional funds available when they are most needed, and not two weeks later.
Indeed, I believe that it will make a substantial difference for those families most in need, for those families with several children who are living below the poverty line. It is precisely families such as these which will benefit most from this progressive measure. To them we, as parliamentarians, have a duty and an obligation to act.
The motion being proposed has, I submit, a high benefit/cost ratio. Thousands of low-income families will experience less financial pressure in September, rendering the expenses associated with education not a disincentive to pursuit of learning.
Today there is in Canada a great need for a comprehensive policy on family issues which will have the effect of making life easier for families which experience difficulty in making ends meet. Such a policy would consider the social as well as the financial needs of Canadian families and do what can be done to reduce and eventually eliminate the scourge of child poverty, a very real problem in Canada despite our nation's great wealth. The measure before us, taken together with other measures which consider the plight of the less privileged, will improve the social fabric of our country.

June 26, 1990

Therefore, I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this thoughtful motion before the House, and in the interest of those families most in need and of their school children's education, I urge all colleagues, particularly those on the government side which controls the majority, to allow speedy passage of this private members' motion in order to help Canadian families at the start of a new school year.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the motion by the hon. member for Abitibi which suggests that the government consider amending the Family Allowances Act to allow for the payment of family allowances in September of each year between the first and sixteenth day of the month. The government appreciates and shares the hon. member's concern that Canadian parents have access to their family allowances in time to help cover the costs which come at the start of a new school year. At the present time, from January to November, the family allowance cheques are delivered by the twentieth day of each month. The only exception is December, when the family allowance cheques are delivered by the fifteenth of the month to help parents with holiday season expenses on behalf of their children.
We have had a universal program of monthly allowances for parents with children which has served generations of Canadians for over 40 years. The government recognizes that the objective of the family allowance program is to help families with the cost of raising the nation's children. Our children are our most important resource. They are our future. Thus the family allowance program benefits all our society as it is an investment in the future of Canada.
Over the years, modifications and improvements have been made to the program culminating in the new Family Allowances Act which came into effect in 1974. Today, universal family allowances are payable each month on behalf of all dependent children under the age of 18. The amount of the 1990 monthly benefit is $33.33 for each dependent child. In Alberta and Quebec, the rate is different as those provinces have chosen to vary this rate according to the number of children in the family and/or their ages. In each month of 1990 the government is distributing 3.7 million cheques to families across Canada on behalf of approximately 6.6 million children.
Private Members' Business
In light of current socio-economic changes the government believes that the system of delivering child benefits must be reviewed periodically to ensure that the needs of Canadian families and their children be met. In 1984 the government began restructuring the over-all system for child benefits so that the greatest benefits go to children in low and middle income families. Effective January 1986 the family allowances were partially deindexed to the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index in excess of 3 per cent.
As a means of offsetting the impact of partial deindexation of family allowances on low and middle income families, the government substantially enriched the child tax credit. In 1990 the child tax credit provides a maximum benefit of $575 per child. The credit is payable to low and middle income family allowance recipients on behalf of dependent children under the age of 19. Beginning with the 1988 tax year, the child tax credit is available for children in the taxation year during which they turn 18. Prior to tax reform, the last year for which a credit was claimable was the tax year in which the child reached 17.
As part of the national strategy on child care, the child tax credit was increased for lower and middle income parents who care for their children at home or who may have non-registered child care expenses. The supplement, which is payable for a child age 6 and under, is $203 for the 1989 tax year. This new supplement represents an increase of nearly 40 per cent in the over-all value of the child tax credit for these children.
In November, 1986 the federal government began making an annual prepayment of, the child tax credit for low income families in order to assist with expenses during the winter months and to discourage use of tax discounters. In November, 1990 the prepayment of $383 or the basic credit and $135 for the supplement will be sent automatically to persons whose net family income for the 1989 tax year was $16,513 or less. In the 1990 budget the government proposes to extend the prepayment to families with three or more children, provided their income does not exceed $24,769 in 1990. This measure would affect 70,000 families with a total of 236,000 children.
Taken as a whole, the changes to child benefit have reduced benefits of higher income families but substantially increased the benefits for lower income families.

Private Members' Business
Thus the government is meeting its objective of directing more assistance to low income families through the child benefit system.
In addition to these improvements to the child benefit system, the government believes that the system of delivering child benefits must be reviewed to ensure that the system is keeping pace with new technology and that the system is adequately serving the changing needs of Canadian families and their children.
Thus, in 1989, the government initiated the income security programs branch redesign project. Within the broad scope of the project, family allowance processes and procedures are being redeveloped to make use of the new technology and improve program delivery to family allowance recipients. It is expected that the redesigned family allowance system will be in operation nationally later this summer.
