1990-10-16

[Stage Direction]
39 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 16, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 3 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation that attended the Eleventh General Assembly of the AIPO in Singapore, from September 7 to 17, 1990.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg -St. James) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-337, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce this bill, seconded by my honourable colleague from Mirami-chi.
The purpose of my bill can be summed up in just a few words. All members of Parliament swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. This is required by the Constitution. However, the oath makes no mention of Canada or its Constitution. I believe that this is seen by many Canadians as a shortcoming of the current oath.
Canadians would prefer an oath taken by parliamentarians that perhaps is best described as contemporary and up to date, one that reflects the growth in the maturity of our nation. I think my bill will do that. It would require MPs to take a second oath pledging allegiance to Canada and its Constitution.
Canada yet again is feeling an identity crisis. It is incumbent upon members of this House of Commons to express faith and confidence in Canada. I would welcome support for an oath of allegiance to Canada, our home, our beloved country.


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

Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to this House containing over 200 names of citizens of this nation who are upset about the government trading away part of our dairy industry.
These petitioners call upon the government to hold our Canadian system up as an example for the rest of the world and to protect it in its entirety at all costs in the current round of GATT negotiations.
We have on this list names of peoples from Woodstock, Glencoe, Appin, Thorndale, London, Strathroy, and Mill Pond Crescent. There are a lot of names of people who are very upset about government trading away part of our dairy industry. I am sure that I will hear from them too in regard to the suggestion made yesterday that Canadian farmers are getting $8.8 billion worth

October 16, 1990
Supply
of subsidies, when in fact it is much less than that in the dairy industry. Rather than $8.8 billion, the dairy industry is only getting $266 million in direct subsidies.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition to this House signed by Canadians from western Canada, including places like Steinbach, Manitoba; Saskatoon, Rosthern and Carlton, Saskatchewan; and other points in western Canada.
These people are asking the government to stop the low-level flight training program as it affects aboriginal people both in Labrador and in other parts of Canada. They are happy that the training base will not be established and that the military has agreed not to escalate flights.
However, they would like all flights to end and that money to be directed toward developing a sustainable society among aboriginal people.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions today from almost 100 members of my constituency who are calling for the government to enact legislation amending food and drug regulations.
The petitioners feel that the new legislation is necessary and that it would require both manufacturers and restaurateurs to provide a specific list of food ingredients and additives in their prepackaged and prepared foods.
Perhaps this legislation would prevent the needless deaths from food allergies, like that of 15-year old Robyn Allen who died from consuming food that had peanut oil in it; he was strongly allergic to peanut oil.
There are many other Canadians who are in that situation. That is the purpose of this petition. It is supported by a private member's bill which was introduced in April by the hon. member for Hamilton East.
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition sponsored by the Writers' Union of Canada.
The petition has been signed by Canadians from coast to coast, many in my own constituency. It reads: whereas the Government of Canada has seen fit, since Confederation and without hiatus, to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers and, now proposes to include them in GST and whereas uninhibited dissemination of the printed word as a cornerstone of democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society will be negatively affected by GST application, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation on regulations


QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle) moved:: That this House urge the Minister of the Environment to revoke the Rafferty-Alameda project licence and use all federal authority to prevent Saskatchewan from proceeding with project construction until an independent environmental assessment panel has completed its review.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to lead off the debate on this motion.
What we are concerned with is a very important issue. It is not just an issue of concern with the province of Saskatchewan, but how this issue is resolved will exhibit
October 16, 1990

to the Canadian people the commitment or lack of commitment of this federal government and the new Minister of the Environment to questions relating to the environment and how serious this government takes the environmental review process, especially when it affects megaprojects like the one we are debating today.
Let me start by saying, despite what some other politicians have claimed, that the New Democratic Party either here in Ottawa or in Saskatchewan is not opposed to building a dam there per se. If a proper process is followed, if there is an independent environmental review to show that no lasting negative environmental impact will occur because of this project, this project does make economic and environmental sense. We are totally and wholeheartedly for it. To be able to devise a way to allow southern Saskatchewan to have a lake, to have access to water would be a godsend.
There are many professionals and non-professionals who have serious doubts about the environmental effect and impact of this project as well as the economics. First let me comment on the economics. The Saskatchewan government wants to build two coal-fired plants in order to produce electricity. We can buy electricity cheaper from Manitoba. There are two coal-fired plants that have been mothballed in North Dakota. The infrastructure is there. We can buy electricity from those plants much cheaper than building the Rafferty-Alameda projects. Economically, it does not make sense to us.
Second, the Government of Saskatchewan claims that these reservoirs are needed as coolants for the coal-fired power plants, and that there is enough water in the Souris River to fill up these reservoirs. Various studies have shown that if the Rafferty dam had been built in 1912 it would not have filled until 1948 and that the Rafferty reservoir would not reach full supply level 97 per cent of the time.
In fact, the reservoir may never fill. The evaporation rate in the Rafferty reservoir would be as high as 75 per cent of the natural flows in any year. Instead of getting a lake some 70 kilometres long, which the Government of Saskatchewan is proposing, in fact what we will be getting are two algae-infested, green, slimy sloughs that will not be any use for recreation purposes, water supply purposes or for irrigation.
Supply
One really wonders about the motivation of the provincial government in jamming this project ahead. The Saskatchewan government claims that it did an environmental study. Indeed, it did do an environmental study. But that environmental study has been criticized by the federal Department of the Environment, by the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers and by the American Environmental Protection Agency. These are three very legitimate public bodies who have looked at the project and have found the Saskatchewan environmental study to be lacking. In fact, the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers in their report stated:
The credibility of the quantitative results of both of the above model studies is severely limited by the lack of a model calibration and the verification based on historic data. Furthermore, the programs are highly simplified in that the normal variable flow, water temperature, and pH are held as constants, and the assignment of initial input concentrations and reaction rate coefficients is highly subjective.
In other words, what the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers said about the Saskatchewan environmental study is that it is highly subjective and highly simplified.
When officials at the federal Department of the Environment were talking about the Saskatchewan studies it stated:
There are a number of important information gaps related to assessing implications for federal responsibilities concerning this project. There are also ambiguities, errors and omissions with respect to technical information and impact predictions.
What we find is that very reputable organizations find tremendous fault with the Saskatchewan study.
Those parties who are very concerned about this project and the price tag of some $1.6 billion were dismayed when a former Minister of the Environment, Mr. McMillan, issued a licence on June 17, 1988. It was necessary for the government to issue a licence because we are dealing with an international water. The Souris River originates in Saskatchewan, flows through the United States and comes back up into Manitoba. There is obviously federal responsibility here.
It took us awhile to convince the government of the day, the one before the last election, that there was some federal responsibility here. A licence was granted on June 17, 1988 anyway. The conditions surrounding that licence are certainly suspect. We knew at the time that Mr. McMillan was giving the licence to the Province of Saskatchewan in exchange for an agreement for the Grasslands National Park. The federal government has

October 16, 1990
Supply
been wanting this park for some time. The Province of Saskatchewan had been holding back, so in exchange for the licence, Saskatchewan agreed to go along with the Grasslands park.
As well, many of us suspected another reason. Around that time the Federal Court made a decision regarding French-language rights in the Province of Saskatchewan. Remember, as well, that was around the time when a by-election was being held in the riding of Saint-Jean in the Province of Quebec.
We suspect as well that there was some agreement of compliance with the federal order regarding French-language rights in Saskatchewan in exchange for this licence.
Right from the beginning political deals were being made, political deals about the environment. Well, that was not good enough for people concerned with the environment. It was not good enough for the Canadian Wildlife Federation and with an organization called SCRAP which is Stop Construction of the Rafferty-Ala-meda Projects. They went to court and on April 10, 1989 the Federal Court squashed the licence because, as the court stated, the minister did not comply with the EARP guidelines.
The Saskatchewan government appealed this and on June 22, 1989 the court upheld its first decision saying that the EARP guidelines were binding on the minister and must be applied to the Rafferty-Alameda dam project.
Already we have had two court decisions insisting that the federal government has a responsibility and that it had not lived up to that responsibility before issuing the licence.
A second licence was issued on August 31, 1989 after the minister had ordered an initial environmental evaluation, an IEE. This is the way the EARP process works. First, the minister has what is called an initial environmental evaluation. There are no public hearings on this. A rough evaluation is made and a report presented to the minister. Then the minister decides whether there is reason to hold a full public inquiry. The minister at that time decided that there was not enough reason to hold a
full environmental inquiry and so he issued the second licence.
Again people opposed to this project took the government to court and a historic decision was made in December of last year. The decision reiterated the two previous court findings, that there was federal responsibility and a full public inquiry should be held.
What the court said was that the government should either revoke the licence in the 30-day period or else put in a full environmental review process.
The Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada reached some agreement. It was the understanding under that agreement that no construction was to take place other than for safety reasons, an environmental review process was to be put in place, an independent panel was to be named, public hearings were to be held, and we thought things rested with that. People were generally happy with that process.
Earlier this spring, upon hearing rumours that construction was continuing on the Rafferty part of the project, I visited the site and indeed I saw the bulldozers working back and forth. I raised the matter in the House at that time. The former Minister of the Environment assured me that the federal government was aware of this ongoing construction, that he was going to send a group of engineers to the site to see what type of work they were going to be doing, and that he would report back to the House. He never did report back to the House. It appears as though construction continued and continued until the panel itself felt that its own integrity and the integrity of the process was just being blown away. It became public last week that the panel had decided not to proceed further with its hearings. Then the premier of Saskatchewan repudiated the whole agreement officially and the next day the panel resigned, so here we are in this present situation.
I maintain that the federal government is not in compliance, as things stand now, with the Federal Court order. The Federal Court order of December of last year insisted that the licence be revoked unless there was an environmental review process. To do an environmental review process, and I quote from the court's decision, "the minister is lawfully obliged to require and permit a panel to conduct a public review of all the significant adverse environmental effects".
October 16, 1990

The minister must ensure that conditions exist that would allow the panel to conduct its inquiry. It is obvious that those conditions do not exist. That is why the panel resigned, because they could not proceed under the current conditions.
Therefore we maintain that the original court order is still in effect that now demands that the minister revoke that licence. Every day that passes when the minister does not revoke that licence, this federal government and the Minister of the Environment are in contravention of the court order. That surely is unacceptable, particularly from our own federal government.
There are some lessons to be learned in all this. First of all the big lesson is you do not mix the environment and politics the way this federal government and the Government of Saskatchewan have attempted to do it. There are all sorts of suggestions of deal making right from the beginning. The first licence was really part of a deal between the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government. Some of this seems to lead right to the door of the Prime Minister. It was the premier and the Prime Minister having friendly chats together making the deal.
Even with the present minister, we have all sorts of insinuations and suggestions, especially coming out of Saskatchewan, that there was some understanding between the federal government and the provincial government. In fact, in a very disturbing speech made by the president of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Mr. George Hill, last Friday he stated:
In January, 1990, Dr. Good (one of the same civil servants) implored me not to insist on putting a time limit on when the Panel had to report. He no doubt wanted it to look like they had all kinds of independence. He assured me that he would have control over the Panel, through 1he Chairman, who would be an employee of the Federal Environmental Review Office. It must be understood that this office, known as FERO, for Federal Environmental Review Office, is not independent from the rest of the Federal Environmental Department. The head of FERO reports to Dr. Good, Dr. Good had spun his web to include all these people. He assured me that he was in control and he would see that they acted expeditiously and report in short order, because after all, this project had already been reviewed twice.
That is a statement by the president of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation saying that he had the assurance of the deputy minister of the federal Department of the
Supply
Environment that he was able to control the panel and the workings of the panel.
That is a very serious charge. I hope that the Minister of the Environment will stand on his feet some time today and explain what Mr. Hill was talking about. Surely he can give us the assurance that the environmental review panel is indeed independent and not controlled by his department.
We must also really wonder about the motivations of the Saskatchewan government.
We understand that this project is to be mainly in the riding of the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Devine. Of course, there are local spin-off benefits in terms of construction and jobs. Despite clear indications that this project makes no economic sense and makes no environmental sense, we very much expect that perhaps the only area where it does make sense is in terms of political sense for the Premier of Saskatchewan. He certainly has succeeded in whipping up local people who see the economic advantages to this project, for themselves, short-term. He has been able to mobilize these people and I suggest that the only way Premier Devine can get himself re-elected in his constituency is through these tactics.


An hon. member:: He's buying the polls, even there.


Simon Leendert de Jong: He is attempting, as my colleagues says, to buy the polls. Well, let me warn the Premier of Saskatchewan that it ain't going to do him any good because he is going down the tubes as well as soon as he screws up his courage to call a provincial election.
He is using $1.6 billion of public funds from the province of Saskatchewan for a very dubious environmentally and economically sound project. The people of Saskatchewan have been burdened with tremendous deficits and debts because of the present Tory government in Regina. He is quite willing to put an extra $1.6 billion on that accumulated debt just to assure his own re-election and I say, shame, shame, shame.
Of course, the premier does not want to have a full public inquiry. He does not want the public to know. In fact, earlier this year, people concerned with the project were questioning whether the Government of Saskatchewan was indeed complying with the agreement that they had made with the federal government in January of this year and they asked for all of the available documents. The Premier of Saskatchewan, on June 19 of this year, issued an order that all the files relating to the Rafferty-

October 16, 1990
Supply
Alameda Dam project be sealed and that they not be made public. The reason he gave for that was that it was in the public's interest. In other words, he stated that it was in the public's interest for the public not to know the complete story about the Rafferty-Alameda. Again, we say shame, shame, shame on the Premier of Saskatchewan.
In summation, let me state that the Minister of the Environment has only one option. He can only do one thing. Given the sorry and sordid history, given the political games that have been played between the federal government and the province of Saskatchewan, and given the-court orders which are plain and explicit, this minister surely has no other recourse but to lift the licence to prevent any further construction, to have an independent, public, environmental review, and, on the basis of that report, then to make the decision whether or not to allow this project to proceed. But the first step he must take is to revoke the licence and revoke the licence today.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on the responsibilities which you have assumed.
I would also like to explain to members of the House that the Minister of the Environment is unable to be present at this moment. He had planned to make the initial response on behalf of the government, as is traditional, but he will be here, hopefully, later this morning, prior to one o'clock.
I would like to take this opportunity to address what is a very complex and I am afraid, for some, a confusing issue, by providing some important, historical background on the establishment of the panel in question and its role up until very recently.
As many members understand, the process which we are discussing today began, in a very real sense, on January 29 with the appointment of the review panel by the Minister of the Environment and it has ended with the resignation of that same panel on October 12.
The panel itself, of course, was well qualified for the task. It consisted of Robert Connelly, chairman, who is an employee of FEARO; Hugh MacKay, a consulting
engineer from Winnipeg specializing in water resources planning; Dr. Donald Gray, chairman of the Hydrology Division at the University of Saskatchewan; Robert Bell, aquatic biologist from La Ronge, also from Saskatchewan; and Dr. Moodie, a professor of biology at the University of Winnipeg. It was a distinguished group most of whose roots, of course, were in western Canada.
The construction at the Rafferty site was to be voluntarily stopped by the Saskatchewan government once the dam had been rendered safe and was not to resume until the Minister of the Environment had responded to the report of the panel. While the licence issued under the International River Improvements Act was to remain in place, the province did agree to accept any modifications to the licence which the minister wished to make and which fell within federal jurisdiction. Moreover, the Saskatchewan government was to give favourable consideration to recommendations from the panel which fell within provincial areas of jurisdiction.
As part of the safety measures, the low-level outlet structure of the Rafferty Dam was to be made operative through the placement of downstream erosion protection and the installation of a control valve. To do so, the 1990 spring run-off was to have been stored above the Rafferty Dam. The province agreed, at the minister's request, to store as much water as possible in reservoirs upstream of the Rafferty Dam.
As is the case of all panel reviews, the terms of reference for the review were issued by the Minister of the Environment. The Rafferty-Alameda panel was asked to undertake a review of the environmental and related social impacts of the project. In addition, the panel had the mandate to make recommendations concerning the operation of the Rafferty-Alameda Dam, including possible structural modifications, if necessary. In formulating its recommendations, the panel was to take account of Canada's international obligations, including agreements with the United States related to the project.
Construction of the project was to cease, once the Rafferty Dam had been rendered safe, and was not to resume until the panel had submitted its recommendations to the minister. The minister, as needed, and in response to the panel's report, had amended conditions
October 16, 1990

of the International River Improvements Act licence governing of the project.
The project components, as specified in the panel's terms of reference, were the Rafferty Dam and reservoir on the Souris River; the Rafferty-Boundary diversion channel; intermittent channelization for approximately 16 kilometres downstream of the Rafferty Dam; and the Alameda Dam and reservoir in Moose Mountain Creek, which is situated just north of Oxbow.
The Alameda Dam would be constructed on the main stem of Moose Mountain Creek, just east of the village of Alameda. The proposed dam and ancillary works would create a reservoir of sufficient capacity to regulate flows for flood control in both Canada and the United States-that, of course, has been one of the important objectives of the project-and for improved water supply to existing users from Oxbow to the international boundary and to potential new irrigators along the reservoir and downstream of the dam.
The panel was also asked to review all information prepared in accordance with the Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Act, the United States National Environmental Policy Act and EARP itself.
No deadline was given for the completion of the review, although it was well understood that it is typical for reviews of this nature to require from 12 to 18 months for completion.
It is fair to say that there had been considerable study of the project and its effects prior to the appointment of this panel. These included environmental impact assessment statements prepared in accordance with Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Act and the United States National Environmental Policy Act, with an initial environmental evaluation prepared in accordance with EARP guidelines order itself.
The first task of the panel was to formulate and issue operating procedures for the review. These procedures outlying how the panel planned to conduct the review were released on March 30, 1990, along with some questions and answers on the review itself.
During the first few months of its appointment, the panel was also examining and reviewing available studies on the project to determine if the information was adequate and whether or not additional information was
Supply
required before proceeding to public hearings. The panel, after a detailed examination of over 25 volumes of information, decided it did in fact require additional information. Consequently, on May 25, the panel issued its draft information request and invited written public comments on its 36 questions.
In the draft request, the panel asked for additional information on water quantity and quality, fish, wildlife, plants, petroleum resources, and recreation.
During March and April of this year, the panel secretariat made two visits to the Souris basin, the purpose of which was to contact provincial and municipal officials, local residents, farmers, the media, and representatives of environmental groups to explain the process, answer questions, and listen to concerns and suggestions.
During the week of June 18, the panel toured the Souris basin and held two open houses in Estevan, Saskatchewan and in my own constituency of Brandon- Souris in in Souris, Manitoba. On its driving tour, the panel had the opportunity to deal firsthand with the Souris basin in Manitoba, wildlife refuges in North Dakota, and the project site in Saskatchewan. The open houses allowed the panel to explain the review process to local residents and to listen to their concerns.
The panel received 24 submissions commenting on the draft information request. Each submission was carefully considered by the panel in the preparation of the revised document. The final information request listed 45 questions that required answers before the panel could proceed to the public hearing stage of the process.
Perhaps it is worth taking a moment to discuss in some brief detail the nature of this further information request. It dealt with issues associated with water quantity, water quality, fish, wildlife, and other areas. For example in the area of water quantity, the panel felt it was important to understand the cyclic nature in the annual water balance of lakes in a prairie environment. However, data presented in the Souris Basin Development Authority, the SBDA, environmental impact statement was from 1912 to 1981. Given that 1982 to mid-1990 was a very dry period in my part of western Canada and in the area in which the Souris River flows, the inclusion of this data in the analysis would balance the number of

October 16, 1990
Supply
wet-dry cycles and it is expected they would increase the confidence of predictions on the time it would take to fill the reservoirs.
This is crucial information to assist in determining predicted flows in the basin downstream in both North Dakota and in Manitoba.
In the area of water quality, the panel noted that the validity of information from the models available would strongly depend on the manner in which they synthesize processes and on the existence and accuracy of available data. Although the water quality models reported in the SBDA Environmental Impact Statement appear to be state-of-the-art, there was in the mind of the panel insufficient data for proper calibrations and verification.
Consequently the panel asked for more information on water quality projections in the Rafferty Dam reservoir, in particular, and what was being done to address the uncertainties associated with the predictions on water quality in the western part of Manitoba.
In the area of fisheries, the panel noted that the operation of the reservoirs is expected to have both positive and negative effects on fish habitats in North Dakota and Manitoba, as well as in Saskatchewan. The sustainability of fish populations and the success of some of the proposed fisheries mitigation measures would depend on the conditions which prevail under the operating plan specified in the international agreement or required to meet the primary objectives of the project. Consequently, the panel wondered how the fisheries mitigation measures proposed for the Saskatchewan portion of the basin, and which might be required for the North Dakota and Manitoba parts of the basin, would be compatible with the operating plan and the primary objectives of the project.
In the wildlife area, the panel noted that the SBDA waterfowl mitigation plan outlines procedures to be implemented to address anticipated project-related waterfowl losses in Saskatchewan. But the panel also wondered what measures would be undertaken which would ensure that there would be no net loss of waterfowl production in the Souris basin as a result of the project and what national and/or international interim measures, if any, are under consideration.
The panel also noted that reservoir flooding will destroy vegetation that is important to the sustainability of wildlife populations, particularly white-tailed deer. It
asked therefore that the effects of the loss of range on the regional population of white-tailed deer be quantified and to outline what measures are contemplated to provide alternate habitat for white-tailed deer.
These are only a few examples, Mr. Speaker, of some of the detailed questions that the panel raised to provide you and other members of the House with an example of the thorough analysis that the panel was undertaking in trying to do its job properly.
These are also important questions that will have to be thoroughly answered before any decision can be made on the potential environmental effects of this project.
It should also be noted that the panel received a response to these four questions from the SBDA on September 24. Thus the panel had reached step five in its seven step process and was about to make documents available for public review prior to proceeding to the final public hearing.
It should also be noted that while the panel was conducting its work, Saskatchewan was proceeding with ancillary works in the Rafferty reservoir and below the Rafferty dam. These activities included the construction of a causeway in the reservoir area, continuation of work on the new Dr. Mainprize Park and, most recently, the initiation of channelization downstream of the Rafferty dam.
After the panel had finalized its information request, initiated on August 1, it arranged for another tour of the Rafferty-Alameda area in early September. It visited the Rafferty dam and ancillary works and the proposed site of the Alameda structure. The tour was well advertised and somewhere between 50 and 100 people accompanied the panel throughout its visit, with SBDA officials and their consultants being present. The panel visited some of the mitigation lands that the SBDA is developing to reduce impacts. These include tree planting areas designed to replace wildlife habitat that would be flooded by the Rafferty reservoir. They also visited areas that have been designed to replace or to create fish habitat in the Rafferty reservoir.
The panel also visited the proposed location for the Alameda dam. The involvement of individuals from the Souris basin in the Estevan area and from Manitoba was considered to be most valuable to the panel in achieving a better understanding of the potential impact of the
October 16, 1990

project in general, ways to mitigate effects and both support and concerns about the project.
During this tour, the panel observed that channelization downstream of the Rafferty dam had begun.
While it was the understanding of all members, when appointed, that none of this work would occur, the panel was of the opinion that any negative environmental effects associated with the causeway and the park were reversible or could be mitigated. Therefore, the panel in spite of these frustrations continued its review. In a letter to the minister on October 4, the panel pointed out that initiation of downstream channelization clearly violated the panel's terms of reference which specifically charged the panel with reviewing this component of the project.
The panel recognized that the Canada-Saskatchewan ministerial agreement, which was signed in January 1990, restricting construction on the project, had been interpreted differently by the federal government and the Government of Saskatchewan. The panel also recognized and appreciated the attempts by the Minister of the Environment, the hon. Robert de Cotret, to reach an understanding with Saskatchewan on the agreement. It was this difference in interpretation and the incompatibility it caused with the terms of reference, however, which gave rise to the difficult situation in which the panel had been placed.
However, while the agreement regarding some aspects of the project may be ambiguous, it clearly states that no work on the Rafferty-Boundary diversion channel or on the Alameda dam and reservoir, including the acquisition of land, will begin and that construction on the Rafferty dam, once the safety of the works was assured, would cease until the review was complete. Once the safety of the Rafferty dam was secure, it was the panel's understanding that no work on these elements of the project would occur during the course of the review.
Given these circumstances, the panel sought guidance on how best to proceed with the review and in the interest of preserving the integrity and credibility of the
Supply
process and the review, the panel felt compelled to suspend its operations until this matter was clarified.
It was a surprise, however, to the panel, after its letter was made public on October 11, that the premier of Saskatchewan announced later that same day that he instructed the SBDA to begin or to resume construction on all aspects of the Rafferty-Alameda project.
Premier Devine said he "issued the instruction in response to the announcement by the federal Rafferty-Alameda environmental review panel that it had suspended its operations pending clarification of its terms of reference". It is difficult to comprehend why a request to clarify terms of reference for the review which had advanced to the final stages would provoke such a reaction.
Not surprisingly, the panel announced the next day that it regretfully tendered its resignation to the minister. It pointed out while the review of the Rafferty dam was not an ideal situation, since it was well under construction when the panel began its task, there was every expectation on the part of the panel that it would be able to conduct a thorough and credible assessment of the potential environmental impacts and ways to mitigate the effects the Alameda project and the Boundary-Rafferty diversion channel prior to construction.
The announcement by Saskatchewan made it clearly impossible for the panel to complete its task in accordance with its terms of reference.
While the panel regretted that it would be unable to fulfil its obligation to the people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and North Dakota, it felt, under the present circumstances, that its first priority must be the protection of the environment as well as the integrity and credibility of the review process. The minister, in accepting the panel's resignation stated, and I quote:
When Saskatchewan announced its intention to start work on the
Alameda project, the panel was compelled to resign. Since midsummer I -
Meaning the minister.
- have met with the premier, members of the panel, residents of the province and other stakeholders. I have tried to find a reasonable solution where the interests of the review panel, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the environment and the economy could be

