1990-10-24

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a peaceful demonstration to focus the attention of the public, and especially that of the federal government, on the closing of the Long Point military base. The demonstration in front of the base has just ended.
A few weeks ago, the Minister of National Defence said he was still considering this possibility. This is no time to consider, Mr. Speaker. It is time to act and say no to closing this base, a step that would jeopardize more than 1,000 jobs in East Montreal and more than two million dollars worth of economic spinoffs in the region. East Montreal, as you know is already in poor economic shape, so that closing the base would have a devastating effect.
I therefore wish to ask the government and the Minister of National Defence to inform employees and the people in East Montreal immediately that the base will not be closed and to do so in writing. Only then will businesses, residents and the employees concerned be able to look to the future with confidence.


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR THERESE LAVOIE-ROUX
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, today, the School of Social Services at the University of Montreal intends to honour Senator Therese Lavoie-Roux for the exceptional contribution she made in the course of her public career, by awarding her an honorary doctorate this afternoon.
Therese Lavoie-Roux was, in the course of her career, first commissioner and then president of the Catholic School Commission of Montreal, MPP for the riding of Acadie, Minister of Health and Social Services, and was recently appointed to the Senate.
Mrs. Lavoie-Roux was the first woman to become Minister of Health and Social Services in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, not enough women accept the challenge of public life, and that is why I think it is very important to emphasize the contribution made by Mrs. Lavoie-Roux and her importance as an example for women who are attracted to public life.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer Mrs. Lavoie-Roux my sincere congratulations on receiving her honorary degree this afternoon.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry is now saying that he only has $100 million to fund a new forest agreement with British Columbia, despite the fact that the entire forestry community is demanding a joint agreement which would include a commitment of $350 million from the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, by buying gas at PetroCan and picking up some forestry stamps, the Boy Scouts are doing more to plant trees in Canada than this government; I will send some stamps to the minister.
Both the federal government and the Socreds in Victoria have failed to sign an agreement despite repeated commitments and promises to do so.
A well-managed forest industry is vital to Canada's economic and environmental well-being, but the health of our forests is left twisting in the wind by the Socreds and Conservatives. They should get on with it and sign a new forest agreement now.

October 24, 1990


CANADA POST
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that Canada Post, as a Crown corporation, essentially operates independent of Parliament, on behalf of many residents of Brandon-Souris, I would like to urge Canada Post, in the words of a recent Deloraine Times & Star editorial to "Consult With Your Community".
Although most Canadians are relieved to know that Canada Post no longer requires a $300 or $400-million annual subsidy upon which it used to depend, many rural residents are frustrated and angry with this Crown corporation's recent tendency to reduce both the hours of service and the number of employees without consulting with either the local postmaster or town and rural municipal officials.
If Canada Post officials have sound and logical reasons for the policy changes which they are announcing, they presumably could convince others of the merits of those proposals. To proceed, however, as they are currently doing, without consulting with local leaders, is only to ask for the angry editorial response which many rural weekly newspapers are now providing.


UNITED NATIONS DAY
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, today is United Nations Day, the 45th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations.
In the past half century, the United Nations has had enormous successes and, of course, significant disappointments. The successes include programs of health, aid to refugees, and progress on development. The UN has led the struggle against apartheid and colonialism, has pointed the spotlight on human rights abuses and set the agenda for meeting the terrible and great problems that face the global environment. The end of the cold war holds great hope now that the fundamental purpose of the UN, to establish an international rule of law, can finally be realized.
On United Nations Day, we join with the Secretary General of the UN, Perez de Cuellar, who said, "We must continue to draw inspiration from the ideals to which our Charter gave luminous expression. These ideas are not the intellectual fabrications of visionaries.
We are embedded in the hearts of men and women around the globe".


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, since this is Small Businesses Week, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the past ten years, small businesses have generated exciting ideas and a host of innovative products and services, thus creating thousands of jobs and playing a major role in boosting the economy of this country.
More than ever before, Canadians have realized that entrepreneurship could be exciting and profitable and offer tremendous opportunities for personal enrichment and financial success.
The Small Businesses Loans Act is a federal initiative aimed at helping small businesses, either new or existing ones, to obtain medium-term loans from chartered banks and other designated lending organizations to finance capital improvements.
Under this legislation, the government is committed to reimbursing 85 per cent of the loan to the approved lender, should the borrower default on his payments. This guarantee applies to loans of up to $100,000 for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1989. More than 17,726 have been granted, representing a total of $682 million.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON &quot;LA FRANCOPHONIE&quot;
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, recently, the Minister of Communications established an advisory committee on la francophonie.
Without wishing to reflect on the competence of the committee's 15 members, I fail to understand why the minister decided that only one Francophone from outside Quebec met his selection criteria and that no members of ethnic minorities qualified for this team of advisers.
Should this not be seen as an insult to Francophones outside Quebec and to new Canadians, including Haitians, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Africans, and so forth, all of whom make a substantial contribution to French culture? How could the government ignore this potential
October 24, 1990

and fail to take advantage of the pluralism that has become one the major elements of our Canadian social fabric, especially in the province of Quebec?
I hope the minister will take steps immediately to correct this oversight, and thus make his committee a more authentic reflection of today's Canada and present to the world an accurate image of what we are. We are very anxious to hear the government's response.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Small Business Week 1990,1 would like to pay tribute to the small business community in Canada, and in particular, to small business in my riding of Delta, British Columbia.
The small business sector has created thousands of jobs and made a major contribution to the Canadian economy. Small and medium-sized businesses have spawned exciting ideas and a host of innovative products and services.
In Delta, we have many examples of new products and technology. Elorizon Fibreglass has created a canopy for the safe transportation of seedlings used for reforestation. MST Products makes specially designed bicycle handle bars to allow cyclists to assume the most aerodynamic position for racing. Sentinel Vision Inc. has developed a unique technology to inspect seams in food and beverage cans for a more efficient quality assurance process.
The federal government, through the Federal Business Development Bank, Western Economic Diversification, and other initiatives, has worked to foster an economic climate in which small business can grow.
Canadian entrepreneurs have seized the opportunities and created their own successes. Small Business Week 1990 celebrates the entrepreneurial spirit and drive behind the success of the small business sector in Canada.


UNITED NATIONS DAY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, today is United Nations Day and the beginning of UN Disarmament Week.
Faced with the threat of war in the Gulf region, it is imperative that the United Nations be given the support necessary to settle this horrible conflict.
This means we must work within the mandate of the United Nations to make it the co-ordinating body of any military or political action. Otherwise the world will miss this chance to consolidate a new approach to international conflict resolution and peacekeeping.
We must now, more than ever, reject the doctrine of "might is right" and adhere to the rule of law between nations. This could lead, not only to a peaceful resolution in the Gulf, but would help establish an important precedent to prevent and resolve future conflicts.
Let us use this terrible incident as an opportunity to reform and strengthen the United Nations.


TRIBUTE TO PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, as an Anglophone member from Southern Ontario, I would like to congratulate the Premier of the province of Quebec, the hon. Robert Bourassa.
Last Friday, Mr. Bourassa categorically rejected independence for Quebec. He said that Quebecers do not want a Quebec passport and do not want to lose their citizenship. They don't want to lose Canada. Mr. Bourassa also said, with unaccustomed vigour, that he would not compromise Quebec's economic stability.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think we need Mr. Bourassa in this great debate on Canada, and as a Canadian, I say: bravo, Mr. Premier!


SRI LANKA
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Sri Lanka is in the process of committing genocide against the Thmil minority. In my riding there are many constituents of Tamil origin. I have

October 24, 1990
been contacted by many, including the chairman of the National Association of Canadian Tamils, to bring this issue to the attention of the Canadian Parliament.
We in Canada know the problems that can arise with vocal minorities, but we also know that killing the minority group is not the answer.
I ask the House, when will the Secretary of State for External Affairs take appropriate steps to pressure Sri Lanka, which is a member of the British Commonwealth and the United Nations, to stop this outrageous behaviour?
In light of the massive oppression and death that faces Tamil people living in Sri Lanka, I also ask the House to ensure that those who are in need can take refuge in Canada from the brutal regime of the Sri Lankan government.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it's time once again for the corporate welfare bum of the week award.
This week the nominees are BP Canada with $6.2 million in profits in 1989 and no taxes paid; Confederation Life Insurance with $103 million in profits in 1989 and no taxes paid; and last, but by no means least, Domtar with $18 million in profits in 1989, and no taxes paid.
Now for the winner. The envelope, please.
The winner is Domtar. This company along with two other nominees have been outstanding members of Tom d'Aquino's BCNI, but we feel that Domtar deserves special consideration because not only did it have $18 million in profits but on top of that it received an extra $21 million in tax credits from this government. With that kind of business savvy, Domtar deserves a b rating.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when thousands of workers are losing their jobs in
Atlantic Canada, it is unbelievable that this government, through Bill C-21, will inflict more hardship on Canadians struggling with high interest rates, the proposed goods and services tax and a made-in-Canada recession.
The government adds insult to injury by eliminating its financial contribution to the UI fund, while at the same time maintaining control over the allocation of money collected from workers and employers.
In its arrogance, the government will take our money, do with it as it pleases, and leave the regions, such as Atlantic Canada, with added strain on their already fragile provincial economies.
With the passage of Bill C-21 and if the unemployment rate remains stable, Prince Edward Islanders will receive only 35 weeks of benefits rather than the 42 weeks received under the old system.
At the same time, they will have to work two extra weeks to qualify for fewer benefits. This means that Islanders must now find an additional nine weeks of work.


BILL C-21
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: At long last, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 has been given royal assent after a long stay in the other place. Our government is satisfied with this turn of events because we are now in a better position to help Canadian workers acquire new skills and plan for the future.
Several amendments will make it easier for workers to cope successfully with ever changing labour market conditions. These amendments also bring unemployment insurance provisions in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments reflect the government's labour force enhancement strategy and make the unemployment insurance program more atuned to the priorities of workers seeking assistance and vocational training.
October 24, 1990



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Today, the government's own figures show that bankruptcies are up 37 per cent. In the face of this, the minister has the nerve to send out 40,000 videos to try to tell Canadians that they are among "the most fortunate people on earth".
Why does the Minister of Finance think that the thousands of Canadians going into bankruptcy, losing their jobs, their businesses, and their farms are among the most fortunate people on earth? Why does he not stop this phoney propaganda campaign and bring in new policies that will turn this economy around, and not drive it into the ground?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I say to you again that Canadians are one of the most favoured people in the world today.
We are going through a difficult period in the economy. There is no question of that. I have been talking about that for a number of months now. I am not happy about it. But when you stand back, Mr. Speaker, and look at the advantages that we have in this country and when you look at the challenges that we are facing in relation to the major difficulties and disruptions that are going on in other countries of the world, you have to reflect on the fact that we are a very fortunate people.
It is very important as that very fortunate people to do the things that are right and to follow the sound economic policies that we have been following to get our economy back on track so we can continue to do more to help those in other countries.
In the meantime, we have our work cut out here. We are sticking to our guns on it, because we believe that it is the right thing to get our economy on track again.


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


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what will it take for this minister to recognize and admit the damage his policies are doing to our farmers, our business people, and our workers? Do they have to start sending him videos showing themselves losing their farms, their businesses, their homes, and their jobs. If they did, those videos would be rated r for recession to show the horror of the government's policies.
When will the minister stop trying to defend, as he is doing now, the policies that got us into this mess and start trying to do something constructive about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to this video. The video is designed to respond to questions that people have been asking us. We have had 350,000 odd people who have called the information line. They want to know about the GST. They want to know where the GST fits into our economic plan. They want to know what we are doing to control government spending. They want to get an accurate picture of the financial position of the federal government, and that is precisely what this video is designed to do.
I would also say to my hon. friend that he has a short-term point of view here. I do not deny it is a view which shows that we have a difficult period in the economy. If he would extend his view to the last five or six years when the same policies that we have been following have resulted in record rates of growth, growth that is second only to Japan of the major industrialized countries and growth that has resulted in the creation of over 1.5 million jobs.
That is the combination of policies that the government has been following that has got us to a position where we have had a very good economy over the past six years. We have to get through this period. If we can get through this period, get the rate of inflation down, and get the inflationary pressures under control, then we can build the base for strong non-inflationary growth into the future.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing their farms, their businesses and their jobs because of the policies of this

October 24, 1990
Oral Questions
minister. Meanwhile the Minister of Finance is wasting public funds on a video which shows nothing of the economic mess his policies helped create.
Again I ask the Minister of Finance when will he recall that video and come up with a policy designed to pull Canadians out of the recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to withdraw the video because the video is responding to the concerns and questions of many people in the country. I will send the hon. member a video later this afternoon, if he wishes. I will send one to my colleague, the Leader of the New Democratic Party. It is important for all members of Parliament to learn what is happening.
The title of the video is Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? I think there are a lot of Canadians who are asking that question. They have seen increases in taxation, which my hon. friend has commented on on a number of occasions. It is important to know what those tax dollars are spent on, the impact of the debt that we inherited in 1984 on the spending of the government, and the impact of the compound interest which we inherited in 1984. That compound interest, by the way, represents 80 per cent of the accumulation of debt that we have seen since 1984.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition should understand that it was the government that he was associated with which laid the groundwork for the high interest rates that we are facing.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. On September 25, the Prime Minister spoke of his commitment to accelerating the specific land claims process. The aboriginal peoples of the Atlantic provinces have yet to be convinced of this commitment.
The maritime chiefs are meeting in Moncton, New Brunswick this week, including the chief from the Woodstock Band whose specific claim was validated by the government six years ago with no progress to date.
How does the minister intend to accelerate the specific claims process in the Atlantic regions of Canada?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, consistent with the Prime Minister's commitment, we have been holding meetings with various groups with a view to expediting the settlement of treaty deficiencies and the comprehensive claims. Such was the discussion in which the Prime Minister participated yesterday in Vancouver. It was a very successful meeting with the combined leadership of all of the native leadership of British Columbia.
Two weeks ago in this city, with members of Atlantic chiefs present, a process was undertaken with a view to improving the processing of specific claims. The government will certainly be bringing forward a major initiative in that respect, hopefully before the end of this year.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister.
In excess of 500 specific claims remain unsettled to this day in Canada. In New Brunswick alone over 68 claims remain outstanding. A year and a half ago the government refused a proposal for funding for land claims from the Union of New Brunswick Indians and has not responded to a re-application for funding submitted one year ago.
Is this what the Prime Minister means by acceleration, a system that cannot provide a response to a serious request and a Conservative member of Parliament who refuses to meet with the chief of that reserve?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. member to show as much confidence in our ability to deal with these issues as the native leadership of Canada has done. They are participating in important meetings and have promised me a report within 30 days on the process which will be required to improve our ability to dispose of specific claims quickly.
I myself have met with the chief of the Woodstock band to get on with the process that the Liberal government was unable to complete over many years when the party of which she is a member was in office.
October 24, 1990


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance about the record number of bankruptcies.
In the previous worst year, 1982, when the minister was in opposition, he said: "This government must begin to realize that it is individual people who are being hurt." He went on to say: "We must deal with individual Canadians who are losing their jobs and their businesses."
Will the minister back up his caring words from then with action now to respond to this record 37 per cent increase in bankruptcies in the country?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is people who are losing those businesses. I understand that the people who are working at those firms are losing their jobs, and I do not take any pleasure in that. I do not enjoy that at all.
What I have to point out to the hon. member, as he makes reference to 1981-1982, is that the level of bankruptcies as a percentage of the economy is about half what it was at that time.
The other point that I would make to him is that, if we are going to be able to get through this period and avoid the excessives of the high interest rates of 22 per cent and 25 per cent that we endured in 1981-1982, it is important for us to get the inflationary pressures under of control. That is why we have been following the policies that we have been following. We are making some progress there. We are getting those inflationary pressures under control. As we do so, we will be able to see some reduction in interest rates.
If we let the party go on, as was the case in 1981-1982, then the hon. member is asking for exactly the sort of thing we want to avoid here. Mr. Speaker, we are determined to avoid that.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the minister has lost those caring attitudes that he expressed in 1982.
Paul Cazabon is a farmer in St. Joachim in my constituency who has lost his 740 acre farm because of high interest rates on his machinery, his land, and his operating loans. That is what these bankruptcy statistics mean. They mean broken dreams for people right across the country.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Prime Minister directly: What has the Prime Minister of the country to say to Paul Cazabon and his family?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Paul Cazabon is someone for whom I have a great deal of sympathy and the difficulties that he is going through. But if we do not do the things we are doing, there will be many more Paul Cazabons who will be suffering from the same sort of interest rates that we had in 1981-1982. Surely, my hon. friend must recognize that that is something that we want to avoid. We must avoid. That is why we are following the directions we are now.
As I have indicated on many occasions, we are making progress. If we continue to make progress, we are going to see many fewer people such as Paul Cazabon suffering from the things he is going through now. Those difficulties are very, very difficult for him. I understand that, but we want to stop this happening in the future. The best thing we can do to stop that happening in the future is get the problems under control, as we seem to be getting those problems under control.