I am pleased to inform the hon. member for Abitibi that his motion will be examined within the context of this redesign project.
There are, however, several important factors which should be given careful consideration before any action is taken on the hon. member's motion. First, the August and October cheques would be delivered at the usual time, the twentieth day of these months. Thus the family allowance recipients would in August and September receive two family allowance cheques within a three-week period and then have to wait approximately six weeks before receiving the October family allowance cheque. It is possible that the long delay between receipt of the September and October cheques could create financial hardship in some families. Given this and other concerns, as well as administrative and operational changes that would be required, the government will proceed with a detailed analysis of the motion.
Since I have the attention of the House, I appreciate the opportunity to inform hon. members that the government is taking advantage of advanced technology, as well as responding to the wishes of a significant number of Canadians, by introducing a direct deposit service for persons receiving a federal government benefit. In 1990 persons receiving federal income security benefits such as old age security pension, Canada Pension Plan benefits, and family allowances can use the direct deposit service. Because some Canadians prefer to receive a cheque in hand, the direct deposit service is voluntary. Those who do not use the direct deposit service can have their family allowances cheque deposited with the financial institution of their choice.
There are many direct and indirect advantages to the direct deposit service. We all know how difficult it can be at times to get to our financial institution of choice to cash or deposit a cheque. With the direct deposit service such concerns are eliminated.
For example, the family allowances cheque is deposited on the due date directly to the recipient's account, thus eliminating a trip to the financial institution. Another important factor is that the funds begin to earn interest immediately. With a customer card, withdrawals can be made at the recipient's convenience.
Direct deposit eliminates the possibility of a family allowances cheque being lost, stolen, or misdirected. The direct deposit service also ensures that family allowance cheques are deposited during periods of illness-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the member's attempt to have regulations as they relate to the Family Allowances Act amended.
I want to read very carefully the substance of the motion because I think it ought to draw to the attention of many members some of the underlying concerns of Canadians with regard to the public policies that this government has been pursuing.
The second part of the motion states:
- to allow monthly benefits for the month of September of each year to be paid for each eligible child after the first but before the sixteenth day of September, in order to help Canadian families financially at the start of a new school year.
I would think most members would want to concur with anything that can be done to assist in a meaningful way families in terms of raising their children and in providing the necessities for life. We have to ask what the fundamental concerns that we on this side of the House, as well as government members, have toward
June 26, 1990

some of the public policies being initiated by the government and/or the lack of good public policies.
I make mention of one policy for which I am the critic responsible, namely child care. We have heard over and over again by this government in throne speeches in 1984 and 1988, in statements by the Prime Minister, in subsequent statements by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and by almost every conceivable agent of the Government of Canada that they were very concerned with child care, only to find that those statements were not acted upon.
In point of fact the concerns with regard to child care have been pushed aside. As a result many Canadian families do not have appropriate, high quality child care, nor do they have access to it.
The substance of the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Abitibi, should be clear to all of us. Yes, we can change regulations. It may be helpful. I do not doubt that it would be helpful to those individuals. We ought to draw to the attention of Canadians, particularly ministers opposite on the front bench, that there are far-reaching and important concerns which must be addressed in addition to changing a particular regulation.
It should be noted that the number of one-parent families has increased significantly over the last 25 years. The majority are headed by women, and increasingly young women. Canada is on a steady course toward more single heads of families. By 1991, almost 15 per cent of families will be headed by one parent. Of these, 80 per cent will be women.
There are more than one million Canadian children living in poverty, up 120,000 since 1980, and over 60 per cent of these children are led by single parent families, most of whom are women.
It should be noted that this motion hopes to change a regulation in order that family allowances be paid at the start of the school year. I have no difficulties with that, but would it not be nicer and more beneficial to Canadian families if the government to which the hon. member belongs were to stop immediately the proliferation of taxes on families? Mr. Speaker, you are going to say: "Well, you know you cannot stop all taxes". Let us recall that this is the government that preached fiscal responsibility and to date has introduced no less than 37
Private Members' Business
tax increases, many of which have affected low and middle income Canadians in an extremely negative way.
I bring to the attention of the House, as has been done on previous occasions, particularly by my colleague from New Brunswick who has alluded to and provided empirical evidence for the Minister of Finance, that the proposed goods and services tax which is to take effect in 1991 will have a disastrous effect on Canadian families.
Yes, members opposite will be quick to stand in their place and say: "Oh, yes, but there are tax credits for some of the poor people," et cetera. The fact of the matter is the goods and services tax is a mean, discriminatory tax which will affect Canadian families, one-parent families, in a most drastic and negative way. I stand here before you, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you concur with me, because many times you have alluded to in this House and have demonstrated your keen ability for good judgment, sound basic economic principles and objectivity.