October 16, 1990
Supply
accommodated. Unfortunately, we could not find that common ground. Had it completed its task, the panel would have provided valuable recommendations to the benefit of the environment and the people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and North Dakota. The resignation is a loss for all concerned.
I believe that this bit of history demonstrates that the government has tried very hard to ensure that a proper environmental assessment panel review was conducted. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has had many discussions with the government of Saskatchewan to negotiate a practical way to allow the review process to continue. However, in the final analysis, his work has been frustrated, not through lack of effort, but rather because of a lack of authority to deal with this type of situation. It has become clear that the present environmental assessment and review process guidelines order developed by a previous administration was both confusing and ambiguous. We are now seeing, and I regret, the practical example of its failure. It would be appropriate later on this day, Mr. Speaker, for other hon. members to address how this matter might be rectified as, indeed, I am sure they will.
It is clear that the matter before us is a difficult one for two reasons. It is difficult because the guidelines that were originally designed in the early 1980s were not intended to have the force of law. They were drafted consequently in a manner in which, on occasions, was both sometimes confusing and ambiguous. These guidelines were later given the force of law, despite their inadequacy, and that is the system under which we are currently operating. I think most members of the House would agree that these guidelines have proven to be inadequate to the responsibility given them and that is why Bill C-78 is before this House and will be discussed in greater detail tomorrow.
It is also clear that the agreement reached between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan in January of this year was not as precise as we would wish it to be, and that has led to different interpretations.
As to the significance of that agreement on the part of the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan, we proceeded in accordance with our responsibilities, as we understood them, in the early part of this year to appoint a panel. That panel has met and attempted to fulfil its task during the course of the
summer. It has taken longer than many people in the area would have wished and the consequence has been an immense amount of frustration with that fact. As I have indicated, the task of the panel was substantive and the progress significant. We regret, therefore, that they felt compelled to resign.
The minister, when he speaks later this morning, will indicate in some detail the response of the government to the fact that the resignations have occurred. He indicated in the House yesterday that he made a commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada that it will fulfil its legal responsibilities and will address the matter of the appointment of a replacement panel because that is part of its responsibility.
I am somewhat at a loss in terms of being unable to be more precise at this time in the absence of the minister, but I can make a commitment to the House that the minister will speak to the House as soon as he is available and will at that time provide a more detailed explanation of the government's response to the resignation of the panel.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the parliamentary secretary told us. First, we understand that the hon. member feels personally concerned with this since the question of water quality in the city of Souris is a broadened question on the study itself. A large group of people who are opposed to the project come from Brandon and Souris.
I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Saskatchewan government's stated intention to go ahead with the Alameda part of it might really be counter to what already has been told to the Saskatchewan government.
I understand in a letter dated August 15, signed by the Minister of Transport, to Mr. J. F. Dolecki of the Department of Economics at Brandon University, the minister stated as follows:
The proponent, SaskPower, has applied under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) for approval of the total project, including the causeway. The application will be processed in the usual manner. However, as a result of the Federal Appeal Court decision of March 13, 1990, on the Oldman River Dam project, the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) Guidelines Order will now apply.
Given the fact that this project has been recommended for a public panel review under EARP, no action will be taken on the NWPA application until the panel has rendered its decision. I should add that
October 16, 1990

there are currently no plans to issue a stop order on the project under
the NWPA.
What the minister is stating there is that he is not going to allow work to continue, yet the Saskatchewan government has now declared it is going to continue. My question to the government is this: What are you going to do about it?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the first part of the hon. member's comments by noting that yes, this entire project has been of interest and concern to myself and, of course, to many members of my constituency.
The member is correct when he suggest that some of the principal opponents of the project reside within the constituency. I might also add just so that the information is before the House that there are also many supporters of the project residing within the Brandon- Souris constituency and I suspect that my constituents would want me to inform the hon. member that, indeed, the majority of the communications which I have received on this project actually favour it.
That is not to suggest that governments make decisions on the basis of the number of letters received in support or in opposition because governments have a responsibility to provide leadership and not simply to try to determine which way the political wind is blowing at any given moment. But I think the hon. member would want to have that information available.
The letter which the hon. member quoted with respect to a former colleague of mine at Brandon University, Professor Dolecki, was received from the Minister of Transport in which he referred to some information that would be received and the decisions that would be taken after the review panel had completed its work.
It is my understanding that we will be seeking the appointment of a review panel because that is what we are required to do under the law. We are anxious to receive the benefit of the work which has already been taking place.
As I indicated earlier in my remarks, the panel which has been in place for the balance of 1990 had reached step five in a seven step process. It had done an immense amount of background exploration. It met with the public on different occasions and it met with the
Supply
interested parties. I believe it is very important that the information which it was putting together was for the recommendations it would be making to the Minister of the Environment and which would in due course be made.
I can understand why the panel, as I have indicated, felt compelled to resign early this month. I expect, Mr. Speaker, that a well qualified panel will be asked to continue with that responsibility with the appropriate terms of reference. I anticipate that they will be able to make use of the information which has been gathered to date and it will be on with the process and the application of EARP as we have been doing during the course of 1990. The end result will be the provision of the information to the minister and consequently the appropriate action.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments concerning this difficult situation and especially his efforts to explain the difficulties that have marked the Rafferty-Alameda process.
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary feel that the Government of Canada has lived up to its obligations and its commitments regarding the environmental evaluation process?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I guess the short answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe we have to date and we will continue to do so. We are at a very difficult period now, as one can expect, with the resignation of the panel, but we intend to fulfil those obligations as given to us.
If I might be permitted to add, because I know that the hon. member will be interested in knowing this, this had been a very difficult task. One of the reasons why it has been a very difficult task is the fact that the guidelines, which have now been given the force of law, are quite frankly inadequate and must be replaced. That is what Bill C-78 is all about.
I would hope therefore, if I am permitted an editorial, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member will attend the debate tomorrow on second reading and lend his strong support to that legislation. We cannot permit the country to continue with the present guidelines being in place because they are not equal to the task which lies before

Supply
them. That has added very substantially to the difficulties of the federal government.
I firmly believe that Bill C-78 will be a very major step in ensuring that these issues will be addressed and resolved in the future, rather than concerns being addressed part way through the process as has been the case with Rafferty-Alameda.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering, first of all, whether the parliamentary secretary has had the opportunity to confer with his colleagues, the Solicitor General, about how it looks to the country to have three court orders essentially being overruled by a political fiasco in Saskatchewan that includes, I might remind him, George Hill, a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan who has very much politicized the whole SaskPower operation, and the new Senator Bemtson in the other place who is one of the eight new appointments there. This is how it looks to the Saskatchewan people. There have also been suggestions from a former cabinet minister in the Saskatchewan government that water could be diverted from the Saskatchewan River system or even from the Churchill River system down into this swamp.
I was just wondering whether in fact the minister was aware of how this must look to the people of Saskatchewan, including the political implications as well as the environmental implications.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member referred to a swamp and I am not too certain as to what area he is referring to. I have visited the area on two different occasions to meet with officials and with interested parties on both sides. While I did see an immense amount of very dry land, I did not see any swamp.


Raymond John Funk: That is what there will be when they build the dam.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I guess that is an issue on which there would obviously be a great deal of division of opinion, just as I believe there is a great deal of division of opinion on this issue in the province of Saskatchewan. On the question of whether or not Mr. Hill is qualified for his task is probably something which is better addressed in the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan rather than in the federal Parliament.
Certainly the Minister of the Environment has consulted with all his cabinet colleagues, as one would expect, and continues to do so. I think the federal government has tried very conscientiously. I would like to compliment the Minister of the Environment for the fact that in July he did visit the site. I know because I was present. He met with the opponents, with representatives of SCRAP in the city of Regina, and travelled to the site. I think all present had a good thorough knowledge of both the arguments in favour and opposed. I might add that that visit was very much appreciated because one of the things that is very frustrating to the people who live in that part of Saskatchewan is the fact that so many of these projects are evaluated from people who reside in very distant places. They do not always take the time to visit, to understand and to listen to both sides of the argument. I might say that the Minister of the Environment has very appropriately done that.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion before us. Certainly this is the most serious test and challenge of a government's commitment to environmental action that we have dealt with in this House.
The member who has just spoken talked about the inadequacy of the guidelines. I would remind the member opposite what the courts had to say about the government's action with respect to the guidelines. The courts have said that it is very clear that the government is trying to evade its responsibilities under the guidelines, which have now given substantially more force than will be the case with Bill C-78. The government, they said, should be embracing the guidelines in its responsibilities and instead it is evading them.
There are many things we do in government or as politicians on behalf of our constituents that can be undone if we have made a mistake. This is one of those things that cannot be undone. This is one of those things with damaging consequences that will go on for generations after none of us are here to live with those consequences. That is why it deserves the full attention of this House and the full attention of the government.
In fact what has happened is that we have a history of shame surrounding this project. It is the history of the government, through three consecutive ministers of the environment, that has sought to do everything it can to
October 16, 1990

ensure that this project is completed before an environmental assessment is carried out.
We have complete complicity, as I read the history of this, with ensuring that the damage that will be done by this project is neither fully nor thoroughly and publicly examined nor mitigated on the basis of a full environmental assessment. The whole purpose seems to have been to conspire to delay the process, to conspire not to take legal action that the government could have taken, and to conspire to issue permits to make sure that any environmental assessment that is ultimately carried out-and let me remind the House that there has not been a full environmental assessment under the meaning of the act-has no force and effect because the project is complete.
The history I have spoken of starts with the issuance of the first permit for this project by the federal government with the approval of the then minister of the Environment, the Hon. Tom McMillan, in June 1988. Knowing what it knew about the environmental effects of this project, knowing what it knew about the public objections, and knowing what the guideline order said its responsibility as a government was, in particular the minister's responsibility, this government went ahead and issued a permit. Let us not forget that fundamental fact. Since then we have had a process of delay and bungling that has allowed this project to proceed nearly to completion in defiance of two very specific court orders that that not happen.
For over 11 days now we have had a minister who knows that work is proceeding that should not be proceeding. He has failed to do anything to stop that work. The minister's predecessor knew since April that work was proceeding that should not proceed, in contravention of the court order and in contravention of the agreement. We have a government that has continued to pay the province of Saskatchewan $1 million a month of taxpayers' money to continue doing work under an agreement which it had agreed not to do.
We have a crisis now, a crisis of which a minister was aware in April and allowed to develop to this point. The minister admitted in the House last Friday that he was out in Saskatchewan in July, negotiating ways around the
Supply
agreement and negotiating ways around the terms of reference of the environmental assessment panel. He was trying to pretend that work which was going on there was perfectly in accord with an agreement when he knew perfectly well the concerns of his environmental review panel that its work was futile, was useless, and was a sham if the work were allowed to continue.
The parliamentary secretary is sitting over there, shaking his head. Let me read from the letter of the Environmental Assessment Panel to the minister, dated October 4: "As you know, on April 2, this panel wrote to your predecessor expressing concerns regarding continued construction of the Rafferty-Alameda project. On April 27, Saskatchewan announced its intention to proceed with ancillary works in the Rafferty River reservoir and below the Rafferty dam.
These activities have gone far beyond any minimum measures necessary to ensure the safety of the site. The parliamentary secretary knows that, the minister knows that, and I suspect the Prime Minister knows that.
Why did they not act in April? Why did they not use the powers that are there under the guideline orders, that the courts have reaffirmed and that are in fact strengthened by the decisions they have made not only on Rafferty-Alameda but also on the Oldman River dam project?
The panel made clear many times over those months what its concerns were. The minister failed to act. I reject totally the minister's claims that he is now concerned and that he will take tough action. The time for tough action has passed and construction of the Rafferty dam is weeks away from completion, because there has been no action since last spring.
The panel is put in the position of saying that it understands that the agreement has been interpreted differently, the agreement between Saskatchewan and Ottawa which says that safety work can continue and that the Government of Canada will pay the province of Saskatchewan $1 million a month for the inconvenience of the delay. That has gone on since April now. For eight months the people of Canada have been paying the province of Saskatchewan $1 million a month not to work on the Rafferty-Alameda dam project, when the government has known perfectly well that it is proceeding in violation of that agreement and has continued to pay. I

October 16, 1990
Supply
ask the government and the minister how they can justify paying out money and allowing that project to proceed.
On Friday in the House the minister clearly said that the Alameda dam could not proceed. What he failed to address was the fact that contracts have been called on that dam and the contract for construction of that dam has proceeded. Not only do we have the Rafferty dam part of this project nearing completion without an environmental panel in place and without an assessment having been completed, but now we have the Government of Saskatchewan poised to commence work on the Alameda dam. One can almost hear the pleading in the letter from the panel where it mentions that it at least had hoped that it would be able to do a full environmental assessment of that part of the project before it had started.
Now the delays, the lack of action, as the court says the continual evasion of the government of its responsibilities under environmental assessment legislation and the guideline orders, have put us in a position where we have a second project that is under way. Even the opportunity to assess a part of that project before it starts is now denied to any environmental panel.
What is the minister going to do? He is going to take strong action. Where was he on October 4 when that permit should have been revoked immediately? Where was he on October 11 and 12 when the premier of Saskatchewan was saying he was going ahead with that work? Why do we sit here on October 16 and nothing yet has been done?
Where is he now? What is he going to do? Is he going to set up a new panel? Is he going to do what has been attempted since last April when the panel was set up to so modify the terms of reference of that panel that they are meaningless?
In a letter from FEARO to the panel in the spring, it made clear that the panel did not have the right to consider alternatives. A fundamental of any environmental assessment is that the panel has the right to consider what alternatives there were and whether this is the only means of achieving the government's or the proponent's ends.
The minister referred to tree planting as mitigating measures. It is up to an environmental assessment to determine what mitigating measures are adequate, not
to the proponent to put in place what he considers mitigating measures and then expect the environmental panel to rubber stamp those mitigating measures.
We have two court orders that make it clear what the obligation is of the government. It is clear from the actions of the minister that those obligations have not been met. Tough talk instead of tough action does not delude this House or the public.
The parliamentary secretary talked about Bill C-78. The government, from the beginning of this project in June 1988 to now-well over two years-has avoided actions it could have and should have taken, has attempted in every way possible to ensure that this project continues. This inaction gives no one any confidence that Bill C-78 is going to lead to a process where all projects that proceed in this country are going to do so only with the fullest respect for the environment in a way that does not damage it, and in a way that sets us in a different direction, with the environment as our first consideration when we decide whether and how a project should continue.
Bill C-78 does not at all allay the concerns of the public and the concerns of this opposition that the government is one bit sincere. In fact, it allows for this kind of thing to continue. It allows for the government to compromise at any time it wants on environmental assessment.
We have guideline orders. We have court decisions that give those guideline orders full strength and effect, that give the government not only the right but the obligation to take whatever action it wants to protect the environment. Until we are prepared to move forward from the current situation in legislation, we should not move at all.
Bill C-78 does not move us forward in areas of interprovincial jurisdiction. What we need is a government with the courage and the confidence to say: "We are responsible for the environment in this country, and we are going to deal honestly, fairly but toughly with any problems or any authority that tries to damage that environment."
I just want to wrap up by saying what I said at the beginning. There are some things we do that are temporary in nature, that have a short term and not a terribly serious impact. This is one that does have serious impact.
October 16, 1990

This is a challenge to the government to act now, to pull that permit now, to go to court as construction continues, to do what it should have done months ago and use whatever political, fiscal and legal means at its disposal to stop this project. Any environmental panel set up, if it does not do that, will be a sham. It will be useless, worthless, because the project will be done before it has an opportunity to complete its work.
We have not yet talked about whether there was or was not a deal between the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Minister of the Environment. There is only one way for that question to be answered and that is for the minister to table all documents, all letters, all correspondence, any draft agreement, and any information so that this House can draw its own conclusions.
I find it hard to believe, and I think any reasonable person would find it hard to believe, that the Province of Saskatchewan would expose itself to legal damage by letting contracts, by even calling for tenders, if it did not know it could proceed. There is only one basis on which it could have known it could proceed and that was some indication from the Minister of the Environment that it would be able to proceed.
Against that logic the government has an obligation to table any information relative to the claims by the Premier of Saskatchewan and by the President of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation that such a deal existed. Only then will we and the Canadian public know who to believe on this issue and who to trust with the future of our most precious environmental resources.
I challenge the minister and I challenge the government to stop trying to fool Canadians about its intentions on the environment. Tough words do not stop the kind of damage this project is going to do. It should be subject to a full environmental assessment. It should be subject to a full report. It is too late now for the Rafferty dam. Let us admit that. Damage has been done that cannot be undone, but let us stop the work now and ensure it does not go any further. Let us make sure the Alameda dam does not proceed along the same bumbling path that has been followed at the Rafferty dam.
Supply


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Manitoba I have had a long-standing interest in the dispute over the Rafferty-Alameda dam. I had an opportunity to check the records this morning and see that I raised this in June, 1988.
I raised it as a result of information that came to me from someone who at that time worked in the minister's office. That person was concerned that the effects of this project on Manitoba were not being taken into consideration in the deliberations and agreements going on at that time between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada with respect to the Rafferty-Alameda project.
The person I am referring to later resigned from the service of the Minister of the Environment over this issue and it was out of that resignation that came the support for the view that a deal had been made at that time between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada with respect to Rafferty-Alameda, the deal being that the Saskatchewan government would accommodate the federal government on the Grasslands park in return for the Saskatchewan government having its way on the Rafferty-Alameda project.
The person I am referring to of course was Elizabeth May, who has since gone on to resume her work as an environmental activist and recently has authored a book with respect to the fight over South Moresby and Lyell Island.
I recall this to remind the government and the minister that the minister did not do the right thing with respect to the current situation in Rafferty-Alameda. He has already delayed in doing the right thing. We are at a disadvantage today because we know he may make an announcement later. We do not know what that announcement will be, but we can say that he has delayed in doing what we think is the right thing, which is revoking the licence. If the minister persists in not doing the right thing, he will be the third environment minister to have his credibility dashed on the rocks, so to speak, of the Rafferty-Alameda dam.
Tom McMillan, began his Ministry of the Environment with high expectations all around, and ended up discredited because of the way he handled the Rafferty-Alameda project. The next Minister of the Environment eventually left the ministry for reasons not related to the

October 16, 1990
Supply
environment, but had his credibility damaged by his reluctance to do the right thing with respect to Rafferty-Alameda.
We now have a third Minister of the Environment. If he ever wanted to do anything to shore up, build up or create some credibility for himself, having originally got the job in an extemporaneous sort of way because of the resignation of the former minister leaving the government caucus to join the Bloc Quebecois, he should do the right thing and take a very tough line with the Government of Saskatchewan. We feel that tough line should be the revoking of the licence, not taking the Government of Saskatchewan to court because that takes time.
The Government of Saskatchewan has shown that it has no respect for litigation. This has been through the courts and the construction continues. The only possible thing that might work is to revoke the licence. That is what the minister must do. If that is not the announcement he makes today then we will continue to be on his case until he does that.
We are talking about the rule of law. We listened, and all Canadians listened, with some sympathy to the Prime Minister the few times he emerged from under whatever rock he was hiding this summer to say something about what was happening at Oka. He would talk about the rule of law, about how all Canadian laws must be respected and that sort of thing. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a situation which has been ruled on by the courts, and the Government of Saskatchewan has flagrantly ignored the judgments reached by the courts, and what we assume was the spirit of the agreement between the federal government and the Government of Saskatchewan pursuant to those court judgments.
If this sort of thing happened anywhere else, if there was this kind of unauthorized property damage going on anywhere else, we would call the police. What is happening here is that the common property of everyone, in this case the environment and the land being subjected to the construction activities at Rafferty-Alameda, is being illegally altered and illegally damaged. If someone did this in your backyard or if someone went into the backyard of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and said: "Well, I know there's a law against this and I know
there is a court order against this, but I have decided I want to do this anyway," then proceeded to dig up his backyard. What would happen? That person would be brought to heel and might even end up in jail.
There has been a lot of talk over the last 10 years or so with respect to the environment. Some of it has come from the other side, but mostly it has come from environmental groups. They express the need to see negative or illegal actions against the environment, not in the namby-pamby way that we now regard them as civil matters which can be litigated and negotiated, but as crimes and the kind of thing we put an end to when they are happening. That is the kind of situation that we have here with respect to the Government of Saskatchewan and the Rafferty-Alameda project.
What kind of possible credibility can the government, or for that matter, the whole environmental review process, ever hope to have in the future if the Government of Saskatchewan can get away with simply saying: "We don't like that ruling and we have a different view of the agreement that we had with the federal government. We are just going to go ahead." It is no wonder this panel resigned.
Any group of people with a smidgen of self-respect would not have anything to do with this process. Perhaps these people felt, at the time at which they were appointed, that there was a serious intent on the part of both levels of government to initiate a full and meaningful review. Fair enough. But they have obviously come to the judgment that the kind of review they had in mind is not in the cards, and that the Government of Saskatchewan was proceeding apace with the project. Who would want to be part of a farce where you come up with a final review or judgment of a project just at the time it is being completed?
The only people who seem to be able to tolerate that scenario in its own mind is this government, but it is not just the credibility of the government that is at stake. If it was just that, I would not worry about it. It is like worrying about nothing, because it does not have any credibility. That is not the point. Who cares about the credibility of this government, per se, by itself?
What we care about is the way in which this government, by adding fuel to the fires of cynicism which are
October 16, 1990

already consuming the land, is creating a situation in which Canadians will find it impossible to have any hope, not with respect to all the things that we already associate cynicism with in the political process, but also with respect to this whole question of the environment and the rule of law. Yet, that is precisely what the government is doing in appearing at first to have made deals about the environment, then ignoring its own statutes, and being found in contravention of those statutes by the courts. And so it goes until the situation we find ourselves in today, where it appears that the minister knew that the panel had resigned, that construction was proceeding, and it was not until it became public that, thanks to being questioned in the House of Commons, he now is in the position of feeling that he has to do something about it.
If the minister has any commitment whatsoever to the integrity of the environmental review process, to the integrity of the role of government in protecting the environment, and for the sake of future governments- never mind this one-the only thing he can do is to revoke the licence. That is what we hope to hear from the minister later on today. Perhaps he will choose to make that announcement in the House when he speaks to this particular motion put forward by the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.
I am very happy that today we have the opportunity to debate Rafferty-Alameda, and I congratulate the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle on making it possible. I was also pleased to be able to second the motion. It gives us an opportunity to spend some time on this particular environmental question, but also on the larger question of the environment. I think on a day-to-day basis, or indeed on a month-to-month basis, it does not get as much attention around here as it should. It is as if, Mr. Speaker, we are all in a lifeboat somewhere and we are spending all of our time arguing about who the captain will be or how we are going to distribute the last remaining lunch that we have. In the meantime, the boat is sinking and nobody is willing to pay any attention to the fact that the boat is sinking. Well, the boat is sinking.
To use another analogy-a favourite of mine-which goes back a long time: the canaries in the mine are dying. We remember that miners used canaries in the mines so, when the canaries began to die, they knew that it was time to get the hell out of the mine because they can not
Supply
breathe the air any more. Well, the canaries are dying all over the place.
The canaries are dying when there are no more fish left in the ocean to provide a livelihood for fishermen and fisherwomen. The canaries are dying when 10-year-old saplings or seven-year-old saplings have to be planted in Toronto, instead of the three-year-old saplings which used to be planted, because the three-year-old saplings will die due to the quality of the air in Toronto.
The canaries are dying all over the place and these are just a few examples. I could go on and on. And yet we, in the House, with our endless prattle about things that do not really matter when stacked up against the environment, are doing the Canadian public a great disservice by being so preoccupied with these penultimate matters, instead of the ultimate question of human survival, for that is what we are talking about. In each and every case, when we are talking about an environmental issue, we are asking if we have the collective political will to survive as a human species, to have a truly human, fully human future, or are we some kind of unintelligent species which will simply not wake up to what it is doing to itself and to its environment, and are we destined to collective self-destruction?
In that respect, individual Canadians can do a lot of things such as collecting stuff to recycle, buying green products, and all those sorts of things which are happening now. But, in the final analysis, that will not be enough unless policies are put into place and there is the political will by governments and the international and global communities to deal with this problem. I am sorry, but I do not see that kind of will displayed on the other side of the House. I do not see it in sufficient quantity internationally for that matter. There is a lot of talk about sustainable development, yes. One cannot turn on the TV or radio, or read anything now without hearing or reading about sustainable development.
We need to talk about what development means and what sustainability means, because this phrase has become cheapened. It has has become the standard language of public relations people and everyone else who wants to be part of the new thing happening vis-a-vis the environment. Well, public relations will not get us into the 21st century and 22nd century with a liveable environment. Only real political will will do that and real hard political choices that none of us will enjoy, not just the rich, the powerful, the polluters, but every one of us

October 16, 1990
Supply
who has a life-style which is wrapped up in ways which negatively affect the environment, and that includes almost everyone.
This is something I hope we will all keep in mind when we are debating Rafferty-Alameda, acid rain, PCBs, water quality in the Great Lakes, or whatever. All of these things need to be seen in the larger context of human survival and in the larger context of the integrity of creation. Unless we begin to think at that level about what we are doing when we are talking about these issues, we will not be addressing the problem adequately.
The minister can make a start today, in terms of creating that political will and in terms of demonstrating that political will, by telling Premier Grant Devine of Saskatchewan that, as far as the Government of Canada is concerned, he is acting outside the law and he will be treated the way outlaws are supposed to be treated. The licence should be revoked and, if construction on the project continues after that, then Mr. Devine ought to be answerable to the full extent of the law for the environmental crimes that he would be committing if he continued with that project.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the rage and the outrage I just heard expressed, but I wonder if the hon. member could give me some information about the past involvement of his party on this issue. Perhaps if he heard a few dates and events, he could tell me how his party responded.
For instance, in February, 1986 Premier Grant Devine announced the multi-million dollar Rafferty-Alameda Dam project. If I am not mistaken, there was an NDP government in power in Manitoba at that time and perhaps he might want to tell me how it reacted.
Perhaps he might want to tell me how the NDP government in Manitoba reacted in August, 1987, when the development authority, set up by Saskatchewan and various environmental groups, approached the NDP government in Manitoba and asked them to take a very strong stand against this development. The NDP government in Manitoba at that time said: "It's not our responsibility. It is the federal government's responsibility." It let the environmental groups take the government to court and we know that those were successful.
Again, in February, 1988, when there was still an NDP government in power in Manitoba-unless I am mistaken-the Saskatchewan Environment Minister approved the Rafferty-Alameda Dam project, and still the NDP government in Manitoba, knowing the impact on Manitoba and the public objections in Manitoba, resisted the pleas of environmental groups to take some legal action to try to oppose this.
I wonder if the hon. member who has just spoken would like to explain to me the past record of his colleagues in Manitoba on this.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for doing her homework, a rare incident in the Liberal caucus but it is nice to see it happen every once in a while.
The fact of the matter is two things. First, part of the problem at that time was that the federal government and the Government of Saskatchewan were careful to do everything they could to exclude the Government of Manitoba from the process and, indeed, from a lot of the information. But the fact remains that I have no desire to defend the passivity with which this issue was dealt by the NDP government of that time. It was far too passive on a variety of environmental issues and I believe it is one of the reasons it met the fate it did in 1988.
I could spend a lot more time than the hon. member has documenting the way in which the government of the province of Manitoba at that time, in my judgment, did not pay enough attention, and did not have the political will I was just talking about that is necessary to deal with the tough environmental questions that has to be dealt with.
For example, with respect to returnable containers, the availability of returnable containers actually declined under an NDP government. I see that the Ontario NDP government has made a different kind of decision today and is reported in The Toronto Star as going to be taking a tough line with the soft drink industry in trying to get the number of returnable containers up. This is good news. This is the kind of thing the Manitoba NDP government should have done and did not do. I was one of the ones who was always on its case asking it to do it. If the hon. members talks to any of the cabinet ministers, they will verify what I have just said.
October 16, 1990


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague a question I do want to make an observation. In terms of the opposition to the Rafferty-Alameda Dam, might I suggest that it was my party, including myself, that first raised it in the House consistently, before the Liberals even began to realize that there was an issue here. The record definitely shows this, if hon. members want to go back and check the record.
I must also say on this, which maybe indicates a difference as well, that the former Liberal critic for the environment, the hon. member for Davenport, and I had joint press conferences, including the Wildlife Federation and so forth, that we took this to be not a topic that we were going to score political points on, but a topic that we were working on together and we were quite anxious and willing to include any Conservative as well. The position we took, and that critic for the Liberal Party at that time, was that the environment is too important to play political games with. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party decided not to reappoint the hon. member for Davenport as its environmental critic and in fact now is playing politics with the environment, and let the record show that as well.
The question I want to ask my colleague is this. In my speech earlier, I quoted Mr. George Hill, who is still the president of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. In his comments, Mr. George Hill stated how he had been assured by Dr. Good from the environmental department that Dr. Good had complete control over the environmental panel. He could determine pretty well how the panel was going to be operating. Mr. George Hill made some very serious allegations.
We know that the government has introduced Bill C-78, dealing with environmental review. Certainly the bill goes half way in a sense that environmental review will no longer be part of the environment department but will be separated. Mr. George Hill made the allegation in his speech that because right now the environmental review is under the environment department and Mr. Good of the environment department can control pretty well what the environmental review section is doing, while Bill C-78 separates that, still our request and the request of environmentalists is to have the environmental review part report directly to Parliament rather than to the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the environmental review process remains legitimate, remains outside of politics and should be-
Supply
come answerable to Parliament rather than to the minister. Would my colleague agree with that?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with that and expand on it in this sense, that I think that wherever possible environmental assessment needs to be taken out of political control, if you like. There is a problem with that as well because what does political mean? When we say out of political control, we mean political in the pejorative or partisan sense of that. I do not want to see it taken out of political control in the sense that larger genuine political questions about value, the nature of development, et cetera, which are political questions in the best sense of what it means to be political, and which at some point in a process need to be considered once the basic biological and physical assessments have been done of any particular project.
I want to say something in response to some of the heckling that I was getting from my colleagues. It is the first time I have ever been heckled and I am very sensitive about it. I was asked whether I had criticized the former NDP government on the public record. Indeed, I have had many occasions, some of them in this House, to criticize not only the Manitoba NDP government but the former Saskatchewan NDP government over their policies with respect to uranium mining. I know that it is strange to Liberals that anybody would get up and express criticism of a government of their own party. But we in the NDP have that kind of freedom of expression and we use it frequently in order to make our positions known.
[Translation)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Opposition House Leader has the floor.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, during a debate of this kind, it is customary for a member to be allowed a 20-minute speech, followed by time for questions and comments. The Official Opposition's interest in this Opposition day and in the motion before the House is such that my colleagues asked me to suggest, as has become customary, that we be allowed to split the 20 minutes in two periods of ten minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments. Or if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, we will give notice to the Chair that Liberal members wish to have each shared by two speakers. I say this so as not to complicate the task of

October 16, 1990
Supply
the Chair. We could start with the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou, who will speak for ten minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the suggestion by the Parliamentary House Leader of the Official Opposition. Does the House agree with this request?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty with the Official Opposition proceeding in that manner if they choose to do so.
I might add that I suspect that we on our side will probably not do so, but it it is only because the issue is so complex and needs such substantive argument that we will retain our 20-minute speeches.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on the same point. We have no objections. We do want some guidance from the Chair, though, in terms of what happens to the question period afterward. Is it understanding them that one can ask five-minute questions of each of the speakers?
Most probably, as the parliamentary secretary stated for the government members, most of our members as well will speak for 20 minutes. It is a complex issue. It does require some in depth understanding and some explanation.
We understand, as well, that the Liberals might lack this. They might want to speak for 10 minutes is to give us 10 minutes worth of platitudes, but again the record will show that.


