1992-03-18

Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, we are all most grateful for the positive yes response to yesterday's referendum question in South Africa.
The majority yes response encourages people worldwide to continue to believe in the generous and just nature of humanity which so often is buried in the negative.
Yesterday's white South Africans voted overwhelmingly to support the end of apartheid. Seventy per cent of South Africa's 3 million white minority have given Mr. de Klerk the mandate to proceed with the CODESA reforms on behalf of all South Africans including 30 million black South Africans.
We look forward to a rapid negotiation of a new constitution enfranchising all citizens. We look forward to a speedy implementation of an interim government which will include blacks for the first time.
Most of all, we look forward to the achievement of these goals which will bring South Africa back as a full participant in the community of nations, sanctions lifted and freedom and prosperity for all, as the new goals for an international community.


ALBERTA CHAMPIONS
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, once again the province of champions does it. I ask this House to congratulate three new champions.
The ladies Canada West Ringette team from Alberta won the world's ringette championship in Helsinki, Finland.
During the same week, the Wetaskiwin Relics won the COHA international hockey tournament in Las Vegas for the second time, having previously won the world cup division in San Diego.
Of course, the whole nation watched the University of Alberta Golden Bears as they captured their eighth Canadian intercollegiate athletic union hockey championship in Toronto on Sunday.
The Golden Bears exemplify the winning tradition of the University of Alberta and all three teams exemplify the true ideals of excellence. As the Golden Bears say: "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit".
Congratulations to all three teams and continued success.


SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, all over the world men and women who love freedom will rejoice at the result of the referendum in South Africa yesterday.
State President F. W. de Klerk, his Nationalist Party and his allies in the Democratic Party have achieved a result that gives him a free hand to continue the nation building work that he and the majority of other political parties in South Africa have been engaged in for the last several months.
Canadians have urged this course of action on South Africa for many years as have countless other countries around the globe. Freedom is the only solution to lasting peace in South Africa. The CODESA talks represent a significant movement toward freedom for all of South Africa's races and an opportunity for the state president

March 18, 1992
S. ft 31
and his political colleagues to build a new, stronger and better country.
King George VI said here in Ottawa over 50 years ago: "Without peace there can be no enduring freedom, and without freedom no enduring peace". These words ring true for South Africa today and the referendum represents a giant step toward freedom for the majority of its citizens.



Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings -Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, the results of Tbesday's referendum in South Africa show resounding support for President de Klerk and other moderate leaders for the process of reform which has been initiated to end apartheid.
Having just returned from South Africa, I have seen firsthand the significant changes which have taken place in South Africa this past year and feel that the widespread support which President de Klerk's reforms received yesterday should be encouraged and rewarded.
If the aims of achieving a non-racial and democratic South African society are to be successfully reached, we must show support to the government and representative moderate leaders. I commend the Prime Minister of Canada for his prompt telephone call to President de Klerk and the announcement this morning allocating further official development assistance for activities in support of democratic development in South Africa.
Hopefully, as soon as possible the federal government will restore full economic and cultural ties with South Africa, including the establishment of a trade consular office. I encourage Canada to urge other countries to do the same.



Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday South African whites voted by a substantial majority to give President F. W. de Klerk a mandate to continue on the road to dismantle the evil of apartheid.
We welcome the outcome of this vote and hope that it will in fact accelerate the pace of change in South Africa toward irreversible true democracy and genuine majority rule.
While significant progress has been made it is veiy important however that Canada and other nations of the Commonwealth and elsewhere not lift trade and economic sanctions until there has been irreversible change and the black majority is fully represented at all levels of decision making in South Africa.
Canada must also speak out strongly on the tragic levels of violence in South Africa and call for firm and independent action to end the violence and bring those responsible to justice.
Let this be the last whites only vote in South Africa and let it lead soon to a free and democratic South Africa with an end to poverty, injustice and racism.
Finally, let us pay tribute to Nelson Mandela and the black leadership and the black majority of South Africa for the courage, dignity, and strength they have shown in the struggle to end apartheid.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the world learned of yet another chilling terrorist attack against Israel.
This time an explosion destroyed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. At least 11 people, including children, were killed and more than 100 were injured in this brutal and senseless attack.
Israeli Prime Minister Shamir said the blast was part of a war against Israel.
Our Prime Minister sent the following message to Prime Minister Shamir yesterday: "Canadians were shocked and outraged today at the news of the bombing of the Israeli embassy. We join with civilized people everywhere in condemning this further brutal violence against the state of Israel".
I believe this latest terrorist attack is not only vicious and vile but, worst of all, cowardly.
March 18, 1992