This regulation is good and I support the regulation. Surely members opposite ought to take their responsibility seriously and question the Prime Minister and members of their own cabinet on some of the most discriminatory, negative economic policies affecting Canadian families today in the history of this country.
They have an obligation not only to stand in their places as the hon. member for Abitibi is doing. They ought to support that. Equally so, I would urge them to join with us in pointing out to the government that some of their economic measures are not acceptable to Canadian families.
The Established Programs Financing Act-


Mrs. Dobbie:: Tell us about it.


David Charles Dingwall: I will tell the hon. member about it if she would like to hear about it. Perhaps, the hon. member will become enlightened and thereafter make some positive contribution to the public policy debate in this country, namely the following.
The hon. member sits in her place in the Chamber at $62,000 a year, $18,000 in tax-free allowance or $20,000, the same as I, and has the unmitigated gall to question those poor souls in those poor provinces who will be

June 26, 1990
Private Members' Business
receiving less from the Government of Canada respectively.
Maybe the concerns of the hon. member opposite are not for the poor janitor who works in a hospital, who is a single parent and has to provide sneakers and drugs for his or her children. That is not a concern of members of the Conservative government, not at all.
Therefore, when they slash us back on transfer payments, albeit in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland, it is not a great concern to hon. members opposite. It is a great concern to the individual Canadian who has been receiving less as a result of those policies made opposite and who will continue to receive less as a result of the proliferation of taxes and cut-backs instituted by the government opposite.
There are many, many instances where this government has singled out one-parent families, young families, and low to middle income Canadians. As a result of those policies it has been very negative in terms of the economic and social outlook to which those people have to look forward.
As I stand in my place and support the pith and substance of what the hon. member is suggesting, I would hope that it would give due consideration to the many unrelenting attacks of the Prime Minister and the Conservative government against families in this coun-tiy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps there might be a disposition in the House or unanimous consent for me to continue.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the comments of the last member who just spoke.
I have been here since 1980.1 do not know how many years he has been here, but I know he was here and had
an opportunity to sit in government. It is very easy to sit here today and criticize the initiatives of the government, but at least we are taking action and doing something by providing programs for the people of this great country. From children of all ages, right through to our seniors; every aspect of livelihood is assisted in this country. This member sat here in government. I do not recall his party bringing in one initiative to help young people or seniors in the period of time that I was here from 1980 to 1984.1 am surprised to hear him criticize the government.
I want to go back and deal with the amendment that my hon. colleague has brought before us today. I compliment him on what he has already done. He has brought forward an opportunity for discussion and to take a good look at the cheques being mailed and the family services being provided to young people and parents to help them at a very needy time.
In the context of this interesting and thoughtful suggestion, I would like to discuss some of the current initiatives of the federal government in the area of improvements and delivery of social benefits to Canadians.
As hon. members are aware, family allowances are administered by the Income Security Programs Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The ISP Branch, which also operates the old age security program and the Canada Pension Plan, is the government's major agency for issuing benefit cheques to millions of Canadians every year.
Indeed there are few Canadians whose lives are not somehow touched by the ISP. There are, of course, the mothers who receive family allowances on behalf of their children, the workers and employers who make regular contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, the seniors who receive CPP retirement pensions, as well as old age security benefits, the lower income pensioners who receive payments under the guaranteed income supplement and spouses allowance programs, the surviving spouses who receive CPP survivor benefits, and the disabled Canadians who receive disability pensions from the CPP.
Most Canadians would be less aware of the vigorous client services, delivery and redesign initiatives currently under way at the Income Security Programs Branch. These have been specifically undertaken to streamline and fully modernize the branch's over-all operations. I do not believe we have to take a back seat to anyone or


HHEHH39SH
[Stage Direction]
June 26, 1990
[Stage Direction]
any country in the world in the support of these programs.
The focus and commitment of the ISP redesign project is to implement the optimum level of service for clients in terms of accurate, timely and regular delivery of benefits.
The ISP redesign project is being undertaken as a joint enterprise between the Departments of Health and Welfare and Supply and Services, with additional participation from Revenue Canada Taxation, Veterans Affairs and Treasury Board. Now just look at the changes, Mr. Speaker. We will get into that some day when we talk about changes we have made to veterans programs.
Treasury Board has now allocated $7.9 million for resources to develop a comprehensive business strategy expressly for the redevelopment of the delivery processes for income security programs.