An hon. member:: Ten minutes of shallow breathing. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Your attention please. If I understand correctly, the House agrees with the proposal made by the Parliamentary House Leader of the Official Opposition. There are, of course, provisions that allow the members of the other parties to either take the full 20 minutes with 10 minutes of
questions and comments, or divide their speaking time as well, as long as they advise the Chair before they start whether they intend to take 10 minutes or 20 minutes. So that is understood. I now recognize the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou, for a ten-minute speech.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my parliamentary House Leader. There is much I would like to say, but I prefer to give ten minutes of my speaking time to colleagues who will shed some light on the regional aspects and argue the importance of the federal government's role in environmental issues.
Mr. Speaker, when the Saskatchewan government decided to proceed with the Rafferty-Alameda project, our environment critic, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, said he was vigorously opposed to the Saskatchewan government's decision to go ahead with construction on the Rafferty dam, without having the requisite public hearings on the project's environmental impact.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the history of this project goes back to February 13, 1986. Since then, there have been a number of developments. Studies were made, the licence was revoked and re-instated several times, and a number of conditions were set. Today, the latest decision by the Saskatchewan government contradicts a ruling by the Federal Court, and challenges federal environmental regulations. I hope the minister will set an example that will be clear to everyone concerned, and I hope he will do so as soon as possible-it is already late in the day-and that he will do everything necessary to stop this project. A clear stand is important because there are other projects as well.
For instance, I know that as far as Phase II of the James Bay Project was concerned, the Minister of the Environment was quite clear when he said that environmental assessments were necessary before they could proceed. So if the minister was that categorical for Quebec, the same should apply to Saskatchewan or Ontario, as in the case of any other program.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an area where one can conveniently say: now listen, it depends on the circum-
October 16, 1990

stances, we'll let them- there are a number of considerations and finally, there might be a provincial election. The environment, however, is so important because it involves the future of all mankind. That is why a clear stand must be taken, since this is not an area where concessions should be made, Mr. Speaker.
If we start making concessions, of course we can talk about foreign policy and the global economy, but the environment is the air we breathe and the water we drink, and that is why the future of mankind is at stake here. If a federal government cannot have clear authority over the environment, we are all wasting our time. If every province makes decisions for purely internal reasons, without considering what is at stake for our country and for the environment, I think we are not doing our job, and I therefore ask the Minister of the Environment to take action and do everything he can to put an immediate stop to this project until the requisite studies have been completed.

Mr. Speaker, to make sure that everyone listening understands why we are talking here and why we are in this situation, I would like to talk about what happened from the beginning to now. On February 13, 1986, Premier Grant Devine announced a multi-million dollar project. The Rafferty dam is to be used to cool the coal-fired generator at Shand. The Alameda reservoir water will be stored and released periodically. In August 1987, the Souris Basin Development Authority, set up by the province, released the results of its environmental impact study. Meanwhile, the province appointed a three member board of inquiry to hold public hearings. In February 1988, the province's environment minister approves work to begin on the dam projects after reviewing the board's recommendations.
Two years ago there were people opposed to the project. It ended up in court. The courts rejected and put this project on hold. Canadians are asking why the province of Saskatchewan wants to go ahead with it and why the minister is slowly, with all sorts of excuses, giving the opportunity for the project to continue. That is why my colleague from LaSalle-Emard said very clearly that this has to be stopped right away, otherwise the other provinces might look at the weaknesses of the federal government in this matter and proceed unilaterally like Saskatchewan did.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling that my time has almost expired. In concluding, I would like to take the little time I have left to quote our environment critic, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, who said that the piles of studies that preceded the release of the Green Plan would be so much garbage if governments allowed a couple of developers to ignore these regulations through injunctions. Our future is at stake-our collective environmental future. That is what the Official Opposition critic or the environment had to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, a report to the United Nations on the Canadian Council of Churches study of mental health and social stress of refugee claimants in Canada was made public today. The reports states:
Canada's treatment of these large numbers of people is in direct
violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
If not remedied it will rank among the most significant mass abuses
of human rights by Canada -
On December 28, 1988, in a downtown hotel in Toronto, the minister of immigration announced the plan for handling the cases of people in the system prior to the new law taking effect on January 1, 1989.
By the end of July 1990, over one and a half years from the announcement of an up to two year program, less than 20,000 cases had been completed. Of these, 16,179 had been accepted in principle and were in process of being landed, and 608 were rejected.
Almost all the claimants have now been in Canada for two years, many for four or more, and almost none have come out of the end of the tunnel.



Mr. Speaker, this system is turning out to be an expensive proposition for Quebec because the province has to assume financial responsibility for the refugees. More especially, the system is discouraging immigrants from integrating the majority in Quebec. The minister must take immediate action because these policies-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


TRIBUTE TO WON DOLBEC
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to tell members of the House about the 1990 award of the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the year's winner of this major award is Mr. Yvon Dolbec, founding president of Dolbec Logisti-que international Inc. Mr. Dolbec is well known for his outstanding contribution to international trade growth throughout Quebec and, more specifically, for his role in promoting international trade. This warm-hearted, dynamic and extremely generous man is the very image of the professional who devotes himself to the betterment of the community.
Mr. Speaker, I extend to him my sincere congratulations for winning this award, and I wish him many more years of success in international affairs.


WORLD FOOD DAY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, today, World Food Day, Canadians are asked to stop and consider what so many of us take for granted: our daily bread.
We must remember that hundreds of thousands of Canadians, half of whom are children, go hungry each day and that our farmers who produce our basic food needs are less and less able to survive. Short-sighted government policies which fail to support our farmers can destroy our country's food production security, and
polices which do not provide adequate nourishment to all Canadians will bankrupt us in future social costs.
World-wide the situation is even more serious. The discomfort of seeing the pitiful images of starving, emaciated children and adults must overwhelm us into action.
In Canada we must start by assuring security of Canadian food supply and production. This government must guarantee that our farmers will be protected in the current trade negotiations at the GATT. Each Canadian must understand the links between food consumption and environmental degradation and develop green, environmentally friendly habits.
Last, but not least, this government and all Canadians must strive to assure by policy and action that every human being is guaranteed his or her daily bread as a basic human right.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the refugee backlog system in Canada has broken down.
Even with the increased budget and staff taken from regular immigration, it cannot process all 100,000 persons in the time the minister promised. Twenty-one months later only one quarter have received decisions. Of those accepted less than three per cent have been landed and allowed to apply to bring their spouses and children, which will likely take another two years.
A mental health study shows that 58 per cent of these claimants suffer declining mental health since they came to our land because of our government's delay. This is cruel and inhuman treatment, torture, according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada signed.
The great majority of our backlog came over three years ago from notoriously refugee producing countries such as Sri Lanka, Iran or El Salvador. Our government discriminates against them by forcing the most recent claimants from the Caribbean to jump the queue for examination first.
Shame on this government for continuing the torture of persons who came to Canada to escape from cruel and inhuman treatment at home.
October 16, 1990


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea - Gore - Malton):: Mr. Speaker, Etobicoke Council and the Ontario government recently agreed to give Robin Pereira a rebate on her taxes to compensate her for airport noise disturbance.
Now that it has been established that a level of government recognizes airport noise as a problem, others will demand and can reasonably expect to receive compensation.
Recognizing noise as a problem is not new. Provincial governments have been building highway sound barriers for years. But it has been difficult to persuade governments to give airport noise similar attention.
What does this mean for the federal government? It means our government can no longer maintain that noise is a minimal concern and that complaints only represent a handful of citizens who exaggerate the effects of jet airliners flying over their homes.
Ultimately the federal government will be accountable. Others will follow Robin Pereira's lead, and soon provincial and municipal governments will demand compensation of their own.
Isn't it time that we take a serious look at this problem and address it with the attention it deserves?


FEAST OF LIGHTS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce -Grey):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform all hon. colleagues that the period of October 16 to October 20 marks the celebration of the Diwali Festival, the Hindu Feast of Lights.
This is an important time for Hindus in Canada and all around the world, as they commemorate the victory of light over darkness and love over hatred.
By commemorating Rama's defeat of the demon Ravana and the return of light to the world, Diwali imbues the Canadian Hindu community with a sense of joy and renewal.
With its vibrant spirituality and traditional wisdom, Hinduism and this particular festival have added much to our heritage. Celebrations like Diwali help us better understand and appreciate the common bonds of humanity and of the human experience in which we all share.
I believe I speak for all members of the House when I offer the Canadian Hindu community our sincere wishes for a Diwali full of joy and peace. In this spirit, all Canadians join with you today, Mr. Speaker.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the government to exempt the Alcan Kemano completion project from an environmental assessment is a gross violation of the Prime Minister's 1984 promise to conduct such a review.
A retired Fisheries and Oceans biologist has said that they were under great pressure to justify the Alcan agreement. Another today, has said that fisheries biologists were opposed to the government's proposal. A recent engineering study and now the B.C. ministry of the environment have expressed concerns about the Nechako River Agreement.
The biologist with Fisheries and Oceans says:
This is a classic example of how to abandon a resource. It's a
classic example of how to misuse scientists. And it's a classic example
of getting public servants to put a good face on a bad decision.
The Minister of the Environment should subject this project to a full review, and the Minister of Justice should launch an investigation into the allegations that public employees were put under political pressure to justify this government's decision to kill a river.


BILL C-21
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last week members of the United Allied Fishermen and the Allied Workers Union met with the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to express their concern that their unemployment insurance interests were not being protected.
I want the fishermen to know that if the Senate had passed Bill C-21 into law a year ago, they would not be concerned today because fishermen would be collecting their unemployment benefits after 10 weeks of work, whether or not they fish in an area considered to be a

October 16, 1990
high employment area or not. The policy of economic terrorism should indeed be put to an end, and it should be done in the Senate where it is being imposed by the Liberal senators, not because they care about the fishermen but because they care about playing crass political games.
I urge the United Allied Fishermen and the Allied Workers Union to lobby the other place as it has lobbied the standing committee, to let the senators know about the devastating effects the Liberal senators' partisan gamesmanship is having on the lives of fishermen, as well as on the lives of expectant parents, seniors and others who would benefit from the passing of Bill C-21.


WORLD FOOD DAY
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today is the United Nations World Food Day. We usually think about those elsewhere who are hungry. We all too often block out the Canadian situation. We would do well to reflect on our own who live in constant hunger.
In Winnipeg, over 4,600 people rely on food banks. Almost 2,000 of these are children. In Canada, 1.4 million people including over half a million children are in a similar situation.
On Tuesday, October 2, in this House the Minister of Finance stated proudly that Canada experienced extremely strong growth in the economy for the past seven and a half years. Then why, over the last year alone, did the number of people using food banks increase by 30 per cent?
This government has decided that it is not responsible for hunger and malnutrition. This government has not declared war on poverty; it has declared war on the poor.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, grain farmers in Canada are facing the worst cash flow crisis since the 1930s because the world price for wheat in real terms is the lowest in history due to the $50 per tonne Export Enhancement Program of the United States.
The Minister of Agriculture, after one year of fighting every farm organization in Canada to get rid of the interest-free cash advance program, has finally agreed to reinstate this program for one year. Finally he has realized that farmers are facing a disaster.
Last October the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool asked the government for a special assistance program for farmers. The government took six months to approve the program and payments were delayed for almost eleven months for many producers.
While the United States has armed its grain producers to the teeth in the international trade wars with programs like the cash advance program, deficiency payments and the export enhancement program, the Mulroney government has disarmed our farmers in this international trade war. This has weakened our bargaining position at the GATT negotiations. I call on the government to stop selling out our farmers and bring in emergency legislation to reinstate interest-free cash advances immediately.


THE SENATE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Mrs. Michelle Cloutier of Val Senne-ville, outraged at the behaviour of Liberal senators, wrote to them on October 12, 1990, as follows: "As a Canadian citizen in a democratic system I urge you to stop playing games as you have been doing in an attempt to delay Senate proceedings. I also ask you not to accept any pay for the time that has been lost, because you are very handsomely paid by the Canadian taxpayers. Finally, instead of trying to prevent the government from dealing with the situation, I would suggest that you prove beyond any doubt that the Liberal policies implemented when you were in office did not result in the current dismal economic and social conditions. Liberal senators, either you work for Canadians or retire and let Canadians work for you".
Mr. Speaker, I should think we share the feelings of Mrs. Cloutier when she states that, come election time, all Canadians will remember how the Liberal Party is behaving these days!
October 16, 1990


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I recently received a copy of a letter sent to Senator MacEachen by one of my constituents, a small businessman in Westfield, New Brunswick.
My constituent urges Senator MacEachen to support the GST. He says:
I question whether Canadians support the disruption and uncertainty the Senate has caused by holding up the GST legislation. I also question whether the lobbyists who have called on you have really vested an unelected Senate with a mandate to overturn legislation that was part of the last campaign platform of the current elected majority government.
The time for obstructionism is over. The Senate has created a climate of uncertainty for Canada's business community that is unacceptable. It is time for Liberal senators to set aside their partisan politics and get on with the business of Canada's duly elected representatives.
I wonder if Senator MacEachen has read the name of my constituent into the record.



Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Like most Canadians, Mr. Speaker, my constituents have had enough of the ridiculous and outrageous performance of Liberal senators.
While men and women throughout the country are tightening their belts and working hard day in and day out to earn a living, the $65,000-a-year Liberal senators blow their kazoos and bang their desks.
While commerce people and businessmen work hard to build a better and more prosperous country, the Liberal senators ring the bells and read the phone directory, all the while getting the extra $153 a day they voted for themselves when they held the majority.
Mr. Speaker, we do not mind if they want to play children's games, but not at the expense of hard-working Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Rafferty-Alameda project represents only the tip of the iceberg when watching this government's failure to discharge its responsibilities and protect the environment. It is not the existing guidelines that are weak, it is this government that lacks spine.
The Minister of Transport ignores the court ruling on the Oldman River dam. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans exempts Point Aconi and the Alcan expansion, and ignores the concerns of the public. The Minister of Finance keeps ignoring the environment in tax reform and budgets and, on the crucial issue of James Bay 2, ambiguity reigns.
Canadians want substance, not public relations in the form of glossy brochures.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago this morning the federal government invoked the War Measures Act. I was a new member of Parliament at the time and I sat here as our leader, Tommy Douglas, rose to condemn that act in Parliament.
Now, some 20 years later, many questions remain unanswered.

However, we have learned two lessons, Mr. Speaker. First, violence must never be used in a democratic society. Second, the government overreacted by using the War Measures Act.

Mr. Speaker, the 15 of us, including Stanley Knowles, joined Tommy Douglas in voting against that act. We were proud of Tommy Douglas when he said, and I quote:
-we are not prepared to use the preservation of law and order as a smoke screen to destroy the liberties and the freedom of the people of Canada.

October 16, 1990
Oral Questions
We proudly voted against that act on October 16, 1970.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Right now, the government is engaged in intense negotiations at the GATT on issues vital to the future of Canadian agriculture and, therefore, to the future of a large part of our Canadian economy. Yesterday here in this Elouse the Minister for International Trade said, and I quote:
The Minister of Agriculture should be ashamed at the amount of
assistance he is giving Canadian farmers.
As far as I am aware, the Minister of Agriculture remained silent in the face of this statement. He did not deny it or contradict it. So I ask the minister about this statement. How can Canadian farmers have confidence in this government's ability to protect their interests? Is this not a strange way for this government to strengthen its hand by saying it is too generous to the farmers of this country?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I used to know the Leader of the Opposition when he had a sense of humour. He has obviously lost it. Even The Globe and Mail detected that the comment made by the Minister for International Trade was being made tongue in cheek.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, he may be interested in noting how some of the farm leaders have responded to the very balanced and well thought out position that has been put forth by the Government of Canada in the GATT negotiations as they relate to agriculture. Mr. Don Knoerr, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said that the national farm group strongly supports the main thrust of the Canadian government's proposals. I think that is a pretty solid endorsation of our position.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. I have a statement in my hand which was just released by the Canadian milk producers concerning the government's GATT position. They say:
The Canadian offer regarding minimum access and the reduction of internal support to milk producers will be of no benefit to Canadian consumers and will severely penalize Canadian milk producers.
This is a statement just issued. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that this is a serious matter and he should not be making statements intended to be taken tongue in cheek, although the Minister for International Trade, in making one, may well have had not just his tongue but both feet in his mouth.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government tabled a proposal that would raise market share of imported dairy products from 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent. I want to ask the minister why this government offeredc to double the market share of our competitors and how far he intends to go with this absurd and perilous policy.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: I am
amazed at the hon. member's question. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and I met the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Yesterday in Montreal, with Deputy Minister Denis, our representative in Geneva, and other parties, I met representatives of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Union des producteurs agricoles. Today, these people issued a press release, stating that the position tabled by Canada in Geneva was a positive development.
I want to make it quite clear that the status quo-and everybody across Canada agrees-is unacceptable, and that we had to table a proposal with GATT that would be positive and make the rest of the world realize the Canadian structure is probably the best in the world, but we had to convince our partners. Our own people could not agree more that the status quo was unacceptable. Since we are not like the Liberals, who merely complain whenever something doesn't suit them, we have tabled a position that reflects the objectives of agriculture for the twenty-first century.
October 16, 1990


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister is a few weeks late with his press release, because I just quoted a statement made a few minutes ago by John Killoran, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, in which he said-I will quote from the English text-referring to a volume of 3.5 per cent:

It is unrealistic for the federal government to expect the Canadian daily industry to accept guaranteed access to its markets beyond this level.
He went on to say:
The third aspect of the Canadian offer is the reduction in direct government support for agricultural producers of 50 percent over the next ten years. "This proposal has never been endorsed by his organization and appears unjustifiable in the context of the GATT" said Mr. Killoran.

I therefore want to ask the minister why the government insists on maintaining a policy that was rejected by the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Why?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is trying hard but he is unable to overcome the general thrust of the statements. For example, Mr. Jim Caldwell of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association said that there is more to life than cows giving milk; there are cows that give meat. He said if other countries would adopt the Canadian position, we would have a pretty good deal.
The Canadian chicken marketing agency said-the hon. chickens opposite should listen to this-"poultry and egg producers would have little or nothing to complain about. It is what we expected." I mean wake up and join the real world.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture claimed that the Dairy Farmers of Canada supported the Conservative Government's position at GATT, as a result of which dairy imports would double and industrial milk subsidies would be cut by 50 per cent. I would now like to read a quote by Don Killoran, president of the
Oral Questions
Dairy Farmers of Canada, who issued a press release about 20 minutes ago:
It is unrealistic for the federal government to expect the Canadian
daily industry to accept guaranteed access to its markets beyond this
level.
I would like to ask the minister why he makes this erroneous claim that the Dairy Farmers of Canada approve of his government's policy. He knows it isn't true.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that in the past three years, the Canadian position- When his government was in power, it did not bother to meet Canadian leaders in the agricultural sector even once in 16 years, but we, and first of all the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, meet them whenever necessary. We have set up committees to consult people across Canada. Last week, we consulted the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We are aware of the problems. I would like to read to you a document received from the Dairy Farmers of Canada in connection with the GATT talks.
As far as Canada's dairy industry is concerned, however, maintaining Article XI in its present form no longer provides protection against imports of processed dairy products, a protection that is crucial in order to preserve Canada's supply management program. It is therefore essential for Canada's dairy industry that the wording of Article XI be amended to reflect the Canadian proposal. That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker, and we did it because we believe in supply management.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that Mr. Killoran has just told us 20 minutes ago, not last month, and I quote: "Canada's offer concerning minimum access and reduced support for producers will not benefit Canadian consumers but will severely penalize Canadian dairy producers". That is what Mr. Killoran said just 20 minutes ago.
Here is my question to the minister: Will he finally stand up and defend the agricultural producers, yes or no? If he cannot do that, let somebody else take over!


Pierre Blais: Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 16, 1990
Oral Questions
Speaker, I do not have to stand for such lecturing from the hon. member when it comes to defending Canadian farmers.
What my colleague and hon. members ought to know is that there already exists a minimum access to the Canadian market, roughly 2.5 or 2.7 per cent. The agricultural community now recognizes that we can no longer bar access to such sectors as butter, and that we must open up something like 1 to 1.5 per cent of our market. Mr. Speaker, we are in the position of a claimant. We are hoping for an article XI which would provide good protection for our marketing boards and prevent situations such as we experienced last year in the case of yogurt and ice cream. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a supply management system which effectively protects dairy producers, not a system which might deteriorate from week to week. That is what we advocate, Mr. Speaker, a consistent position which will protect Canadian agricultural producers for years to come.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Aboriginal people in this country have received a lot of promises and many of those promises were made during the Oka crisis. However, now that the guns have been dropped, the barricades are down and the cameras gone, this government has fallen silent. I remind the Prime Minister that during the crisis he said that would develop, and I quote, "programs and policies that will bring a much greater degree of social justice and fairness to the native peoples across Canada". The Prime Minister is also committed to speed up land claims, to improve economic and social conditions.
What specifically has the Prime Minister done to see that land claims progress more quickly? What specifically has he done to ameliorate the social and economic conditions for aboriginal people across this country since that promise?


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member has reminded us of the commitments that we made to the
aboriginal people on September 25. We are proceeding in a co-ordinated fashion to realize some of those commitments.
It takes a lot of time to reverse a trend that has been occurring in the country over the century. The Prime Minister's commitment is the most broadly based, most sweeping, and most deeply penetrating commitment of its kind in the past century. We are progressing as well as can be expected, but we will be glad to advise the hon. member of our progress as we go along.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I regret, and the aboriginal peoples of Canada I am sure regret, that the Prime Minister will not stand in the House today and answer for his own promises.
I say to the Prime Minister, we have had a number of reviews, including the Penner report, the Coolican report, and the La Forme report on land claims. There have been many reports in the House on aboriginal conditions. The government has been in power six years. It has had six years to put into place a plan to deal with aboriginal issues.
I have made proposals, particularly around the land claims issue, one of them being an aboriginal land claims commission. Will the Prime Minister consider that proposal, and consider a system really to deal with land claims across the country? Will he consider an aboriginal land claims commission?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to consider all these options. In fact, that is exactly what is happening. If the hon. member would listen for a moment, she would hear what we have been saying all the way along, that we are looking at co-ordinated, appropriate ways of dealing with these issues. When we have the answers, we will be very pleased to present them to the hon. member in the House.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would remind the government that there are many people who have proposed the answers and most of all the aboriginal peoples of the country who should be consulted. He and the government should be listening to the answers that they have proposed.
October 16, 1990



Mr. Speaker, on September 24 I urged the Prime Minister to hold a public inquiry on the incidents at Oka and Kanesatake. He said that after the crisis, and I quote the Prime Minister, the government will be more than pleased to take the kind of action suggested by the New Democratic Party Leader.
Mr. Speaker, we need a public inquiry, we need action, not just words. We need a wide-ranging public inquiry like Mr. Justice Dubin's or the Marshall inquiry in New Brunswick. Will the Prime Minister act now?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion to refer the whole matter to a parliamentary committee, and this would be the best way for hon. members to get acquainted with this case. In my speech of September 25 I referred to a series of initiatives we were going to take in favour of native peoples. The hon. member said, and I quote:

"Many people have proposed answers to aboriginal problems."

The answers and the solutions I heard from the opposition and elsewhere are rather sketchy. For some time now we have been advocating more serious analyses leading to real and worthwhile solutions which will bring lasting benefits to the native people of Canada. Never did I suggest that the answers would come to us overnight. These are major issues which require serious analysis, and that is precisely what the Canadian government will do.


AGRICULTURE
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade, pursuant to the GATT negotiations.
Since 1986, the government, without getting a single solitary thing in return, has given away two-price wheat, tax rebates on farm fuels, and much more. Yesterday, there were, even more concessions. All of this has happened-and this is key-even before the heavy, tough negotiations have begun.
Oral Questions
What else is the minister prepared to give away? Will the Western Grain Transportation Act be sacrificed?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I outlined yesterday what the amount of assistance is that Canada provides for its farmers. I said it was a tremendous amount, a huge amount. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, forgot to mention that it is a huge amount of assistance, $8.8 billion a year.
If the hon. member wants to help the farmers of Canada, he will speak to his senatorial colleagues in the Liberal caucus and ask them to pass the GST bill which will save the farmers of Canada $250 million. This is the most accurate estimate we have.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, this minister should stop joking and get serious.
When it comes to trade distorting subsidies, Canada is not the worst offender. Yesterday, at the GATT the government proposed a 50 per cent across-the-board reduction in internal subsidies. The minister knows well that that is not going to alter the imbalance already there. Surely, Canadian farmers deserve a level playing-field.
Will the minister promise no reductions in Canadian supports until other countries reduce their subsidies to Canada's levels?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman reveals a total lack of knowledge of how the negotiations at the MTN operate. Canada's offer is made conditional on and subject to the other countries of the world making offers at least as good as our own offer. That is before our own offer will go into effect at all. If there is no agreement at the GATT, there will be no one agreeing to do anything with respect to trade distorting subsidy.
We intend to continue to support agriculture in ways that are non-trade distorting. We will continue to give very strong support to agriculture, but we will do it in ways that do not damage our own agricultural interests and do not crucify the western grain farmers, which the hon. gentleman completely ignores in his statements which reveal that he has not studied this subject at all. He should come to a briefing and then ask another question.