Steven W. Langdon: I cannot believe that this minister is telling us the best that he can do is to see an increase of 7,000 in bankruptcy statistics this year. Why can this minister and this Prime Minister not give us some sensitive, caring answers? Instead of action to help Paul Cazabon, the minister is spending another $300,000 on a video.
I ask this minister-

What explanation does the minister have for wasting this kind of money when so many Canadians have gone bankrupt this year?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As I
indicated in my previous answer, Mr. Speaker, I do not take any pleasure in seeing what Paul Cazabon is going through now, but I do know that in the province of Ontario there are a lot fewer Paul Cazabons than there were as recently as 1986. The 1986 statistics show 71 farm

October 24, 1990
Oral Questions
bankruptcies. That reached a low point of 12 in Ontario in 1989. It is up to 19 this year.
The point that I am making is that we are trying hard to make progress. We have put out additional funds, additional support for the farm community through interest-free advances. We are fighting the battles at the GATT to make sure that we have the international problems as well looked after as we can as one single country. We are introducing the goods and services tax that for the farm community will result in a savings in aggregate across the country of $250 million. That is a major assist for the farm community and it will help keep the Paul Cazabons of this countiy from going over the edge into bankruptcy.
That is an indication of the commitment that we have as a government to dealing with the problems in the farm community today.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of energy. The minister is fresh from a meeting with representatives from Canadian oil companies and consumer groups. Given the continued high price of gasoline and the fact that oil companies want to raise prices even higher, with the minister's blessing, adding to their soaring profits, did the minister express to the oil companies his desire to see an immediate decrease in the price of gasoline to bring it in line with the lower oil prices on the world market?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I did meet with the oil companies, as well as consumer groups. I point out to the hon. member what has been said here many times. That is in the Canadian system of accounting for the price of oil at the gas pumps, there is a 60 to 90 day lag. I have said also to the oil companies that I do not expect them to take any advantage of the situation. We discussed that with the consumer groups as well.
In fact, if the hon. member takes a look at the profit pictures, for example, today, I think it is fair to say that one has to look at more than one quarter, if he looks at the downstream side. The figures are different, for example, on the upstream side, depending on the price
of crude that went into the system and the price of crude that went into the refining process.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave this House the assurance, and with him his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that he was watching energy costs very closely. The minister is of course aware that his department has already received a number of complaints from Canadian consumers. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any evidence of fraud. If so, could the minister inform this House of the facts in this respect?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Competition Policy is responsible for examining each case brought to its attention. It has a monitoring role and receives information similar to that just given by the hon. member. In fact, all members of this House have a joint responsibility, if they have the slightest impression or if they have any evidence that might lead one to believe that something is wrong or that there is a failure to comply with the Competition Act, to get in touch with the Director of the Bureau of Competition Policy and give him those facts, to avoid any public perception that there could be abuse in this area. If you have any facts, it is up to you to meet the Director of the Bureau of Competition Policy and give him the facts, and he will investigate the matter. That is his responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you that he will do what is necessary.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for seniors. The minister is surely aware of the number of Canadian senior citizens who live at or below the poverty line. Indeed almost 40 per cent of single seniors live below the poverty line. How can the minister justify the imposition of the goods and services tax on simple things like
October 24, 1990

band-aids and aspirin, which many seniors take to prevent heart attacks?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, to me social justice means helping people who really need it and this is what our government is doing with the GST. We want to share the tax revenue and seniors will be protected within this process.
Our government and myself, as Minister responsible for the rights and also for the responsibilities of older people, are working to help those in need including senior citizens.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. We all know that visiting the doctor is quite expensive for our health care system. Can the minister explain the fact that according to the GST Information Office, a cane or safety bars bought with a prescription is tax-free, but if a person walks in off the street to buy the same item, the GST is charged.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. Member that essential goods will not be taxed and that purchasing power will be the same and even higher for seniors. We are listening to them and trying to help them fill their needs.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver yesterday the Prime Minister committed his government to resolving native land claims and to priorizing native issues.
On November 10, the Innu of Labrador will be marching on Ottawa to advance their land claims and to protest Canada's decision to triple low level military flights over their homelands.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Is his government prepared to extend the same commitment
Oral Questions
to the Innu of Labrador that he extended to natives in B.C.; that is, to settle their land claim fairly and expeditiously and to deal fairly with their objections against low level military test flights.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using statements and numbers that are not accurate, and he knows they are not accurate.
What he does know, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been a decision taken by NATO not to proceed with the NATO tactical fighter centre. He knows that. The Innu know that. We understand, as he does, that there is an overlapping claim. There already are Indian claims, the CAM group and the Labrador Inuit Association which are being addressed by my colleague.
If the Innu of Labrador would use the dollars that the Government of Canada provided to research their claim and submit that claim to the Government of Canada, I am sure the government would look at it and take action.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
The Lubicon people of northwestern Alberta have been waiting for over half a century for a just settlement of their legitimate land claims. All they have received is neglect at best, and wholly unreasonable take-it-or-leave it offers at worst.
Again arising out of the Prime Minister's remarks in B.C. yesterday, when will the government give substance to the Prime Minister's words by starting to bargain in good faith with the Lubicon people? Will the government, when it does so, agree to use the Lubicons' June 1 Draft Settlement Agreement as the basis for that bargaining?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows of this government's commitment to deal with comprehensive and specific claims. Of course, we have been engaged in serious negotiation of the Lubicon claim, at least up until the time last June where that negotiation was suspended. I might remind the hon. member that a United Nations committee, looking into a grievance of the Lubicon, indicated that the federal government was taking an appropriate approach to negotiating and resolving this claim. Finally, I remind the hon. member that the Lubicon demand is vastly in excess

October 24, 1990
Oral Questions
of the settlement which has been achieved with most other native communities in Canada.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for small businesses. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a study yesterday showing that small businesses along our borders from coast to coast are being adversely affected by our tax system. The threat of the GST is going to further complicate this. What does the minister responsible for small businesses say about those tens of thousands of small businesses that are being destroyed by this government's tax policy?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind all of those border communities that the federal government is putting in place, under the GST, a rebate system for everything that visitors from the United States and other countries buy and take home. They get a complete rebate. We are making it very easy for them to apply for it through the duty-free shops. That is the best possible answer for our retailers.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the minister heard my question. The point is that a baby suit or a baby jacket is the same in Buffalo as it is in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. There is only one thing which is different; it is the price. What ideas does he have to put forward to keep those purchases in Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend and congratulate him on his appointment as critic for small business and entrepreneurship. I am glad that he is trying to be creative, especially on this important issue. What is happening here, though, is that the manufacturers' sales tax is being removed for the first time in 65 years. The manufacturers' sales tax will lower the cost of running every single business in Canada, plus foreign tourists will be getting the rebate.
More important, the CFIB made the point yesterday that it feels the level of taxation is too heavy across Canada; municipal, provincial and federal. It believes that the municipal role is even higher than the federal role. We believe in working with the border communi
ties, as we have through our border community task force, to find ways to better market our products, to better position our products, and to help the small business community of Canada.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago it was a tough-talking government that proclaimed its intention to clear the refugee backlog with a new refugee system. Instead, what it has created is a monster that tortures claimants and their families with long delays, will eat hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars and probably give birth to a backlog of its very own.
What is the Prime Minister doing about what has been so aptly described as his Minister of Immigration's costly flop of a program?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we have set up a mechanism which will enable us to catch up with the backlog. As our Minister of Immigration so aptly put it a few days ago, we are well within the time limit. We have taken a humanitarian approach. We review each case on its own merits and we certainly intend to go on working diligently and showing respect for applicants who need our help.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the facts and the figures prove the minister wrong; they prove the Minister of Immigration wrong. In human terms, this government has failed. What we are talking about is people who want a better life for themselves and their families. I want to ask the Prime Minister again: how is he going to have his Minister of Immigration put a stop to her dehumanizing policies and simplify the criteria to clear the backlog?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite ought to read the newspapers now and then. Appearing before the parliamentary committee, Chairman Gordon Fairweather himself spoke highly of the quality of the system set up by the Canadian government and suggested that the international community might take it as an example. We
October 24, 1990

respect people, ours is a humanitarian approach and we will continue to work as we have been doing all along.


SPACE AGENCY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Yesterday the minister said he would soon announce the names of the architects for the space agency, as well as the government's over-all plan for a space program. He went on to say that the plan would meet with the approval of all Canadians.
Can the minister assure us that the new plan does not undermine the federal government policy and Quebec's efforts in the aerospace sector? Does it not also threaten the original development plan announced by other ministers before him?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from Longueuil knows very well that the plan we will unveil with respect to the space agency at Saint-Hubert applies to the rest of Canada as well, and that it will be an excellent plan like other similar plans we have announced so far.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite satisfied with the answer I got and I am surprised. I have the impression that as a Quebecer the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology has enough complexes to be unable to acknowledge the competence of our experts-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but he should put his question, please.


Nic Leblanc: My question- The point is that he has no confidence in professionals in Quebec. He is about to choose- Will the minister award the space agency contract to a competent Quebec firm?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, of course my colleague is not satisfied with my answer, and that is because it is not
Oral Questions
the answer he wanted to have. Still I will continue to give him answers which he feels are the good ones.
With respect to the engineering consultant firm, Mr. Speaker, my colleague found out that Quebec firms were fully qualified for Hibernia since they did land the contract for the structural foundation of the Newfoundland project.
Since the space agency is a Canadian undertaking, as my colleague would know, all Canadian firms were invited to submit tenders. I am sure my colleague will agree-otherwise he would not be as honest as he claims to be-that the government should choose the one firm among all Canadian applicants which will best meet our requirements, according to the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my collegue agrees with the principle that a company cannot be awarded a contract simply because it is based in Quebec. The job will go to Quebec firms if they are qualified to do the work, Mr. Speaker.


FORESTRY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
The Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement on forestry development expired last April. Right away, in co-operation with the Minister of Forestry, the Minister drafted and submitted an offer to the Government of Quebec on August 24 this year. My question is this: Why are Quebec forestry producers being ignored today by Quebec Minister Albert Cote, at a time when they desperately need this money? Quebec forestry workers are sick and tired of waiting. Mr. Minister, are you going to do something? We know that our people in Quebec are ready!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a very good question. It is true that on August 24, the Minister of Forestry sent the Government of Quebec a proposal for negotiating a forestry agreement. The reply we received recently from the Government of Quebec was that the Government of Quebec would determine its position in terms of its priorities.

October 24, 1990
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is anxious to implement agreements in the forestry sector, based on the prevailing situation in that sector. Depending on the speed with which our government receives a reply, we may have to consider options other than this particular type of agreement.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
As he knows, in Saskatchewan, the Rafferty-Alameda dam proceeds without a completed environmental assessment. In Alberta, the Oldman River dam proceeds without a completed environmental assessment. In British Columbia, Alcan's Kemano II project, dams and diversions, proceeds without a completed environmental assessment.
Why should Canadians expect that Quebec's James Bay II dams and diversions will be subjected to a meaningful environmental assessment when none of the dams and diversions in western Canada are and when the National Energy Board has already approved the export licences for James Bay II power to the United States?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already given the answer to that question.
In each case we want to ensure that the environmental concerns of Canadians are met. We are doing that in different circumstances and in different ways.
I can only say to my hon. colleague that the best way he and his party could help in this process is to support strongly Bill C-78 which is now before the House.


James Ross Fulton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The National Round Table of which the minister and the Minister of Finance are members has already dumped on Bill C-78 and that process. I hope he is not suggesting that we should pass it as it is. It is a giant Swiss cheese.
Will the minister assure the House that the same full public inquiry and environmental assessment process that will be applied apparently to James Bay II will be applied to Alcan's Kemano II and that these assessments will be completed and made public before construction proceeds, even if that means delay, modification, or cancellation of part or all of these projects due to environmental concerns?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that this government will satisfy itself that the due environmental review is done in a way to satisfy the public's concern about the environment on all these projects.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superieur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On June 13, he stated in the House that the Minister for International Trade would inform the Americans of this government's intention to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement on lumber, to eliminate the 15 per cent surtax. On October 11, the Minister for International Trade met his American counterpart. Could the Secretary of State tell this House, for the benefit of producers and workers in Canada's lumber industry, whether he honoured the commitment he made in June?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we honoured the commitments we made here in the House. This is a difficult matter, as the hon. member and the House are well aware, and we will keep looking for ways to achieve the objectives of Canadian producers.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, the industry and I have been hearing this song and dance for the last two years.
In the meantime another sawmill went into receivership last week. Another one closed before it went bankrupt. Seven mills have closed. Two thousand jobs have been lost.

Would the minister pass on to the Minister of Finance the message that this government's high interest rate policy is killing the industry? Will this government finally stand up on behalf of the industry and send a termination notice to the Americans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on seeking to cast blame very broadly for this difficult situation facing that particular industry. He has asked me a particular question. I have replied to it.
I have indicated to him that we are working with American authorities and indeed we are keeping in touch with the Canadian industry. We are also keeping in touch with the provinces affected which, as he knows, are very closely involved in this file. We have not made the progress that we hoped to make, but we continue to seek ways in which we can advance the interests of Canadian producers.



Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last week we were shocked to learn that a dam near Elk Lake in northern Ontario broke, spilling what one newspaper account called 10,000 dump truck loads of old mine tailings containing cyanide, arsenic, lead and mercury, into the Montreal River. This is a major disaster for northern Ontario.
What is the minister going to do about it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are quite concerned with this spill situation. Through conversations with the ministry of the environment of Ontario and through press reports we see that there is extensive damage.
We have offered to be of help in the situation, but the hon. member must recognize that this is a matter for the provincial government to deal with. Should it want to indicate that this is a disaster situation then that would obviously trigger federal help in the issue.


Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, many residents in communities along that particular river have been told not to drink their water. I think it is either a responsibility or a shared responsibility of the ministry to seek some kind of action.
Oral Questions
My supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Northern Ontario has literally thousands of old mines that have been closed down, similar to the one in question.
Is the minister monitoring these other closed mines to ensure that that kind of disaster does not happen again in the future? If not, will he commit the House to undertake such an endeavour?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question.
The monitoring under the mines act comes under the responsibility of the provincial government. I am also pleased that my parliamentary secretary phoned the provincial Government of Ontario, asking it to get on with monitoring the work. I appreciate the work that he has done.
I would hope that the provincial government of the NDP, having said what it said in the past about the environment, will now get on with the job and the responsibilities it has.


HOUSING
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing.
In federally subsidized co-op housing projects across this country, 9 per cent of the units are occupied by high income Canadians, those earning over $50,000 per year.
This is an abuse of a program meant for low and medium income Canadians, effectively shutting out the homeless and many needy Canadians from affordable housing.
Will the minister give consideration to either a policy of encouraging high income Canadians to move out of these co-op projects or a policy of charging them market rents?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member is one that is being asked by many Canadians: when so many low income Canadians are on waiting lists for assisted housing and housing dollars are scarce and understandably Canadians do not want to pay any more taxes, is it

October 24, 1990
Privilege
fair that high income Canadians should occupy assisted housing?
Central to the whole question of co-op housing is a philosophy that there be a mix of low and moderate incomes in each co-op housing project. Since 1985 it has been government policy to target scarce housing funds to the core and low income needy Canadians.
I will be making recommendations to cabinet before the end of the year, and of course we will be addressing this issue.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA.
Earlier this year the minister had this to say to me with respect to Technitread Ltd. in Glace Bay: "It is true that Mr. Dicenzo has those detractors who say that he was part of a failed operation and that was something for which he bore responsibility. If that can be proven conclusively and if there has been a mistake made, I will take full responsibility for it." I have in my possession, Mr. Speaker, two memoranda, one sent to the former minister responsible for ACOA, the Hon. Senator Lowell Murray and another sent to the present minister responsible for ACOA, in which the connection between Mr. Dicenzo's operation in Glace Bay was tied conclusively to his operation which had failed in Brantford. In fact, the conditions of the bankruptcy in Brantford were very clear. The minister was aware of them because he signed "I concur" on the memorandum.
Now that it is clear that this government has handed out $1 million of taxpayers' money to a shyster, is the minister now prepared to accept responsibility and do what any responsible minister does in a parliamentary democracy and resign? Is he prepared to do that?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I was thinking how much better this latest expose would have been on television if it had the hon. member for Nickel Belt as moderator. At least we would have a bit more accuracy.
I did undertake that I would look into the allegations. I have done this. There has been no federal funding advanced since the time the hon. member brought this to my attention in committee.
I want to remind my colleague opposite that this particular matter is under investigation, that the amount of moneys advanced is not as great as has been alleged by certain individuals, that there is security available for the realization of some of these funds. I think in fairness he would want to wait until the investigation is over to see whether or not the situation is as he believes it to be.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. I am not asking about an RCMP investigation, I am asking about the minister's responsibility. This matter was brought to the minister's attention by the hon. member for Churchill long before we raised it in committee. Yet $1 million was advanced-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to pursue this on another day.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Marion Reid, Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, you will be in possession of a question of privilege that I filed with you extensively in writing dated October 22. I would like to quickly summarize what I feel is the pith of the question of privilege.
I believe a series of events which concluded on October 12 of this year have violated my ability to represent my constituents and have violated precisely and specifically my freedom of speech.
If the members would look at page 13173 of Hansard of June 27, one will find that an agreement was reached that no changes to the 1984 cabinet guidelines order,

more commonly known as the EARP guidelines, would take place until the Canadian environmental assessment law was in place, known in this Chamber as Bill C-78.
On October 12, 1990 the Cabinet met and this agreement was violated. The 1984 guidelines were violated because Alcan Kemano II dams and diversions were exempted from environmental assessment.
My freedom of speech is violated because I have informed my constituents over many years that based on two facts; first, the June 27, 1990 House agreement, and second, the public statements of the Prime Minister, Ministers of Fisheries McGrath, Fraser, DeBane and LeBlanc, all five of whom publicly endorsed a full public inquiry and environmental assessment and review of what is known as the Kemano II or Kemano Completion Project, that there would be a full public environmental assessment and review.
This exemption of October 12 violates the ruling of the Federal Court on the Rafferty-Alameda dam. It violates the unanimous ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal on the Oldman River dam in Alberta. Now three leading federal scientists have gone public, revealing the nature of political intervention to overrule environmental concerns.
This is the same project which had to be ordered by the Supreme Court during the 1980s to release enough water to allow fish to spawn.
If agreements reached and confirmed on the floor of Parliament are without substance, and I refer to the June 27 agreement, I believe that is a violation of freedom of speech and the ability of any member, particularly an environment spokesperson in the opposition, to cany out his duties.
If the promises of four ministers of fisheries in a row, along with the promise of the present Prime Minister, are without substance, this I believe is clearly a violation of freedom of speech.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to find any substance in the arguments of the hon. member, when you link freedom of speech to a decision that a government can by law make.
Privilege
He talks about an agreement being broken. Any person who cares to look at the facts will remember that the agreement, which the hon. member refers to, was simply that any proposed changes to the EARP guidelines order would be discussed with the special committee examining Bill C-78. That was the agreement, that if the EARP guideline order was amended, then it would go to the committee.
In this instance, the Kemano completion project guidelines order is a separate order pursuant to section 6 of the environment act and not an amendment of the EARP guidelines order.
Anyone who cares to look at this will realize that these are the facts. I submit with respect, Your Honour, in no way are the privileges of the hon. member infringed.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The matter which the hon. member for Skeena has brought to the floor was set out veiy extensively in a letter from the hon. member to the Chair, for which I thank him.
I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Skeena. I also read the letter and the material very carefully. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Whatever one might have to say concerning the events which the hon. member for Skeena has put forward to the House and been responded to by the hon. minister of fisheries, I cannot find that all of the events taken together, or any single one of them, meets that test of privilege which is diminishing, or prohibiting, or preventing the hon. member for Skeena from doing his duties as a member of Parliament.
Therefore I have to rule that it is not a question of privilege.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: On September 28, 1990, the hon. member for Shefford rose on a question of privilege concerning a statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announcing the launch of the Hibernia Development Project, the press release of that statement and certain news reports based on the announcement. The hon. member compared this situation to the

October 24, 1990
Privilege
question of privilege concerning the advertising of the Goods and Services Thx and my ruling of October 10, 1989.
I would like to take this opportunity at the outset to thank all those hon. members who made interventions: the hon. member for Shefford; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader; the hon. member for Kamloops; and the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.

In his presentation the hon. member for Shefford described quite succinctly the situation which existed last year regarding the goods and service tax advertising campaign and accurately summarized the Chair's ruling on that very serious matter. He then went on to liken the situation in 1989 to the September 14 statement of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and its coverage by some of the media.
I would like to thank the hon. member for providing the Chair with a copy of the minister's statement which I have read very carefully.
The hon. member pointed out that certain television reports indicated that the project would begin immediately. He also stated that the premier of Newfoundland had said that Bill C-44, the Hibernia Act, had already been passed. The crux of the hon. member's argument was that the press release and the way it was reported gave the public the impression that the government was using Parliament as a rubber stamp. Parliament was being disregarded and ignored unless all parliamentarians were being insulted.

As was the case with the GST advertisements, the Chair must look at two issues. First of all, has there been a breach of privilege insofar as the press release and certain media reports prejudice the work of the House? Secondly, does this matter constitute a contempt of Parliament because it is inferred that the House is merely a rubber stamp with no role to play in the final go ahead of the Hibernia Project? I would refer hon. members to my lengthy ruling of October 10, 1989, on the GST advertisements and to the ruling of December 18, 1989, on a related question.
While superficially there may be a similarity between these issues, at their heart the two situations are very different.

Having read the Hibernia development press release and some of the media reports, as well as the testimony of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before the legislative committee on Bill C-44 and before the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, it is abundantly clear to the Chair that there was no attempt on anyone's part to mislead this House, or to imply that the passage of Bill C-44 was a fait accompli. The thrust of the press release of the minister's statement was that the Government of Canada and the other parties to the project had resolved all outstanding issues in their negotiations and that agreements binding all parties had been completed. These agreements would, to quote the press release, and I am now quoting exactly the press release, "now go into escrow, where they will be held by an independent third party until they can be signed formally following the passage of Bill C-44, the Hibernia Act, by Parliament this fall".

The statement leaves no impression that legislation has not been submitted to Parliament. The reference to the role of Parliament is not ambiguous and even press reports noted that the completion of the deal was contingent on the passage by Parliament of the enabling legislation.

One aspect of this issue which may appear confusing to the media and the general public is the fact that work is beginning on this project before Bill C-44 has been enacted. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the hon. member for Humber- St. Barbe-Baie Verte both pointed out, start-up funding for the project from the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund has already been approved by Parliament. This was also pointed out in the minister's statement. The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte also noted, quite rightly, that if Bill C-44 is not enacted, the project will be shut down when it runs out of interim financing.
October 24, 1990



It is contingent on all levels of government, on parliamentarians and on the media to explain to Canadians, as carefully and completely as possible, complex issues such as the funding of the Hibernia Development Project. It is my view that the minister's press release was careful (in tone and content) and clearly respected the role of the House of Commons. Accordingly I must rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the regulations restoring benefits for self-employed fishermen and, particularly, the regulations on the 10-to-14-week variable entrance requirements governing the eligibility of independent fishermen for unemployment insurance benefits.
I am tabling this document pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and Unemployment Insurance Act section 130(3).


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages an Order in Council appointment which was made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), it is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee.
Routine Proceedings LEBANON


ASSASSINATION OF DANY CHAMOUN
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion, which is seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. I move:
That this House, in this time of sadness in Lebanon over the death
of political leader Dany Chamoun, extends its sincere sympathy to the
people of Lebanon and that this House continues to pledge its
support for sovereignty, independence, and peace in Lebanon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition today. The petitioners reside in Scarborough, Thornhill, Mississauga, Oakville, Toronto, and Etobicoke. They are concerned about the labelling on packaged foods.
As a result of some tragic deaths in Canada of young people who had very severe allergic reactions, the petitioners insist on having some action on the part of this Parliament to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in pre-packaged foods, in place of the general classification that is presently in place.
The petitioners are also calling on restaurateurs and food retailers to provide to customers a list of all the food ingredients and additives in their prepared foods served in the restaurants and available through the food retailers.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition is certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions which is signed by almost 5,360 people from the cities of

October 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Cambridge, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, and the surrounding area.
These petitions were collected as a result of a rash of convenience store robberies. It was a group of citizens who co-ordinated their efforts. They have petitioned for a revision to the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated Juvenile Delinquent Act with the lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and indeed a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from various communities in Ontario who are opposed to the government's decision to impose a special tax on reading material. The petitioners point out that this will make Canada virtually the only country in the world that has a tax on reading material, newspapers, magazines, books, and so on. They are asking the government to refrain from this initiative.
Second, Mr. Speaker, on another topic, I have quite a number of petitions signed by people from Kamloops, Logan Lake, Clearwater, Birch Island, and Red Lake, British Columbia, who are all concerned that the government's decision to proceed with the goods and services tax.
The petitioners state that it goes against the better interests of the Canadian economy. They point out that this tax will be inflationary and, consequently, will result in higher interest rates and, therefore, lower disposable income leading to a further worsening of the recession. They are asking the government to back off from proceeding with the 7 per cent goods and services tax.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen -Merritt):: Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present yet another petition against this dastardly tax, the goods and services tax.
I add the names of these people from various points in Ontario to those from across Canada which I have already presented to this House, who ask this government to reject the proposed goods and services tax and cause the government to cease with a proposal which will
shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax, instead of through real tax reform.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition with signatures collected over the Labour Day weekend in my riding. It is concerned with the cable industry in Canada.
The petitioners point out that cable companies made an average of 32 per cent profit on fixed assets in 1988, or more than twice the level of the regulated telephone companies and that cable prices increased by 6 per cent annually between 1984 and 1988. The petitioners ask that Parliament adopt Bill C-284 and apply rate-of-return regulations on the cable industry.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting four petitions on behalf of citizens from across Canada who-no surprise-are opposed to the goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that it is an unfair and regressive tax and that the government is now going to be taxing reading material, haircuts, diapers, and heating oil. They pray that the tax reform system which the government would bring in would be one that taxes people fairly and puts a minimum tax on corporations and those who are able to pay. The petitioners insist that if there is an imposition of a sales tax, such as the government is proposing, that it have broad consensus and that it be reformed in such a way that it does not also become a massive tax grab.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the pleasure of rising in the House to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia who are wishing to have the federal government rescind the goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that the Prime Minister and the government has completely lost its mandate at 15 per cent in the polls. There can be absolutely no justification for implementation of such an unpopular, regressive tax.
October 24, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal on a short point of order.



LEBANON


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to speak briefly to the motion that was unanimously adopted by the House and put forward by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I wanted to advise that I joined with my colleague in seconding this motion because I felt it important that we urge all the parties involved in the wrenching turmoil in Lebanon to come to grips with the root cause of their agonies.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chamoun's death is another reminder that the violence in the Middle East will continue until the main issue is dealt with in a fair and acceptable way. The responsibility for that rests with us all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to which my hon. friend has just spoken. I simply want to associate myself and my caucus with the motion put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. Of course, it is in all of our interests and we hope and pray daily that sovereignty, independence, and peace in Lebanon becomes a reality soon.
I simply want to say, on behalf of my caucus, we associate ourselves with the previous comments.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: On behalf of our caucus, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that we are very proud of our member for Ottawa Centre and that the initiative he took today had our unanimous consent. We took it for granted that there would be no debate. But if we are to have a debate, we too support this proposition. In fact the unanimous consent of the House was sought and obtained, therefore the matter is closed.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, unanimous consent was sought and obtained. The hon. member was the seconder of the motion and I thought I would give him an opportunity to say a few words.
I think that that is it. We will go to Questions on the Order Paper.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we too gave our unanimous consent so there would be no need for a debate because we fully agree with the contents of the motion, especially with respect to Lebanon sovereignty and the quest for peace. We express sympathy for the afflicted families. It should be obvious that all members of the House-including those of the Bloc quebecois-support this highly commendable motion.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all notices of motion for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-78,
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1990
Government Orders
an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate at second reading stage, having had an opportunity to sit on a committee with other members on a pre-study of this bill.
As a former chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment, I feel that perhaps what is already in existence is probably good enough to start with and that we should make it stronger rather than weaker. This bill is not strong enough. I just want to explain the reasons why I feel that what is already in existence is strong enough. The departments and the responsible authorities, perhaps, did not realize there are already, in existence, guidelines that have to be followed.
I had a very real experience in my own constituency which started in the summer of 1988 with an ACOA grant, of all things. No one would think that the giving of an ACOA grant would be of such importance to residents of a given community and create such a stir. This happened to be an ACOA grant for an aggregates plant in Southwest Nova. This plant grinds rock and makes gravel and entails a lot of run-off and a lot of air pollution because of the crusher and other equipment. The grant was substantial. We do not get too many grants of that size. The grant from ACOA was over $800,000.
At the time, I suggested that there should have been an environmental impact study on the giving of money under that grant to that particular site in view of the public concern, which was given no opportunity to be aired.
Oddly enough, the grant was announced in September. The Department of the Environment satisfied itself with ACOA action in a letter in November of that year after the grant had been approved, but before funds had been given out. I thought every opportunity should have been taken by the Department of the Environment or at least have a hearing to allow the people to state their concerns over the giving of public money for a project where there was definitely opposition.
The odd thing that happened after the little encounter that I had with the Department of the Environment and ACOA was that on May 22, 1990, an exclusion list was put forward under the existing law. We have an environmental assessment and review process, and yet we have an exclusion list brought forward by ACOA for any future funding. It presented its exclusion list to the Department of the Environment.
This is exactly what is wrong with this bill. There is not enough power in the Ministry of the Environment, or the new agency', to totally reject a project and force the Governor in Council, cabinet, to defend a decision that is contradictory to a review recommendation or where the Minister of the Environment or the agency which will be set up under this bill could totally reject the project. Then we would have to see the basis of whatever the cabinet felt was the values involved in the project in order to go ahead with funding.
That, in my opinion, is what is lacking. There are no teeth in this bill to make the government accountable for a project in which it is overstepping the bounds of its own act.
Let me tell you that the definition within the bill is very commendable. The preamble is very commendable. The purposes of the bill are commendable. You can summarize clause 4 in three parts: first, to ensure the careful consideration of the environmental effect of federal projects; second, to encourage actions which promote and maintain both a healthy economy and a healthy environment; and third, to safeguard against serious transporter environmental effects.
We have gone over the Rafferty-Alameda dam project in this House and we have seen the ineptitude throughout the whole process with the courts saying that a review should have been done before the federal government took part in that process, issued the licences or gave out any money of any type. There was no review in the court sent to the government.
Today, we have a government that is scared to take away the licence of that project because on one hand, it is scared to do it, and on the other hand, it has not followed its own process. It may have a contract, and it may have set up a review process. Obviously, something is wrong when there is this mix-up what with continuation of that dam project that we have seen in the last two
October 24, 1990