This redevelopment is now well under way. Following a rigorous evaluation, the federal government selected KPMG Peat Marwick to develop several key components in the new ISP business strategy. Among these components are a business solution which deals with how income security programs should be delivered in the future, the business change plans which deal with how to arrive at this future and at what cost, and the related business case documents and impact assessments.
In addition to the business strategy, resources have been made available to develop a comprehensive communications strategy, which will directly prepare ISP for future change, will assess and validate emerging details of the business strategy, and will provide additional support as required. The business strategy phase is expected to be completed by March, 1991, that is by the end of the current fiscal year. This will be followed by a general design phase to be carried out at the same time as preparation of the Treasury Board submission for the final detailed design, development and implementation phases.
In order to establish the general direction and philosophy for the redesign of the income security client services delivery processes, the Department of National Health and Welfare has completed a vision for income security programs. This was done in consultation and co-operation with other federal departments involved in
Private Members' Business
the policy for and delivery of income security benefits of all kinds for Canadians.
The vision will guide all subsequent developmental work and will explicitly and intimately shape the eventual business solution and business change plans. These will be concerned with such specific dimensions as human resources organization, work processes and functions, management processes, technical support systems, facilities infrastructure, and of course actual legislation, policy and regulations. Copies of this vision document are available for review by members.
I realize that some hon. members may ask: Can this wide-ranging exercise translate into real progress and tangible improvements that are directly helpful to ordinary Canadians in all walks of life?
In the vision for ISP it is emphasized that within Canada's over-all system of social programs the mandate of the ISP branch directly encompasses a strong leadership role in the evolution and delivery of the entire nation's social security policies, reflecting the spirit of democracy at its most vigorous and salutary. The income security programs branch provides benefits to Canadians in the form of direct income and thereby illustrates Canada's elemental respect for each individual's rights to exercise personal discretion in determining the most appropriate use of such income to enhance his or her life or the lives of others.
You will see in the vision a strong recognition that clients are the reason for income security programs' existence. The administration of the programs must always be seen by clients as accessible and knowledgeable, respectful and efficient, and the delivery of the benefits must meet client expectations.
In summary, I wish to assure the hon. member for Abitibi that his motion for earlier family allowance payments during September is of direct interest to the government. We will be pleased to examine his proposal in the broader context of income security programs and redesign initiatives.
As I have been discussing, the federal government fully recognizes its direct, active commitment to the people of Canada to ensure sensitive, timely and efficient delivery of their benefits, not only under family allowances but under all income security programs which play a major role in the economic well-being of all Canadians.
[Stage Direction]
June 26, 1990
Private Members' Business
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the remarks of some of our colleagues today. I want to take a moment to congratulate the member for Abitibi for having proposed this motion. Of course I would be remiss if I did not mention the excellent remarks of my colleague from Cape Breton only a few moments ago as well.
I listened to the member who just spoke and gave his remarks my undivided attention. I listened to him spell out all the acronyms of the different subdepartments of the Department of National Health and Welfare which is administering this program.
He told us about how the department administered this, how the officials of the department were doing such a great job, and what department administered old age pensions as well as family allowances and so on. After listening to him for the 10 minutes allotted to him, I still do not know whether he was in favour or against the idea. After all, most of us listened to the hon. member's words of wisdom in order to figure out whether he liked or disliked the proposition set forth by our colleague.
Let us review for a moment what it is that our colleague wants. He said in his motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the regulations made under the Family Allowances Act to allow monthly benefits for the month of September of each year to be paid for each eligible child after the first but before the sixteenth day of September, in order to help Canadian families financially at the start of a new school year.
To some people, perhaps the amount that is derived from family allowances would be considered small. It is not a very big cheque. But for many of the constituents whom I represent, it makes quite a difference to be able to receive that cheque. It would make quite a difference during the month of September particularly when parents are struggling, single parent families and others, who are trying to make ends meet. They are trying to send the children to school.
I am sure that to be able to get that cheque earlier in September would be of tremendous significance.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a precedent. We know that, in the month of December, family allowances cheques are sent earlier to help parents, particularly mothers
since the cheques are generally made out to them, buy what they need for the Christmas season.
The same thing applies to September with the start of the school year. I think that for some of my constituents who do not have as much money as some others, it would make a big difference if they were to receive that cheque at the beginning of the month. That would allow them to buy a new pair of shoes, a new schoolbag or anything else the children need to start the school year.
So I personnally congratulate my colleague for his initiative. I could also say a few words about this government's policy and orientation regarding family allowances and the fact that we are now faced with the deindexing of these benefits.
However, I will not get into that today, for two reasons: First, I do not want to diminish the excellent suggestion made by the hon. member opposite, and second, I think you will understand that because of this bad cold, I would rather not speak any longer than I have to. That is probably partly why the rest of my comments will be brief.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support this motion, and I can inform you that as far as the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are concerned, in areas of high unemployment-that applies to my riding, especially in the eastern part of the riding but also elsewhere- this initiative would make a big difference to our families.