October 16, 1990
Oral Questions


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade as well.
The Minister of Agriculture said a few minutes ago that the Minister for International Trade's statement yesterday was made with tongue in cheek. I would suggest that it was probably made with foot in mouth, and perhaps some of his own colleagues could treat him for that.
The minister's figure that was quoted yesterday included the cost of provincial programs. It included the cost of border protection, research and development in the agri-food industry, and food inspection, all of which are costs that benefit all Canadians.
Is the minister saying that these expenditures are bad expenditures and bad ways to spend Canadian tax dollars?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is really a shocking display of lack of study by the members of the agricultural caucus, if they have an agricultural caucus in the Official Opposition.
Canada is trying to achieve the doing away of export subsidy assistance, which is at present ruining our Canadian exporting farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board, which offered an initial price at the start of the season of, I think, $135 a tonne, is having to sell far below that because of the ruinous export subsidized competition between the European Community and the United States. For four years now we have been trying to put an end to that. The hon. gentleman opposite does not realize it.
We intend to try to do away with trade distorting subsidies. Income support and protection for farmers and other programs that are not trade distorting, yes, we will support 100 per cent and continue to support, but we want our own farmers to be saved from this atrocious subsidized competition presently hammering them into the ground when they have the second best crop in their history. Wake up, man.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Possibly he can have a briefing with the minister who just spoke.
The minister knows full well that the statement made and the figures given by the Minister for International Trade yesterday left the wrong impression and gives an incorrect impression about the amount of money spent by the government to assist agriculture and Canadian farmers. It is really doing a disservice to Canadian farmers at this stage going into the round at GATT.
Why did the minister not stand immediately yesterday and correct his colleague, or does he agree with the statement he made yesterday?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized in the outside world-I do not know if the hon. gentleman is in the world outside or inside-that this Minister of Agriculture has been the most expensive Minister of Agriculture in Canada's history.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was feeling sympathetic with the Minister of Finance yesterday.
Why does the hon. gentleman think that the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, our biggest farm group, said that he can strongly support its general thrust, when speaking of our offer at the GATT? Does that not tell him anything?


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture who, eleven months ago, was quoted as saying in The Ottawa Citizen and in the Calgary Herald'.
This government is committed to the principles of supplymanagement and that includes border protection for the
commodities.
Before the GATT yesterday, Canada proposed to open the borders for dairy and poultry products. What happened in the intervening year? Why the policy reversal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that the position that the federal government has taken with respect to the supply-management systems in Canada is a position that, not only secures the retention of the supply-management system in Canada, but indeed strengthens the existence of the supply-management system. It was under threat as a result of the existing Article XI, which
October 16, 1990

was undermined as a result of a GATT panel ruling that was brought down with respect to ice cream and yoghurt.
The hon. member across the way wants to quote selectively from the Dairy Farmers of Canada. This is what the Dairy Farmers of Canada have to say about this government's position today, October 16, 1990.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is very important to clarify this issue. This is what the Dairy Farmers have said today: "The federal government offer within the trade negotiations in agriculture under GATT covers three important aspects for the Canadian dairy industry."
"The first aspect deals with the clarification of Article XI of the GATT which permits the maintenance of import controls in the case of supply-management. This clarification is necessary in order to recognize the validity of applying such a program on dairy products as has been the case in Canada for the past 20 years.
"Dairy Farmers of Canada submitted to the federal government a detailed proposal several months ago in order to improve the actual wording of the article of GATT, which is fundamental to the maintenance and future development of our industry. In this regard, the position tabled by the federal government is fully supportive of the recommendations of the Dairy Farmers of Canada."


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Read the second paragraph.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not I should ask my first question again. We did not hear what the government's policy was.
Yesterday, Carla Hills called on Europeans to ignore their farmers because they represent only 10 per cent of the population and cannot throw out a government.
Since Canadian farmers represent less than 4 per cent of our population, and since the Europeans have had difficulty distinguishing Canada's position from the Americans', have our negotiators accepted that same analysis that farmers do not matter any more?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon.
Oral Questions
member has been reading what Carla Hills, the American trade negotiator has to say about the Canadian position. Our position is clearly well thought out. It is balanced, it is realistic and it reflects the reality of the Canadian agricultural industry. It will bring about order in the international marketplace, bring about some stability and security and hopefully some confidence in the total agricultural industry; and that is our bottom line.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture just read the second paragraph of a statement that I had already quoted from, issued around two o'clock by the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture why he stopped where he did and why he did not read the next paragraph which begins as follows:
"However, the government offer of a 5 per cent minimum access,
by volume, to Canadian markets is unacceptable to Dairy Farmers of
Canada" stressed Mr. Killoran.
Why did he not read that and put that on the record of Hansard!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, because I ran out of time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture says that he ran out of time when it came time to defend the interests of Canadian farmers.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will table the entire statement, which will be found to have in it all the points I raised, which were the quotations from the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. It says that the offer of 5 per cent and the other point I mentioned are totally unacceptable to the Dairy Farmers of Canada. If this government cares about the dairy farmers, why will it not accept that position and withdraw what it tabled at the GATT yesterday?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that in October 1989 the Dairy Farmers of Canada issued a document entitled Necessary GATT Principles for Supply Management, Article XI. The last paragraph of this document, paragraph (j), states: "-where no historical imports exist, permit the level of authorized imports of the product form to be not less than 1 per cent of the

October 16, 1990
Oral Questions
domestic production of such product form, provided that the cumulative level of imports in quantity or value of the like domestic product in any form is not less than 5 per cent of total domestic production of the like domestic product", end of quotation.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering the fact that the GST will increase the price of housing and that the Minister of Finance has devastated the industry with his made-in-Canada recession and excessively high interest rates, why doesn't the minister drop the GST instead of gouging Canadian consumers?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this matter of the GST has been decided in this House.
What is at issue today is whether senators who form a minority in the Senate are going to hold the Senate to ransom and hold this Parliament to ransom by not only resisting debate on the matter of the GST, but also resisting a vote on the GST.
The GST was part of this government's platform in the last election. The Liberal Party lost the election.


Ms. Copps:: False.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was not.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is very unusual that the member for Ottawa-Vanier would be saying that it was not part of our platform. Then why is it that the second item of the platform of the Liberal Party of Canada was that it was going to defeat the goods and services tax?
The rules that I have always worked by in this House is that if you lose an election, you do not run the agenda of Parliament.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, anybody who goes back to the records of 1988 will also find that the same minister said at the time that any reform in the
tax system would be revenue neutral. That is what the minister said then and that is not what the minister is doing right now.
My supplementary is for the Minister of State for Housing. Is the minister aware that many people in Canada today find the housing situation very difficult? We have a record number of homeless at the present time. We have many people who are going to sleep on the street in the cold. Many shelters for the homeless are already full.
What is the Minister of State for Housing planning to do in order to assist the homeless of Canada? Is he planning to do what the Minister of Finance is saying in terms of a solution to the recession that people should die first before they can go to heaven?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point to the hon. member.
He cannot say it was not a part of our platform and then turn around and say we are not following one part of the part of our platform.
The point I would like to make to the hon. member is that there is a downturn in housing; that is very clear. But when you look at the housing record over the last four years from 1986 through 1989, we had levels of housing between 200,000 starts a year and 246,000 starts a year, which is a good deal higher than the normal sustainable level of housing starts, which is in the range of 175,000 to 185,000.
The condominium market in this province has been overbuilt in the last little while, so there is bound to be a reaction in the housing industry. That is the sort of reaction that we are going through right now. Because of the policies that we are following to get inflation down, to get interest rates down, we are going to see a recovery in the housing markets that will put us back on the track comparable to what we have seen in recent years.


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Privatization.
Can the minister confirm that under Article 1602 of the free trade agreement, the cap in Bill C-84 on the percentage of Petro-Canada shares that can be sold to foreigners can never be lowered? That under the trade deal, that 25 per cent foreign ownership ceiling will in
October 16, 1990

fact be a 25 per cent floor, leading irreversibly to greater foreign ownership of our national energy industry?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no.
Petro-Canada can be owned 100 per cent by Canadians if they buy the shares.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the question was not whether or not Canadians could own it. The question had to do with the cap contained in the bill which again, at 25 per cent, under the trade deal will be a floor not a ceiling. However, the last time the Tories tried to privatize Petro-Canada the minister said, on December 11, 1979, and I quote the minister:
- only eligible Canadians-eligible Canadians-should be permitted to own shares in Petro-Canada, and only eligible Canadians-Canadians, I repeat-should be entitled to buy shares in the after-market. I have stated many times that the shares must go to and remain in Canadian hands.
When did the minister change his mind? When, like apparently the rest of the benches over there, did he become "a real live nephew of his Uncle Sam"?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard the date right, but I think he said 1979. To my recollection, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have to correct me if I am wrong, I was not in that cabinet.

[ Translation]


THE SENATE
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Further to the letter I sent you this morning, I would like to know what you intend to do about my recommendations which are summarized as follows and are intended to put an end to the masquerade in the Senate:
Oral Questions
1-	that, as soon as possible, a Senate code of ethics be implemented that would oblige senators to disclose appointments to the boards of major corporations or banks;
2-	under the authority of the House of Commons to appropriate funds, that the vote of $41 million, representing Senate salaries, be reduced to zero, so that taxpayers would no longer have to pay for all their nonsense;
3-	that, under section 38 of the Canadian Constitution, you initiate a constitutional resolution that would completely abolish the Senate in its present form.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think we have three good ideas here.
In fact, I read the following in an article by Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse on October 11, and I quote:
What do we do about the Senate? I have an idea. We don't have enough day-care centres- I think Senator Hebert and Senator Gigantes would be perfect as clowns and Senator MacEachen as a tap dancer. They already know their parts and only need some grease paint to look like they came straight from Le Cirque du Soleil.
However, the real question is how, at that critical moment last week, Senator MacEachen, who said he was a defender of low-income Canadians, happened to be in Brussels working for the Bank of Montreal, whose profits were $550 million in 1988.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister, since he is the leader of this government, would indicate what he intends to do about the problems the Senate is causing for Canadians at this very moment, problems that will probably cost the taxpayer considerable amounts of money if we do not put an end to this nonsense right away.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I intend to consider the interesting suggestions made by the hon. member.
On October 9, Le Soleil reported, and I quote:
"The Liberal Senators, led by Jacques Hebert, put on a vaudeville act last Thursday and Friday that made the last supporters of this institution hope it would be abolished outright".
The article referred to warriors in the Senate.

October 16, 1990
Privilege


Guy St-Julien: Lasagna!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Lasagna Hebert! Senator Hebert's brother asked him to stop his fooling around in the Senate, and on behalf of all parliamentarians, I would ask the Liberal Party to try to talk some sense into the Liberal senators!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on October 11 the premier of Saskatchewan claimed to have an agreement with the Minister of the Environment, reached on September 5, which watered down the whole environmental approach on the Rafferty-Alame-da dam.
I have a draft agreement in my hand that addresses these issues. It is a draft agreement between the Minister of the Environment and the Saskatchewan Water Corporation which says: "It is expressly agreed that the corporation may now proceed to acquire land and take steps necessary to proceed with construction of the Alameda dam, that the corporation may proceed to do all that is necessary"-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I must ask the hon. member to put her question.


Marlene Catterall: Has the minister seen such an agreement? Has he signed it? Has he discussed it in any way or agreed with it in any way?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate that this whole discussion is under debate today in the House.
I would like to say that I am under a court order at the moment to have a panel at work. I will comply with that order. I will meet my obligation to appoint a panel as soon as possible to resume the environmental assessment work that was stopped last week.


PRIVILEGE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of Question Period wherein the Minister of State for Agriculture, inadvertently I am sure, led the House to believe erroneously that Dairy Farmers of Canada in November 1985 had agreed to the 5 per cent figure.
Dairy Farmers of Canada has just indicated to me over the phone that the-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt, but that is not a question of privilege. It is a matter of debate.



Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for granting me leave to raise a question of privilege today. It is my contention that my privileges- and, by the same token, those of all members-were breached yesterday afternoon by certain members of the other place.
After question period yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I went over to give Senator Jacques Hebert a message from one of my constituents who happens to be his brother. Senator Eymard Corbin, who was with Senator Hebert, tried to stop me by resorting to intimidation and insulting remarks like-


Some hon. members:: Warriors! Warriors!


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Warriors indeed.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote him. He said: "You have no business-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but this is not a question of privilege.
October 16, 1990



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Jong: That this House urge the Minister of the Environment to revoke the Rafferty-Alameda project licence and use all federal authority to prevent Saskatchewan from proceeding with project construction until an independent environmental assessment panel has completed its review.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the House recessed at 1 o'clock the Liberal Opposition had the floor. Since it had been agreed that the allotted time would be split in two the Official Opposition still has 10 minutes.
The hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou had the floor, but since he is not in the House now his allotted time as well as the time for questions and comments automatically expire. Therefore, as agreed by the House before recess, a second speaker on the opposition side may have the floor for 10 minutes.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting to use House time for my question of privilege about the hon. member for Kamloops. I see that the member is not present again today.
I have heard informally from some members of his party that he may be back by Thursday evening of this week. I wonder if the Speaker has confirmation as to when the member will be back in the House so that we might proceed with the point I raised last Friday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Officially, the Chair does not know at this time when the Hon. Member for Kamloops will be back on the Hill.
The hon. member for Western Arctic has the floor. [English]


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the debate about basically the
Supply
environment but more specifically about Rafferty-Alameda, the Rafferty dam mystery as it has become known.
One of the most fundamental questions to be asked is: Why is the Rafferty dam project racing toward the finish line when the important decisions have yet to be made about whether it should be built at all?
Being environmentally friendly is everyone's buzz word-businesses, consumers, and government-but it is not saving our planet. The situation with Rafferty-Alameda is indicative of most other environmental problems today, that is that there is no leadership. Ottawa and the provinces never stop arguing over who is responsible for what, without any leadership on who will defend the planet and protect the environment.
Canadians have made it clear that they want this government to take action on our many environmental problems. Most environmental damage is irreversible and the accumulative effects are degrading the environment at an astounding rate. Canada must lead the world in practising environmentally responsible statescraft. This means defining and implementing a strict concept of sustainable development through securing global co-operation to eliminate critical problems immediately and fostering an environmentally conscious populace through public education and involvement.
The Liberal government established Environment Canada in 1971. Today that ministry alone does not go far enough toward addressing the alarming environmental issues facing the world: mass famines in Africa, the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the holes in the ozone layer, and the global warming which could cause droughts and floods like our country has never experienced.
Knowing all of this I have to ask: Where is the government? Where are the policies? Government has to integrate environmental input into decision making at the highest level. Environment must be a priority of every federal department. It must be the cornerstone of every department's work.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you as I suggested over a year ago that we have a commissioner, an auditor of the environment who is independent of the House. Those are suggestions that have come from the public, because the

October 16, 1990
Supply
public feels the environment is one priority that cannot be compromised and muddled up in politics. It is beyond partisanship. The value of clean air and clean water and the environment is something that should not be compromised. Environmental considerations cannot be an add on or an after-thought. They must be made integral to economic policy making and planning and a required element of any economic development proposal.
One of the reasons I wanted to speak on this important issue is the effect of carelessness, as well as the lack of government commitment to the environment and the effect it may have on my riding in the Western Arctic.
I realize that the environment does not adhere to barriers or does not adhere to the walls that we think should be put up to isolate a problem in one area. That is not the way it works with pollution and with the environment.
The environmental problems facing the north, for instance, are extensive. The most serious include Arctic toxic pollution, ozone destruction, and the greenhouse effect. Acid rain is a bilateral problem that knows no borders, as I indicated. Acid rain potentially may affect all sectors of the environment including human health. The most persuasive evidence has been assembled for aquatic systems. It is well known that freshwater bodies begin to show biological damage at about a very moderate leVel of acidity. As well, discussion of long-range transport of air pollutants can no longer be restricted to oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. Hydrocarbons are interfacing with these new gases at low atmospheric levels, producing damaging ozone. Toxic pollutants such as pesticides, metals and PCBs are being emitted and volatilizing from aerial spraying and open bodies of water, to be deposited at great distances away. The ecological damage of acid rain is generally understood, but the associated human morbidity and potential longterm health effects are not.
Pollutants in the environment can wreak unforeseen results, among them a global warming trend that could push average temperatures higher than any in the experience of the human race. A nuclear winter caused by global war might mean the end of most life forms. These are sometimes viewed as radical ideas, but these are not viewed as radical by the scientific community that studies them everyday or by the people who have
extreme concerns about the environment and feel that there should be no compromise.
Despite these problems we have the technologies, tools, and knowledge such as we have never had before to stop the self-destruction. We also need the sensitivity of politicians who really mean what they say and really believe, when they make legislation and commit legislation to the public and to this House that they mean to uphold it, that they do not make deals, and they do not have newspapers saying things that anger the public.
The Edmonton Journal quotes the minister as saying: "I always shake hands with the premiers when they come to see me. That does not mean I have agreed to everything they have put on the table but, in apparent contradiction to the general tone of his remarks, the hon. minister has also said he hopes the Rafferty-Alameda project will be completed. I still very much hope the project will go ahead but will go ahead under the conditions set forth by the court". The public is getting a very mixed message on this one.
I have another quote from The Globe and Mail of October 16 which reads: "The panel alleged that workers were already constructing channels with the Rafferty-Alameda in the river downstream from the dam, quite beyond the safety work agreed to and said it needed direction from the minister, the current environment minister. Premier Devine promptly said Saskatchewan would forge ahead with the construction and claimed he and Mr. de Cotret had made a special deal on September 5 to let the work go ahead. Mr. de Cotret denies there was such a deal. Yet nine months after the court's most recent ultimatum no full review has been completed, Saskatchewan is pressing ahead with the dam, and Mr. de Cotret is threatening to retaliate if it does so. Will Canadians need a political assessment to get to the bottom of this mess?"
There are many concerns about this. What this country needs is a government which will encompass environmental security as a cornerstone of all government policies, whether they be defence, foreign affairs, energy, fishing, or forestry. We need to push for acceleration of the ozone protocol, adoption of an international law of the air, measures to ensure rapid reduction in the CO2 level, and the preservation of tropical rain forests. Taken together, these measures represent a comprehensive and coherent approach to our environment covering preventive, punitive and remedial action as well as both domestic and international aspects. They demonstrate
October 16, 1990

the proactive Liberal approach to this crucial issue. They are based on the fundamental premise that pollution is everyone's problem. We must all work together to ensure a healthy and secure environment for future generations.
What is the problem? Why do we have an Opposition Day to debate the Rafferty-Alameda when we have environmental assessment legislation? Why do we have this debate? The government has to be accountable. The Prime Minister has failed to implement a strict, sustainable development regime. It has been severely compromised. That is what the brunt of this whole debate is about.
His ministers have not acted as trustees to the environment, but have instead been the providers of exceptions. The Rafferty-Alameda is an exception to regulations. James Bay is an exception. No environmental assessment is necessary until the people push it to the limit.
Oldman River dam is also an exception. No environmental management is necessary. At Barriere Lake, conservation plans can be ignored. It is obvious that this government has to change the way it approaches the environment.
There are a group of ministers who are obsessed with opinion polls, but despite numerous surveys including the poll released this week, they choose to ignore what the public wants the government to do, which is to clean up its act and to own up to the legislation that is put through this House for the good of the environment and for the good of the Canadian public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments, five minutes only.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of a more general nature for the hon. member for Western Arctic.
I want to congratulate her on an excellent speech on environmental concerns. Like so many members on this side of the House, I know she has a genuine concern about the environment. We are very dismayed-I think that is the polite way of putting it-at the lack of action on the part of the government.
Supply
I have in my hand a federal agenda for the environment called "Green Print for Canada" prepared by the Green Print for Canada committee. I know the hon. member has seen this document. I believe it was distributed to all members of this House. I know the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, who has been a proponent of environmental improvement in Canada and who organized the World Conference on the Environment in Toronto a year ago last summer has certainly been a proponent of this document.
In her review of it and discussions with government officials, has she noticed that any of the proposals put forward in this document have been implemented by the government? Or has it ignored every single one of them?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I believe that this particular Green Plan is one that is refuted to belong to the Canadian public, because no one minister should take the ownership and possession of a piece of legislation that is intended for the good of all Canadians.
Having said that, this particular scheme was in the hands of the former Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. I would like to say that there has been no implementation of the recommendations in that particular Green Plan. I think it is one that needs to be shared with the public, and it is one that is under much scrutiny by the public. Certainly it is one that the people in my area of the Western Arctic and the north are intrigued by.
We have the situation in the Northwest Territories that is very serious. In fact, we have been the recipients in a very remote area of PCB pollution. The contamination of our food chain was sure no deal. A study was done on the contamination of mother's milk, for instance, which showed that Inuit mother's breast milk was contaminated. This is a very serious issue for us.
Also, we are looking at the whole impact of what we want to be zero discharge from Alberta pulp mills into the Northwest Territories. The pollution is feeding into the Northwest Territories from Alberta. We await any kind of direct action on this particular Green Plan at this point.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, just a quick question for my hon. friend. When would my hon. friend find it acceptable for agriculture or farmers in southern

October 16, 1990
Supply
Saskatchewan to have the proper kind of irrigation available so that they can grow crops necessary to feed the people of Canada. At what point in time would the hon. member accept a dam being built anywhere on any river, but particularly the one we are talking about?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, there is only one answer to that. It is at a time at which a government that has committed itself to an environmental assessment review owns up to that legislation. That is the only time that a decision can be made as to whether or not a project can go ahead with regard to the proper environmental stewardship and all aspects of sustainable development.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation is proceeding full speed ahead with construction of the Rafferty-Alameda water storage project. This situation is not in compliance with the federal court order of December 28, 1989.

According to the guidelines governing to the federal environmental impact review process, the December 28, 1989 Court order requires one environmental review before the project can be completed. I wish therefore to list the options which the government considered in order to meet the challenge raised by the Saskatchewan government.

It may appear at first thought that the most direct and expedient means available to me as minister responsible for the International River Improvements Act is simply to revoke the licence that my predecessor granted for the Saskatchewan Power Corporation to construct the Rafferty-Alameda project under this act.
That is what the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Ap-pelle is suggesting as well.
Indeed, there is provision under the IRIA, section 13(1), for me to do so where a licensee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the licence. However, my officials have advised that the corporation is not in breach of any of the 22 conditions specified in the licence of 1989.
Moreover, since the act's regulations would give Saskatchewan months to comply with terms and conditions, any breach that occurred could not be corrected quickly. Given the pace of construction, the project would be finished before I would be able to revoke or suspend the licence. In other words, this option is not useful in the current circumstances.
The Government of Canada intends to proceed on this matter as follows. Mr. Speaker, I am under a court order to have a panel at work. I will comply with that order. I will meet my obligation to appoint a panel as soon as possible to resume the environmental assessment work that was stopped last week. At the same time, the government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Alameda project not proceed until a full and proper environmental assessment can be completed.
Let me recall for the House the actions taken by my predecessor in response to the Federal Court order of December 1989 in this matter. As instructed by the court an environmental assessment panel for this project was appointed before January 30, 1990. At the same time an agreement was signed with the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. The terms of reference for the assessment panel and the agreement with the provincial corporation are consistent with reference to project construction.
Construction was to cease until the panel's recommendations had been received and I had the opportunity to amend the licence to take them into account. Only safety related construction on the Rafferty dam was permitted. This arrangement is demonstrated in the compensation clause whereby the Government of Canada offered financial assistance to the corporation to offset the expected cost of delaying the project. The Government of Canada has kept its end of the bargain in all respects. Saskatchewan has not. Therefore, as I stated in the House last Friday, I have instructed my officials that the October payment be suspended and that the November payments be frozen.
I visited the site in July and can assure the residents of this area of my sympathy for their efforts to come to grips with the vagaries of floods and droughts. The Rafferty and Alameda dams are needed by Canada to provide irrigation water for 4,800 hectares of farmland, for protection from flooding and for a resource of water
October 16, 1990

to cool a large new terminal power plant which will be completed in 1991.
In order to equitably share the water in the Souris River between Saskatchewan, North Dakota and Manitoba, a water sharing formula was agreed on between Canada and the United States in 1959. Without these dams, Saskatchewan retains only about one-third of the water to which it is entitled. The rest of Saskatchewan's share passes into North Dakota.
We also know that, even though its water supply would be reduced if the Rafferty and Alameda project is completed, North Dakota is willing to fund over 40 per cent of the cost. The United States wants the dam so that several communities will be protected from severe flooding.
As time passes, more and more of us are becoming increasingly concerned about the environmental health of the world in which we live, and we are now taking action. We are voicing our opinion, joining environmental organizations. We are recycling our wastes. We are thinking carefully before we purchase or unwisely dispose of environmentally unfriendly products.
This is a good trend, indeed an essential trend, if we are to leave this planet in a satisfactoiy state for the generations yet to be born. In the process of protecting the environment, however, we do not want to bring all developments to an end, hence the need for effective, environmental assessment mechanisms at both the provincial and the federal levels.
The controversy surrounding the Rafferty-Alameda project reinforces the need for strong and explicit environmental legislation. The 1984 EARP order in council under which officials of Environment Canada have been struggling was only intended to be a guide for the preparation of assessments. As such, it contains clauses which are ambiguous, difficult to apply and for which the necessary supporting tools-by that, I mean documents, definitions and criteria-still need to be developed both by the departments and the agencies, as well as by FEARO.
Just as Canada was a leading nation in embracing an environmental assessment and review process, let us maintain that leadership role and demonstrate to the world that we are serious about the need to take action
Supply
to clarify that process in order to ensure that we have a truly sustainable development in this country.
Once we pass the new environmental assessment and review process legislation, Bill C-78 now in second reading, we will have our own house in order and we will be in a stronger position to influence the adoption of similar mechanisms by other nations.
However divided public opinion may be on the Rafferty-Alameda issue, the last thing people on either side of the issue want is to see such a carefully negotiated and difficult compromise torn apart at this time. We have too large a stake in this process to see it abandoned.
Mr. Speaker, the rebuff by Saskatchewan is a serious blow to co-operation as I understand it, and as we practice it. I am deeply disappointed at the turn of events last week. Yet it also serves as a clear reminder of the fragility and unreliability of our present mechanisms for dealing with environmental assessment. On the issue at hand I have an obligation to proceed in a business-like manner to make Saskatchewan live up to our agreement of January, 1990.
Unlike the Rafferty Dam on which construction began in 1987, the Alameda Dam has never proceeded past the planning stage. It is my hope that the province of Saskatchewan will make clear its intention not to proceed with work at Alameda. Let me repeat, however, we will not hesitate to take the steps necessary and available to us to ensure that this project does not go forward until a full assessment is complete.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister once again, when the House was expecting very clear and forthright answers, we got nothing but slipping and sliding.
The minister says that he will take all necessary steps. What necessary steps will he take to stop the ongoing construction that is presently proceeding at a rapid rate. He says he is going to cancel some funding. That is not going to stop the project. He said he will not revoke the licence. Clearly, he has given up that very important tool.
Would the minister be good enough to share with the House, and all members on both sides who have a deep concern about the impact that this specific project has-especially in places like Manitoba, North Dakota