weeks, and the Saskatchewan government totally ignoring the federal Minister of the Environment.
I cannot emphasize enough that this bill does not allow the agency to reject outright a project. It only allows the agency to review a project after the project manager, the responsible authority, the government department that wants to fund that project, after that government department does the screening. That is the way I understand it. The agency can say it goes along with whatever the recommendations are, and there is no need to go further. If it says some areas are being violated, it can set a mediation or a panel review. But at no point in the screening can it reject it totally. There must a mediation or a review panel.
The whole object of this bill is to try to find a negotiated settlement to environmental concerns. I do not think that the people in Canada want to see negotiated settlements if there are real concerns about the environment with respect to projects funded by this federal government.
I congratulate them that it put in a section so that we can get into discussions with provinces as to concerns over jurisdiction and transboundary concerns with the Americans on joint projects and studies. That will happen only if those parties want to become a party to the federal process. This bill will be studied again, but there are so many things that weaken it that I truly feel that a prestudy of the bill should have been done before second reading.
Some of the things that weaken it are references to being able to set up mandatory lists of projects, exclusions to lists that must be reviewed and the criteria of what will, under regulations, be excluded. I refer to clause 5 of the bill where there are projects to be assessed. There are four subclauses to clause 5. These are the type of projects that should be assessed: a project proposed by a federal authority; a project financed in whole or in part by a federal authority, unless a project was not identified at the time of financing and the federal authority would have no power with respect to the project after it was identified; a project requiring the transfer or lease of lands by a federal authority unless the project was not identified at the time of the transfer, and a project for which a federal authority issues a permit or a licence, grants an approval or takes any other
Government Orders
action in order to facilitate the project. These are the things which would trigger the projects that should be assessed. Then you go to clause 55 and these are the regulations. It refers to the Governor in Council. That is our cabinet or any cabinet of the day, which has a great discretion. I pick out three of the clauses that it may make regulations about.
Under subclause (b) it may make regulations about prescribing a list of projects or classes of projects for which an environmental assessment is not required where the Governor in Council or the cabinet of the day is of the opinion that the environmental effects of the project are likely to be negligible.
What is negligible? Negligible to someone in downtown Toronto may be a $1 million project. In South West Nova that may affect 120 families. That might be negligible to someone in Ottawa. It is not negligible to the people in rural Canada. It is not negligible if it is going to destroy the value of their homes, their wealth and their environment. That is what that ACOA grant did.
Under the present rules, they were able to put in an exclusion list as of May 22, 1990. I am sure no one at ACOA ever thought that their projects had to be screened. I remember, having been on the committee when that regulation was passed or prior to it being passed, that any government project had to be looked at to see if there was an environmental effect and, if so, what effect it would have in the dispensing of that money.
So, negligible in clause 55 has a lot of interpretation. A $1 million grant might be negligible in Edmonton, but it is not negligible in southwestern Nova Scotia. If you talk to the people in Lockeport today, you will know that $1 million will go a long way toward helping them achieve some type of stability in restoring their livelihood.
Subclause (d) prescribes a list of projects, or classes of projects, for which an environmental assessment is not required. Remember this is the governor in council, not the agency. If you gave the new agency the ability to decide this, you might feel that they were putting the environment first, rather than a cabinet formed from different responsible authorities and different departments, as under the act. This is giving it to the governor

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
in council, it is not giving it to the new agency. The governor in council in subclause (d) may make regulations prescribing a list of projects, or classes of projects, for which an environmental assessment is not required, where the governor in council-and remember, Mr. Speaker, we only have one minister from Nova Scotia- is of the opinion that the contribution of the responsible authority to the projects through the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties or functions is minimal.
I wonder what it would do with Point Aconi where it was only the Department of Fisheries that had a federal responsibility in the environmental process. I wonder what it would do with the Nova Scotia tidal power project that is in existence today and kills thousands of fish. The government was told in the past that that project would kill fish. It also caused erosion. The government is going to make it into a sanctuary for ducks now that the fish are destroyed in the river. There would not have to be a review because it might be considered minimal in the sense that this government's policy as it relates to fish is anything goes.
Look at the west coast. We saw it last week. Look at Point Aconi. There was no problem with the fisheries and obviously it is a prescribed attitude of this government that if it does not affect the big, then it will not worry about the small. If the big companies are not complaining, it will not worry about the small people who may complain. We just have to look at free trade and the ads about that, even though communities are dying because of the free trade agreement.
I want to go back to the responsible authority and describe for my constituents and others across Canada what happens. The responsible authority, the departmental minister or deputy minister, or someone, because not all projects go to the ministerial level, screens the project, sends it to the agency and the agency either sets up mediation or a review panel if the agency feels there should be one. If the agency feels that there is nothing wrong with it, it can go ahead as long as there is public notice given, and public notice in Canada means The Canada Gazette. Ordinary Canadians do not read that gazette to find out what the Government of Canada is proposing. Unless there is someone who wants to talk about it, who wants to bring it to the attention of people, we will not know, because if it goes back to ACOA, it does not have to tell anyone who it will fund or what it
will give. It is usually after the fact, after the announcement that you get the concerns of the people.
The Minister of Finance may like this legislation because he has more control over the costs of expensive review processes. I have seen expensive review processes happen. I have seen one happen in the last few years. A most qualified group of people looked at it and gave a report that was positive. Yet we will never have that type of review again. The government would not follow it because it had its own agenda.
As long as we give no power to the agency to reject totally, let the Governor in Council defend the project for Canadian people and then let the Canadian people decide if a decision of the Governor in Council is right or wrong, if that power were in the bill, I could go along with its purposes.
However, as long as they narrow the purposes of this bill so that there are no teeth in it, there is something wrong with trying to pass it when there is already a process in existence requiring every agency in the federal government, before they take part in any project, to have a review of the project as it affects the environment. If they are not going to give it teeth, I think we should go with the status quo, and we know the courts have said that they must have a review.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the hon. member's speech on this important bill. I am encouraged to hear that she also is opposed to the passage of the bill in its present form.
The deficiencies in Bill C-78 are evident for anyone who has read the bill, although there was a lot of hype when the bill was first introduced and there was a lot of hope among Canadians that we would finally have a real environmental assessment process to meet the challenges that face us in the 1990s and on.
Some of the deficiencies that are evident are in the whole process design of environmental assessment. The process must be effective in guiding and encouraging and, where necessary, forcing environmental responsibility into all stages of the conception, planning, and approval of environmentally significant undertakings.
The member was speaking as a member from Atlantic Canada. She mentioned the Point Aconi process where it is evident that the environmental assessment was not followed. There is another Atlantic Canada initiative, the whole Hibernia undertaking. There is a significant
October 24, 1990

amount of taxpayers' money going into it, and there is no test of sustainability in either one of those projects.
I would like her comments on particularly the Hibernia project involving billions, of taxpayers' dollars. We know who pays the majority of the taxes in this country. It is ordinary Canadians, to a far greater degree than large corporations. I would like her response to those two projects, Hibernia and Point Aconi.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's question. I will say this about Hibernia: we in the east do not get too many major projects. This is one of them. Oil and gas in the east is perhaps one of the future areas of development, particularly if we relate it to the fisheries, what is happening on the east coast, and this government's attitude toward the fisheries.
In oil and gas there have been effective actions on the environment on Georges Bank. When it wanted to put an oil rig there or go out to look for development, the people in the area rejected it. The fishermen rejected it. The citizens in the southern end that I represent did such a fine job of opposing it that there were no rigs on Georges Bank.
There have been studies on Hibernia. I am not as close to Hibernia as I am to Sable Island or to Georges Bank.
If there are people in Newfoundland who are satisfied with the process that was used on Hibernia, and the government is satisfied with the process, then I cannot say-and I have not seen too many people in the east opposed to the process used on Hibernia, and I say that quite honestly-they have weighed the environmental consequences of the development of Hibernia.
I might have a different view from some of the people who are going ahead with it. I also know that at one time the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was doing some of the exploration for oil and gas on the east coast. There were studies done about what was to be done in the event of a crisis in the water in the future: who was to pay the costs, and things like that. I know that there was a very intensive study done. I know that every
Government Orders
segment of industry on the east coast took part as far as Hibernia was concerned.
I can agree that as a federal government or a provincial government we do not make people aware enough of just what is going to happen and whether or not our decisions are based on a full evaluation of the consequences. I say this because people do look at the jobs that can be created. That is the present day concern. The review process, the safeguards, and the safety nets were not considered in the process before.
As far as some of the fines and the penalties that were brought in for any sort of destruction of the environment by oil companies are concerned, they have been set in the process. Maybe after five or six years we should be looking at some of it in terms of the destructiveness of such a project.
I certainly am well aware that the Canadian public is never as aware as it should be until after the fact. I do not know if there is not a role in here for doing this. I welcome in this act the follow-up to anything that has been reviewed and anything the mediator or the review panel has put in; but people must know that there is a follow-up program and what their rights are under it.
As well, under this bill there is a fund for people to take action. We do not know how much money will be put into the fund, whether it is only an injunction or whether one can proceed right to the Supreme Court. I can only say that there is a lot more we can do to make people aware and allow people to weigh the consequences of a decision by cabinet, by governments, whether provincial or federal, as to their environment.
In my own province they may not follow it, but at least there is a guideline that people know each step of the way where to go to intervene, as is being done presently for development on Digby Neck.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that I am sure the hon. member has studied the bill with care, I find it difficult to understand how she could reach the conclusion that this was, in her words, "toothless legislation", particularly in light of the fact that those who are writing on behalf of the Dutch government-and I think that we all understand that the Dutch government has a world-wide reputation for being leaders in the field of environmental protection-wrote a letter of August 3 to Mr. Robinson who is in charge of FEARO. They said in part:
Bill C-78, it is not the most exciting name but the content counts.
We, the whole EIA-department, would like to congratulate you and
FEARO with this milestone.
They continued:

Government Orders
These new elements will bring Canada back to the lead in EIA
regulation! And give us inspiration for new developments.
That is an extremely noteworthy compliment to be received from a government for which we at least on this side of the House have a great deal of respect. With all deference to the hon. member, it would seem to me that this individual who is head of EIA department in the Dutch government is an individual whose views I would certainly hold in great esteem. I am wondering how the contrast could be so great.


Coline M. Campbell: Holland, Mr. Speaker, is a very small country. Its government may think that this legislation looks good and maybe it would like to have it there. However, this legislation is not as strong as the existing guidelines wherein one had to do something in order to be in compliance with them.
This time the responsible authority will screen. It will go to the agency. The agency will make a decision as to how much further it goes, but the agency does not have the teeth to reject. I do not see that it has much power.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow along on that point because we have seen the track record of this government when it comes to national standards. It seems to retreat from national standards.
I want to cite specifically Bill C-29 respecting the forestry act wherein we have a definition of sustainable development. That is the national standard. Presumably Bill C-29 is the national forestry standard for this country which has been put forward by this government. Time after time we have seen where the provincial standard is lower and yet our standard is subservient.
Does the member not think that without the necessary teeth to rule supreme on this act we are going to see a situation evolve across this country where we have 10,11, or 12 different standards?


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would say definitely we will have 12 different standards. The most important point about this legislation is that if the government of the day decides that water is not important then chances are it is going to destroy the water.
It allows the Governor in Council to make the ultimate power to control the process. I think we should have the guts, the boldness, and the leadership in a country this size, with the natural resources at our
disposal, to enhance our environmental review process, and to give the minister or this new agency sole discretion to make the decision as to the effect on the environment that the project will have, and then have the government have the guts to say to the people: "We are going against that."


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I am fully prepared to proceed with debate. However, my colleague from Prince Edward Island who represents the riding of Egmont is ready to proceed.
I would only ask, on this point of order, if the Minister of Finance would be kind enough to remain for the rest of the day so that he will have an opportunity to hear my speech first-hand. Then perhaps he would respond with some questions and thereafter we could have a good debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: This decision and an earlier one handed down by the Federal Court on January 24, 1990-this was a case which involved the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the federal Minister of the Environment and had to do with the Rafferty-Alameda dam project in Saskatchewan- were landmark decisions that greatly influenced the federal government's decision to go ahead with this piece of legislation.
Many observers claim that these two Federal Court decisions have conferred on the guidelines order new powers which are fully backed by judicial precedence. It is against this new background that we have to balance and compare the provisions contained in Bill C-78.
This was a long-awaited bill. The people of Canada had been promised legislation over six years ago. They had been promised a bill which would take the oft expressed goals and ideals of the government and translate them into something concrete, into something that people could look at and say our government is really concerned. These people thought they were getting legislation of substance and with teeth.
The people of this country who are legitimately concerned with the state of our environment, who are legitimately concerned about the kind of world we are going to pass on to our children, who have listened time and time again to this government's boast that Canada is a world leader in environmental protection, are a very disillusioned group today. Their great expectations have been dashed. This bill has both disappointed and angered every environmental group in the country, including environmental law experts.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker? What has gone so wrong so as to provoke such a barrage of criticism, such a massive condemnation from individuals and groups with such expertise in environmental matters?
The flaws begin early. They begin in the preamble. An environmentally conscious public has demanded that we establish sustainable development as a major goal. This government has regularly paid lip service to this goal. Yet the term "sustainable development" does not appear. Much of the text alludes to sustainable development but we seem to have another example of aversion to precise terminology.
For several weeks the Minister of Finance refused to use the infamous r word; this despite the fact that everyone else in the country knew we were in a reces-
Government Orders
sion. Everyone including the Minister of Finance discussed the policies that caused the recession. Everyone including the Minister of Finance discussed the economic horror stories that were beginning to unfold because of the recession, yet the minister refused to admit that we were in a recession. Finally, the minister has come to grips with reality. He finally used the terminology the country was familiar with. He finally admitted Canada was in a recession and further admitted it was a good thing for this country.
Now the Minister of the Environment says he is talking about sustainable development, but he refuses to use the term. Why such an aversion to precision, to a definition of terms? The Brundtland report defines sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Is this the definition that the Minister of the Environment is using or does he have a different one? I would think that if the overriding purpose of this whole legislative exercise is the fostering of sustainable development, then we should at least have established exactly what it is that sustainable development means. Such statements as "ensuring that economic development is compatible with the high value Canadians place on environmental quality" and "to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration" are so vague and so subject to interpretation as to be virtually meaningless.
In addition to a lack of clarity in the purpose of the bill, there are further problems with some of the terms, including the restrictive definition of the term "environment" especially when one looks at the definition of "environmental effects".
Also included in this category would be the term "federal authority". Why are the commissioners of the Territories and the Council of Indian Bands not included?
The conditions set out in clause V for the review of a project are even weaker and more restrictive than the guidelines order presently in existence. The four new conditions in this bill would be, first, that the federal government is the proponent or initiator of a project; second, that federal funding is involved in the project; third, that the project is on federal land or affects federal land; and fourth, that federal approval is required, that is, a licence or a permit, et cetera.