I therefore urge hon. members to think about this proposal and support this motion. Of course, all we want is to see it passed. The motion is in no way binding on the government, and departmental officials who advise the minister on family allowance might consider the excellent ideas put forward by the hon. member and the entire House. If the minister so wishes, a study could be made by a parliamentary committee, but I don't think that will be necessary.
The procedure is quite simple. In fact, it is already being applied, as I said earlier, in December. So let's have it apply to September as well. Let us help young people, mothers and single parent families during the month of September.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, since the people in charge have already been advised of its existence, if this motion is passed today, the system could be in place by this coming September.
June 26, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question arose from news that shellfish harvesting had been closed down near a number of pulp mills on the west coast due to the levels of toxic materials found to be in certain sea animals.
Pollution is not a new issue and yet it is relatively new in what people recognize as pollution.
I was a member of the B.C. provincial legislature when the very first legislation in that province was introduced to control pollution. At the time one of my colleagues, the New Democrat member for Mackenzie, Tony Gar-grave, asked why the legislation was not dealing with air pollution as well as water pollution.
Of course the government members laughed at him. It was a ridiculous idea that we should be interested in or concerned about air pollution. In the first place it was not important. In the second place nothing could be done about it. That was just some 25 years ago. We have come a long way since.
The chronology of events I want to talk about this afternoon starts with the closure of two pulp mills on the
Adjournment Debate
west coast, the Howe Sound pulp mill and one at Prince Rupert. The prawn and shrimp fisheries were closed because of the level of dioxins and furans found to be in those particular shellfish.
There is no word that anything was done to the pulp mills. They continued to throw millions of gallons of effluent containing goodness only knows what kind of chemicals into the ocean.
The belief even at that time was that the ocean had an inexhaustible ability to absorb almost anything that was dumped into it, whether it was industrial pollution, natural pollution, or whether it was human pollution of one kind or another. Human waste, anything like that could be just dumped into the ocean and we could forget about it. We need not worry about it any more. That was the end of it.
By 1988 the realization that we could be hurting ourselves-quite apart from what it was doing to sea life-by continuing to consume prawns and shrimp that were growing too close to pulp mills that were considered to be damaging the environment.
At that time, and perhaps even today, we do not really know how bad any of these chemicals are. Assumptions are made, and there has been some evidence that certain of them are extremely dangerous, but I do not know that the case has really been proven.
However, we are making an attempt to clean up our act. In particular we are trying to force pulp mills to clean up the water they are dumping into the Straits of Georgia. But even beyond that, we want to find out how much damage the effluent is doing and trying to find ways to control and reduce it short of totally shutting down industry.
The Environment Canada report dated July, 1988-it was not revealed publicly until Greenpeace managed to get a copy of it leaked to them-said there were 83 out of 122 pulp mills in Canada that were dumping more toxic waste into the ocean or into the waterways of Canada than was allowed by federal standards.
Again, we should have realized that we had to do something about these federal standards, finding out whether or not they were real standards and whether they should be observed, how dangerous they were, and also obliging the offending pulp mills to do something about it.

June 26, 1990
Adjournment Debate
November 24, 1989 was when I raised this matter in the House. At that time the minister said that "new and tough regulations would be enacted this year and letters would be sent to all the companies across Canada notifying them" of the new regulations.
That was 1989. To the best of my knowledge, if it has happened I have not seen it. These new tough regulations have yet to be issued. Nevertheless there have been some moves to tighten up on procedures.
On December 5, 1989 there was a leaked memo from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, from their own staff saying, among other things, that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was closing its eyes to flagrant disobedience of regulations. It stated, "We have determined that DFO friendly corporations are parties with provincial permits, as well as the B.C. agency issuing the permit that allowed the offence will enjoy relative immunity from the Fisheries Act."
Mr. Speaker, we have not come very far and we have a long way to go. The Green Plan discussions that are currently under way, are criticized because the regulations have yet to be tabled and the Green Plan does not really have any plan for the future. On June 7, 1990, just this month, we were told, and this is after the two years work on this, that the pollution levels of 14 of B.C.'s 23 pulp mills are still greater than the provincial levels allow. As I said, we do not know how bad they are.
I consume crabs regularly on New Year's Day, it is something that is done in Nanaimo. The longshoremen get together and harvest crabs right at the pulp mill outfall and they grow best and biggest there. But are they safe to eat? No one has told us. When the shellfish harvesting was closed on the west coast, no one said how dangerous this food was. We were not told whether we could continue eating what was on the grocery shelves or what we had in our kitchens. There was no information at all, the beds were closed, no more fishing. What does one do with what you have already fished?