October 16, 1990
Supply
and other parts of Saskatchewan-and, more importantly, what it does for the entire process of environmental review, what specific steps he intends to initiate to stop the construction of the project so that a review panel can do its work? As he is fully aware, his original review panel quit because they said there was no point in doing a review while the work was going ahead. Why appoint another panel when the work is proceeding? How is he going to stop the work?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I have been very straightforward and very clear on this issue. First, I will live with the court order that we got in December 1989. We will appoint a new panel because that court order was very specific. We are in discussion right now with Saskatchewan on an agreement that would lead them to stop construction. There are other steps available. What I explained a few minutes ago was very simple.
The question of simply revoking the licence is a non-starter for the very simple reason that the licence has not been breached in any way. What has been breached is the agreement that was signed between Canada and Saskatchewan in January of 1990. That was the document that was breached. There is recourse to that document if we want to pursue it. That is exactly what I am doing at the moment.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiments of my colleagues from Manitoba in my bitter disappointment at the minister's lack of action.
The minister is going to implement or put up a new panel. We have had a panel resign because they could not do their work and maintain the integrity of the environmental review process due to the actions of the Government of Saskatchewan and the inaction of the federal government in stopping the action of the Saskatchewan government. Now the government is talking about a new agreement. It thought it had an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. That agreement grew out of a court order. The court order said lift the licence. The only reason it could maintain the licence was if it set up a proper environmental review process.
The government reached an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. The spirit was there and the spirit of a court order was there to have the environmental review, for the construction to stop, other than for safety few reasons, and to have the review panel report?
Saskatchewan totally ignored the process. There is no other alternative but to revoke the licence. The court order demands that the licence is revoked. The one condition the court allowed to maintain the licence has now been breached and is no longer is existence. Therefore, the court order says to revoke the licence. The minister is not in compliance with a court order. For days and weeks now, the minister and the government have not been in compliance with the court order. If I was the minister, I would be very worried about that.
My second point is regarding the minister talking about Bill C-78. I drew attention to this in my speech and I hope he heard it. If not, he should refer to Hansard. They are remarks by Mr. George Hill. He said: "The head of FEARO reports to Dr. Good. Dr. Good has flung his whip to include all the-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please!
Very briefly. Since several Hon. Members have asked the Chair for an opportunity to ask questions or make comments, I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle could be very brief, please.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I will, Mr. Speaker. Let me just conclude with this quote.
This is what Mr. George Hill stated about his relationship with Dr. Good of the environmental department. Speaking of Dr. Good, Mr. Hill claims that "he had assured me that he was in control and he would see they acted"-meaning the environmental review process-"expeditiously and reported in short order because, after all, this project had already been reviewed twice". In other words, Mr. George Hill was claiming that Dr. Good was in control of the review panel. If that is the case, surely it is time that the minister's Bill C-78 be amended so that the environmental review reports to Parliament and not to the department.
I would appreciate comments on both points I have made.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point that in reading Bill C-78 carefully, one will see that under the new recommended process the group that would be designed to carry out environmental reviews
October 16, 1990

would report directly to the minister. It would be much more of an arm's length relationship than the one we have right now.
I have said on a few occasions that I would be very happy to have any constructive suggestions on how to improve Bill C-78. We have to get Bill C-78 through the House. We have to have a piece of legislation that will replace a guidelines order that was never designed as legislation. It is very hard to interpret. It is very ambiguous and is leading us into situations that I think all members would deplore. 1 urge the hon. member to give me his comments on Bill C-78 and to move along with Bill C-78 as quickly as possible.
I take it we will be debating Bill C-78 tomorrow and I will obviously have more to say at that time. We certainly need that legislation in place. It is, at the moment, a good piece of legislation and it might be improved. We have to move along and get that piece of legislation before through the House, through the Senate, and given royal assent as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Davenport. There is only one minute.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, because of time limitation, I have a very brief question.
Would the minister assure the House that, as far as he and his government are concerned, it is his interpretation that the guidelines resulting from the Order in Council of 1984 are mandatory? Those are the same guidelines that were used by the Canadian Wildlife Federation when it took the action in court which resulted with the stopping of the Rafferty-Alameda Dam construction. In his view, are the guidelines mandatory?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, what I can tell my hon. colleague is that I certainly believe that once we have a court order, a court order is a court order. I will certainly not recommend any position to my colleagues in government that will lead the government to be in contempt of court. The court order is very clear and what I have been saying for the last half hour is that we will live up to the court order. There is no question about that in my mind and no question among my colleagues.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, just a very brief question. The minister keeps saying the government will comply with the court order. What we
Supply
want to know and what everyone wants to know is what the government intends to do about the fact that Saskatchewan is not complying with the court order. Surely, the federal government has a responsibility to make sure that, not only it complies, but the Saskatchewan government complies. What does the hon. minister intend to do about that?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I was very clear. I said that, first, the government would comply with a court order. I said that we would appoint a new panel. I said that I was freezing the payments, and I also said that the government will take the necessary steps to ensure that court order is respected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question and comment period is now over. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East rises on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister involved told the House that he was going to come forth today with some specific action on this issue. What we have seen is a minister of the federal Crown acting merely as an apologist for Grant Devine.
I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister in the federal government to tell us exactly what he intends to do to stop construction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! I must regretfully interrupt the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, but Question Period is now over. You are starting up a debate and the time for questions is expired.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pursuant to our Standing Order, I now seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue directing questions to a federal Crown minister concerning this major issue, because we would not want him to cling forever to the apron strings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the question and comment period to be extended?
Supply


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

October 16, 1990


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but there is no unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I call on all hon. members to please co-operate. There is no unanimous consent. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Will the hon. member need 10 minutes or 20 minutes?


Lloyd Axworthy: Ten
minutes. My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre will be following at that point.
First, let me say with deep regret that members of the Conservative side of the House did not allow us to proceed with proper questioning of the minister. This is an issue of vital importance to specific regions of the country, my own province of Manitoba, as well as Saskatchewan. We have international commitments with North Dakota. It is a matter of serious concern to all Canadians because of the implications it has for the credibility and legitimacy of the entire federal role in ensuring proper environmental treatment of major capital projects.
To be denied the opportunity in this House to engage the minister makes it clear that the minister has no answers. He has been promising since last Friday that the Government of Canada would take all measures necessary to stop the construction in Saskatchewan so a proper environmental review could go ahead.
The government is now saying that it will establish a new panel to undertake another review, but will take no action to stop the Government of Saskatchewan which, with total impunity, total arrogance and indifference, has said, "We don't care what the federal government is going to do. We are going to assert our own rights to go ahead with this project." The minister caved in. The minister backed off.
The minister and the government have failed a major test of asserting federal responsibility, federal obligation, and federal rights. The question we have to ask, Mr. Speaker, is why? Why, when there was such a clear-cut unmistakable, unequivocal test for the federal government, does it back off?


Sheila Maureen Copps: They cut a secret deal.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is clear. There is a lot behind the covers. There is a lot behind the smoke-screen that the minister has not said.
We have here, for example, an agreement that arrived on members' desks today which talks about an agreement between Her Majesty the Queen, in right of Canada, and the Saskatchewan Water Corporation. I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, if I might, section 3 which states:
Notwithstanding the terms and conditions contained in paragraph 1 of the original agreement, it is expressly agreed that the corporation may now proceed to acquire land and take all steps necessary to proceed with the construction of the Alameda Dam.
Section 4 states:
Notwithstanding the terms and conditions, it is expressly agreed that the corporation may now proceed to do all that is necessary to complete construction of the Rafferty Dam.
And so on.
What this agreement really says is that, when the minister shook hands with Grant Devine back there on September 5, they had a deal.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Lloyd Axworthy: They had an agreement.


An hon. member:: A secret deal.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is an agreement which he is now attempting to cover up. I say, Mr. Speaker-and I do not use these words lightly-the minister is covering up a private secret agreement with the government of Saskatchewan to go ahead with the dam. The proof of that action is the fact that he is unprepared and unwilling to take the proper and necessary actions to stop the construction. We have prima facie evidence that this agreement in fact has already been signed, sealed and delivered, and we have a minister who will not own up to it. It is not the first time. It is not that this comes by accident because what we had
October 16, 1990

before was exactly the same kind of deal. We had a Minister of the Environment, who is late and not lamented in this House, who got up in the same way when questions were raised about Rafferty-Alameda and said: 'There is no deal. There is no agreement. I am proceeding as proper" His own senior adviser on the environment, Miss Elizabeth May, had to resign her post to bring attention to the fact that there was a deal. The federal government had colluded with the premier of Saskatchewan to come up with a secret arrangement.
If lightning strikes once, it strikes the second time with this government. It is maddening and frustrating that on an issue that is so crucial to our constituents and to many other people in this country who believe that there has got to be a clear responsibility of the federal government to stand up against these big capital projects, the megaprojects that sort of ravage the environment, which have no test of sustainable development whatsoever, that the federal government, which is the last resort, when it meets the test, where do we find it? We find it signing secret deals, making secret accords to serve the political purposes.
We understand the political obligations of the Prime Minister and his cohorts and Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine has been his lap dog for the last two or three years: Meech Lake, GST and all the rest of it. But that is no reason why they should be so cavalier in their surrender of this very crucial issue.
I want to say this. There is clear action that this government could be taking. They do have instruments under the law. It is not sufficient to say: "Let's pass Bill C-78", because as I read Bill C-78, it will legitimize many of the actions that the minister is now taking to go ahead with these kinds of private agreements and not have the same requirement as the guidelines put forward. At least we now have a procedure that is out in the open and is more public, rather than the one that attempts to put it in the shadows.
This minister cannot get away with this bag of tricks. He will be exposed, as will his government, as being complete traitors to the cause of maintaining a proper environment. I want to say on behalf of thousands of farmers and townspeople in the Souris Valley of Manitoba, who have been seized of this issue for a matter of two or three years, who realize that they have had to rely upon these kinds of interjurisdictional controls, that this
Supply
is a government that once again has failed them badly and miserably.
I challenge my colleagues from the province of Manitoba, especially my Conservative colleagues, the member from Brandon West and others, to get on their feet and denunciate this action by the minister today. He has had his chance. He has been able to dance, and bob, and weave, and slither and slide for the past 48 hours, but he can do it no longer. He has revealed himself today for the charlatan that he really is, that he has no intention of bringing an end to this project.
I believe that it is up to members of this House to start putting the pressure on and put some backbone back in this minister so he will start realizing that he is not simply there to be an apologist for a provincial government, but to stand up for the rights of all Canadians and particularly, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There is more than the environment at stake. Once again we are putting the entire credibility and legitimacy of the political process at stake because people have looked toward this government to try to defend it, to try to act in its interest. What do we find? A government that is trying to chisel its way out.
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn over that debate to my colleague, the member for Davenport, to continue with this attack. We simply say that we cannot allow this action to continue. We cannot allow this minister to get away with the clear and unmistakable slipperiness that he tried to pass over on this House today. There are necessary steps. We call upon this government to take them.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre having to do with the Manitoba situation and the refusal of the Manitoba government, the current Progressive Conservative government of Manitoba, to really take any strong action with respect to Rafferty-Alameda, given all the things that have happened.
It does not seem to be willing to take the Saskatchewan government to court. It does not seem to be willing to take the federal government to court over the GST like so many of the other provinces.
We see now in the post election period that the theme which often punctuated the election campaign of not too many weeks ago, that a Tory is a Tory is a Tory, seems to be coming through in spades. The Manitoba Conserva-

October 16, 1990
Supply
tive government has gone back to sleep now that the election is over. Premier Devine is able to do what he wants with Rafferty-Alameda.
The federal government is able to do what it wants with the GST and nothing is to be done by the Manitoba government, surely, something that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would find as objectionable as I do.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if I may just make a quick reply.
My wife has always reminded me never to say: "I told you so." I think in this case the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre and myself could say: "We told you so."
We said very dearly during the course of the debate in the Manitoba election that this was a campaign of false pretence and that the then leader of the Conservative Party in Manitoba was parading around Manitoba paddling his canoe on the pristine lake. Probably the Souris River was the site of the television take-out, with a borrowed canoe no less.
It is no wonder that I am sorry about the person who will not get the canoe back, because if he tries to go down the Souris in the year to come, it is probably going to be totally corroded by the kind of pollution that would be let loose.
All I can say is that the Government of Manitoba has become fellow travellers with the government here. It is trying to protect Grant Devine. I say it is a lost cause. Let him go. He is not worth this kind of complete and total abdication of responsibility.
Grant Devine, for all his friendship and association with Manitoba and federal Tories, is not worth taking the kind of action we see today, which is to betray a fundamental stewardship of this federal government.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I sat here listening to comments that were made about a subject that back home is portrayed as a matter which has good guys and bad guys in it.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody in all good conscience can stand up and say that protecting run-off, preventing flooding conditions, is in anyone's harmful interests. I look at the Boundary Dam as an example that has existed for years on a tributary to the
Souris River. I see absolutely no pollution coming from this tested project.
As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, when you combine all the good that is associated with this project, one is hard pressed to believe in fact that we could be actually standing and talking here about a semi-arid area of this country, Saskatchewan, and be concerned about the storage of water. I am concerned as anyone else is of all the environmental impact statements that have been done to date.
When you consider the opportunity given to us to be partially funded in a major sense by the United States to prevent flooding, to store water, to provide for a possible increase in water tables throughout the farms, how can anyone be against it?
I ask the hon. member who has given this dissertation today: Does he not really feel that there is more than just an average amount of politics in this problem presented before us today? Is there any reality to the concerns that storing water in Saskatchewan, which has been water starved for the past number of years, is in fact not the right way to go?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there should be serious efforts made to deal with the basic problem of dryness on the Canadian prairies.
We could start by doing an awful lot more about conserving our soil problems, on which there is no action being taken. I remind him of this. He has been an active politician in the prairies for many years. I recall for him the Garrison diversion. I can recall going to Washington and having a congressman for North Dakota use exactly the same words about the Garrison diversion, that it is going to store water. It is going to give new irrigation run-offs. It is going to provide all these benefits.
The point is this: There is a trade-off between benefits and losses. We are trying to set in place in this country an honest, open system for making that assessment and trying to get governments and private industry to begin honouring that process.
When there are governments like the Government of Saskatchewan and now the federal government allowing that process to be distorted and perverted, it destroys the whole thing. What we are saying here is that the issue goes beyond Rafferty-Alameda. It goes to the fundamental heart of whether we, as a country, will be prepared to have closer, better and more careful stew-
October 16, 1990

ardship of our environment. To do that we need proper procedures and we need to honour them. We cannot tolerate the breaking of that basic responsibility.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue in the same vein as the previous speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, who brought to our attention just how frustrating it is to deal with the government on issues of the environment.
Like any other corrupt government it knows what to say, how to print green papers, how to position itself, and how to buy public relations firms. It does not know how to deliver on the environment. When push comes to shove, this is the best example we have had of a government that does not care about the environment.
I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg shares with me the frustration of having a minister available to talk with us, but when we ask for a little extra time to pose a few more important questions, his colleague from Saskatchewan said: "No more questions. We do not want debate".
I think this House deserves to have this question not only talked about, but we deserve to have ministers of the Crown come here to speak directly. I am sure my colleagues know this.
It is interesting to note that not only is Grant Devine being protected through this scandalous behaviour, but when you look at the senators and one story about who was appointed to the Senate most recently, there was a Senator Eric Berntson. What was Eric's big contribution to Canadian politics?


Mr. Edwards:: Ah, come on. Let's be fair.


David Walker: Well, if there is a second one, perhaps, during your time, you can bring attention to his second accomplishment. His first accomplishment is the defence of this dam site. It shows to what extent the Conservatives of Saskatchewan will go to promote a project and to protect their colleagues.
There is more at stake than this. When we were in the middle of the Oka debate, sometimes the House isolates one debate from the other, the government hung its whole extreme argument around the rule of law. There is a second side to the rule of law. First, it has to be applied in every circumstance if it is a real application of law. Second, it is made to protect the citizen from government, not the other way around.
Supply
What do we have in this case? We have a government official, a premier of a province saying to us: "I don't care what you guys are saying, I am going ahead with it". We talk about the rule of law. Where is the application of the rule of law here? This is one of the most fundamental trespasses we can have against the environment, against federal-provincial agreements, against the law of the land, and the government is silent. No posturing, just get out of the way and let them do it. You would almost think there is a Saskatchewan election coming up within the next year, wouldn't you? I am sure many of my colleagues from the west share the frustration in dealing with the federal government.
The only thing we can be happy about in this sad story is that the protection of the western Canadian environment has finally become a national issue. After watching one Conservative government after another in the west avoid these issues, after watching this Conservative government since 1984, support these Conservative governments and ignore the environment, finally this little postage stamp of an area has become a national symbol on how we treat the environment.
As we watch this play, we can understand that every little corner of the country is important. It is not just the big cities. It is not just the big Hydro-Quebec projects we hear about. It is these little projects that make a difference in our country. You have to stand up for each one of these examples and say to people that this little corner is as important as this big piece of property over here. We have a total environment to protect, a total country at stake here. What this government fails to recognize is the importance of these small battles, or what start out as small battles, and which should not be a battle at all. It should just be accepted wisdom as how to proceed.
Lost in all of this, lost in the bickering back and forth in the House, is the plight of the people in that area. They had their expectations raised by a government that did not care about the environment, secretly supported by the federal government, which also has not shown much care to this whole thing. Between them, they set out a deal and told the people in the area of Estevan and surrounding communities that they would be helped out through this dam project.

October 16, 1990
Supply
The government did not talk about the protection of the environment. It did not talk about things we put at risk. It did not talk about the new rules in Canada. It did not approach the environment in the way that has been talked about elsewhere. It just talked about how they could swing this one through because no one would pay attention. There are jobs at stake. There are people who make technical investments. They make large investments in trucks and yet, the government will not tell the whole story. There is a lot of bitterness created in small communities across Canada when these environmental conflicts come up. It is our responsibility in the House to tell both sides of the story, to make sure people do not get hurt, and to help people understand that their environment is as important as other people's environment and that we have to work together.
It does not matter whether we are talking about a small farming community. I originally come from a small city, the city of Sudbury, and I know what it was like to have thousands of jobs put at stake by people saying: "Oh, if you don't do it this way, we are sorry about the environment but you know all your jobs are going to be lost."
We cannot hold people's careers, their individual families, and their investments hostage because they are afraid they will lose everything if a certain project does not go ahead. It is up to us to set the standard in the public sector so that we can protect the environment and protect communities at the same time. We cannot use scare techniques. We cannot try to hide our mistakes in a small corner of the country saying this is so small that no one else will notice. We have an obligation through federal regulations and federal legislation to make sure that every part of this country is protected at every point of the way.
I will end my remarks by reminding the House just how severe this travesty is. We have asked the government time and time again: "Are you sure you have a deal with the provincial Government of Saskatchewan that will hold? Are you sure that we can rest safely and that this environment will be protected?"
Each time one minister after another-and goodness knows there have been enough ministers of the environment trying to help them out over there- has said: "Don't worry, you people are just raising all sorts of fears", and we find out once again that our fears are minimal compared to the damage to be done to the environment.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to speak on this subject that has had so much attention.
I represent the area in which the Rafferty-AIameda dam is located and have had the privilege of doing so for 11 years. I want to set the record straight for the people of Canada, and especially for opposition members in this House, about what we are dealing with. Unfortunately I see they are leaving, but I think we need to hear this in terms of sustainable development for our country and a set of guidelines that will lead us into the future.
The area that I serve and that the Rafferty-AIameda dam is in is a very dry area. I happened to be the chairman of the task force on drought during the most severe drought period that hit our country, with the exception of probably the 1930s. We are a semi-arid desert area in western Canada and particularly in southern Saskatchewan. If there is any place on earth that needs water, it is southern Saskatchewan. Our rainfall is approximately 12 inches a year and when we have drought years, 5 and 6 inches a year.
There is something very significant about what has happened in dams in Saskatchewan. First of all when the Gardner dam was built there were those who were against it. When the Diefenbaker dam was built there were those who were against it. Those dams turned out to be very profitable for Saskatchewan; just ask the people that live near them.
In terms of what has happened in the history of Rafferty-AIameda dam, Alvin Hamilton tells me that it has been studied since the early 1900s. This issue has been studied to death.
The hon. member from Winnipeg mentioned the Manitoba area. I want to suggest that when the Minister of the Environment came out to view the project-and I want to commend him for doing that- many towns, villages, and municipalities from Manitoba were represented. There was not a municipality, a town or a village in the area from Saskatchewan that was not represented. People on all sides of the political spectrum support the
October 16, 1990

Rafferty-Alameda dam. The past MLA for the NDP supports it. The past MLA for the Liberals that represented the Estevan area support it. People from all parties support it. What is the problem here?
We need the water to cool Shand power station. We need the dam for flood protection in run-off years because the situation, when there is a heavy run-off, is that the water comes all at one time and then the river dries up completely.
There has been a lot of talk about the fish. We are certainly concerned about fish. My farm is six miles from the dam. There are very few years when one cannot walk across that river absolutely bone dry, and any fish that would happen to be in that river would die. One of the very difficult things that we have seen here in debate in committee, in this House, and across the country is that we have people talking about a subject and a situation about which they have absolutely no understanding.
I would like to emphasize for all Canadians, for the House of Commons, and for all those who will have a part in bringing about sound sustainable development to our country: don't take advantage of an area by commenting on situations of which you have no understanding just to make political points. It simply does not count. What really counts is the facts. If we are going to have good sustainable development for the future, let us put some guidelines in place such as the ones in Bill C-78 that will do just that.
What happened with the EARP guidelines? I want to make the following point: no one has said that Rafferty-Alameda is not environmentally sound. What we are arguing about here is the guidelines. The people in my area feel betrayed. We feel we have become guinea pigs for the rest of the country on the guidelines. Let us get down to earth and EARP the earth, if you will, and get on with the new guidelines as the minister is trying to do. Let us put into place a set of guidelines that is going to work for all Canadians and not penalize a few in one area, which happens at this time to be the Rafferty-Alameda project.
What is the history of the EARP guidelines? I understand that they were brought together in a hurry at the end of the administration of the Trudeau years, in the last two weeks. There are those who have admitted to writing them in a hurry to get something on the table for
Supply
the then Prime Minister. These guidelines were ill conceived. They have not worked. Add to that the fact that we have grown 100 years in terms of environmentally sound thinking. The project that was in place is caught in the middle of it.
There was a time the provincial government put in place the guidelines and we moved by those guidelines and that was it; the federal government accepted it. Maybe that time is well passed and we need a new set of guidelines, but let's not penalize the Rafferty-Alameda dam just because there were a poor set of guidelines.
Again I want to emphasize that people have been talking about a project of which they know nothing. I hear the Manitoba people, people from the town of Melita who have come down to meetings in Estevan, supporting it in areas where they have had flooding. The people of Minot, where they have had their homes flooded out, have come down supporting it and saying that it is environmentally sound and that it is good for the area. What is the problem? Let's get on with it.
You might say the people of your area are against environmentally sound practices. There are very few meetings that I have not attended. Time after time I would hear our farmers say again and again: "Look it, we are environmentally conscious". They are probably more conscious than many other areas of the country.
One farmer from Oxbow said: "I knew exactly how many deer were in the valley. I know how many birds' nests there are. I see them". These, I should say, can be mitigated and will be mitigated with other areas around the dam that will allow nesting and so on. Nobody has argued with that. Again it is back to the guidelines.
Our people are environmentally conscious, and this is a project that is environmentally sound. I dare challenge the rest of the country. There might not be too many projects that are as environmentally sound as Rafferty-Alameda.
I do not want to throw stones at anybody in Ontario, eastern Canada or anywhere else, but there are some major environmental problems in Canada that are much more serious than anything that will ever happen at Rafferty-Alameda. This is in my opinion. In the opinion of those who have studied it and in the opinion of the judges we are not dealing with the environmental aspect;

October 16, 1990
Supply
we are dealing with the guidelines. Let us get on with the guidelines, settle it and get it done.
What about the frustration of our people? One member of the opposition did mention the frustration. This has been a most frustrating thing for our people. It has been on again off again and there is the economic impact of that kind of situation. It is simply not fair.
What we are asking for in our area is fair treatment. We are asking the minister to proceed with Bill C-78 and put into place a new set guidelines that will do away with the past guidelines that were not working. Then it will be a new day for Rafferty-Alameda and a new day for sustainable development in Canada. We need it. Nobody will argue that. Nobody is arguing that we do not need some reasonable guidelines. We do need them.
I challenge this House and Canadian people. I want to say one more thing before I sit down which I emphasized. Don't pass judgment on a project that you do not know anything about if you want good, sound environmental guidelines. That goes for Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, all Canadians. We want to see a future for our children that will have sustainable development and a healthy environment to live in. We all want that. Somehow we have been painted in Rafferty-Alameda as being something else than environmentally sound in our thinking. That is not so.
I believe that we have piloted for the rest of Canada. May I say on behalf of my constituents that we have endured at times ridiculous assault on what has been said and done on this issue. I beg you in this House and I beg all parliamentarians to let some common sense prevail and let us do the right thing. With a new set of guidelines in Bill C-78 we should forge ahead for the betterment of not only Souris, Moose Mountain and Rafferty in southern Saskatchewan, an area that needs water, but for all Canadians.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion with which the hon. member speaks. He has spoken to me privately about this before and I know how he feels about it, but let me just take some of the things that he has said. In a way, he is
reinforcing the view that we have been putting forward in the House today.
He says that no one should pass judgment on this project unless they know something about it. All we are saying is that we have a process for passing judgment on the project that is designed to bring in people who will treat the matter with some objectivity. That is the environmental review panel. It is this panel which has now resigned because the Saskatchewan government continues to build the project, in spite of the fact that the review is going on. It is one of the reasons given for the resignation of the panel. It is not the dam itself that many of us are against. You spoke about the larger picture and problems that exist elsewhere in eastern and central Canada. I agree. But what is at stake at Rafferty-Alameda is how we deal with environmental questions and what kind of precedents we set.
In terms of your own statement about who passes judgment on these projects, we are saying that you cannot have a process set up to pass judgment on a project and at the same time have the project going ahead. Your own minister has just appointed another panel or says he is going to appoint another panel. Why? To pass judgment on the project. So how can you possibly get up and defend the fact that the Saskatchewan government intends to continue building the project while that very judgment that you say you want passed is in the process of being developed. That is the question. It is a question of process not a question of whether that area needs water. We all know it needs water. It is not a question of whether you care for the environment. We know that you care for the environment. It is a question of due political process.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that question and I would like to explain exactly what has happened in the process.
First of all this project has been studied many times, but let us just deal with the last study in which the committee was put in to review in early February I believe. It was five months before that committee got down there, at a cost of $450 per member of a five-man committee per day. I think, in terms of process and guidelines, there should be some time limits, some
October 16, 1990

reason to these kinds of things, not just a direction to hold the project up.
These guidelines should be very carefully laid out. My understanding is that they are laid out in Bill C-78. That is exactly what I am speaking of.
I think you would agree with me, Sir, that we, as representatives, are to be custodians of the Treasury which the people of Canada put in our hands. They have told us: "Let us do it in a reasonable way and in a respectable direction".
In our area in five months we plant a crop, we see it grow, we harvest the crop, and in normal years we market a crop. It is pretty hard to explain to my farmers and the people in Saskatchewan that a review committee cannot get down to see the project in five months. It is very difficult.


Raymond John Funk: It is your committee, Len.


Leonard J. Gustafson: It is very difficult, very difficult. The opposition is making accusations here. Let those accusations be made. I am not here today to make accusations. There have been enough accusations. There have been enough politics in this situation. I want to tell you that the local wildlife people support the project, and some of them quit their jobs with the wildlife organization because of this issue.