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
The existing EARP guidelines order says, and I quote:
These guidelines shall apply to any proposal that may have an
environmental effect on an area of federal responsibility.
Clearly the conditions in this bill are weaker than those in the old legislation. Time prohibits a detailed analysis of every clause in the bill, but I think the point has been made. Bill C-78 does not satisfy the legislative requirements necessary to protect our environment. Public interest and public concern in environmental matters are so great at present that environmental impact assessment has to be a priority item for this or any other government.
In view of the importance and the urgency of environmental impact legislation, we cannot be satisfied with an imprecise, toothless piece of legislation such as the bill presently before us. While regulations required to implement the bill have not yet been drafted, we really have very little idea of the scope of the legislation.
When the Cabinet has such wide-ranging discretionary powers so as to say just "trust us", we do not have a legitimate bill. We are putting the onus on environmental groups and concerned individuals to create such a hue and cry on every issue that the government would have to react.
There are simply too many discretionary situations in this bill. Granted, many of the "mays" in the old guidelines order have been replaced by "wills". However, we now have expressions such as, and I quote, "where deemed appropriate" and "in the opinion of the responsible authority". These types of Cabinet discretionary powers are not acceptable in an area of such vital importance to all Canadians.
The degree and the ferocity of the condemnation of this bill is really not surprising. Highly reputable groups have unanimously rejected this bill. The Saskatchewan Action Foundation for the Environment says the proposed legislation intends to completely eviscerate the laws of Canada as they presently exist under the EARP guidelines order as interpreted in the Rafferty-Alameda and subsequent cases; and the foundation goes on to say that in fact, a comparison of the legislation to the briefing documents issued by the federal government discloses that the government is saying something and doing exactly the opposite.
The Manitoba Environmentalists Inc. says the legislation needs a major overhaul. They say "there are so many problems with this bill it needs a virtual rewrite. The intent of this bill is to return environmental assessment to yesteryear". Not a very good recommendation.
A conference of experts which met in Ottawa in early October harshly criticized the proposed legislation. Elizabeth Swanson of the Alberta Environmental Law Center said: "This legislation will undo everything that has been achieved in recent court decisions".
In addition to all of this, on Tuesday of this week the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a group established by the government in March, 1989, made public its advice to the Prime Minister on how to strengthen the new environmental assessment reform package. Key to their report was an emphasis on public participation in all phases of the assessment process. Public confidence in the process has to be established and above all the government must be accountable to the public for its entire environmental assessment operation.
The evidence is overwhelming. This bill does not meet the expectations of the people of Canada. It does not measure up to the expectations of its own appointed environment and economy committee. It is so seriously flawed that it should be withdrawn and redrafted, or the government must be prepared to accept major amendments in committee. Their track record in accepting opposition amendments does not lead me to expect very much in this regard.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the need to define sustainable development in terms of the Brundtland commission as an appropriate location for such a definition.
I wonder if he would address himself to the second paragraph in the bill where it says:
Whereas environmental assessment provides an effective means of integrating environmental factors into planning and decisionmaking processes in a manner that ensures that present needs are met without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future generations;
October 24, 1990

Would the member not recognize in the latter part of the sentence the very definition of sustainable development as used in the Brundtland report?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
If the definition of sustainable development is a very important aspect of the legislation, why has the government refused to give a definition and to include that definition as part of the bill?
What is the government afraid of? Why is it so afraid to be bound to a strict interpretation which could be incorporated in the bill so all Canadians will know exactly what the government means when it says sustainable development. Why does it not put the definition in right now?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the member's speech on Bill C-78. I was heartened to hear him bring up the whole issue of definitions and the importance of definitions in this whole debate. What we are talking about is sustainability. Sustainability is a term that requires greater focusing on definition.
We must also define more broadly what the term environment means. We must adopt a broader term to include the social, economic and cultural environment as well as the biophysical environment. The term "environmental effects" also has to be broadened. The definition must be included to the long-term individual, additive, synergistic and punitive effects.
I am quoting from a paper by Dr. Robert Gibson who is with the department of environment and resource studies from the University of Waterloo. I recommend this paper to the government. It is entitled The Basic Requirements for Environmental Assessment Processes. Although I was opposed to the bill before I read it, it heightened my opposition to Bill C-78 because the evident flaws in Bill C-78 became all the more clear having read this paper.
This is a bill that is fatally flawed. I agree with the member's assessment that it should be withdrawn, completely redrafted and brought back. It is so shot full of holes, as my hon. colleague from Skeena points out-he entitles it Swiss cheese-in his usual colourful way he has encapsulated the whole problem with the bill. It is shot full of holes and should be withdrawn from the
Government Orders
Order Paper. Otherwise, I recommend that members such as the previous speaker vote against it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the previous point that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment made.
He brought up the point about sustainable development being in the bill. Once again this government thinks that we on this side have not become aware of the trick that it is using. There is a preamble to a bill which describes it in general and then there is the body. It is only when we have the words in the body of the bill that it really has teeth and substance.
I want to ask the hon. member's view, again, on this national standard question. I happen to believe with the words "sustainable development" left just in the preamble, when it comes to enforcing standards coast to coast, the bill does not really have any teeth. I repeat, does the hon. member not agree with me that, once again, this is going to weaken the national standards for this very important issue?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the clarification he has just made. Canadians, right across the country, are looking for a precise definition of what sustainable development is and what is the actual contents of an environmental assessment.
In Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, there was an EARP recently done on the fixed link between P.E.I. and New Brunswick. This whole thing about the fixed link was begun by two ex-ministers, people who are no longer with us today, but the seeds that they have sown are still with us. The ex-Minister of the Environment was prepared to go to build a fixed link, even without an environmental assessment. This was a federal Minister of the Environment who was willing to take on a really crucial and a major project in eastern Canada, without an environmental assessment review, because he was willing to do it for political purposes.
Anyway, cooler heads prevailed and the environmental assessment review was done and reported. We were really no better off after the assessment than before the assessment. People in Prince Edward Island still do not know whether the link is an on project or an off project. What Canadians are looking for is to know when a project is environmentally feasible and when it is not.

October 24, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-78, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process.
It is with some regret that I have to enter this debate at second reading. I feel the haste with which the government is moving on this bill is a little bit unusual. It really cannot be justified, given the arguments that were presented by the government some time ago.
What is set in place by this legislation must be as tight as it can possibly be. We have to ensure that we have the best possible legislation because what we set in place here with Bill C-78 will likely stand for many, many years to come. And our environment is perhaps the most important area of concern for this government and all future governments.
As a father with two small children who are going to inherit the world that we leave behind, I feel very strongly that the work that we do in the House now to protect our environment is very important for their future.
The environment must be a sincere government priority and that requires action and not just words on behalf of the government. Those actions mean a very strong and sincere piece of legislation which will stand the test of time. It takes time to make the legislation do what we want it to do. It takes time to get good and adequate legislation. Let us take that time. Let us take the time to ensure that we do it right.
I am reminded of something that I was told as a youngster by person I admire very much. That person told me: "If you do not have the time to do something right the first time, when are you going to get the time to do it over again?" In other words, we cannot afford to make mistakes at this juncture.
As I see it, the government is rushing through this legislation in the hope of completing it quickly in order to get on with other business when, in fact, this proposed legislation should receive the most intensive study we give any bill in the House. In environmental matters, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we will get the time or the opportunity to do this over again.
The existing process obviously is not working. The existing guidelines that are in place obviously are not working. The dispute over the Rafferty-Alameda project in my own province is just one example. An editorial that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 22, 1990 blames both the federal and the provincial governments for the problems that exist. It blames the legislation and the process that governments are following for the problems. The Winnipeg Free Press claims that both the federal and provincial governments are heedless of the environment and the law. I quote:
The sight of bulldozers moving earth near Estevan in complete disregard of federal law is startling. So too are the allegations from a Saskatchewan official that his development agency has every right to move earth because the federal environmental review process is mismanaged and worse than a sham.
That is a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of the day before yesterday.
The allegations that exist there deserve a reply and a public hearing. We have had a review panel in place for eight months on that project. They claim they need more time. I am not in a position to say they need more time, but they are on the spot and they know what they need. The federal government, the federal process, must allow for the proper and adequate environmental protection process to occur.
The Winnipeg Free Press editorial concludes:
It may be a long time before the dust settles on the issues at stake in the Rafferty and Alameda development. The dinosaurs have made a good mess of them.
The dinosaurs being the people in charge of the environmental process federally and provincially.
The process is what we are talking about in Bill C-78, and the process is what is crucial to this whole process, this whole project.
The government earlier had set up a pre-study committee on Bill C-78. That pre-study committee was to look at the bill and what was happening within the industry within the country, and to try to make the bill the best that it possibly could be before it came into this House for second reading. Here we are at second reading on the bill and the pre-study committee on Bill C-78 has yet to hear a single witness.
October 24, 1990

The pre-study committee, though, has met. It has established memberships. It has elected a chairperson. It has hired a clerk, a researcher, and a lawyer. It has established a schedule for hearings, identified witnesses, and contacted those witnesses to establish a specific schedule for hearings.
That pre-study committee is being pushed aside by the House discussing Bill C-78 in this second reading debate. That is one of the main reasons why I regret having to stand in my place here today to discuss this bill, before we have had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the expert witnesses, and the interested and concerned groups and individuals out there. It is one of the reasons I believe that the government is acting in haste to get this legislation passed. That pre-study committee obviously was important to the government, to the opposition, and to the people of the country just a few months ago. Why is that pre-study committee not now so important?
The government has brought in Bill C-78 for second reading, ignoring that reference to the pre-study committee and it appears to be rushing to get this legislation through as quickly as possible. With its bent toward closure, Mr. Speaker, I would bet that we are going to see closure on Bill C-78, too, in the very near future.
The House and Canada want this bill to be as good as possible. There is no reason to rush this through. There is every reason in the world to hear all the evidence and testimony that is being prepared to come before the pre-study committee.
Since the government had set up a process that would ensure adequate and proper study, we should be following that process and not trying to pre-empt it. We have to do this correctly because, as I said before, we will not have the time to do it again.
Earlier today in Question Period, my colleague from Skeena, the NDP's environmental critic, raised the question with the Minister of the Environment. He pointed out that the new environmental assessment package that the government claims is the best in the world needs major changes because a top level ecological forum said so on Tuesday.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was set up more than a year ago by the Prime Minister. It includes the environment minister and the finance minister, as well as business leaders and
Government Orders
environmentalists. That Round Table on Tuesday recommended that the environmental reforms introduced by the government in June had to be tightened, that an environmental auditor be named, and that cabinet documents on the ecological implications of government decisions be made available to the public.
The chairman of that Round Table, Mr. David Johnston, principal of McGill University in Montreal, said that the changes are needed because the government departments that put forward the proposals to cabinet will also carry out the environmental assessments. "There is a need for public confidence in the process," Mr. Johnston said.
Obviously, these are the types of things that we need to be doing and working on in the pre-study committee before this bill comes to the House for second reading, discussion, and full debate in the Chamber.
The key to all this is that this debate has to be built around the best possible bill and that we do it in a process that has been established ahead of time.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I had indicated that the national forum had called for an environmental auditor to be named. I know that you are a well read individual. You will be aware that the New Democratic Party's task force on the environment, in its document released earlier this year, also called for an independent auditor.
It is worth noting that an independent auditor was mentioned in the original draft of Bill C-78. Somehow, in the final version that we now have before us, the presence of an independent auditor is not in place. I wonder why. We should be discussing that in the pre-study committee.
There are lots of things that are wrong with Bill C-78, and I should just mention a few of them here before my time expires.
The bill is actually less effective than the EARP guidelines which are currently in place. The bill undoes progress made through court decisions such as the Muldoon decision on the Rafferty-Alameda Dam. That is something that concerns me personally. The measures in this bill are left up to the discretion of the environment minister, making it difficult for the courts to order compliance.

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
Cabinet decisions and government policies in general are exempted from the law. Although intervener funding has been promised, it is not in the legislation so can easily be withdrawn. In addition, the level of funding is certainly not yet clear, if indeed it is available.
Crown corporations, such as CIDA and Export Development Corporation, are exempted and basic questions such as which projects will be reviewed, which ones will be exempt, and what rules will apply are not answered by this bill. This will be in the regulations that can easily be changed by cabinet.
These are all very important matters which have to be looked after before we can deal with this bill effectively in the House. We all know how much the public demands that the environment be paid its just due. Those demands are made, not because of personal fears. People are not out there collecting cans, glass and newspapers because they fear for themselves. They are making these sacrifices because of their care and concern for our earth, for our children who will inherit this earth when we are not here to say to them that we are sorry. It is the environmental assessment process, the protection that we put in law, that establishes the basis on which we can judge ourselves in the future. That is why this act is so crucial, and so important to the work we are doing today.
With that, I would like to bring my remarks to a close. In doing so, I would like to move an amendment to the motion on the floor. I would like to move this amendment, which I have written here for you, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after
"that" and substituting the following therefor:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-78, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it fails to include provisions which would apply to all projects or undertakings under federal jurisdictions and it also fails to provide for intervener funding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take the amendment proposed by the hon. member under advisement. Resuming debate. Questions and comments. The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's remarks. There is no doubt that we share a common view and a common vision as to how environmental assessment should be handled.
The hon. member spoke of his amendment at the very end of his remarks. I wonder if I could ask him to stand and elaborate as to the purpose of his amendment.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard. The amendment basically deals with things that are not a part of the legislation which should be a part of the legislation.
The very important matter before us here, as I indicated in my remarks, is primarily that there are a number of things not in place that should be in the legislation, that we would expect the prestudy committee to put into the legislation before it is brought into the House for debate at second reading so that all members of this Chamber would have an opportunity to debate the best possible piece of legislation that could come before us. There is no question in my mind that as long as we are left with this process that we have here now, in which we are dealing with a very flawed piece of legislation, we do not have the best opportunity in which to address the matters that are of concern to all of us.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to what he calls a prestudy committee that should take place before the bill comes into the House at second reading. I think the hon. member will realize, if he checks his records, that the special committee to which I think he referred was struck late last June when the bill was before the House at second reading. The bill entered the House at second reading toward the latter part of June and we are now continuing that process.
I also hope that the hon. member understands that the many witnesses to which he referred in detail in a study will, as is always the case, take place in legislative committee after second reading. That has been the case with each and every bill that has been before the House, and there is no reason to expect it would not be before the House in this particular case.
October 24, 1990

The hon. member referred to the report of the Round Table. I wonder if it is the same Round Table which on October 15, 1990, wrote to the Prime Minister, and I quote:
Dear Prime Minister, The National Round Table commends your
government on the environmental assessment reform package tabled
in the House of Commons in June of this year, and welcomes the
proposed improvements to the federal assessment process.
Is that indeed the same report from the same Round Table, Mr. Speaker?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I thank the the hon. parliamentary secretary for the question.
I think the government is trying to play some games here with this prestudy committee.