We have a lot to learn about these products and about the effect and danger of them. Beyond that, when we suspect there is a problem, then it is up to us to impose regulations and to make sure that the regulations are enforced. As I say, short of shutting down industry-and I know they are spending $1 billion currently to clean up their act-let's keep the pressure on to make sure that
we protect ourselves and everyone depending upon us for that kind of protection.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada has recently completed nation-wide consultations with stakeholders on proposed dioxin and furan regulations, the thrust of which is to achieve the virtual elimination of dioxin and furan discharges from pulp and paper mills.
This is an important regulatory proposal which impacts not only on the environment but also on the food chain because marine species such as shellfish can ingest and accumulate contaminants such as dioxins and furans with subsequent public health consequences.
In fact, the Department of National Health and Welfare has, from time to time, issued advisory statements concerning dioxin and furan levels in shellfish from certain locations in Canada, notably in British Columbia. In light of the proposed regulations, it is important for people to know some facts about these substances so that they can appreciate the potential impact of proposed Environment Canada regulations.
The term dioxin, for example, does not refer to one compound but rather, to a whole family of 75 related chemical compounds. These 75 compounds are also often associated with another family of organochlorine compounds known as furans. There are an additional 135 related, yet individual, compounds in the furan family.
In test animals, dioxins and furans have produced a number of adverse health effects including cancer and birth defects. Impacts vary widely from species to species. In humans who have been accidentally exposed to these compounds, only one adverse health effect has been consistently observed; a skin condition called chlo-racne. This condition, which resembles acne, usually disappears soon after the affected person ceases to be in contact with the contaminant.
Nevertheless, the lack of evidence that dioxins and furans contribute to human health problems does not eliminate the need for further study and control of these undesirable substances. Our aim is to reduce the potential for exposure to the lowest level achievable. The proposed regulation by Environment Canada to reduce the presence of dioxins and furans to non-measurable quantities in final effluents will certainly add rigour to this aim and we will see that the new regulations are strictly enforced. In fact, the Minister of the

Environment announced last week in Edmonton that $50 million and 200 person-years would be added to his department's enforcement program.
By way of background, one might ask how scientists assessed the potential health risks associated with exposure to such compounds. An example using the food supply might be illustrative of the process.
The first step is to determine the quantity of the chemicals that humans can consume on a daily basis over a lifetime, with reasonable assurance that their health will not be threatened. This quantity, which is called the tolerable daily intake, or TDI, is based on studies carried out on laboratory animals, and takes into account data from human exposure incidents and is determined using appropriate safety factors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. parliamentary secretary's time has expired. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to deal again with the question that I raised on Monday, June 18. That question had to do with the whole issue arising from the treatment of co-operatives under the GST.
It is becoming obvious to all Canadians and probably to the government as well that the GST, if nothing else, is a big can of worms and that the more the government attempts to scoop up the worms, the more they seem to be crawling away. One of the big worms that seems to have crawled away is the whole question of how the GST will be applied to the share capital of co-operative organizations in this country. Will co-ops be placed at a serious competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other businesses, or will they have a level playing field to operate on?
Twelve million Canadians belong to approximately 60,000 co-ops across this country. The co-ops differ in size, in their nature, and in the things they do. There are consumer co-ops, housing co-ops, farm product, marketing and worker co-ops, health co-ops, and co-ops in many other sectors of the economy. They have been a very important factor in building up some of the regions
Adjournment Debate
of the country which often do not enjoy the economic benefits that other parts of the country do and often they are the last business organizations to stay in those communities.
The common denominator of co-ops is twofold: One is that it is one member, one vote and it is democratically controlled; second, the equity that runs these co-ops that makes it possible for them to operate comes from the members. In other words, co-ops are grassroots people pooling their resources in order to help do something for themselves, something even the hardest Tory heart should be able to welcome.
With respect to the GST, the co-operative system has the normal concerns that any business organization has regarding that tax, the difficulties in applying it, what would be included, and the accounting nightmares. However, it recently seemed to surface, somehow or other they communicated with the gnomes in the Department of Finance, that in fact there might be a much more serious implication for co-operative organizations. That was the Department of Finance's threat to treat the equity, the investment that people had in their co-operatives, as if it were a membership fee, as if it were the equivalent of taking out a membership in a golf club, fitness club, a cosmopolitan club, or whatever, and that these were not to be treated as equity investments, but rather as memberships.
This creates a very serious disadvantage to co-operative organizations because no other businesses have their equity investment taxed in this kind of way.