An hon. member:: Not all of them.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Not all of them. I am not saying all of them, but those on the local scene did. This is the point that I make. Let there be a committee set up under guidelines that will review the process, but do not penalize an area because some cheap political group wants to take advantage of a project for its own benefit.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have an interest in this because my grandparents were married in Melita and travelled by cutter on December 4, 1894, to the Gainsborough area. They settled later in the Oxbow area, leaving behind I think close to a hundred descendants in that area now-most of whom I am sure vote for the hon. parliamentary secretary but, also, some of whom are New Democrats. I am sorry to say to the member for LaSalle-Emard I do not think there is a
Supply
Liberal in that area at the moment, but when he comes to lead his party that may change a little bit.
What I have heard from them, including the New Democratic relatives, is that the farmers of the area, the townspeople of the area see the merit of this proposal and that there is strong local demand for the project to go ahead. I want to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary whether there is majority support for the project in his constituency and in the area affected?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Again, I would say that 95 per cent of the people support the project, regardless of the political implications. As I said earlier, the former MLA for the NDP supports it, the former MLA for the Liberal Party supports it. I do not know of a reeve of a municipality or a mayor of a town who does not support this project, irrespective of politics. This project is needed. It is environmentally sound and it has unanimous support in that area. There are a few who do not support it, sure, but they are very, very few.
Again, I appeal, let us do the right thing. Let us move along with Bill C-78, bring in a set of guidelines that are workable. I believe it is our minister's intention to try to do that and I compliment him for it.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about the integrity of the process. If indeed the project is environmentally sound, as the member keeps alleging, why is the government not prepared to insist that there be a process in which the rest of the country can share the member's confidence?
What we are talking about here is whether the rest of the country will believe what the member seems to think is a matter of faith. It is quite conceivable that we could have a process that could determine that this project be stopped until such time as the panel reported, in which case the rest of the country could have the confidence that this member has. I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that the rest of the country does not have that confidence.


Leonard J. Gustafson: One of the reasons the country does not have that confidence is because the opposition and people who do not know what they are talking about have been sending the wrong message.


Mr. Caccia:: Explain why the panel resigned then.

October 16, 1990
Supply


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the member's question, there is a special standing committee which I have been sitting on. The special committee has been hearing witnesses with regard to Bill C-78, which is in fact exactly what he says, the kind of guideline.
What I am saying simply is do not harness this project with the ill-fated guidelines that were brought in by his government in a hurry at the end of the last Liberal administration. They do not work. Let us be fair and move on, EARP the EARP as it were, bring in the reasonable guidelines which are in Bill C-78, which the minister is trying to do and proceed with the project.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Will the parliamentary secretary tell this House whether he fully supports his Minister of the Environment?


Leonard J. Gustafson: I was very pleased when at our request and the request of the premier of Saskatchewan, the Minister of the Environment, newly appointed to his position, came to Saskatchewan. We had been asking again and again for someone to come and look at the project, just come and look. He came and looked at the project and he heard from the people.
He has moved ahead on Bill C-78 to bring in those new guidelines. As far as I am concerned, the quicker the better. Let us get on with the project.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege and an honour to be involved in this debate today.
I think it is a very important debate. In many ways, it has been one of the most substantive debates that many of us have heard. I think the interchange is certainly up and sharp. It is incisive. Also, it has led to some new points of view being put on the table and argument being joined.
In responding to some of the things that the members of the government have said, I would like to say that the member from Souris-Moose Mountain is not what I would consider or describe as one of the political hoods who has been involved in this whole process.
I think he genuinely tries to represent his constituents in a straightforward kind of manner. He has certainly
dealt with me and others among my colleagues in that kind of manner. We have talked about this.
Nevertheless, I think we do have a fundamental difference of opinion in this case. I realize the frustration of his constituents. That certainly is a dry part of the country, there is no question about it. This has been an on and off project, something that has been talked about. Now it is in a pretty active phase for some time.
It is hardly surprising there should be local support for an initiative that presumably would solve some longstanding problems and create some economic activity at a time when there is very little in our province. The rest of the economy is shot.
I think the hon. member should remember too that even in Saskatchewan we have had previous examples when what we assumed to be sound and long talked about projects were completed and they did not turn out to be quite the way we expected them to be.
Certainly the Diefenbaker dam, or the Gardiner dam at Diefenbaker Lake was long anticipated and carefully planned. Nevertheless, the full potential that people envisioned for that particular development has never even come close to being realized in terms of benefits to the agricultural community.
Furthermore, in my own constituency, we have the effects of what used to be popularly called the Squaw Rapids dam, now the E.B. Campbell dam close to Nipawin which it was never envisioned would have any extreme downstream effects.
Nevertheless, it has cleaned out the Cumberland delta, formerly one of the most productive fur and wildlife bearing areas in North America. In fact, it was the site of the first Hudson Bay post. There used to be about 10,000 muskrats trapped every year in that particular area. Now they are lucky if they can get 1,000.
These are the kind of effects that have flowed from previous efforts of dam building in the province. So we have to look at these things carefully. Even documents that are on the record say that if this project had been built in 1912, it would not have filled up until 1946.
There is some question about the environmental soundness, whether a dam of that volume and scale is the proper thing. As my colleague from Regina-Qu'Ap-pelle mentioned, there is some question about the wisdom of building another coal-fired plant at a time when we are supposed to be thinking about CO2 emis-
October 16, 1990

sions. We can buy power cheaper, for example, from other sources such as North Dakota and Manitoba.
There are some legitimate questions to be asked here. Certainly local benefits are legitimate, but so are some of these other questions. When challenged, the courts have found that some of these questions had not been properly addressed. That was the opinion of the court.
As a result of that, we had a process put in place whereby a review or process had to take place, or the licence should not be proceeded with. Clearly the action of the review panel in resigning makes it obvious to all of us. I do not think the hon. member is even arguing that what is happening is in contravention of what the court order said. Something has to happen.
I guess that is where I would like to turn briefly to the remarks of the minister, which had to be one of the most disappointing performances that I have heard. Certainly, he stood up and tried to address the issue. In the end, what did he really say? He said basically that, while the easiest way may be to lift the licence, he does not have the authority to do that because there is no breach of the 22 terms and conditions. That flies in the face of everything I have seen in those 22 terms and conditions. He said it would give Saskatchewan time to comply, but that it would take too long.
But then he said that since he has a court order, he is going to reappoint a panel. At one point he said that he would take the appropriate steps, and then the necessary steps to make sure that construction does not proceed. He said that very clearly. He was challenged numerous times. When we wanted to challenge him some more, some of the hon. members opposite, including three from Saskatchewan, spoke up. I believe it was the Minister of National Defence who said, no, questioning should not proceed. What are these necessary and appropriate steps? We do not know.
The minister says he is not going to lift the construction order and that he is not going to stop the project by that means, but he says that the government is going to take necessary or appropriate steps. Surely the hon.
Supply
member's constituents must be wondering what is going to happen next. The minister's own government has put him in as bad a position as any opposition member could have possibly done.


Brian L. Gardiner: With help like that from your friends.


Raymond John Funk: Yes, with help like that from your friends, you really do not need any enemies.
I guess what really sticks in people's craw here-and I think the member knows it-is the whole political taint to this thing.
This is in the Premier of Saskatchewan's home constituency, after all. The gentleman is in deep political trouble, as everybody knows. The Alameda Dam is in the constituency of a new senator and that whole Senate appointment phenomenon is not only a legal cloud, but certainly a political cloud as well.
The president of SaskPower Corporation, who is also from that area, a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan, was quoted earlier in the House as having made a speech in which he said that the senior level bureaucrat in the Department of the Environment had assured him that everything was looked after essentially in terms of the environmental review process. It does not look very good I would like to say to the member for Souris-Moose Mountain.
It looks like we have had whole series of secret deals. First came the one that Elizabeth May unmasked. We have never really seen what is in that January, 1990 agreement. There was also the September 5 oral agreement.
I would like to read briefly from an article in The Globe and Mail which states:
On Sept. 5, 1990, Mr. Devine and the current federal
Environment Minister, Robert de Cotret, met in Ottawa. Mr. Devine said the pair orally agreed to alter the terms of the Jan. 26
deal: the project could go ahead and $10-million was to be set aside
to alleviate any adverse environmental impact afterward. On Sept.
10, Saskatchewan sent the terms of the new agreement to Mr. de
Cotret by facsimile machine, but it says it received no response.
I think that is a very crucial point here, because after that the environmental review panel quit and really threw light on this whole situation. It drew attention of the public, the media, and the House.

October 16, 1990
Supply
What we actually see here is that this deal still stands. It would have been much better if the minister had stood in the House and at least had the nerve to say: "Yes, I cut a deal with Grant Devine to save his political hide and we are going to keep fiddling around here till this thing is done and nobody can do anything about it." Instead, he got up and vague made threats about appropriate and necessary steps.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it has been a pleasure to be involved in this debate. I hope the right thing is done in this case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time alloted for questions and comments is limited to five minutes. Resuming debate.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the opposition day debate today on a New Democrat motion moved by the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle. He has spoken in the House on numerous occasions during Question Period and in debate today. He has, as well, spoken about the impact of the lack of action by the Minister of the Environment as it relates to the Rafferty-Alameda Dam project. I also wish to refer to some of the comments from the member from Winnipeg who spoke so eloquently.
We are just asking for some simple yes or no answers, Mr. Speaker, which we have not been able to get from the government so far. Let us make no mistake as to what this debate is about. This is a debate about what kind of proper environmental assessment review process procedures we should have in the country. It is a debate about the failure of the 1984 guidelines that were developed by the then Liberal administration and the failure of the government and the members opposite to live up even to those guidelines. It is about the kind of projects like the dam project we are talking about today and others that I would like to comment on because they relate so directly to this debate on the proper assessment procedures we really should have in Canada.
I will get to that in a minute. It is important to understand that inviting some people down for coffee
and doughnuts is no substitute for a proper environmental assessment review process. We have heard, during the debate today, about some of the deals and the handshakes made by the Minister of the Environment with the Premier of Saskatchewan on this particular project and the squirming that they have had to try to see that this project actually gets through, whatever kind of review process that we have.
I have two examples that I would like to cite to give some examples of the confusion that we have from the government opposite on two projects and, as well, to comment on where we should be going in regard to environmental assessment. After all, as one of the previous speakers said, any good, corporate citizen and any good level of government will be prepared to subject their projects to due process, an environmental assessment review process, with some time frame and guidelines built into it. Nobody is suggesting that something has to be dragged out forever.
What we are talking about is a fairer process, one that informs and advises all participants-proponents, local governments, Indian bands, trade union movements, and environmentalists-so that all have their opportunity to have their say. If we look at the record of people who are active now in the environmental movement and the trade union movement, when making submissions-dare I say even industry-everyone is coming to realize that nothing gets done these days unless proper assessment is followed.
Let us just talk about those two examples. The first one is one that has a little story to it and it points out the confusion there is in the ranks of the government.
On a trip back home to my riding some time ago, I was speaking at a forestry conference and someone asked a very good question of me. The question was: "Mr. Gardiner, since it is in the EARP guidelines that any federally-initiated activity should have an initial assessment done under the Environmental Assessment Review Process Guidelines, was that done with the forest agreements?" I have spoken in the House before about how, despite previous commitments from the government to sign those tree-planting agreements, we do not have them. But I thought, what an interesting question. Here is what is generally thought to be a positive move by government. When we finally get some tree-planting agreements, whether they are in the Green Plan or what
October 16, 1990

have you, have they been determined by the government to be properly evaluated?
In the Committee on Forestry, when the Minister of Forestry appeared, he said, to the committee: "No, we have not done that, Mr. Chairman." So there was a bit of a gasp. Here is the federal Minister of Forestry admitting that he has not even followed his government's own guidelines. Then, one of his officials kindly interrupted and said: "Well, Mr. Minister, actually they have been evaluated. We do have some initial assessments done of the forest agreements." Of course, I used my opportunity jump in and say: "Well, that is good. Let's table them. Let us take a look at them." It should be good news. Generally speaking, tree-planting agreements are good news for all of our country.
It took a few letters from the Clerk to the minister and some officials to find out where these initial assessments are. The minister said that they did not exist, but then was told by his officials they did exist. It took a bit, but we finally got a letter. It was one of those "I regret" letters which advised me that no, this was not done after all. It was a case where the minister was right for all the wrong reasons. It shows just how much confusion there is in the government's own ranks in what could potentially be one of the most important departments in the country, the Department of Forestry.
I will move now to a question I had on a statement in the House today with regard to the Alcan Kemano Completion Project in northern British Columbia and the decision of the government on Friday to exempt that project from the environmental assessment process. It is incredible!
The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition in 1984, made an unequivocal commitment that that project would be subject to some kind of environmental assessment through due public process, with public hearings and what have you. We have had a few coffee and doughnut sessions, but that is about it. We have at least one retired fisheries biologist and another expressing his concern and opposition at the time and he was familiar with others.
A retired official spoke at a meeting in Vanderhoof in my riding on May 26. I would like to put this on the
Supply
record because it is an incredible allegation that I advised him was a serious one. I raised it in the House today and I have written to the Minister of Justice to ask for an investigation. This is with regard to a project which is massive in scope. It will reduce the flow of the Nechako River, a major tributary of the Fraser, in some cases by more than 50 per cent. It likely could impact the Fraser River by a reduction of as much as three feet in flows at certain times of the year. This is a massive project which Ministry of Environment officials from the province of British Columbia are now expressing their concerns about the settlement agreement, the federal-provincial Alcan Company agreement. Of course, the regional district is expressing its concerns.
I do not know how many of you have read The Omineca Express/Bugle of September 12 in which there is a report on the engineering study which lists a host of the other problems resulting directly from the settlement agreement, which the government insists does not have to be subject to an environmental assessment. This is it for those people who are concerned about this debate and this issue. This is what it takes, one page, one 8-1/2 by 11 sheet of paper to say that the environmental assessment and review process guideline order does not apply to the project known as the Kemano Completion Project. It goes on to mention a couple of dates, and what have you.
It is incredible because the allegations now being made by retired fisheries biologists leave me to believe that the same confusion in the Department of Forestry and the confusion we have over the Rafferty-Alameda, shows that the government is out of control when it comes to environmental assessment. I will read the quote, Mr. Speaker, and then just quickly wrap up. I am quoting from The Prince George Citizen of May 28:
"I think this is a classic example of how to abandon a resource. It's a classic example of how to misuse scientists. And it's a classic example of getting public servants to put a good face on a bad decision," -
"This department may well be ready for an examination of the way it does business."
There is no better reason to have a full environmental assessment of that project than some of those quotes and comments from that former Fisheries and Oceans biologist who is expressing his concerns about how this is proceeding.

October 16, 1990
Supply
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments about environmental assessment. I look forward to the debate on Bill C-78 and hope government members opposite are listening so that we can be assured we will get good assessment procedures in the country, not the environment circus we have now.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate.
It is an important one and one that has looked at the issue for some time. It is important to look at it from the standpoint of how we ended up in this situation.
The situation we find ourselves in today with the Rafferty-Alameda project is largely, I believe, a result of trying to apply retroactively a process that was designed as a planning process. It was attempted to be applied as a planning process but under ambiguous guidelines open, obviously, to a variety of interpretations. This is clearly an unacceptable situation for all concerned. There is no question, and we have seen this repeatedly in all of the polling and reaction of Canadians on every occasion, that Canadians want their environment protected. They need confidence that the government's policies and laws are clear, consistent and predictable. Steps have to be taken to clarify the confusion in which we find ourselves today.
We have already heard eloquent testimony in the House from my colleague and others about the significance of this project and of the commitment there is to maintain the integrity of the environment. We have to take steps to clarify the confusion in which we find ourselves. This government has already taken those steps and, at the same time, is advancing the whole field of environmental assessment world-wide. One must look at the context in which this particular issue is being dealt with. This is not a government that has avoided discussing or dealing with environmental matters. Consistently, through a series of ministers, it has taken the lead.
Environmental assessment as a planning tool has been practised by the Government of Canada since 1974. It has been used to predict the potential environmental effects of proposals requiring a federal government decision. This process was updated in 1977. Perhaps the most important thing for the purpose of this debate was
the reinforcement of that in 1984 when the Environmental Assessment and Review Process guidelines were issued by Order in Council. I will not dwell at length on the timing of that.


Charles L. Caccia: Good Liberal initiative.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It was a Liberal initiative, and I am grateful to my colleague for reminding me of it.
These processes were never adequately implemented because a series of Liberal governments were not clearly aware of or perhaps, if I dare say so, fully committed to environmentally sensitive planning. There was certainly, and my colleague opposite will know, no substantive legislative framework for these guidelines. The process was never more than a cabinet directive until 1984, and not adequately funded by government and not consistently implemented by government departments.
Since 1984, it has been very difficult even for a government such as the one I support, dedicated to environmental values, to fully implement these hastily conceived, ambiguously-worded guidelines introduced as perhaps, one might say, almost as a deathbed repentance in the dying days of that particular government.
In fairness, perhaps the government of that day did believe, as did this government, that the Federal Court guidelines on the Rafferty-Alameda project, the EARP guidelines, were just that, a set of guidelines to be interpreted pragmatically and reasonably. As a consequence, variations in interpretation could be expected and tolerated.
I think it is a little bit much for anyone to believe that the Government of Saskatchewan would have entered into and commenced to the extent that it did, believing that it would ultimately be found to be in contravention of clearly-defined guidelines. That does not sound reasonable.
As a further consequence, it could be expected that given the nature of these guidelines, there will be differences in interpretation, as has happened in the Rafferty case. It was not anticipated, and I would be interested to know if my colleagues opposite would contradict this. It was not anticipated or expected that these differences would be interpreted with the force of law. Even before this became the problem it is today, this government that I support recognized the need to place
October 16, 1990

its environmental assessment process on a strong, clear legislative footing.
In 1987, three years ago, the government asked the then Minister of the Environment to consult the public on the need for and manner of reforming the environmental assessment and review process. The minister issued a green paper to serve as a basis for that consultation. Six months of public meetings were held in major centres across Canada, followed by a national consultative workshop in March 1988.
Broad consultations were held with a wide spectrum of Canadians, including governments, the private sector, native peoples, environmental special interest groups, legal profession, and environmental assessment professionals. I think a very comprehensive approach was taken to ensure that there would be a clear, strong, legislative foundation. Participants in the consultations called for an accountable and administratively simple process based in law that is effective, efficient, fair, and open. I trust that all members in this House would agree with that.
The government has responded clearly and strongly to the needs of the country and of the Canadian people. The key elements of these reforms is in fact a proposed Canadian environmental assessment act, for the first time a comprehensive legislative commitment to good decision-making.
While the focus of our debate will be on the legislation, and I understand that will be continued tomorrow, I wish to point out to members that the government is going even further, not just providing that legislation to ensure this package fills the needs of Canadians today.
We are not stopping simply with the introduction of C-78. Beginning immediately the government is requiring that environmental factors be integrated into all government policy decisions. That I would say, Mr. Speaker, is an unprecedented step. I cannot overstate its importance to government decision-making.
Certainly this is a matter that my colleagues on the environment committee have considered very carefully, believing that it is a very important aspect of contemporary government responsibility and accountability. Government policies are often the determining factor regarding what economic development projects are con-
Supply
ceived and implemented across Canada. If the policies are not environmentally sensitive, it is much more difficult to ensure the resulting projects will be, even with tough assessment legislation such as we are introducing.
Henceforth, therefore, Mr. Speaker, all decisions of cabinet will require the potential environmental effects to be assessed and considered. If the members opposite want to ask questions at the end, I would be happy to try and answer them if I could.
To help build public confidence that this is being done consistently and well, the responsible minister will be required to make a clear statement about the environmental effects of the policy initiative at the time it is announced. I want to stress again that the fundamental issue here is that we are dealing with a project after the fact and with a process that was flawed from the outset. If we do not acknowledge those two things, we are really not dealing with the essence of the issue.
Also, to help ensure consistency and to enable the public to see the rules under which government is functioning in this regard, the Minister of the Environment has been asked to develop a set of clear guidelines for use by all departments and the Privy Council Office has been asked to amend cabinet procedural manuals accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I had the advantage briefly many years ago of sitting at that cabinet table and knowing of the kind of criteria that apply. It was certainly not the practice then and I am sure it was not the practice of the government that succeeded it, but now we are being advised that in fact these cabinet documents must require, must have, that kind of environmental assessment.
Further opportunity for public scrutiny can be reinforced by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment which I have the honour to chair, and which can then request any minister to appear before it to explain the environmental implications of any new policy or program. The government will certainly encourage and welcome this form of public accountability.
I think we must remember that it is not just enough to have guidelines. It is not even just enough to make sure they are clear, that they are public.

October 16, 1990
Supply
There must be a way in which the public itself can call to account policies, programs and those ministers who are responsible so that there can be an ongoing dialogue. Certainly, there is nothing static about this process of trying to have an environmentally sound approach. There is a great deal we have yet to develop and to learn in this process.
I believe the steps that are incorporated both in Bill C-78 and along with it are great steps forward, ones which are virtually unprecedented both in Canada and even outside our country. We do not hide the fact that neither we nor any other country in the world have all the techniques fully developed for environment, economy integration and policies. We are still at the early days in developing these approaches, but we are sincerely committed to doing as well as can be done and, in some cases, to taking the lead in the situation.
Leadership almost always requires breaking new ground and having the strength and resolve to do it. A second, vitally important element of this reform package is a consistent and predictable program of financial assistance to participants and public reviews that will be required under the process set out in Bill C-78 and, for that matter, any public reviews that may be undertaken under the present regime until Bill C-78 is able to be implemented. This is going to be introduced immediately the funds are approved by Treasury Board. We have learned over the years that whenever financial assistance is provided to review participants, the issues will certainly be more cogently debated and the results achieved much more satisfying to all concerned.
It is not just that we ensure that all necessary points of view are fairly represented in front of this environmental review process. It is that the best information becomes available. That point is sometimes missed. The funding is usually directed as a matter of priority to communities and individuals most directly affected by the proposed development.
This enables them to study and understand the issues thoroughly, and to prepare well considered submissions to the review panels. It minimizes antagonistic rhetoric, and encourages and promotes useful dialogue.
For each public review, the funds for this purpose will be allocated according to strict criteria and on the basis of applications submitted. Allocation decisions will be taken by special committees established for each review
made up of credible individuals largely from outside government to ensure the independence of the process.
Again, this I would say is virtually unprecedented. The only government that I am aware of that has attempted this is The Netherlands. It is the only other country that we know of that has such a public review participant funding program. I think we should not lose site of the fact that once again we are attempting to break new ground in this very important area.
I hope that this will build partnerships among decision makers and those affected by these decisions. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, even though we know that Bill C-78 is a strong, comprehensive piece of environmental assessment legislation, we are not letting the matter rest there.
Just a few minutes ago, the minister indicated that he certainly welcomes any improvements to the present package of Bill C-78, which members will have a chance to address tomorrow.
The additional initiatives that I have added this afternoon clearly demonstrate to the Canadian people that this government is strongly and irrevocably committed to making all its decisions based on sound environmental criteria and to ensuring that the affected public has a fair, reasonable and open opportunity to ensure that the best decisions are taken.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I listened with amazement to the hon. member's speech, speaking in such laudatory terms of a government that I know he supports, but he must do so with qualms and great nervousness on an issue such as this where the government has clearly failed in its obligations.
I listened in vain for words that might indicate his position and the position of the party of which he is a member, the Conservative Party, on the motion that is before the House.
I thought perhaps he was making a speech on Bill C-78. I know there is a rumour that it may be called by the government for discussion tomorrow. Whether it is or not today we are not discussing Bill C-78. We are discussing a very specific project and we are discussing in fact a very specific motion which states:
That this House urge the Minister of the Environment to revoke the
Rafferty-Alameda project licence and use all federal authority to
prevent Saskatchewan from proceeding with project construction until
October 16, 1990

an independent environmental assessment panel has completed its
review.
I thought in a speech on a motion of this kind the hon. member, who after all is a Privy Councillor and very knowledgeable in these matters, might have told us what his position is in respect of the motion; but I did not hear him say that. I wonder if he would tell us whether or not he supports the motion and, if he does not support it, why he does not support it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad
the member was not here earlier and did not hear the minister's speech. If that were the case, I suppose I could have taken my time simply to repeat what the minister has said. It seems to me he has upheld-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Do you agree with the minister?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do agree with the minister, yes. I would hope the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands also agrees with the minister. If he does not agree with the minister, I would like to know in what way.
It seems to me that we have two responsibilities with respect to the situation in Saskatchewan. One is to ensure that the environmental review process ordered by the courts is completed. That is exactly what the Minister of the Environment said he would do.
I do not know whether or not the member for Kingston and the Islands opposes that process, whether he wants the courts to reopen the question, or whether he does not want to proceed with the panel that the minister has proposed to appoint again. If he does not support that, then perhaps he should be responding and explaining to me what his alternative is.
I thought the minister made it very clear as to what he would do. I think that the member for Kingston and the Islands should perhaps explain why he would be opposed to the project if in fact the environmental panel completes its work and gives it a clean bill of health.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the hon. member's speech. He used, as is his right, the motion before the House today to talk more broadly about Bill C-78 and the environmental assessment review process. It is important because this Rafferty-Alameda situation is indicative of the problems and the flaws that have developed in the
Supply
current process. It is that process and this motion, which is so well crafted by my colleague, that I think we are debating here today.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether or not he is going to be urging the Minister of the Environment to ask for a return of the federal funds, our tax dollars that have been allocated for this project, from Saskatchewan because it seems to have accepted that federal compensation under rather dubious circumstances. That is one question.
The second question refers to his assessment of Bill C-78 generally. The briefing notes for the legislation say one thing. It seems to be quite an attractive package, looking at the briefing notes, but on closer examination of the legislation it does seem that the government is saying one thing in the briefing notes and doing exactly the opposite in the legislation. I would ask for his comments on that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all on the member's question about the funding that has been provided to Saskatchewan, if she were to look at it for a moment, she would see that this whole process is so upside down that people trying to sort out what is the correct responsibility would have a great deal of difficulty. The fact that the project could have carried on to the point that it did before a court order suggested that because of the environmental concerns it should be put on hold. It seems to me that this in no way is going to contribute either to the elaboration or the enunciation of environmentally secure projects or build much public confidence.
I have not heard anyone on the other side of the House deal with the substance of the project itself. I have heard most people deal with it in the context of the various decisions that were taken.
I think it may be useful-and I know that one or two of my colleagues tried to do this-to look at the project from some kind of an objective basis. Whether or not funds were allocated in a way that was not responsible is not possible to tell at this point. We have to allow the environmental review process to complete itself before determining what further federal responsibility there will be in the situation.
Turning to the second question about the difference of interpretation of the material provided for Bill C-78, this is not terribly surprising because the legislation as the minister indicated this afternoon is still in the process of