James Ross Fulton: Hear, hear.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: It was obviously a very important committee when it was appointed in June. I have no question at all about the timing that the minister is referring to.


James Ross Fulton: First one in the history of Parliament.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: My colleague for Skeena indicates to me that this was the first prestudy committee set up in the history of Parliament so obviously it had been given some serious thought by members opposite and had been given a certain amount of importance. Hopefully, that was not just for public perceptions back in June. They now do not seem to put the same importance on that committee.
With regard to the games that I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, while that prestudy committee was appointed back in June, the chairperson of that committee was not selected and appointed until September 24, when Parliament came back into session here after its summer recess.


James Ross Fulton: Shame. Smoke and mirrors.


Lynn Hunter: Smoke and mirrors.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Smoke and mirrors, Mr. Speaker. Smoke and mirrors.
The other part about this is that the prestudy committee could examine all aspects of this bill and in fact send back to the government arguments for change before that bill was introduced for second reading. It could be completely redrafted under its terms of reference.
Government Orders
The legislative committee would be responsible only for amending that bill clause by clause. In fact, a redrafting of the bill under the current committee structure in this House would be impossible and that is what we are left with now, if we are not allowed to carry on with the prestudy committee and then bring the bill back into this House for second reading.
I am hoping that the government is not attempting now to get debate along a certain extent and then invoke closure on this bill because, in their words, "Oh, there has been enough debate on the bill". Obviously, there has not been enough debate on the subject matter of this bill and we have to find ways to redraft this flawed and inadequate bill dealing with the future of our country and the future of the earth.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his excellent remarks regarding Bill C-78. He is quite correct that the government is providing all of the smoke and mirrors that it possibly can in relation to this bill.
Let me paraphrase and requote one of the only witnesses who appeared before the special committee and that is Ray Robinson, the present head of FEARO, who pointed out that the existing 1984 cabinet guideline order which is in place goes further than Bill C-78 does in its present form.
How could a Parliament possibly consider passing a piece of legislation that does not go as far as the existing Order in Council? We are getting a lot of flim-flam from the government side.
We also have yet to hear from the Minister of the Environment who proclaims around the country that this is an important legislative measure. Well, where is the minister? The minister has never appeared before the standing committee on environment, has never appeared before the special committee on Bill C-78.
We are the first special committee this Parliament has ever had to redraft a piece of legislation pursuant to the recommendations of the McGrath commission which thought in terms of parliamentary reform. It was a piece of legislation that had a broad impact on the majority of Canadians. The committee should have been allowed to prestudy and redraft it, to have it come back before it completed second reading. In fact a democratically changed bill in terms of the entire principles that were within it could come back before the House, making the

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
job of the legislative committee easier down the road so that only the fine tuning, the final amendments, need to be done.
I would like to come back to the member who gave such an excellent speech on this and ask him whether or not he thinks that there is some kind of stunt going on here from the government side, where it will be travelling around the country saying: "Well, we had a special committee. It sat from June until October", not bothering to say it only had a chairman for two days. It did not have a clerk until after the end of September. It did not hear the first witnesses until October, never heard from the minister. Would he not agree?
I wonder if the hon. member would have something to say about the kind of smoke and mirrors. Now the government apparently plans to bring in closure. It not even putting up any speakers. It says say it is the most important bill before the House and it does not put up any speakers. Interesting. I would like to hear from the hon. member about all this stuff.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I probably do not have a lot of time to answer the eloquent question posed by the hon. member for Skeena, but as a member of this House who has been sitting in on the preliminary meetings of the C-78 committee, I can tell you that we have been working and trying to obtain the presence of the Minister of the Environment before the committee. Last week was supposed to be the week in which the Minister of the Environment would appear before the committee. I do not know what has happened to the commitment from the Minister of the Environment to appear before the C-78 committee.
If the government is not putting a lot of attention on the C-78 committee, I see no reason why the minister would be bothered with spending much of his time appearing before the committee. I think that that is another bit of evidence which indicates that the government does not consider C-78's prestudy committee to be worth what it had intended it to be in the first place, that in fact we do have a smoke and mirrors game being played here. What we should be doing is reverting this matter to the prestudy committee and not discussing it at second reading here in this Chamber until we have a different bill recommended by the prestudy committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have considered the motion presented by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and I find it procedurally acceptable.
Resuming debate, I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity, rather belatedly, to congratulate you on your work as Speaker. I know you have been at it for several days now, but it is my first opportunity to wish you well in your position.
I rise to speak on this bill which is very important for all Canadians, particularly western Canadians, since we have so many projects that must be governed properly, unless there is a negative effect on the environment. I know the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, as a fellow westerner, feels the same way, that every step must be taken to guarantee the protection of the environment.
I was struck today during Question Period when two ministers, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, were asked about two important environmental questions, one concerning the pollution in Montreal River, and one concerning the more generic problem relating to older mines that stretch across the Canadian shield from the maritimes straight through to the Alberta-British Columbia border.
Since all those earlier generation of mines use the tailing process and use a great deal of chemicals which we now have found to be harmful to the environment, my question is a very straightforward one, what is the government planning to do?
The vacuousness of the answers-and I use those words advisedly-reminded me of the fact that despite that on the one hand of doing all these pretensions toward environmental impact, the lessons have not been learned by this government. In fact, this has not been incorporated into its daily life.
This has caused me to reflect on what is the difficulty here with this government in dealing with the environment. I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not understand how fundamentally the rules of the game have been changed and that Canadians are getting caught in a triangle they do not quite understand. They are getting caught in a triangle between the federal government in one comer, at times being the proponent of big projects such as the Hibernia project. In another
October 24, 1990

case it is supposed to be the protector of the environment, such as in the case of the Rafferty-Alameda dam. In other cases it is just being a bystander, such as what happened in northern Manitoba.
Then in the other corner we have the provinces that are proponents of many big projects in this country. Some people estimate the total value of projects on the drawing boards in each of provinces to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $14 billion. Obviously a tremendous amount of wealth is at stake.
In the third corner is something we never had there before in this triangle. It is the courts. We have had to keep going back to the courts: the federal government to sue a provincial government, environmentalists to sue the federal government, environmentalists and citizens to sue provincial governments, private corporations to protect their interests, and environmentalists to take on the private corporations. Through this litigation and the lack of legislation we have had no resolve, no sense of a protection of the environment. Canadians have become pretty anxious about what is going on and what is the intention of their politicians: what exactly do we want to do with the environment.
The response of this government after years of debate and an idea that has been carried out in many other jurisdictions for many different purposes is to have an environmental assessment process; that is, to set up apart from politics a way of considering the environment, a way of protecting the environment, to give Canadians some sense of confidence that the environment is going to be protected by some people who are impartial, non-partisan, away from the fights of the floor of the House of Commons and into a more and more considered process.
Unfortunately that very process is being tarnished by the weakness of the legislation that we are being presented with. The government should consider the criticism of the opposition and think twice about handing us a process which is flawed in its spirit and flawed in its detail in terms of responding to the problems that have been discussed elsewhere.
We have talked perhaps too much in this House about specific projects in our own provinces, but if we look at some of the series of projects in the west-the Oldman
Government Orders
dam project, the Rafferty-Alameda project, the projects in northern Manitoba, as I alluded to before, the protection of water, the water system at Shoal Lake for the city of Winnipeg- we will see that all of these projects have created either litigation or tremendous conflict.
One of the sad parts of the process is not only that we have the big headlines in the major newspapers and the top stories on the national news, but we also have a lot of local interests that are hurt by this insecurity because they do not understand the intention of the politicians. I know for example the ministers from the west who represent farming communities are very sensitive to this issue. These farming communities are dry. They need water, but at the same time we do not need to pay the price of environmental damage in order to give them water.
There is a conflict, a basic economic, social, value system conflict at stake here. We just cannot impose regulations. We just cannot impose laws. We have to make sure that people have confidence that the system being set up is going to protect their interests. If it is going to be non-political, if it is going to be arm's length from the government, if it is going to be a new agency located in Ottawa, this agency should be sensitive to the interests of local communities whether they be an Indian band, a small farming community or a more isolated part of the country which we do not even perceive at first to be a community. We also have to make sure that these people understand that the interest of the legislation is to protect them, as well as to protect the environment, and that they work toward consensus.
That is why, for example, it is so important that we state publicly and in writing as part of the legislation that the people who are going to be intervening are supported by the federal government. The cost of intervention for people from a small town is tremendously expensive, particularly when they do not have a lot of experience in these interventions and they have to buy high-priced experienced help who have appeared in front of these panels and appeared in front of other semi-autonomous bodies. If they do not have that resource, how can they participate? If they cannot participate, they are going to get hurt. If they get hurt, they are going to resent the federal government.

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
Instead of building up confidence, this type of legislation will do just the opposite. It will pull away confidence and make people feel that somehow or another they will be made more vulnerable to the whims of a federal government.
Why do we need a strong federal government to play a role here? In some respects it is one of the odd curiosities of what is happening in this debate in the last three or four years. It is the reason why we have edged toward this piece of legislation. As weak as it is at least it is the first step. It gives something to debate. We are sure the minister will contribute to the various committees and state in detail what is wanted. We have reached this stage because ironically the federal government has refused to act. It is the courts that have produced some action on some projects in western Canada.
The reason why we turn to the federal government is that we have come to realize that the provincial governments are proponents of industries such as the hydroelectric industry and of the biggest projects ongoing in Canada. As a result, it is in their interest to get projects on stream as quickly and cheaply as possible. They are not prepared, from anything that we have seen, to protect the environment.
One of the interesting quotes used in the House-and some members may remember this earlier in the debate-was the quote of the member for Winnipeg-Trans-cona. He said that he was very sorry that the NDP provincial government in Manitoba, in the mid-eighties, did not see the damage that to be done by the Rafferty-Alameda dam.
It does not matter which party is in power. There are dangers involved which have to be addressed for every party. No party, no matter what is its claim to fame in this House, has a provincial wing which does not understand the importance of the environment. It is important that the member recognize that his brothers at the provincial level are just as likely to make errors as those of another party. I am sure he will be vigilant in watching the provincial Government of Ontario to make sure it does not make similar errors; for example, that it will respond quickly to the crisis in the Montreal River area.
The provincial governments are taking this in any way, shape or form in a passive fashion. The provincial governments have been meeting to discuss the environmental review process because they know there is a lot at stake for themselves.
For example, on Thursday, April 19, representatives from Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia met in Vancouver to develop a strategic response regarding the proposed federal Environmental Assessment Act and to try to see what moves they should be making to prevent the federal government from establishing greater authority in this domain. They asked the province of Manitoba before the election-and so it is not being discussed in a public fashion-to prepare a memo organizing the provinces against this federal intervention. What they wanted to try to establish is that the provincial jurisdiction must be domain and that the act must contain provisions for joint reviews based on a formula in which they could participate and which they can determine.
What the provinces have been looking for and what we must guard against when we are dealing with them-and hopefully they will come forward as witnesses in front of the House of Commons-is a grandfather clause for projects that are either under way or have previously been reviewed by a provincial process. In other words, there is a basic conflict that provincial governments are not willing to accept federal authority. We must make sure that the federal authority which is being established is tough and determined enough to establish environmental rules that will withstand the pressure from the provinces.
If this process were in place in 1984 or 1986 when this particular government started to discuss it, would the Rafferty-Alameda dam project have happened? My response is that this process is so weak that that project would have still happened. The reason why I say that is that in the end the minister still has the ability to intervene at the last minute and accept or reject the recommendations from this agency. This is not arm's length in the sense of being independent and being able to say for sure this project cannot go. This is in fact a very weak use of the words environment assessment.
Another issue that needs to be addressed when looking at this legislation is what is going to happen in the international domain. We find the legislation is silent on this issue. Canada spends billions of dollars a year offshore in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Rim. Through CIDA and other development agencies such as the Petro-Canada International corporation governed by External Affairs, it gets itself involved in a number of
October 24, 1990

projects, but it does not apply environmental assessment criteria to these projects; nor does the legislation speak to it.
The legislation allows Crown corporations to set their own criteria and allows the Canadian government offshore to negotiate or to ignore the very guidelines it applies to itself in this country. Our party considers that to be a major flaw in the efforts being made here.
There have been recent discussions by Probase International, a Toronto-based research organization interested in international problems. It reviewed, for example, the Three Gorges project in China, which will be the biggest hydroelectric dam project in the history of the world. Canada has been very active through engineering firms and through CIDA, in funding the engineering work.
Essentially the proponents of this project came forward with a very strong recommendation that the project should continue. Probase International went in with an impartial group of international experts. They looked at that project and for every set of recommendations, for every chapter, they had point after point after point of what had been missed by the original proponents.
This goes back to the point that governments cannot be both project proponents, actively trying to encourage a particular project and at the same time saying: "We will evaluate our own work". They cannot have it both ways. There is an obligation to the Canadian people to set up a more independent process.
This government has failed in this legislation to protect in any way Canadians from the ambitions of provincial and federal governments.
For example, in clause 22, the responsible authority is given wide powers to ignore or terminate the environmental review provisions of the act. The minister, who is the final court of appeal under the act, is given similar powers under clause 23. In clauses 34(a) and 34(b), the opinion of the responsible authority is the only factor necessary in deciding whether or not a project should proceed. As we see, this act is no more than a toothless paper tiger.
Government Orders
We cannot continue to exploit the environment at the rate at which we have done so in the past. Jobs alone, although jobs are so important particularly in small communities, cannot be the only priority. We have to balance our concern for economic growth with the need for our physical survival and the health of our planet.
To my colleagues on that side of the House the phrase "sustainable development" means a licence to push industrial exploitation to the very limits. We can see by just how much failure there has been in Winnipeg itself with the institute. We are still waiting to see it actually get off the ground and be operational in a way that is going to mean something, not only to Canadians but to people throughout the international community.
There are many other points which are weak in this legislation. I am very disappointed in the way the government has introduced it. The government had an opportunity during the summer to build up a coalition of support among well meaning and interested Canadians, people who would give them their time and thoughts, people who would encourage them to strengthen the legislation.
There is among Canadians in every community and in every walk of life a will to protect the environment. It is one of the last areas in which we can prove ourselves as politicians to be of goodwill toward this planet. We fail people in so many other ways and, if we continue to fail them in the area of the environment, it will be the blackest of black marks against this Parliament.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate with considerable interest. It has become obvious that Bill C-78 is dramatically flawed.
I want to start out by saying to the hon. member who just spoke that I appreciate many of his remarks. I want to ask him what his thoughts are on this piece of legislation when applied to a very specific situation. In my riding, which borders on the Fraser River, we have had the CN Railways expropriate all of the foreshore and is in the process of putting in an intermodal yard.
It will end up being the biggest rail yard in Canada. It is being built right across the last freshwater marsh on the lower Fraser River. No environmental assessment has been done. It is jeopardizing the wildlife. It is jeopardiz-

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
ing the quality of the water on the Fraser River. It is jeopardizing our valuable fish resource, and there has been no environmental assessment done.
We must recognize that CN is a tool of the government. It is part of the government system. It has ignored the environment. Once it got away with it, now other developers are starting to say: "We want to develop on that marsh. If the government can get away without any environmental assessment, why can't we?"
I would like the member's thoughts as to what changes would be necessary to this bill to ensure that if this legislation was in place, that developments such as this could not take place, and that the minister who would be acting on behalf of the CN in a conflict of interest situation could not intervene and determine when assessment would take place, could not stop an assessment from taking place, could not overrule an assessment.
What changes does he see are necessary to Bill C-78 to bring it into line so that we could go back to a community like mine and say: "We are going to pass an environmental bill in this Parliament that will protect the environment in Surrey, specifically the Big Bend on the Fraser River?"