These investments take many different forms. They range from initial investments which people make in their co-operatives. In some co-operatives it is an initial $5 investment, all the way to tens of thousands of dollars in worker co-ops where a group of workers are getting together to set up a business which they themselves will run.
There are ongoing investments of several dollars a month that take place in direct charge to co-ops which gradually builds up equity. Then there is the whole business of the dividend that people enjoy from the profits of their co-operatives being reinvested in share capital in those co-ops. This can amount to huge sums of

June 26, 1990
Adjournment Debate
money. Even in my own case, it was not a huge sum of money, but $600 was enjoyed by our family in dividend from our co-op. With what the government is proposing, that $600 would now be subject to the GST. If we invested that $600 in any other business, it would not be taxed. It obviously puts a co-operative at an automatic 7 per cent disadvantage vis-a-vis its competition.
Nation-wide, the numbers are actually quite staggering. The co-op system enjoys approximately $1 billion in dividends every year in direct equity investment which would mean that there would be a $70 million loss under the GST.
The co-op sectors had a number of meetings with the Department of Finance and the government, making three arguments essentially. First of all, that dividends are taxed as if they are investment, they are not taxed as membership. There is no tax on membership actually, but dividends are taxed as an investment.
Second, they are treated as investment on the balance sheets of co-operatives under standard accounting practices. Third, the Canadian Co-operatives Associations Act very clearly defines the share capital as being similar in nature to a financial transaction like any other share purchase. These are all very clear in the law. It seems that the people who are defining these things in the government have not yet realized that.
Furthermore, there are several other problems. Obviously, they do not understand the bottom-up nature of co-operatives. Co-op Atlantic, which raised this issue with me, says it will cost them $640,000 for the bottom-up structural problems. Together with the other problems, it is going to cost them $1.6 million, 40 per cent of their equity.
The government must deal with this immediately, because if it does not it means one of two things. Either it does not understand how the co-op structure works, or it is actively discouraging the formation of co-operatives as a matter of public policy. Either one of those is unacceptable. The co-ops are asking for a level playing field and the government needs to respond quickly so that the co-ops can get on with dealing with the other problems that the GST causes them.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian co-operatives maintain their membership as a source of share capital and, as such, should not be subject to GST.
As you know, my colleague the Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) stated in the House on June 18 that the Department of Finance would discuss implementation of the GST with co-op members as soon as representations on their positions were received. The Department received the briefs only a week ago, and in fact, one of the key representations, the brief by the Atlantic Co-operative, did not arrive until yesterday.
Departmental officials-and I am sure the hon. member will be glad to hear this-have started a study of these various documents and are to continue their discussions with the co-ops in the very near future.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise one more time. I would think that this means that on 40, 50, probably 60 different occasions, I have raised this very same issue. It is an issue that I have raised in Question Period on dozens of occasions, in so-called late shows such as we are involved in right now, in committees, and in this chamber alone 40 or 50 times. You know what it is, Mr. Speaker. It is fish, or more to the point, it is the devastation and the havoc that the lack of fish is creating in the inshore fishery, what we call the hook and line fishery along the southwest coast of Newfoundland, in Fortune Bay, in the Port-au-Port Peninsula, Baie St. George area and to a degree in Placentia Bay, insofar as my riding is concerned. That is where the havoc is most complete. That is where the people are suffering the most.
Why are they suffering? Because they are too lazy to get up in the morning and go fishing? Not quite. Each day during the winter fishery and during the summer fishery these people have done what they have done and their people before them, literally, for five centuries.
June 26, 1990

The night before they get their baited gear ready and early in the morning while most of us are still in the middle of a night's nap, at three o'clock in the morning, they get out of bed. Men with their wives in many cases both go fishing, or two brothers or two neighbours or three or four people. Anywhere from one to three or four people go out in those small, open boats. They go anywhere from a couple of miles to 10, 12 or 15 miles offshore. For several hours they catch fish, or that is what they used to do. Now they go out and they put down their baited gear and they do not catch any fish, because the fish are not there. You cannot catch it twice. If the French, for example, in 3PS, in the area of Fortune Bay near the St. Pierre and Miquelon Islands, have already caught the fish because they have been over-fishing, with the silent blessing of this government over the past five or six years, it cannot be caught a second time.
That is only part of the problem. In part of that coast the problem is foreign over-fishing. There are other problems on other parts of the coast. But let me bring you, Mr. Speaker, to the result of those problems. Let me tell you something about the havoc that is being created by the shortage of fish and, as I say, a problem not created by the fishermen themselves. They, with good intention and with deliberate effort and much sacrifice still go out in the morning, still bait their gear, still spend their scarce money to buy gas and bait. Indeed, they are now spending more to prepare for the fishery than they are taking in in terms of the number of fish they are catching.