October 16, 1990
Supply
being more properly defined and determined. I would hope, if the debate is continued tomorrow and members have concerns about certain inadequacies or improvements that should take place in that legislation, they will be brought forth, debated, and determined here. We must not get ourselves back into the situation that resulted from hastily conceived and inadequately arrived guidelines in 1984, for which we are now paying a very large price. I cannot believe that was a happy result in the situation.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the member must know that with the court decisions, which I know he has studied as carefully as I have, the present environmental guidelines, whatever their inadequacies when they were first initiated, are stronger than the legislation now before the House.
I have a couple of things to which I would like the hon. member who is also the chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment to respond. Does he feel it is correct for the minister to make a statement that a project is necessary before an environmental assessment has been completed when the very question of necessity is the fundamental question of an environmental assessment, looking at alternatives and the necessity for the project?
Second, does he think it is proper that the minister obviously endorses mitigating measures that have gone ahead when the question of mitigating measures is a matter for a full environmental assessment review, not for predetermination?
Third, is he aware of and does he agree with the exemptions to Bill C-78? Does he really mean to pretend, in the face of court decisions that strengthen the guidelines order and their status, that Bill C-78 is an improvement with all its exemptions?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep this very brief. There were a number of questions that my colleague opposite placed. I think the two questions which perhaps are the most important are the comment that she believes Bill C-78 is a weaker version than the guidelines. If that is the position that she has taken, it is certainly not the position I have seen from most of the people who have studied this legislation. Maybe she has another point of view and maybe it can be supported.
I watched very carefully when Bill C-78 was introduced. I had the feeling-and I think the colleague who spoke briefly before her would echo this in terms of her own interpretation-that Bill C-78 is a considerable advance and provides the kind of sound prior knowledge and process that will prevent the situation which we have witnessed here today from developing on another occasion.
This brings me to the final point I want to make in response to the member's question. I find it very strange that she would question the necessity of a project that clearly the people of Saskatchewan and the Government of Saskatchewan have spent many years designing, apart altogether from whether or not it will meet the final test of an environmental assessment. There is no doubt in my mind that the people of Saskatchewan and the Government of Saskatchewan believe that the project is extremely necessary. I hope she is not speaking for her party in saying that it is not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time allotted for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate. Before giving the floor to the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, I recognize the hon. member for Davenport, and he has 10 minutes.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what this debate has revealed so far by the intervention of the parliamentary secretary this morning, by the minister and now by the member for Rosedale is a severe case of Tory myopia. I will explain. All three have referred to the guidelines that have been interpreted by the courts as being vague, as being confusing, and as being full of uncertainties in their significance.
The reason I am saying that this is a typical case of Tory myopia is that the courts found it possible to interpret these guidelines and to make them mandatory. If there is any uncertainty or ambiguity, it is in the Tory mind which does not seem to be able to accept the fact that the courts have made these guidelines, which they have been deprecating in the course of the debate today, mandatory-
October 16, 1990

It is this kind of political playing around that makes this debate fascinating in a way but also quite depressing. It allows the participation on the part of government members by the parliamentary secretary, the minister, and the member for Rosedale to create the impression that they are the victims of some kind of uncertainty created by guidelines which nevertheless the courts were able to interpret and make mandatory for the present government, so much so that on several occasions three ministers of the Crown chose to ignore them.
I will refer to the classical case last spring when here in the House on several occasions the Minister of Transport refused to take a position for his government on the Oldman River dam in Alberta. He was alleging some reasons of safety there. As well, some reasons of safety have been alleged in the case of the Rafferty-Alameda case. Is that not a strange coincidence?
Is it not a strange coincidence also that we have a Tory government in Ottawa hesitant to take action with regard to a Tory government in Alberta? Is it not a coincidence that you have a Tory government in Ottawa hesitant to take issue on environmental matters with a Tory government in Saskatchewan? Is that not strange? I find it very intriguing, to say the least.
I can only conclude that there was a lack of determination or spineless behaviour on the part of this government when it came to the crunch of these two major issues.
It is also interesting to note that this debate has failed so far to recognize, on the part of the government members when they participated in it, that nothing has been said about the resignation of the panel. This is what has precipitated this issue in the last 10 days and what has also precipitated the excellent motion put forward by the member from Saskatoon that we are debating today. The resignation of the panel is key to this issue at this point. It must be addressed because it reveals a profound sense of dissatisfaction on the part of the panel itself with the mandate that it had been given by the government.
Third, it is quite interesting to note last week that the premier of Saskatchewan was claiming publicly that the Minister of the Environment had given him the green light to proceed, forcing the Minister of the Environ-
Supply
ment here in Ottawa to contradict him. "Who is telling the truth" is a very intriguing question I would like to put to you, Mr. Speaker.
Fourth, there is the amazing remark last week by the Minister of the Environment who says all of a sudden, that he would like to leave it to the environmental groups to go through the courts and take the next necessary court action. Hiding behind the skirts of the NGOs, Mr. Speaker, here you have a minister who does not perceive that it would be his role. It is his role, and he leaves it to the NGOs to do it.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, other ministers of the Crown doing the same? Imagine, for instance, the minister for native and northern affairs, when something goes profoundly wrong in the mandate under his jurisdiction, saying: "I will not take action. Let the band council of northern British Columbia take the action in court on my behalf." It is pretty unusual to say the least, if not peculiar.
Then, Mr. Speaker, you have the fascinating notion that has emerged in this debate that Bill C-78 is the panacea of all troubles. I ask the parliamentary secretary who is patiently staying with us all day long whether he has read section 6 of the bill.
This bill, as we are gradually discovering in committee this week, is perforated with exceptions and is silent on the regulations. The notion was being created by the Minister of the Environment a couple of hours ago that we should support the speedy process of this bill. How would he dare say that when this bill has been sitting without any action since the latter part of June despite a commitment by the government to get it going throughout the summer, at least with interested parties away from the Hill?
We are behind schedule on this bill because of the inaction on the part of those responsible for it, and for no other reason. It seems as if this is a diverting tactic on the part of the Tories, namely, that what is happening with Rafferty-Alameda is due only to the fact that the guidelines are not clear and that once a bill is in place everything will be all right.
Mr. Speaker, that is a false notion, and I will explain to you why. It is based on the assumption that political will is going to be present once Bill C-78 is in place. The action of the government belies that assumption, and

October 16, 1990
Supply
this leads me to the next point which has to do with the Point Aconi plant in Nova Scotia.
First, last spring there were the concerns expressed by the federal fishery officials there about the plant. Then the Minister of the Environment made his first public commitment in Elalifax at the end of May and said that he will take action on it.
Then the matter was referred to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for public review and there was backtracking on the part of the Minister of the Environment on his original statement in Elalifax. Finally, in the fall there is the announcement that Point Aconi will not have a significant impact on the environment, and the matter is shelved.
Mr. Speaker, let me take you with the time available to the Alcan smelter. We are informed by fiat from the government that there is no need for a public review of the expansion of the Alcan project. This is the word from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. No explanation is given. We were only told that the criteria are being met.
Some 10,000 and more people have threatened to go to court to block this project. How does this government intend to act in light of this particular situation? How does this government implement its own concepts that it is elaborating and that it is putting forward in this debate today when it comes to the reality of issues be they the Alcan smelter, the Point Aconi plant, the Rafferty-Ala-rneda, the Oldman River dam and its elusive, ambiguous silence on James Bay 2. I would like an answer to those questions.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that the political process in Canada has lost credibility. It has certainly lost credibility because of the actions of all of us in this House. It has lost credibility because there is a government in power which has clearly ignored the wishes of Canadians. It has lost credibility because the government in power has lost control of the public agenda.
As well, there is another reason for the state of the democratic institutions in our country, and it is that we now have in the nation a population which is so far ahead of the government in its understanding of the evolution of the world, society, and the problems that the world faces, as to make government largely irrelevant. No better example of this can be given than the debate that
is being held today and the failure of the government in power to defend the integrity of the need and the integrity of the environmental protection process in the land.
This began some time ago. It began when the government engaged itself in a process of consultation, leading to the eventual publication in the next couple of months of the Green Plan, a process of consultation that was by and large a farce, a process of consultation which has largely been condemned.
Then we go on to the Point Aconi decision in which the Minister of the Environment allowed himself to be bamboozled by the Minister of Fisheries. We follow that with the failure of the Minister of the Environment to support the conclusions of the committee on the environment of this House, in calling for a reduction in CO2 emissions. And then, we come to that which members opposite have quoted at much length today, and that is the new Environmental Assessment Act, Bill C-78, an act which is a clear weakening of the existing guidelines.
The hon. member opposite said that he wanted to get on with the bill. It is not the opposition that is preventing us getting on with discussion of the bill. There has been a multitude of occasions for committee hearings; we should be much further ahead than what we are. We are caught in the government's agenda. Indeed, those discussions would be further along than they are if this government had not lacked the political will and the understanding of the ecological disaster that looms before this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have Rafferty-Alameda. The government says that it cannot revoke the licence. The minister says that he has legal opinions which say that he cannot. Now it may occur rarely but there are occasions, and we all know it, when legal opinions are not so much a reflection of the law but they are a reflection of the will of the person who is asking for the opinion.
"If this government is unable to come up with a clear legal opinion that says it cannot revoke the licence, I would suggest that it is because that suits the government's agenda and it is not a reflection of the state of the law.
Members opposite say that the dam is required, perhaps it is. On the other hand, if it is required, one must wonder why the initial environmental evaluation that was done in 1989 said that it was not. But the issue here is simply not whether the dam is required or not, it
October 16, 1990

is the integrity of the process and that process has been called into jeopardy by this government.
There is another integrity that we must look at, and that is the integrity of this government versus small towns and municipalities across this country who cannot become hostage to the incompetence of a government which simply does not understand what happens when tremendous hopes and aspirations are placed in a project and then that project is halted because of the government's incompetence.
The Prime Minister is fond of quoting from journalists. Let me quote from one of the most respected journalists in this country', Dale Eisler of The Leader-Post of Regina:
The federal government has bungled and abdicated its environmental responsibilities from the start. It has taken the intervention of environmental organizations like SCRAP and the Canadian Wildlife Federation to force Ottawa to fulfil its legal duties.
For the Tories, (Rafferty) simply could not be allowed to fail.
So by pushing it through now, Grant Devine can only hope to perhaps save some face.
Then he goes on to say:
What he can't hope to do is prevent Rafferty from being a lasting symbol to incompetence by Ottawa -
That indeed is what we are dealing with here, incompetence which has really let the people of southern Saskatchewan down. It makes no sense for the members opposite to stand up here and say, "Let's talk about the project". If the project is in jeopardy, it is because the members opposite have allowed this process to fail. It has allowed this process not to be able to demonstrate that indeed the project ought to go ahead.
The member opposite said that no one has said that Rafferty is unsound. That is not the question. That may have been the question in the 1970s, but the question today is, is it needed and is it the only way. What surely we are going to learn as we wind our way through the debates on Bill C-78 is that what we must be looking at is not simply an existing project and asking whether that project satisfies certain criteria, but is there indeed a better way, is that the only way to proceed. Surely to heaven the environmental assessment process must begin much earlier in the process. Members opposite fail to understand that. That is one of the major failings of
Supply
Bill C-78 and it is one of the major failings in this government's attitude toward the environment.
We have raised here in this House the whole issue of secret deals. I have known the Minister of the Environment a long time. I like him and I respect him. I believe that he is a man of his word. I believe that this matter of secret deals must be cleared up. Today my colleague, the member for Ottawa West presented the text of an agreement that was allegedly reached at the September 5 meeting. The minister did not deny the existence of that agreement. I think he must. Article 4 of the document states that it is expressly agreed that the corporation may now proceed to do all that is necessary to complete the construction of the Rafferty dam.
Article 5 states that the minister agrees to issue revised terms of reference for the Rafferty-Alameda dams for the Environmental Assessment Panel in order to give full force and effect to the provisions of this agreement and which terms of reference shall only provide for review of the operation after its completion.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Who signed this agreement?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: The hon. member opposite asks who signed this agreement. I hope the agreement does not exist.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Is it signed?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I hope that the whole thing turns out to simply be a balloon. The point that I would raise, however, is that the alleged agreement does do one thing very clearly and that is, it confirms the essential thrust of Bill C-78 which is to say that you assess a project after it is finished and indeed, that monetary compensation may well be sufficient in order to make up environmental degradation. There is no amount of money that can make up for environmental degradation that is enshrined in Bill C-78 and it is not acceptable to this side of the House.
I bow to you, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I hope you will not deduct it from the time of the members.

October 16, 1990
Supply
There have been discussions among the three parties and I believe you will find consent for the following action. The action concerns government Motion No. 16. First, by consent, the NDP will withdraw its subamendment to Motion No. 16. By consent, the Liberal party will withdraw its amendment to Motion No. 16, and, by consent, the government will withdraw government Motion No. 16, and substitute therefore the following new government motion:
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2 and for the sending of members, vessels and aircraft of the Canadian Forces to participate in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula, and in recognition of the seriousness of this matter, accept the undertaking of the Government to present a further resolution to this House in the event of the outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian Forces in and around the Arabian Peninsula; and
That upon adoption of this Motion, the said Motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
I wish to indicate that that would be the business that would be called tomorrow, should we proceed with this consent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like, as well, to speak to the point of order brought forward by the parliamentary secretary to confirm that we have had a series of discussions to find a way of having debate in Parliament on the Gulf crisis reflect a spirit of commitment and engagement by all Canadians.
We want to note that the new resolution put forward by the government does meet some of the concerns that were raised. I do want to acknowledge and make sure that Parliament understands as well that we expect the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be putting forward today or tomorrow further correspondence on this very important point, outlining different steps and commitment the government is prepared to make in dealing with the United Nations and dealing with Parliament. We think it is a very important step forward, and
also indicate that this would establish a new plateau for debate, but would not necessarily negate any further potential amendments that would be offered in the same spirit in which these measures have been taken.
I would recommend to my colleagues that we accept the proposal by the parliamentary secretary. I think it would be an opportunity for us to begin a debate tomorrow with different terms of reference for this resolution. As a result, we could go forward and be able as a House to adapt our own debate to the very rapidly changing conditions in that very crucial area.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, we too have been consulted on this question and we certainly agree to the terms of the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary. I look forward to participating in the debate tomorrow and seeing this debate come back before the House on this very serious question.
I just wanted to underline the point made by the member for Winnipeg South Centre, as well, that it is certainly our understanding that this new motion would indeed be open to amendment as its predecessor was.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can confirm that we do not have a problem if the Official Opposition and the NDP wish to move amendments and subamendments tomorrow through the normal procedures.
Also, I should signify that, to make sure it is procedurally correct, that the motion would be deemed moved by Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) and seconded by Mr. Andre, which is consistent with the mover and seconder of the previous Motion No. 16.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am amazed. We are being asked to agree to a series of motions in quick succession: first, withdrawal of the New Democratic Party's amendment, one which I would have supported; second, we are asked to give our unanimous consent for withdrawing the Liberal Party's, the Official Opposition's amendment, an amendment I would also have supported; third, we are being asked to withdraw the main motion, the government's motion, which I do not support.
October 16, 1990

We are being asked to do this, just like that, at the end of the day, as though it were routine, despite the fact that consultations were pretty rushed, and at a time when the House seems strangely empty-according to our custom I will not elaborate-and on a matter that is very important and in which members like myself have always had a keen interest.
I was discussing this question with my party's outstanding new critic, when all of a sudden, everything went into high gear and we were asked for unanimous consent. I realize some meaningful glances are being exchanged.
Since last week, I noticed some mysterious goings on. I did not know exactly what, but I did know something was happening. As a veteran parliamentarian, I have been around long enough to realize that this particular motion seemed to make a lot of people uncomfortable, that the government wanted a unanimous motion and that the Official Opposition obviously wanted a motion that would be acceptable to the vast majority of members in this House. And the NDP members, who are all smiles because a member of the Official Opposition rose in the House to say he was amazed-
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say once and for all that personally I am fed up-I hope this will come through in the translation-I am fed up with the lack of communication on such important matters. I say this to the members of your majority as well as to the members of my own party and other parties.
If only they would tell us: tomorrow, we intend to ask for the unanimous consent of the House. The NDP seems pleased at the thought of signs of division here and there. There is no division. This matter is far too important for that. But why can't they give us reasonable notice and say that tomorrow, they intend to present a motion? I am a reasonable man. I am a reasonable parliamentarian. Why don't they tell us: tomorrow, we would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House for withdrawing the NDP motion, the Official Opposition's motion and the government's motion-


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, -


Marcel Prud'homme: Just a minute! You started it. It's too bad, but you know very well this is not done. And you made the suggestion, not me! That is all I had to say.
Supply
I want my comments on the record to express my amazement at this procedure. It doesn't happen very often, Mr. Speaker, but it happens every time we discuss the Middle East. Now I am a reasonable man but I am nobody's fool, and if the government's motion was flawed to start with, that's just too bad! This is a very important matter, and we are being asked to give our consent because tomorrow- caucus should be very interesting tomorrow! Being a reasonable man, and since my esteemed colleague from Winnipeg is the party critic whom I respect for his intelligence and his brillant mind, I hope he will give us further explanations in caucus. Perhaps you could give us notice that tomorrow, you intend to seek the unanimous consent of the House for withdrawing the NDP, Liberal and government motions and presenting a new motion. That is asking a lot, but we will have time to think about it this evening. Come back tomorrow, and you will find me very reasonable. I don't feel very reasonable right now, however. I will listen if there are any further comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rises on a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in light of the conversations I just heard, I will withdraw my request for consent until discussions have occurred with members of the Official Opposition.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the hon. member say because of opposition from the opposition or a member of the Official Opposition. There are other members. I just noticed there is one here from the Bloc Quebecois. No one wants to call them the Bloc, but I do. The Bloc Quebecois is here. I just noticed he was on his feet. So, it may not be only me.
Do not always make it so personal, saying it is Prud'homme and disagreement because it is the Middle East. I am getting sick and tired of it. But if the hon. member pushes and makes me sick and tired, I assure him that there will be a lot of people who will be sick and tired. I assure him of that. We must debate that issue calmly, because it is a most important issue affecting the peace of the world.

October 16, 1990
Supply
I do not want it to come to this at this hour. Once I was asked for consent on another matter around this same hour and I thought I should have said what I am saying here today. But I want him to know-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis cannot continue. This is not a debate. I made allowances with case of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis because he is the dean of the House. But a request for unanimous consent seemed to have been denied. The Parliamentary Secretary has withdrawn his motion. Therefore, we are returning to the order of the day, namely, the question and comment period.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Hon. Member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You may interrupt the debate, Mr. Speaker, but I am already on a point of order. It is quite simple. The Parliamentary Secretary has tried to develop a situation where, under a sort of conspiracy of silence, at about 5.45 p.m., he tries surreptitiously to sneak in a few "quickies". Like the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, we are somewhat disgusted to see this kind of deals by people who claim to be speaking on behalf of others. Mr. Speaker, we hereby give you notice that we are sick and tired of him also.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am prepared to entertain other points of order, but I call the attention of the House to the fact that there is nothing to debate, the motion having been withdrawn for lack of unanimous consent. I will hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Transcona who rose on a point of order, but I do hope it is not the same.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my point of order was simply that I thought the matter had been dealt with and we should return to the question and answer period, which would rightly have followed the speech by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Great! Therefore, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment has the floor.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member who has just spoken has a great desire to be precise and I appreciate the manner in which he has chosen his words. I would like to direct his attention to the question of a document which he cited which had been referred to earlier in the debate, and referred to as an alleged agreement.
There are times in my life when I am happy that I am not a lawyer. There are times in my life when I wish I had had an opportunity to study law. I would assume, as a layperson, that any reference to an alleged agreement would presumably be an agreement reached between two or more parties. I would want to ask very precisely whether this document, to which the hon. member and, I gather, other hon. members have referred, does in fact indicated that one or more parties had signed that agreement? Is this alleged agreement a signed agreement, or is it an unsigned alleged agreement? I think there is an important difference between the two.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. parliamentary secretary. The agreement that I saw was not signed. The issue is not whether or not it was signed. The issue is that the minister had an opportunity to deny the existence of the agreement. The second point is that the agreement does seem to enshrine a quite archaic view of environmental assessment, which view is also enshrined in Bill C-78. My point is that there is a coincidence of archaic assessment views. I would hope that the agreement is, in fact, not a real agreement. I would certainly appreciate the opportunity of hearing the minister deny its existence, but the agreement was not signed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard to just elaborate for a few moments on this archaic principle that he refers to because of interest to me is the notion that environmental damage can somehow be compensated for in a financial way.
It seems to me that this is very much not Canadian perestroika or new thinking when it comes to the environment but is very much an old way of thinking that assumes that these kinds of things can be made up for in dollars. It is a bit like what we were doing 15 years ago and we still are, in some respects, asking aboriginal peoples to extinguish their land claims for money. We
October 16, 1990

cannot not extinguish our claim to a healthy environment for money because, in the end, you cannot buy ozone. They are not making any more of them-like land, I suppose. You cannot buy a lot of these things. The very notion that this is somehow a matter of dollars and cents just shows how far back this government is when it comes to this kind of thinking.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has, very clearly, picked up on my point. What is occurring with the Rafferty dam appears to be a feeling by this government, and certainly by the Devine government, that it makes no difference what you do; build the darn thing and no matter what the damages are, you can always pay for it. In Bill C-78, clearly, when they talk about mitigation and they talk about minimal damages, they talk about compensation. In other words, they are enshrining in Bill C-78 that it does not make any difference what you do to the environment, but that it is possible to buy your way out of the damage. That is simply not acceptable in the 1990s, certainly not in a reawakened nation, the Canada of today.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Regina- Qu'Appelle which reads:
That this House urge the Minister of the Environment to revoke the Rnfferty-Alameda project licence and use all federal authority to prevent Saskatchewan from proceeding with project construction until an independent environmental assessment panel has completed its review.
This incident last week, where the review panel resigned in outrage over the conduct of the provincial government, is just another case in point of the holes that are shot through the environmental assessment review process. This motion gives us an opportunity to talk about the flaws in that environmental assessment review process. As many members mentioned this afternoon, there is another bill before the House, Bill C-78, which gives us some hope that this will change. However, as I want to connect my comments later, I think that C-78 is once again another false hope for that process.
As I said at the beginning, Rafferty-Alameda and the events of last week when the panel resigned is just one more indication of an environmental assessment process that is flawed. It is stacked upon the same sort of process that has or has not taken place around Point Aconi on
Supply
the Atlantic coast where a coal-fired, electric generation plant is going to go ahead without an environmental assessment process.
Another example of that is the whole Hibernia project. Once again, this is an enormous project with an enormous influx of our tax dollars and there is not an adequate environmental assessment review process. As many have pointed out this afternoon, this is just not acceptable. We, in our party, are veiy conscious of where tax dollars come from. They come from ordinary Canadians to a far greater degree than they should because the corporations are not paying their fair share. We want to protect those tax dollars. Those people have worked hard for their money. It should not be taken away to conduct or to fund projects that are not environmentally sustainable. All the projects that I have cited this afternoon, the Rafferty-Alameda, Point Aconi, the Hibernia, do not stand the test of sustainability. That is the test which any environmental assessment review process has to pass.
Not only is existing legislation which is supposed to be looking after that process inadequate, but Bill C-78 is also inadequate. It has lovely language in the briefing notes; wonderful things that are going to flow from this, that we are going to follow the Brundtland commission's report in looking for a sustainable future.
When you actually read the words of the proposed legislation, you see that this is not in fact the case. It just opens the door wider for the kind of abuses that have occurred in the past. This is just not acceptable. The Canadian taxpayers, the Canadian public, one and the same, are fed up with the kind of bureaucratic gobblede-gook that has gone on, seeming to achieve something when in fact what they do is open the door wider for big business interests to conduct their business with impunity. This is not acceptable to the ordinary taxpayer, the one who is carrying far more of the burden than they should do in our country.
I also want to address my comments to the issue before us, the Rafferty-Alameda. We have an instance where the federal government has given over $8 million compensation for the so-called inconvenience of this project. What has happened with that money? What is going to happen with that money now that Premier

October 16, 1990
Supply
Devine in his wisdom-and I say that with lots of sarcasm, Mr. Speaker-has decided to proceed?
The federal government has a responsibility to the taxpayers, not just in collecting the taxes, but making sure that that money is spent wisely. If that money has been taken on a supposed fraudulent basis, it should be taken back and made sure that it goes back into the government coffers. We hear lots of rhetoric on the other side of the House about the concern of the deficit. If the government is so concerned about the deficit, get that $8 million back. It would go some degree in being able to protect ordinary Canadian taxpayers from the abuses of government.
We have an environmental review process that is shot full of holes. We have a tax system that is biased against ordinary Canadian families. They are the ones who are having to pay for this process that is fundamentally flawed. We can do better. We can do a whole lot better. I know that in my party we intend to do better when we become government the next time around because this government is so-


Ms. Langan:: Corrupt.


Lynn Hunter: I am not going to suggest the word that my colleague used-I am sure it has been picked up in Hansard-because I know it is unparliamentary. Their ideas are fatally flawed. They have no vision about the kind of direction we should be going on the environment.
When we talk about the test of sustainability, it is not out of any airy fairy idea that the economy is somehow divorced from the environment. No, Mr. Speaker. What we have to do is integrate the environment and the economy.
We know that people are hurting. We know that people in Saskatchewan want jobs. We understand that. But those jobs in Saskatchewan and those jobs in Hibernia cannot be given at any price, especially not the environmental price. It is not just this generation that pays the cost, it is future generations.
The federal government has a responsibility to provide leadership. That is what is lacking, federal government leadership on environmental assessment. We seem to be afraid of that. We seem to think that we are going to be
putting more bureaucratic markers in the way of development. That is not the intention of real environmental assessment. It is to show the integration of the environment and the economy are not two, but one. We, the taxpayers of Canada, are the economy. Where and how we live is the environment.
I would like to conclude by saying that the motion before the House today on the Rafferty-Alameda project is just one example of the flawed process of environmental assessment. I know in the coming days we will have more opportunity to debate the Environmental Assessment Review Process. I caution this House that we no longer have the time or the resources to make a mess of this. We have a responsibility as federal politicians to create an Environmental Assessment Review Process that integrates the environment and the economy, that shows people that the projects that federal tax dollars provide are sustainable, both economically and environmentally.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is almost six o'clock but I have a brief comment.
The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands made a statement which I think deserves more comment but, unfortunately, we do not have enough time. She said that jobs should not come at any price. I think this is at the crux of the environmental debate.
Jobs have been used as an argument for the need for this project to continue, as well as water. Jobs are used in British Columbia to justify the logging of old forests and various other forests that environmentalists want to protect. The thing that comes to my mind on this is that in the end we have to come to a different way of regarding job creation in this country and, for that matter, in the world. Not everything that creates jobs is necessarily good.
If I could revert to my other vocation, the church, I recall that one of the complaints against St. Paul by the Romans was that he was putting the idol makers out of business. There was a great job creation industry in Rome making graven images. One of the complaints against St. Paul was that he was putting the makers of graven images out of business. The whole Christian church did not pack it up at that point and say: "Oh, well, we do not want to put these people out of work making
October 16, 1990

graven images, so we will just bury the truth and we will not proceed any more with it." Instead they proceeded.
It is the same thing here. Many of the jobs which exist in our society today exist because of the worship of false gods, whether that be materialism or economic growth or whatever the case may be. We need to come to the point where we put the truth first and design jobs around the truth, rather than letting the existing jobs dictate what we preserve and what we do not.