PARTY FUNDRAISING
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Reform Party was maliciously attacked without provocation for some reason by the NDP member for Churchill as well as other members in this House.
He stated that a Reform Party fundraising letter was a "slick, sophisticated, and sleazy step by step guide on how to abuse the tax system".
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that his own party, the NDP, has also used this method of fundraising so it is not new.
I have in my possession a copy of a document, a B.C. NDP fundraising letter, which reads: "Hans, here is my tax creditable contribution to the grassroots initiative 92.
I am interested in finding out about donating to the B.C. NDP through my will, life insurance or other bequest. Please send me your free pamphlet".
This smacks of hypocrisy unfortunately.
I believe that Canadians are also repulsed by this kind of behaviour and the reaction of Revenue Canada.
Anne, the donor in question, has stated clearly that she did not enter this arrangement with Revenue Canada uninformed. I think what we need to do is say that the official who spoke to her contrary to what we may have heard in this House said there was nothing illegal or wrong about the arrangement-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


TRIBUTE TO THE LATE ROGER LEMELIN
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, as I watched a few clips from The Plouffe Family yesterday on Radio-Canada, I remembered how families across Canada, literally glued to their TV sets, had become veiy fond of this family from lower town in Quebec City. Roger Lemelin's novel marked the birth of popular television in Canada.
The man who died Monday morning was a gifted author and an outstanding and sensitive communicator. Throughout Roger Lemelin's career, his work gained
him many awards, both in Canada and abroad, particularly from the Academie frangaise and the Academie Goncourt. At 30 he was the youngest member ever elected to the Royal Society of Canada. In 1989 he received the Ordre national du Quebec and finally, two years ago, he became chevalier of the Legion d'honneur.
Roger Lemelin has given us some of our best descriptions of everyday life in Canada.


PARTY FUNDRAISING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaver River just rose and read part of a mailing from the New Democratic Party of B.C.
Let me assure that member and the House that not only have I read that document, but I also read the entire package. I talked to the Hans in question and there is no way, shape or form that we are asking those people to use the political tax credit to pay premiums.
As I stated in the House on March 11 when I raised this issue, "Canadians will want to know the answer. It is perfectly legal for individuals to give through their wills or through their insurance policies to universities, to political parties and to charities. It is the abuse of the political tax credit that is in question".
I did my homework. We are not guilty. If The Reform Party feels very guilty at death's door, we understand why.


TOURISM INDUSTRY
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, at this time when jobs are at a premium, one of the fastest growing industries in our country has been given a boost.
Recently the minister of western economic diversification announced a project to develop job standards and certification programs for 27 tourism occupations. Now the tourist industry will be more prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow's international tourism market.

March 18, 1992
Congratulations are due to the minister and everyone involved for their vision and dedication in improving and strengthening our market on the world level.


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, March 21 marks International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a day to remind us that ending racism is a long process whose cause all of us must take up daily.
Last night unfortunately we were reminded again that the ultimate act of racism is terrorism with the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed 11 people, injured 120 including many children, smashed windows for blocks and trapped survivors under the rubble.
It is clear the bombing was intended to scuttle the Middle East peace talks or to intimidate the government into closing recently opened files on Nazi war criminals living in South America.
Let us not allow that cruel act to change the course of history. Let us be sure that the meetings continue to move the world toward peace. This incident also reminds us of the ultimate consequences of racism here at home and around the world.
In Canada our fight against racism and hatred go hand in hand with our tradition of tolerance and respect for individual freedom of expression, be it Salman Rushdie's or Mordecai Richler's right to free speech. Racism must be eliminated.


AIR QUALITY ACCORD
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, exactly one year ago last Friday, the Prime Minister and President Bush affixed their signatures to the historic Canada-U.S. Air Quality Accord.
With the signing of the accord, both countries took a major step forward in undoing some of the damage we have both inflicted on the environment. We still have a long road to travel before the scourge of acid rain is eliminated from our midst. We must remain vigilant to ensure the terms of the accord are rigorously implemented on both sides of the border.
However, I believe the accord is a classic example of what two great peoples can accomplish when they act in the spirit of goodwill and co-operation.
The many individuals who worked to make the accord a reality, including the Prime Minister and you, Mr. Speaker, are to be commended for their tenacity and diligence in helping to ensure a healthier and cleaner environment for all.