I gave you previously, Mr. Speaker, an example. It is one of many dozens of examples I could quote but because this one is so graphic and in such simple terms it drives home the magnitude of the problem.
In the community of Rose Blanche on the south west coast of Newfoundland there are 147 licensed inshore hook and line fishermen. In the winter fishery, the three-month period, January, February, March, 1987, these people landed four million pounds. This year, during the same period, the same number of people landed fewer that 200 pounds of fish. Not enough to pay their expenses let alone to pay the mortgage, the loan on the boat, buy groceries and to meet other family financial commitments.
Adjournment Debate
That is not an isolated case. That story can be repeated in La Poile, Grand Bruit, Petites, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Fox Roost and Margaree. I could mention literally dozens of other communities up around the Codroy Valley, Bay St. George, down the coast from Burgeo east into Hermitage Bay, Fortune Bay, Placentia Bay. The story is the same everywhere.
For months we have been calling on this government to respond to that particular need. Lest there be confusion, the government has responded on another matter, the matter of the offshore fishery as it relates to places like Gaultois, Grand Bank in my riding, and Trepassey in the riding of the Minister for International Trade.
There is another need that has been completely ignored and nothing has been done about it. People do not have income. They have run out of UI and cannot qualify for more UI. They are hurting down there, I say to the minister. They are hurting, and you cannot buy groceries on hurt, on pain. If they could, their larders, their kitchens, their refrigerators, their cupboards would be full.
So far the minister is turning a deaf ear. If the minister responsible for UI, the minister of Employment and Immigration, had her way it would seem to me that every single community would be shut down and they would all be moved to Toronto. Well that is not what they want. They need some assistance from her and from him to tide them over until the stocks rebuild.
These people are part of and contributors to a way of life that has existed for many years, a culture all its own. Help them preserve it. Help them keep body and soul together. Help them keep their families together. Help them to cling to their communities until the stocks rebuild, if we are to believe the Minister of Fisheries, until the good times come back again. Help them bridge the gap. That is all we are asking the Minister of Fisheries. Not to wave magic wands. To do what his government has already done for the farmers of western Canada many times over, to do what his government has already done for the deep sea people, the trawler people and the people who work in those deep sea plants and come up with that kind of a program or, failing that, an extension of UI benefits, some ad hoc arrangement that will get these people over the hump. I tell you, it is quite a hump for those people and you would know how big a hump it is, Mr. Speaker, if you were there.

June 26, 1990
Adjournment Debate
They are hurting. They cannot keep body and soul together. They are calling on this government to prove it has some soul, some compassion. I ask the minister now, will he not take this case back to cabinet one more time and make the case of the people of Rose Blanche and those other communities that I could mention throughout my riding. These people, through no fault of their own, are having one very rough time as my letters, telephone calls and people in my riding tell me literally every day of the week.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I would just like first to say that the Government of Canada shares the concern of the various communities which have recently experienced the closure of their fish processing plants. As the hon. member has indicated, why they have closed is because of the lack of fish.
We also know that many resource industries in this country have had to experience cycles and there are ups and downs in the prices of their products. We know that from September to December, 1989 a large number of workers were laid off in the mining, forestry and petroleum industries in Canada as well.
We know that the fishing industry is also subject to cycles, as well as to market fluctuations. It is an unpredictable business to be in as well because the nature of the resource base itself makes it unpredictable. The fish companies can only partially cope with this instability through diversification of fish supply.
In periods of severe downturn, fish companies have to close plants just to survive, which is very unfortunate. When a fish plant is closed, the lack of economic alternatives in many coastal communities in Atlantic
Canada makes the impact of these decisions especially difficult.
We know that sometimes plant closures allow companies to save operating costs by diverting the production to another plant that they might have somewhere else in the area, which can help them because they know that in all these plants they have fixed costs such as hydro, maintenance, insurance. Those are incurred regardless of the volume of fish that is received at that plant.
The alternative of keeping all the plants open would result in a lower standard of living for many of those people in those areas. That is not a picture of an industry which could be self-sustaining if that happened.
To wind up, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, and what the hon. member has just brought to our attention again, as I will agree he has done many times, the government recently announced a $584 million adjustment package for the Atlantic fisheries. More specifically, it contains a Plant Workers Adjustment Program to provide further benefits to plant workers and trawlermen who have lost their jobs.
Furthermore, $146 million is being provided to foster the economic diversification within the fisheries and promote alternate employment in the areas affected by reductions in quotas and stock depletion.
As the hon. member has said, what we have often done for agriculture in Canada, we hope we can assist fisheries in the same fashion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 27, 1990