Lynn Hunter: I think the brief intervention by my colleague from Winnipeg-Transcona this afternoon has demonstrated that there is a depth of knowledge within this caucus about the real priorities for the 1990s on environmental and economic issues.
The integration of the environment and the economy is doable. It is not only doable but it is a crisis situation. We have the vision in this caucus to be able to take it forth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7)(a), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Neil Young: moved that Bill C-225, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, prior to my comments on my private member's bill-and I should say at the outset that I do not plan to take up the full 20 minutes that have
Private Members' Business
been allocated to me for debate-I think it would be useful for members on all sides of the House to understand a part of the history of this bill coming forward, which is in my name.
The bill was actually first introduced in 1984 by the then member of Parliament for Lachine, Rod Baker, who was also a parliamentary secretary at the time on the government side. The idea and the notion behind the bill came from a committee on which I had been asked to serve that was also made up of members from all sides of the House. It was a non-partisan committee, in the best sense of the word, and it had been lobbied extensively by members on all sides of the House to take a look at the problems that this bill is designed to address.
I rather suspect from those I have talked to that the bill will be adopted and referred to committee, as it was in 1984 when it received broad support from the House and would have gone to committee. I think some work has to be done on the bill. There are some flaws in it, and I recognize that, which can be corrected in committee. If that bill had been scrutinized by that committee and referred back to the House, the intent of this bill would now be legislation. Unfortunately an election in 1984 intervened in the passage and further consideration of the bill.
If the bill were implemented, it would simply accord the same privileges to staff of members of the House of Commons that are now granted to staff of cabinet ministers or the Leader of the Official Opposition. If a member is ever defeated, dies, or leaves office in whatever way, it would provide that an individual would worked in his or her office for a period of three years would receive consideration for priority employment in the Public Service of Canada. That is what the bill would do.
The bill would not give employees a right to enter the Public Service of Canada, but it would give them the opportunity to do so provided they met the standards and criteria the Public Service of Canada would require of any employee who applied for employment in that service. That is essentially what the bill would do.
I am told that the private members' committee that listened to the arguments in support of this bill was unanimous in its endorsation that it should receive full consideration in the House and I believe has made it a

October 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
votable bill. In other words, if members of the House of Commons choose to do so, after three hours of debate I believe a vote could be conducted wherein all members of the House could participate in that vote on whether or not this private member's bill should be adopted by the whole House or referred to committee. That to me is a clear indication of the broad all-party support there is behind this notion of fairness.
Someone at that committee asked me for two or three reasons why I thought this bill should be adopted and why staff of the offices of members of Parliament is not granted the same rights as staff in minister's offices and in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.
The explanation for that is that when the amendments were made to the existing legislation a number of years ago, members of Parliament did not have their own staff. Members of Parliament at that time drew upon a common pool of employees that the House of Commons provided. Members did not have at that time the existing arrangement where we have our own staff assigned to us by the House of Commons or we have the right to hire staff in our own offices and at the constituency level. That simply did not exist at that time.
I am sure if it had existed at that time that we would not be faced with the problem that we have today. In other words, if members of Parliament had been given the right at that time to have their own staff, they would have been included in the amendments to the legislation at that time.
The number of people we are talking about here that could possibly be affected by this legislation I have determined to be in the area of between 35 and 50 people once in a four-year period. According to the information I have in each election there may be a turnover in members of Parliament of about 100. In other words, there may be 100 members who decide either not to seek re-election again or who may be defeated, and so we have a 100 or so new members of Parliament after each election.
According to information I have received from other sources, it is expected that most of those staff individuals would be employed by incoming members of Parliament, or they may choose for whatever reason not to stay on the Hill and seek employment elsewhere, and that by
experience over the years there would probably be in the area of about 35 to 50 experienced people on the Hill who may not be able to find employment.
I say all this because I think we have to be realistic about what would be the impact of this private member's bill on the Public Service of Canada. Essentially what we are looking at is that the bill would probably affect between 30 to 50 people once every four years or so, following an election. The individuals could not just walk into the Public Service. They would need three years of service in the office of a member of Parliament. They would needs the skills and other requirements of the job to be considered for hiring into the Public Service. They would receive a priority consideration, however, and I think it would be of value to the Canadian Public Service to have people who have the degree of skill that is earned by working for members of Parliament. It would be of continuing value to the Public Service.
It should not by any measure be considered as another perk of one kind or another. They are skills that people have learned by working on the Hill that could continue to be utilized in the public good in Canada.
Therefore, as I said at the outset, I have no intention of speaking for 20 minutes. I think there is broad general support for this concept. I recognize that there are some weaknesses in the language in the original bill as it was drafted in 1984. I would be prepared to work with the committee to strengthen the language in the bill. I would hope that we could perhaps have some witnesses from the Public Service unions, even some members of the staff of members of the House of Commons, and any others who may be interested in having some input into making the bill say what it is we mean it to say.
I would simply say I would enjoy appearing before that committee to lend any assistance I could on what I would consider to be a truly non-partisan, non-private member's bill that you have before you today, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.
October 16, 1990

I like most members of the House will feel torn when I approach this bill because it affects all our staffs, the people we work with on a day-to-day basis. We know any time we see effective members that behind them is a group of very effective staff people who work closely with the members.
It not only affects those people who work for us, our staff, but in my opinion it would also have quite an effect on the Public Service, thee thousands of dedicated, intelligent, committed people who are looking for career paths in government in the Public Service. I would like today to argue and address what I consider to be some of their legitimate concerns.
Before I get into the full argument, the position that our staffs are put into is very similar to the position that we as politicians are in. Especially in this day and age this is not a secure job to have. We all know that the average length of time that a member of Parliament is here is less than six years. Some are here longer than that; of course many are less. This insecurity that is created for us as politicians unfortunately is shared by our staffs. They also are faced with this concern for where their futures lie.
Therefore there is a very real need. In many respects my admiration for the member in introducing the bill is that there is a legitimate concern by all of us members for those staff persons.
I would like to make a quick summary of the bill. I think the hon. member actually did summarize it. I would like to resummarize it to make sure that I have it clear in my mind and everyone else's the points we are addressing.
The bill proposes that any person who is employed in a member's office will be entitled to a Public Service appointment without competition if any one of three conditions is satisfied. The key point in my mind is without competition.
First, the person could have been a Public Service employee prior to being employed by the member. Second, he could have qualified for appointment to the Public Service while being employed in the member's office. Third, and in my opinion the most dangerous one, is a person who has been employed in a member's office for a period of three years. If that has happened, all they
Private Members' Business
have to do is meet one of those qualifications and they have priority over the regular public servants for the position.
If we think of the stream of Public Service employees legitimately trying to pursue their aspirations, with this bill we are creating a back door, or perhaps a better analogy would be a revolving door where members of our staff, after completing three years' service can enter through the door and take priority over any of the public servants that apply for a job. This can be done without a competition. Granted, there are a few exceptions to that. It could be a person who has taken a leave of absence and upon returning has priority over the member's staff person or it could be somebody who has been bumped by that. Other than those minor exceptions, the staff member from the member's office who wants to get into the Public Service will take priority over all other public servants.
There is a test. They do have to qualify for the job. The hon. member has made that point and I would like to expand on it. There is a big difference between qualified for the job and the person who is the most qualified for the job.
I am sure there is some argument that will be brought out that this bill does not guarantee that the staff person will get the job, which is the point I address. They will not get the job unless they are qualified. I concede that that is a very legitimate and necessary step. I think you have to recognize that they automatically will receive priority over the existing civil service. To me, this just does not seem to meet a fairness test that I would apply as would most others.
It really bothers me that the fundamental principle of merit seems to be abandoned. It is no longer the best qualified candidate being considered for the position, not if it is one of our staff members. He has to be qualified and to have satisfied one of the three previous conditions.
I have met with many, many staff members since I have been on the Hill. I have gained quite an admiration for their ability and their competence. I seriously question whether we need to be concerned for their well-being. If they are competent, they should have no trouble competing in a legitimate competition. If they are the best person for the job then they will succeed.

October 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
In most cases, we have good people working on the staff of members on the Hill. The test has to be when they go for the job that they are the best qualified for that job.
We have the Public Service 2000 program. The Public Service is trying to create a more efficient and effective organization style. If it is to try to make more from less, if we are continually squeezing the dollars by which they operate, yet increase demands placed on them, if we ask more for less, then we have to honour some of their requirements. They need to feel they have our confidence and trust. They need to see that job development possibilities are there. They need to know that their successes will be duly rewarded. They have to know that the development steps that they require in their career paths are going to be open for them. In my opinion, this back door, this revolving door of Bill C-225 would go a long way to destroying any of the progress that we have made to date and will make on the Public Service 2000 process.
The hon. member in his speech mentioned the situation of after an election result where it is not inconceivable that there would be several hundred staff members in motion. God only knows we would love to be able to ensure that they all have work some place, but we have to consider the impact that these hundreds of people would have on the career civil servants. They have first priority for those jobs. They have first priority to their career paths and we have to ensure that they retain that priority.
We try to be more fair, more just, to our staff and in the process of that will become less fair and unjust to the civil service. I even question that the priority we would be giving them would even pass the test of our Charter of Rights.
There may be, as the hon. member has suggested, a number of faults with the current act. I maintain and will argue that the solution is not found in this bill. There is no question that we have an obligation to our staff, but by eliminating the fair and progressive job competitions we will have taken a step backwards. We have the key to the front door. Let us use it. We do not want our staff having to enter in through the back door.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am a little astounded to see this bill coming from the
quarter it comes from. It just strikes me as somewhat elitist to be seeking special privileges for those who choose to work with members of Parliament. I am quite surprised to see that kind of bill coming from the New Democratic Party.
The bill proposes to amend section 39(4) of the Public Service Employment Act so that the staff of members of Parliament have a special priority to be appointed to the Public Service as the bill says, in priority to all other persons. If that is not elitism and preferential treatment, I do not know what is.
The argument that this privilege is currently enjoyed by the staff of ministers I do not believe justifies extending and multiplying by many times the number of people who would qualify over and above all other persons who might be eminently suitable for employment in the Public Service, to be appointed without competition, without being measured on their merit against anyone else who might be equally qualified for this job.
It says quite simply that there are three ways a person can qualify for this privilege. One, if they were an employee of the Public Service before coming to a member's office. Second, if they were qualified for appointment to the Public Service while serving in the member's office or, third, if they simply can endure and can manage to prevail in a member's office for three years. I want to stress again that they are then eligible for appointment to the Public Service on a priority basis in preference to all others and without competition.
We have a Pubic Service Commission that was established 80 years ago to ensure that the Public Service did not become the place of employment of those who had friends in office, but that it became a place of employment that impartially served all Canadians without deference to one political point of view or another, and without being beholden for the jobs that are held in the Public Service to any politician or to any position of privilege.
I am surprised for a second reason that this bill has been initiated by the NDP. It appears to enjoy the support of the NDP members who are in the House, as well as the member who is presenting it.


Neil Young: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should listen to what I said.
October 16, 1990

This bill originated from an all-party committee, and originally from a Liberal member for whom I just substituted my name. I think if the hon. member is going to enter into this debate in a fair way, she has an obligation to tell the truth.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to apologize. If it is my duty to be at other places, and I am not here to listen to all the words of wisdom presented by my hon. colleague.
The fact is that the bill is here in the name of a NDP member, and I will address it on that basis.
I was surprised to hear my hon. colleague mention that he is introducing this bill without any consultation with the unions, that he hopes will take place subsequently.
The hon. member and his party's critic for the Public Service must be aware that in fact the major unions of the Public Service have taken a very strong position. They want to see the Public Service Employment Act amended not to further restrict free and open competition for positions but to make those very things subject to negotiation at the bargaining table.
That position was stated as recently as yesterday morning by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada at a press conference releasing its paper Dialogue with Parliament. What it wishes to do is recognize that the Public Service Employment Act is now much more restricted in the rights it accords to employees than other labour legislation, simply because they happen to be employees of the public of Canada.
It severely restricts its right to negotiate. What the unions are seeking to do now that the bargaining process in the Public Service has achieved some maturity after approximately 22 years is to make such things as hiring processes, promotion processes and firing processes subject to negotiation at the bargaining table.
I question whether the members of those unions would find this the kind of provision that they would wish to negotiate into their contracts. Also they wish to expand their right to appeal, to grieve and to set up a much more legitimate process when there are objections from employees or their unions to the way in which an appointment, a promotion, a dismissal or a transfer has been made.
Private Members' Business
The member should be aware that at the moment there is a significant problem of morale and stagnation within the Public Service. One of the reasons is that there is very little room for movement in the Public Service. There is an aging workforce. For people already within the Public Service to move on to new opportunities and new levels of responsibility is extremely difficult.
As a result, the Public Service is losing many bright and capable people to the private sector or to other career opportunities simply because they cannot be given the opportunity to have new responsibilities and new experiences within the Public Service.
Making another several hundred people on a regular basis qualified to be parachuted in over and above those people who are there now looking for opportunities does not seem to me a wise thing to do. Nor does this seem to be an opportune time to do it with those kinds of problems existing in the Public Service.
I do not think any of us can ignore concerns about patronage in the Public Service. The recently released reports of Public Service 2000 includes move by the government without discussion by Parliament. Their wish to make the appointment of people and the moving of people around in the Public Service more a matter of managerial discretion not open to appeal and not open to examination. This has already created some significant consternation in the Public Service about the possibility of people being moved, based on their personal relationship with their supervisor or manager rather than on their abilities and on their job interests.
Given the scepticism that exists now among the Public Service unions about the fact that all these changes are being imposed from on high by management without them being part of the process that comes to solutions as to how best to reform the Public Service, I think we need to be very cautious about adding to that scepticism and adding to that cynicism.
The fact that ministers' offices have this privilege right now, the fact that in recent revisions Treasury Board has doubled the number of people who can be appointed out of a minister's office and directly into the Public Service does not necessarily make an expansion of this a good idea.

October 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
There is a process for Public Service reform under way. I fully expect that the government, if it really wants it to succeed, will open up that process to consultation with the employees and their unions and that an idea like this is certainly something that could be considered in that process but should not be brought into this Elouse without consultation with the unions and in isolation from all the other reform measures that are now under consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia -Matane):: Mr. Speaker, after listening with care to my colleagues, it is with mixed feelings that I take part in the debate on Bill C-225. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the priority access of our staff to Public Service positions. Like all members of this House, I am extremely grateful to the people who work for me and for my colleagues. It is perfectly legitimate to be concerned with issues such as our staff's job safety and opportunities for advancement. They deserve it. They are loyal collaborators who are familiar with the business of Parliament as well as with the various Departments and the machinery of government.
They devote a lot of time and energy to satisfy our needs. For the most part, they do not have a fixed schedule. They are available at any time of day, often very early in the morning and late at night, and even during the weekends. Not many peole are so fortunate, Mr. Speaker, as to have such dedicated collaborators.
I can say without exaggeration that we could not do all our work if it were not for them. They provide us with the help, information and professional services we need to fulfill our demanding tasks as parliamentarians and politicians. Without them, we must recognize it, Mr. Speaker, we would often be lost.
We all know that our staff is as loyal and dedicated as we are when it comes to serving our country.
The purpose of Bill C-225 we are dealing with today is to amend the Public Service Employment Act to provide equitable treatment to the staff of Members of the House of Commons by according them a priority consideration to be appointed without competition provided
they had been Civil Service employees immediately before, or had qualified for appointment to the Public Service, or had been employed for at least three years in the office of a Member of the House of Commons.
Over the past few years, Mr. Speaker, in order to streamline its expenses, the Government laid off some 1 000 Public Service employees. Thanks to its Work Force Adjustment policy, the Government was able to re-hire a large number of employees declared redundant thanks to the co-operation of the unions and the efforts of the Public Service to minimize the impact of these cuts.
Merit has always been a cornerstone of all appointments to the Public Service. Over the years, however, the merit principle changed to take into account other criteria such as efficiency, equal employment opportunity, a sense of fairness and awareness within the Canadian public.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is essential to maintain a Public Service which is not only politically neutral, but which appears to be politically neutral to most Canadian men and women as well as civil servants generally, and not motivated by partisan or other types of political considerations. For nearly a century, I think we have managed to have a Public Service that is neutral and we must take all necessary steps to ensure that it remains neutral.
In my opinion, a Public Service which is politically neutral should be protected from any political interference. Such political scientists as Kenneth Kernaghan have identified the major characteristics of a classic model non partisan and neutral Public Service. In this context, this political scientist gave us the following theorical model: First of all, the policymaker and the policy should be distinct from the Civil Service. It is the responsibility of politicians and their associates to make political decisions and that of civil servants to implement them.
Second, the appointment and promotion of staff should be based on the merit principle and not on party affiliation or contribution.
Third, public service employees should not indulge in any partisan politics.
Fourth, public service employees should not reveal publically their personal opinion concerning the policies of the Government or its administration.
October 16, 1990

Fifth, public service employees should provide privately and confidentially politicians with objective advice.
Sixth, public service employees should loyally carry out the political decisions while respecting the philosophy and platform of the political party currently in power without consideration for their own personal opinions.
The practical limits of this theoretical model of a public administration have already been denounced and it appears certain that the reality of the Federal and Provincial Public Services falls short of this ideal. Proposals may therefore be formulated to better correspond to the contemporary reality. However, both in their original or amended forms, the major characteristics of this model are always present. At this time, three questions arise: What would be the impact of Bill C-225, if adopted, on the principles which I have just described? What would be its impact on the perception which Canadian men and women have of their Public Service? And finally, what would be the impact on the morale and promotion opportunities of present Public Service employees?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the need for Public Service neutrality and impartiality to be preserved in any decision we may take. It is necessary for the maintenance of a highly competent Canadian Public Service which is deservedly envied by several countries.
Mr. Speaker, within the context of Public Service 2000 and personal management review carried-out by the Public Service, I suggest that the amendment should be judged on its merits. The Public Service Employment Act is very important and embodies basic principles which should not be disregarded.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the employee who has served faithfully and worked loyally for a Member of the House of Commons for at least three years should receive some priority consideration. I feel this would be a step in the right direction. I recognize, however, that some questions remain which deserve careful consideration.


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, all members here readily appreciate the purpose of the bill and could support it. As indicated in the explanatory note, the purpose of the bill is as follows: "-to provide
Private Members' Business
equitable treatment to the staff of members of the House of Commons (including the staff of the Speaker of the House of Commons) when their employment is lost-"
The bill would give members' staff the right to priority appointment to any public service job for which they are deemed to be qualified.
Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that the New Democratic Party would sponsor this kind of legislative measure, for we all remember-and this was quite a recent occurrence-that the NDP is adamantly opposed to preferential treatment being given to members over any other citizen. So why would they now want our staff to be given preferential treatment? I find this quite contradictory, Mr. Speaker.
Anyone who is familiar with the 1990 labour market would know that nowhere can an employee expect foolproof job security. Still any fair-minded Canadian would readily agree that the staff of members should not work under conditions offering little or no chance of promotion. Mr. Speaker, we members of the House know the situation of our staff better than anybody else. We live with them all day long. We are quite aware of their long working hours because they are the same as ours, not to mention the stress they work under as well as the endless series of problems, questions and issues with which they must deal and be familiar.
More than anybody else we know just how unpredictable their workload can be from one day to the next. That does not prevent them from discharging their many responsibilities with outstanding dedication and loyalty. Indeed the public cannot possibly be aware of the support they bring to members and to the House, and their work does not get the recognition it deserves.
Given the importance of their contribution to the country, as much as other Canadians these people should be able to look forward to other employment once their term is complete. To me that seems only normal and fair.
But is that enough to claim that this legislative measure ought to be adopted as is? I for one must confess that Bill C-225 raises a number of serious questions. The first question I asked myself was this: Are the circumstances of our staff such that legislation of this kind is necessary? Second, even if that were the case, does this bill really provide a solution and is it an acceptable one? All members of this House are probably

October 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
aware of the extraordinary implications of the bill before us today. The bill provides that irrespective of the merit, skills and experience of other persons, including public servants, that would qualify them for a given position, when it is established that a member of the staff of a member of the House of Commons has the minimum qualifications for the position in question, that employee, and I quote from the bill, . . .is entitled .. .to be appointed without competition . . .in priority to all other persons", subject to section 30 of the Public Service Employment Act, under which a public servant returning from leave of absence has priority.
I will get back later to this aspect of the bill, in other words, its content. The question I think we should answer first is this: do the economic circumstances of members' staff, when they leave their jobs, justify taking extraordinary measures? The explanatory note to the bill proposed by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine does not indicate there has been any kind of study of the circumstances of our employees, that would justify the proposed measures.
I think we have a duty to all Canadians, and I to my constituents, to point out that this bill would give preferential treatment and, as a result, we would subsequently be accused of putting our own interests and those of our employees before those of our country.
My second concern is this: even if the facts about the present circumstances of our staff were to give cause for concern, is the solution proposed by Bill C-225 the appropriate one?
I think we should remember the two main objectives our Parliament had in mind in the last century when it passed the legislation that preceded the Public Service Employment Act, and I am referring to the Civil Service Act, which took away the ministers' authority to appoint public servants and gave it to an independent parliamentary commission, the Civil Service Commission.
Its initial purpose was to make sure that in the Public Service, both entry and advancement would depend on the merits of the candidates and on no other consideration. Its second purpose was to establish a clear separation between the executive power and the Civil Service
on one hand, and the legislative power on the other. In fact, the separation of powers proved to be beneficial. Today, it is one of the advantages of our system of government. According to this principle, the role of the Public Service is to advise the government and carry out its decisions in a matter that is loyal, impartial and neutral.
Thus I would be afraid that the bill before us be seen by Canadians as mainly avoiding two important principles: the merit principle and the neutrality-objectivity principle.
Is it to say that there is no other means to improve our employees' career plan?
Bill C-225 would also entail serious practical problems.
As I indicated earlier, except for the civil servant on leave, that bill would give our employees the highest priority access to Public Service positions. That alone could create serious difficulties for the government as well as for the Public Service when attempting to resolve downsizing problems.
I want to emphasize the fact that, under paragraphs 4.1(a) and (b) of this bill, a person doesn't have to have been employed in the office of a member of Parliament for a minimum period of time to be entitled to a priority appointment.
Needless to say that, under this bill, the Public Service Commission would have to assess all employees of MP's applying for a job before considering public servants affected by personnel reductions or lay-offs. So, the efforts made by the government, by Treasury Board and by the Public Service Commission to implement the Work Force Adjustment policy would be a lot less effective than under the present system.
I will conclude by saying that my intention here is to underline certain serious questions relating to this bill. They are questions of principle, Mr. Speaker. They are so important that, in my view, it is imperative, in the interest of the Canadian public, of Parliament and of the Public Service, that we find answers before a legislative measure of that scope can be implemented.
October 16, 1990


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to add a few comments of my own to Bill C-225 but, before I do that, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to congratulate you on your new position in the chair and commend you for the very competent manner in which you have started to assume your new duties.
The subject before us this afternoon, Bill C-225, is not new to most members of the House. In a very broad sense it reflects a concern for employees that every good employer should have. As employers, and each of us as members of Parliament is an employer, we employ capable staff. This may not be a concern that members of the opposition have, but as a member on the government side I often hesitate to brag about how good my staff is. There is always the danger over here that a cabinet minister will think that they are good enough and try to recruit them away from us.
Having said that, I feel I do have a very competent and a very capable staff. They are very well motivated. They often go far beyond what could normally be expected from an employee. They work long hours, often under trying conditions and under great pressure. I am assuming that several members of this House, if not all of them, could say much the same about their staff members. Most of the people employed in this House would be an asset to any employer. But, as mentioned by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine, their employment is subject to the re-election of their employer and is often, therefore, very tenuous. Because most members of Parliament are concerned about their staff, this issue has been discussed and discussed many times in this House.
I understand an earlier bill was brought forward in 1984 and since then this has often been the centre of discussion by members informally and formally, on both sides of the House. As the hon. member for Beaches- Woodbine said, it is a non-partisan issue and for a very good reason. This bill deals with an issue with which all members are concerned, that of providing a degree of job security for the respective office staffs, knowing the uncertain climate in which these very capable individuals work. However, my concern with this bill is that in order
Private Members' Business
to provide a degree of security for our staff members, we may well impose on the rights and employment of others.
Bill C-225 is an act which would amend the present Public Service Employment Act, the legislation under which most of Canada's federal public servants are hired. The Public Service Employment Act, which was promulgated in 1967, is one of several pieces of legislation designed to provide a framework for the management of human resources in the Public Service of Canada. This act has a long history, beginning in Canada in the early part of this century, with roots deeply embedded in the fine traditions of the British civil service and its long commitment to political neutrality.
The first act, governing appointments to the Public Service or, as it was then known, the Civil Service of Canada, came into being as a result of concerns for the competence of the civil service and the prevalence of political patronage in making appointments to the civil service. A succession of acts since that time have all reflected Parliament's commitment to the maintenance of a politically neutral Public Service.
One of the key elements of the current act is the establishment of the Public Service Commission of Canada, an organization which reports to Parliament and is responsible for all appointments to and from within the Public Service. It is the responsibility of this organization to ensure that people who are appointed to the Public Service are qualified.
The normal route into the Public Service is by competitive process and selection of the person or persons to be appointed is on the basis of merit. I cannot conceive how any logical person can debate the principle of hiring on the basis of merit. When we want someone to work for us, we want the best, and we will hire, on merit, the best person we can. The Public Service should do exactly the same.
Having said that, however, there are a number of exceptions allowed to the merit principle which are already embodied in the Public Service Employment Act. The Parliament of the day obviously felt that allowing exemptions to the merit principle would, in certain instances, be in the best interests of the Pubic Service and, indeed, of Canada as a whole. One example of an exemption or exception to the merit principle is

October 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
what is known as the veterans' preference. Section 16(4) of the Employment Act empowers the Public Service Commission to confine its selection in certain cases to persons in receipt of a pension by reason of war service or persons who are veterans or widows of veterans. There are obviously some humanitarian considerations and bona fide occupational requirements involved.
In the case of open competitions, that is competitions open to the general public, the Employment Act also empowers the Public Service Commission to appoint Canadian citizens to the Public Service in priority over non-Canadians. I think that is an exception that most Canadians would agree with. Another common sense exception to the merit principle is contained in section 30 of the Employment Act. This section provides for the appointment of a public servant who is returning from leave of absence or whose job has been filled during his or her absence to be appointed to a position for which he or she is qualified in priority to all other persons. This is another exemption that I feel is easily defensible, one that most reasonable employers practice in any event.
I want to emphasize that I am a whole-hearted supporter of the merit principle in hiring and I am not supporting exemptions but to draw my argument to a logical conclusion, I am illustrating existing exemptions that are made and allowed to the merit principle.
Another example of a variation in the merit principle is in section 29 of the Employment Act which provides for the consideration of a person or persons who have ceased to be employed by reason of lay-off resulting from lack of work or discontinuance of a function to positions for which they are qualified. This provision has been of great value in recent years during the downsizing of the Public Service. The provision has been used as a basis for an agreement with the Public Service unions on a policy to address workforce adjustment situations. This policy now forms part of our collective agreements.
The final exception contained in the Employment Act from the requirement to appoint the best qualified persons to positions in the Public Service is contained in section 39. That is the section being proposed for amendment by Bill C-225. This amendment to the act calls for the provision of the same privileges regarding statutory priority entitlement that are currently given to the staffs of ministers to the Crown to be extended to the
employees of all members of Parliament. This priority entitles the individual for a period of one year from the day his or her position terminated the right to be appointed without competition to a position in the federal Public Service for which in the opinion of the Public Service Commission the person is qualified.
As I stated earlier, the history of the neutrality is long and complex and should be a major concern to Parliament. The question of political neutrality and the appearance of political neutrality is of particular concern to ministers and they must be assured that the advice they receive is not motivated by partisan or other types of political considerations. They must also be assured that in the execution of their duties, officials are acting without political motives.
It is also extremely important that the public not feel that political alliances enter into or in any way affect their dealing with government departments. The public expects appointments to be made to and within the Public Service on no other basis other than one's ability to do the job. Any suggestion that one's political activities had any bearing on appointments to the Public Service will undermine public confidence in the Public Service.
Any good government will have concern with the concept of public interest. In order to deliver services directed toward the public good, governments need impartial employees, capable of offering objective advice. They must not fear that the advice offered by a public servant is slanted toward his or her political beliefs or designated to embarrass the government politically.
In addition to these concerns and considerations, Bill C-225 would further impede those public servants who are on a lay-off status or have been placed on a priority list from obtaining a new position at the same time. This bill would also reduce opportunities for those public servants who wish to compete for a particular position as a career move because there is an even greater likelihood that this position will be filled with a person from this expanded pool of priorities. This I believe would do little to improve morale-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Red Deer-
October 16, 1990

	Private Members' Business
[English] The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. [Translation] Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to	the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. It being seven o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). The House adjourned at 7 p.m.

Wednesday, October 17, 1990