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think the hon. member picks out a fatal flaw in the legislation, that is, for some reason Crown corporations such as CN are not necessarily subjected to the same conditions as private corporations. It is something to be negotiated between the corporation and this new agency. It is ironical that in some respects we have more control over our private corporations than a Crown corporation. Perhaps in its oddball way that is why it is trying to privatize things.
The point about changing the legislation is, first, to subject the Crown corporations to the same rules and regulations as the private corporations. There is no reason to make them exempt. They are not special in that sense.
Second, I think that having the minister's discretion at the end of a process-he may consider it being at the end of a rainbow and makes it at the end of the Cabinet. So, Mr. Speaker, you are subject to the political constraints of a government at a particular point in time. What we should be looking for is if for some reason that is
rejected, if that does not end up in Cabinet for debate, for political shenanigans, it ends up somewhere else.
I think that the House of Commons committee should look at that as one of its primary concerns. Where can you take it if there is a disagreement between a minister and an agency? Mr. Speaker, you cannot just take it into Cabinet and let it have that final say. You have to do something more independent.
Third, we are all regional politicians, so this has a little self-interest attached to it. I am wondering what the merits are of automatically assuming this agency should be located in the National Capital Commission area. Mr. Speaker, the closer you are to the environment, the closer you are to dealing with these people's problems and the more you are part of that community, the more you understand their sensitivities.
One of the problems we have had in building up a more sensitive central government is that when we locate things in Ottawa, people lose their sensitivity to the region. So a project like that which is just a little spot on the map, if agencies were located closer to those little spots on the map, those problems would become more alive.
For example, just think if an agency was out in Estevan, how differently the Rafferty-Alameda dam project would have unfolded.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo -Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, this is a comment to the previous questioner from Surrey. He was making an interesting point about the Fraser River. I do care a lot for the Fraser River, although I am resident further north on the river than he, but as he explained-and he must be a plumber-everything runs downhill.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: We get a lot of your sewage.


Dave Worthy: It goes past Surrey and that, of course, creates a real concern for the residents of the lower mainland.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Baloney. Totally wrong.


Dave Worthy: His discussion about the habitat on the Fraser has to be corrected. In the lower Fraser area, the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, with which I am sure the hon. member is very familiar, has evaluated all the habitat and industrial lands in the lower
October 24, 1990

Fraser delta area. They are operating on a no net loss basis.
I am sure the hon. member would not want the people across Canada to feel that the people on the Fraser River will allow developments which will interfere with the habitat. In fact, the wildlife, the fowl, the animal and fish habitat on the lower Fraser is increasing every year, not decreasing.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member who just spoke does not want to leave the impression that there is no deterioration. Have you been to Surrey? Have you seen the intermodal yard? Have you actually gone and looked at what has been done on the far shore?


An hon. member:: That's not a point of order, that's a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order! Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre want to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin?


David Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

That is an interesting point and perhaps the acrimony that broke out for a few minutes just shows how tender feelings are about the environment. I am sure the member feels concerned and yet feels he would do everything he can to encourage the minister through the parliamentary secretary to look after this issue in greater detail. I am sure the member would love to see that everyone in Canada appreciates just how open this process is and, given the fact that the member from the area does not understand this, perhaps the three of them can contribute to the environment a lot more wholesomely.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, a quick comment on the issue. The environmental assessment review process related to the P. J. Wooding ferrochromium undertaking in Port Hardy provided absolutely no intervener funding. The people who had to attempt to analyse this project had no money whatsoever. They were unable to hire anyone. They all
Government Orders
worked full time. There was no money for telephones, faxes, or anything else. Would the member not agree that this kind of a handicap is an enormous flaw, and a failure to guarantee intervener funding is an enormous flaw in the bill?
On the other side, the government was prepared, through western diversification, to provide Wooding with about $10 million. B.C. Hydro was willing to put in several million dollars. On one side was an enormous amount of support and capital, and on the other side, were the concerned citizens who have to live with the mess down the road, absolutely nothing. This is a major flaw and an inequity in this bill that has to be remedied.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, very briefly please.


David Walker: In ten seconds, Mr. Speaker. Its strategy is incomprehensible and the fact that it does not fund interveners is absolutely unreasonable.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome second reading debate today on Bill C-78, which represents, at last, a small sign that this government is beginning to address environmental decision-making. New legislation is this area is badly needed and I hope that this bill, flawed as it is, will begin the discussion necessary to bring this legislation to fruition.
Presently, environmental assessments are governed by the EARP guidelines order. Bill C-78 represents a Tory election promise of 1984 to update this process. This promise had been conveniently been forgotten and now, due to public and court pressure, is finally being addressed.
There are some positive elements in the bill but there are many other aspects which are deeply flawed and I would like to address some of these today.
I am pleased that the bill introduces mediation, financial assistance to participants and a follow-up program into the environmental review process.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are several aspects of this legislation which give me great cause for concern. I wonder, for example, at the resistance of the government to mention the words "sustainable development"

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
anywhere in the legislation and what that means about this government's commitment to this principle.
As well, I have problems with the degree of cabinet control over key elements of the review process and the failure of the government to specify the regulatory powers which will accompany the legislation. How these regulatory powers are distributed, who is responsible for what in the review process, what projects will and will not be subject to review, these and other questions are at the heart of the bill and will determine how serious the government is with Bill C-78 when it comes to environmental assessment.
The introduction of mediation into the review process is an encouraging step. When opposing parties in an environmental dispute can sit down in a less adversarial situation and come to a decision quickly and efficiently, we all win.
When a project is small or the environmental consequences are primarily local in nature, such as in the case of a municipal landfill site, a way of ensuring speedy and cost-effective dispute settlement is required. In these cases mediation may well be the ideal process.
Under the EARP guidelines order there is now no way to differentiate between large costly projects and more minor localized ones regarding environmental reviews.
Bill C-78 proposes a tool for accomplishing this and we will have to examine it more closely just to see how effective it is.
However, I have serious questions regarding the criteria which the minister will use to determine which individuals or groups will participate in the mediation process. How will these participants be chosen? Who will determine those that will be rejected, and what kind of appeal process will there be?
We must also ensure that the minister gives mediation a fair chance at success. Section 25(a)(i) indicates that the minister will decide beforehand whether mediation would be successful or not.
Regarding financial assistance to review participants, many have heralded it as a great improvement to the environmental review process. I agree. Bill C-78 provides for funding for each review even though the levels of this funding may vary. Hopefully this measure along with the mediation process will ensure the legitimate
environmental concerns are adequately heard. Yet there is much missing in this aspect of Bill C-78. How much money will be committed to this is not known because, unfortunately, the details of the financial assistance program have not even been submitted to the Treasury Board.
A follow-up program is something which has been sorely missing in the present environmental review process and I welcome its addition. Under section 34 of Bill C-78 the responsible authority or the departmental minister takes the review report and decides whether a project will be carried out or not. If a project is to be carried out the responsible authority will have to design, inform the public of, and arrange the implementation of a follow-up program which would ensure the compliance and the enforcement of decisions regarding the project.
It makes no sense to me, though, that the final decision and the follow-up program is to be left solely to the discretion of the responsible authority and not the environmental minister or, better yet, an arm's length agency.
In the bill which claims to recognize federal responsibility in environmental assessment through the environment minister, it is strange that first, the environment minister is not obliged to press for a full panel review and, second, that the powers of final decision, implementation, and enforcement of review recommendations seem to be out of the environment minister's control as well.
The present EARP system allows individual ministers to follow their own agenda, even when the agenda varies from the environmental needs of Canada. I do not see how Bill C-78 changes this at all.
We are all familiar with the problems resulting from the present process which bestows to individual ministers the power of decision regarding environmental assessments. It is these problems which Bill C-78 is supposedly designed to address.
For example, the federal fisheries minister is responsible for the environmental review process when a proposed project may impact on water and fish life. This ministry has recently decided that the Ashfield landfill site proposal in Inverness County in my riding must go to a full panel environmental review. DFO has taken over a year to come to this decision, thus placing proponents.
October 24, 1990

and opponents of this landfill site and indeed the residents of all of Inverness County in limbo.
The people in Antigonish County, who are now seeking a landfill site or a way of disposing of their solid waste, may well have to wait a similar waiting period and suffer similar uncertainty with the same ministry regarding their plans to find a new disposal site for their municipal waste. This is causing a great deal of concern locally in my area.
This bill claims to eliminate this kind of problem by placing the power with the environment minister. The bill seems to mandate the environment minister only to initiate reviews, while the minister responsible for the project holds powers which include determining whether a full review is necessary, making the final decision, and overseeing the follow-up program. There does not seem to be any clear obligation for the environment minister's involvement in these latter stages.
This leads me to question the amount of control which the environment minister will actually have. The level assessment, final decision, and the follow-up program are instrumental to a review's authority. This severely weakens the impact of this legislation. Indeed, even Mr. Raymond Robinson, Executive Chairman of FEARO, admitted on October 4 to the committee pre-studying Bill C-78 that "having the minister responsible deciding what level of assessment his project should receive-is very much like having the fox in charge of the hen coop."
This is an aspect of the bill which I hope will be addressed and corrected during committee stage.
In addition, I have many concerns about the philosophy behind the bill and about the bill's effectiveness.
Although the government claims to support the principle of sustainable development, these two words are not mentioned anywhere in Bill C-78. The government attempts to explain this omission by saying that sustainable development is a concept that is very difficult to define precisely.
How can this government claim to support a principle which it admits it cannot define in its legislation? I believe this is a cop-out by the government.
Government Orders
Sustainable development is, in fact, definable. The Brundtland Commission defined it. Even though Bill C-78's preamble quotes directly from the Brundtland report's definition of sustainable development, the government did not take the next logical step and use those two important words. This seems to indicate the government's weak commitment to the principle of sustainable development.
Instead, the government has chosen to achieve an appropriate balance between the economy and the environment and to make sure that the two are compatible.
The government appears to view the economy and the environment as being fundamentally at odds. This is a dichotomy which in reality is quite false. Sustainable development is a principle which sees one interest, that of the economy, flowing from and benefiting the other. That is to say, the environment and the economy must be interlinked and are not fundamentally at odds.
New models of development must be created since the old ones are just not working. As long as the government legislation that we have before us continues to reflect this archaic mind-set, that the environment and the economy are forces at odds with one another and must be reconciled, no real progress will ever be made in achieving a fully sustainable future.
The regulations referred to in clause 55 of Bill C-78 constitute the heart and the guts of this legislation. They ultimately will decide the scope of the bill's implementation and the effectiveness of this legislation in practice. Unfortunately, these regulations have not yet been specified and, if they have, those specifications have not been released. As a result, I have serious reservations about a piece of legislation which has been introduced without our knowing how the key regulations governing its implementation will work.
Among these regulations, which are mentioned in Bill C-78, are various lists upon which the bill depends on for its very implementation. There is a mandatory study list which will include classes of projects having significant adverse environmental effects. These automatically fall under review.

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
There is also an exclusion list which will contain projects or classes of projects which will automatically fall outside review.
As one of my colleagues stated previously, these provisions are big enough to drive a truck through. What about the Point Aconi project in Cape Breton? In which category does it fall? The federal fisheries minister has just decided it will not undergo a panel review. Would this project be included under the mandatory study list?
The Governor in Council will itself determine the contents of these two lists. It has yet to present them to Parliament or to the public. Once again, how can we properly assess this legislation without being advised as to the contents of these lists?
As well, these regulations can be changed without having to bring them before the House. That is another weakness in this bill.
We have been told that the government plans to lay before the legislative committee a list that would constitute the draft of these regulations. That is not good enough. This is a part of the legislation that determines how it will work and we should have an indication now of how these regulations will operate.
Why has the government not provided these details lists by now during public and parliamentary debate on second reading? The fact that the government cannot produce one in time for this debate does not bode well for the future. There seems to be a lot of internal lobbying going on, as various ministries presumably fight for their particular interests within Cabinet.
Although not part of the regulations, clause 5(b) presents another gaping hole through which projects may evade environmental review. Bill C-78 claims to ensure that all projects with federal involvement will be subject to an environmental review. Clause 5(b) excludes tax breaks aimed at particular projects as a reason to refer these projects to environmental review. A government may choose to provide tax incentives to projects, rather than devising financial subsidy packages so as to avoid environmental reviews on particular projects. This provision is a major flaw in the bill which, if the bill passes second reading, will have to be seriously amended.
The lack of specific regulations and the Governor in Council's complete discretion in formulating them brings to light another concern which I have about Bill C-78. In
this bill, environmental screening, mediation, or review panel reports are merely advisory. Bill C-78 gives the responsible minister, and apparently not the environment minister, the power to accept or reject the recommendations of these reports.
Again, to quote Mr. Robinson of FEARO: "There is certainly no point in having a fairly elaborate process of assessment if indeed we are not going to pay attention to those decisions."
I find this disturbing, considering the track record of the present government regarding environmental matters.


Mr. Kaplan:: It is disgraceful.


Francis G. LeBlanc: It sure is disgraceful.


Mr. Marchi:: How disgraceful is it?


Francis G. LeBlanc: It is
unspeakably disgraceful.
To assert that the government will take environmental reports and make the correction in light of public opinion is not certain in the least. It is obvious from the government's pursuit of the GST debate that public concerns mean nothing to the government between election campaigns.
Today, I have tried to outline some of my concerns regarding Bill C-78. The more I listen to this debate, the more I realize that the government should go back to the drawing-board before presenting this debate. It should present a more thorough set of regulations to accompany this bill and rethink many of the fundamental aspects of the bill. That is not to say that legislation is not required and the status quo is not acceptable. Legislation in this area is overdue and urgently needed.
The government has finally brought something forward, flawed as it is. I hope that this discussion will begin a process of coming to grips in Canada with a comprehensive and effective means of reviewing small and large environmental projects in a way that is effective and that allows for the full environmental consequences of projects to be taken into account.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my comment and question to the previous speaker concerns the environmental review process and the ability to assess social impacts. I refer again to the case of the P. J. Wooding ferrochromium proposal in Port Hardy, British Columbia in which the government failed
October 24, 1990

to take into consideration impacts on native communities in the area.
That failure to address an absolutely critical social impact in British Columbia could in fact lead to some very serious reactions on the part of those communities. Again, there have been discussions about blockading highways and making very serious stands because of the failure of the government in its environmental review process to consider the social impacts, in this case particularly, on aboriginal communities.
Would the hon. member be in a position to support the proposal that has been put forward in the amendment of the New Democratic Party, to refer this to a committee study? Given matters such as the refusal to consider the Fort Rupert Indian Band concerns, the concerns of the Nimpkish Band, and the Quatsino Indian Band in the social impacts in their particular area, would the hon. member be in a position to support referral of this particular legislation to a study committee?
Certainly, there has been precedent during the term of the government to do so. I recall when the present Speaker of the House was Minister of Fisheries. He, in the middle of a second reading debate, thought it would be very useful to refer an amendment to the Fisheries Act to a study committee. That study committee came back, and the bill proceeded on through the House.
Would the hon. member support it and, indeed, would his party be prepared to support the amendment that we put before the House?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I must apologize for not knowing the details of the project in British Columbia to which he is referring.
The point that he has raised about the social aspect of the environmental concerns, particularly on native reserves, is a very good one and clearly points out one more difficulty with this legislation.
He is addressing an aspect of the environmental review process and an element of environmental impacts of large projects, namely their effects on society and on the culture and way of life of our native people. We cannot afford to overlook that, certainly not after the situation that has taken place this summer and with the
Government Orders
ongoing concerns raised by the Cree, for example, in Quebec over the James Bay hydroelectric project.
The problems with Bill C-78, as well as some of the other concerns with the lack of specific regulations to accompany this bill, lead me to suggest that his concern and that of his party about referring the bill to a study committee are well taken and perhaps should be seriously considered.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member. In this House which all too often operates on a pure adversarial basis, the member has given us a very well balanced presentation. I think it is all the more important to understand his very deep criticisms of the bill given the fact that he really did attempt to address the bill in as objective a way as possible.
One of the underlying theses, of course, of any piece of legislation is that the government possesses the requisite national will to really implement a fully and, in this particular case, a truly revolutionary policy in terms of environmental awareness.
I wonder if he would comment as to whether he thinks this government has that kind of national will.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to answer that question. I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
Of course this element of will is one which we, on this side of the House, have been trying to assess from this government ever since the last election. We have seen that the government has a lot of will, but we wonder about the direction in which that will has been placed.
It has demonstrated a great deal of will to ride roughshod over Canadians when it wants to get its tax agenda forward and on economic policy, but on environmental matters we have seen delay and delay. First of all, we have seen a green plan agenda, which is merely questions and no real actions. We have seen a Bill C-78, which is long overdue, but still is weak in many areas.
I guess the real test of a government's will is its actions and its commitment, its concrete actions. So far what we have seen is a fair bit of good rhetoric and polite words to indicate that the government is serious about environmental concerns, but we have not seen really concrete

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
actions. This bill is the first acid test, really, of a government's concrete commitment. I think that to be fair, it is somewhat short of perfection.


Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to say that this bill will pass the test of public scrutiny. I would like to help the hon. member by pointing out that the government believes that public participation is essential to achieving an appropriate integration of economic development and environmental protection. This act will specifically improve public awareness and participation by early notification. For example, proponents will be required to inform the public through advertising and other appropriate means of major project proposals at an early stage of the assessment process. Public comments will be invited at that time.
Then there is the public registry which will be established for each project to facilitate access to information on that project.
As well, there are the public hearings. Review panels for major projects being assessed will be required to hold public hearings to allow the public to present their views and recommendations.
As well, there is public input. Public comments must be considered by the responsible authority before making a decision on a project which has undergone an environmental assessment.
As well, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that reports and follow-up are to be made public. When the minister receives a report from a review panel or from a mediator, it must be made public. Similarly, the government response must also be made public. May I also remind the hon. member of the annual report. TTe minister will be required to report annually to Parliament on the implementation of the process. Then there are the regulations, including those that establish mandatory study lists and inclusion list, that will be published in draft form for public consultation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the member of the funding. Participants in public reviews or mediations will be eligible to apply for financial assistance. I would be curious as to whether or not the member remembers this.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, all of those things are what one would expect as a minimum in this day and age from a proper environmental review process. We would expect all of those items which the hon. member has mentioned. As far as the funding, we have to wait and see how much the government is prepared to commit to intervener funding and whether the groups that are affected by projects will be able to make their case known and will have the requisite financial assistance to be able to make their cases known, until we have that information, which we do not have now, there is no way we can assess whether this government is serious.
Basically the litany of public participation opportunities which he has provided, and it is a good list, is really what we would expect from an environmental review process in Canada today. But I think we can count on more from this government.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to continue debate on Bill C-78. I want to focus my remarks at the outset on the remarks of my colleague for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake when he talked about the undue haste of this government.
What we have seen with the process of the prestudy committee that has been established, and now we are into second reading debate on this, is a real treachery. Canadians who are watching this debate and wondering what is going on here should know that what is going on is the government is trying to rush through this legislation.
I know there is an impatience among Canadians for real environmental assessment review legislation. They must be curious as to our opposition to this legislation. We have to get it right. Canadians are impatient. They want real environmental assessment review, but this Bill C-78 is not it.
As the associate critic for environment for my party, I have reviewed the legislation at length. What I see in the legislation is a real smoke and mirrors game. It would indicate from the briefing notes that this was exactly what Canadians wanted, that it is part of the over-all plan of this government which they say, and which should be commended, that there will be a real priority given to the environment.
The bill was first introduced on June 18, 1990. It was there to address longstanding dissatisfactions concerning environmental assessment at the federal level. But it was
October 24, 1990

also the product of a likely internal struggle within government between advocates for a more effective environmental assessment, and opponents who feared their interests and discretionary authority would be reduced.
So we have the classic struggle between those people who want the legislation strengthened and those proponents of projects who are saying now: "Listen, you are going to hurt us economically if you make it tough for us to proceed". This is what we are doing here. This is why we are debating this, rather than talking about a prestudy with all of the resources of government behind that prestudy.
This is why the government is now trying to push this through, because it has opted for the proponents. It has opted to see that the economy is going to proceed. It is still of the mindset that the economy and the environment are at two polar ends. It does not yet see that in order for us to advance economically and environmentally, those terms, environment and economy, must be integrated. Bill C-78 is shot full of holes. The government wants to push it through in the wrong-headed approach of advancing the economy.
As my colleague for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake pointed out, we have to stop thinking in the short term environmentally. We have to stop thinking in the short term economically. We have to think long term. It is not just this generation. It is not just these projects that have been in the news these past few weeks. It is the economy and the future of our world. As a mother of teenage children, I hope to be able to make this country and this world a better place environmentally for my children. That is one of the motivations that brought me to Parliament. I felt that I could make an impact. In opposing this legislation, I am already doing that.
We in the New Democratic Party have been strongly critical of Bill C-78. That is one of our jobs as an opposition party, to oppose what we see as flawed legislation. It is also one of our responsibilities to give alternatives. That is too often under-reported in the media because we, too, have ideas. In today's Gallup poll, it mentioned that if an election were called today perhaps the NDP would have the responsibility of being
Government Orders
the government. We are prepared for it. We have the ideas, we have the commitment. All we need now is the support of Canadians in order to implement those ideas.
I want to turn the focus away not just from criticizing Bill C-78, because there is a lot to criticize, but I want to put forward some principles for alternatives. This is the positive approach of being an opposition party. We have the ideas.
I will read from a paper by Robert B. Gibson, head of the Department of Environment and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo. He challenges us as legislators to look at environmental assessment in an entirely new way. I want to read some of this into the record because these ideas are worthy of our intention. In his opening paragraph, he states:
A curse of sorts must hang over environmental legislators, -the
legislators now face a world-
We have tried it. We have tried the regulatory approach and other approaches.
- in which environmental worries are deeper and more extensive than they were two decades ago, where public mistrust is greater and critics more convinced than ever that fundamental changes are needed in the way we treat the environment.
What we have to do is change our mindset. We have to stop looking at the environment as being isolated from the economy. There too the environment and the economy are linked. If we degrade the environment, we degrade our economy. That is why this legislation is so flawed. There are all sorts of inadequacies that legislators and critics of legislation have pointed out over the years. Some of them have been cited here in the House of Commons.
There is a history involved in environmental legislation. There is the regulatory approach which I cited earlier. We found that the regulatory approach is far too narrow. We are talking about the approach where the individual pollutants and polluting activities were addressed in the regulations. But it was not enough.
Environmental legislation came out of the response to the inadequacies of the regulatory approach. Early environmental assessment requirements usually went a little further by demanding somewhat more comprehensive efforts to identify and evaluate the potential environmental effects and proposed undertakings. That was not enough either. Environmental considerations remain peripheral in public and private sector deliberations.

October 24, 1990
Government Orders
Broad areas of environmentally significant decision making were untouched by assessment requirements.
This is the old legislation, which is superior actually to this Bill C-78. This is where we are now.
Meanwhile, environmental challenges grew. In the Brundtland commission report, we have now faced global scale threats which require significant departures from business as usual. This is a world commission on environment and development, chaired by former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The essential environmental challenge facing all nations is that current human demands and practices considered at a global level are not environmentally sustainable. To put it bluntly, as Bob Gibson cites, we are killing the plant. This is where we have to move from the short-term considerations to the long-term view.
This is what not just Canadians but citizens of the world are feeling frustrated with. The legislators seemed inadequate up to date to realize that. We are not talking election to election. We are talking into the next century. I think that anyone who has children and has a responsibility to leaving this world a better place for them must realize that we have to give up that mindset. We have to think long term.
The major roots of the problem include the general failure in the past to ensure that biophysical and socioeconomic factors were considered along with the usual financial and technical considerations in government and corporate decision making. What we are talking about is the test of sustainability, incorporating that test of sustainability into corporate and government decision making. It is much easier said than done. I am not going to be shy in admitting that. It is a major challenge facing legislators.
Once we get our heads around what the major principles are, I think that we are up to it. Let us give this House some credit. There are intelligent people here on both sides of the House. I know that will come as a surprise, given the kind of environment out there, the kind of psychic environment that we are all no-goods. I think that kind of psychic environment really degrades what most of us here are about, that we are trying to make a contribution. This kind of flimflammery on the part of the government on Bill C-78 just feeds that psychic environment.
We must pass the test of sustainability when we are talking about the environmental assessment. We recognize the difficulties. We recognize the challenges. We cannot turn our backs to that. It is just too important.
There are no viable options. There are none. I know that we can get ourselves really depressed considering what the options are if we fail in this. If we continue along the same old way, business as usual, we know what is facing us. We know that we are in big trouble environmentally, not just in Canada but globally.
We as a developed country, as a rich country, have a responsibility to take a lead in developing this kind of legislation. We could be a model for the international community, but we are losing that option if this bill goes through because it is flawed. It is terribly flawed. Because we have a responsibility as a developed country, we have the means, we have the educational facilities, we have the economic options that many of the countries of the world do not have.
We know that one of the strongest determinants for environmental degradation is poverty. We certainly have poverty in Canada, far too much for my liking, but when we consider what is going on in Brazil, Indonesia, El Salvador, or the desertification in Africa and when we consider the kind of options we have compared to the options of those people in those countries, we are very well off.
Of course we have a responsibility to Canadians. As legislators in the House of Commons that is where our first responsibility lies, but we have to stop thinking just in terms of national borders. We have to think about our global environment. That is where I think the shortsightedness, the short-term thinking of this kind of legislation really fails us. Environmental assessment must therefore begin long before a project or other undertaking is proposed. The change of mindset is essential.
I want to give a little of example of what I mean by that. If, for example, the problem is an anticipated gap between electricity supply and demand, it matters greatly whether the problem is treated as a deficiency of supply, implying a need for additional generating capacity, or an excess of demand, implying a need for conservation and efficiency measures.
October 24, 1990

This is what we have to think about and not keep being seduced by the growth phenomenon. Growth, at what cost? This is the kind of criticism that we have in our party of some of the initiatives that have gone forth in the last few weeks. I am talking particularly about Hibernia where of course there are jobs, and Newfoundland needs them. Newfoundland has long been an underdeveloped part of the country and the people of Newfoundland have suffered because of that. We in our party recognize that projects like Hibernia cannot proceed and jobs cannot be given at any cost.
This is what we are talking about: the test of sustainability. We have to be able to think about not just how we can grow but whether or not to grow is our best option.
I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to jobs. I also come from an island which has suffered from unemployment. I am quite sensitive to the kind of impact unemployment has on a community, the kind of social problems that it creates, the kind of emotional problems it gives people and how it degrades families. I am quite aware of that, but the challenge for us in drafting environmental legislation is to merge that socio-economic and environmental concern.
We can do it because sensitive, long-term thinking and environmental assessment legislation will create jobs. They will not be the same kind of jobs, but what we are talking about is a readjustment of values.
Why shouldn't the person working at a recycling plant be paid union scale? Why not? If our values are our environment and support for our communities, then why shouldn't that person be paid union scale? Why shouldn't he or she be earning $18 an hour, sufficient money to be able to support a family?
This is why I am talking about environmental legislation being merged. Socio-economic and environmental concerns have to be merged, and that requires a redefinition of the environment to a more broad definition. We have to cover the economic and cultural environment as well as the biophysical environment.
Some existing environmental assessment legislation already incorporates such a definition. It is right here in the province of Ontario, the Environmental Assessment
Government Orders
Act. I am not saying that it is not flawed, but it incorporates that broad definition of socio-economic and environmental.
Environmental legislation which is initiated or revised today must have interim criteria. We know that the legislation which we bring forth in this House is only a step. Some of us are humble enough to know that we do not know everything. We know that it will be flawed, so interim criteria have to be there.
Some of those interim criteria are: protecting and enhancing the existing and future well-being of all people and recognizing the dependency of Canadians on the well-being of the biosphere and other people sharing it. One again I want to allude to our global responsibility. As a rich developed nation we have that responsibility. We also have to require undertakings to offer net positive biophysical and socio-economic improvements and net reductions in Canadian resource requirements and environmental impositions.
Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling that I have only one minute remaining. I will try to sum up. There is a hope for a change of mindset, and that is what is required: a merging of the economy and the environment.
I also want to reiterate that Canada is in a perfect position to be a leader in this area internationally. We have the means. We have the international reputation, overstated in my analysis but it is there. Let us use it to effect. We have to get good environmental legislation. We have to recognize that it is an interim move. We have to show a model to the world that we are serious about an environmental assessment review.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, we in this House respond to a number of publics: the very narrow one which exists on this Hill that we sometimes think is the whole world; the truly important one, the broader one to which we respond, the Canadian public; and then there is that constituency, in this particular case the environmental network, about which there has been concern and which in many ways is leading public opinion. The hon. member and I were recently at a meeting involving that particular constituency, the environmental network per se, and I wonder if she could give her comments on its reaction to this particular bill.

October 24, 1990
Government Orders


Lynn Hunter: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be only too pleased to give the environmental network's assessment of this bill.
I had the pleasure of having dinner with a number of the group members who looked at this legislation. They are not very happy with it. In fact they are the ones who are pushing us to stop it. It is so fatally flawed that they want it out of here. They realize that the government is trying to push through this legislation in order to satisfy its short-term view, and also it is the old smoke and mirrors routine.
In the Canadian environmental network good, sound environmentalists that they are, are well aware of what the government is doing. I think the best thing for the government to do is to withdraw this bill and have it redrafted considerably.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the member a question. In environmental matters generally the people are concerned about the air we breathe, the land on which we live, the water we drink, those kinds of issues. She referenced a whole bunch of other things like whether union employees should make $18 an hour as one of the things we ought to look into. Then she talked about the Environmental Assessment Act of Ontario being such a good bill as an example. I realize it was brought in by a Conservative government many years ago in Ontario. For five years the Liberals tried to use it and did not, and now the NDP in Ontario has its chance.
Could the member the member tell me of one hearing, of one successful hearing, of one ruling, of one decision that has been made under an Environmental Assessment Act hearing in Ontario if she thinks it is that good? I can tell her there is none, but maybe she would like to comment.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would be pleased to comment. I think it enabled me to point out another flaw in this legislation. There has to be enabling legislation to make it enforceable. That is what we are talking: enforceability.
Sure, we can wheedle, we can plead, and we can suggest but really what we need to have is laws, enforceable laws, laws that people know will be enforced and that there will be fines or imprisonment for degrading our environment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Since this is the end of my second week in my new job as Acting Speaker, I want to thank those of you who have given me their best wishes and offered me their cooperation. I will tiy to live up to your expectations.

It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 25,1990