CO-OP HOUSING
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, all people in Canada have a basic right to shelter. For the poor, co-op housing has been a saviour, putting a roof over thousands of heads, 5,000 in Winnipeg alone. It allows people shut out of the housing market to have choices and to live in dignity.
In Winnipeg North, a pioneer in co-op housing, there are three such units, but likely there will be no more. The federal government has killed the program though
164.000	families remain on the waiting list and more than
4.000	jobs hang in the balance. This is yet another example of classic Tory betrayal.
Somebody has to provide affordable housing to people in need. Federal responsibilities cannot be unloaded on to the backs of the provinces.
I ask this government: Did you kill co-op housing because it is a social safety net, a Liberal legacy, or because the needs of the poor carry no weight with you? Is it the Tory mandate to let food banks feed them and to let the slums house them?
Bring back co-op housing and address the needs of the poor.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, the recently announced export tax on cigarettes of $8 per carton has caused great anxiety and consternation in the tobacco growing communities in and around Tillsonburg and in my riding of Oxford. As a result, the hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk and I have received a petition signed by about 4,500 constituents.
We acknowledge the need to take action to stop the smuggling of cigarettes into Canada, but a way more appropriate than the export tax needs to be found. Not only will this tax seriously injure tobacco producers, but also the support services in those communities, all the way down to those who operate duty free shops at our border crossings.
March 18, 1992

Oral Questions
The Minister of Finance has made it very clear that he is not trying to increase his tax revenue from tobacco sales. It remains for producers, manufacturers, politicians and officials to come up with a more acceptable and effective way to reduce the smuggling of cigarettes into Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the indulgence of the Chair to say a few words on the historic vote in South Africa.
It was a victory for equality of all people, a victory for democracy and a victory for South Africa. On this issue, the House has spoken most of the time with only one voice and I am sure that the Prime Minister will convey on behalf of all members of this House and all Canadians our congratulations and best wishes to President de Klerk and the people of South Africa.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, coming back to the national scene, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In the budget papers, the Minister of Finance referred again and again to low interest rates as providing the basis for economic recovery. Since the budget, interest rates have been going up. Yesterday the minister said that it was not his fault; it was the uncertainty over the Constitution.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this question. Does the statement of the Minister of Finance yesterday mean that the budget projections are already wrong?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Only time will tell, because we have seen the projections of his predecessor wrong all the time, so I wanted to be on the record right away.

The Bank of Canada's policy is merely intent on raising interest rates. This idiotic policy will increase the bankruptcy rate, substantially increase unemployment and poverty in this country and accelerate the deindustrialization of the economy.
Why does the Conservative Government always bow to the Bank of Canada? Who is responsible for this country's economic slump, the government or the Bank of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to his comment about the former Minister of Finance being out in his projections, in fact, I think the record will show that from time to time he was out by approximately $100 million. However, that is not in the league of my hon. friend who was out by about 100 per cent on a regular basis when his party was in government. Nobody could match the record of my hon. friend and I do not think anybody would ever want to try.

Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition deplores what he calls a high interest rate policy in the middle of a recession. The minister just explained the reasons for such a modest increase. Interest rates are now at their lowest level in nearly 20 years a major achievement for Canada.
And speaking of raising interest rates during a recession, does the Leader of the Opposition remember the recession in 1981-82, when his government raised interest rates to 22.75 per cent? Perhaps he should think about that for awhile.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: would remind the Prime Minister that the recession did not occur in 1981-82 but in 1983.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

Oral Questions

Yesterday the Minister of Finance very courageously said that it was not his fault, that it was the fault of somebody else if the interest rates were going up. It was the fault of the Bank of Canada.
This morning the Governor of the Bank of Canada said it was not his fault; it was the fault of the market.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this question. Who is running the economy of Canada? Who is going to take the responsibility for the mess we are in today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that the minister indicated that the modest rise in interest rates was the fault of the Bank of Canada. That statement is false.
He then says that the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the rise in interest rates was the fault of the market. That statement is false.
What can one expect? My hon. friend says that the 1981-82 recession did not take place in 1981-82, that it took place in 1983.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Before beginning it, I invite him to look at his own budget papers. They say that the recovery period in 1983 and 1984 was much stronger than the recovery period right now. He should look at his own budget papers.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance tried to blame the current economic mess on constitutional uncertainty, but Canadians know that this recession began long before this current uncertainty. Even the Prime Minister back in 1990 said that his government "had induced a slowdown".
Will the Minister of Finance stop looking for scapegoats for his failed economic policies and look at himself in the mirror and take some steps to reverse his unnecessary return to high interest rates and the unneeded unemployment that goes along with it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was responding to the hon. member's questions regarding the recent interest rates.
I said that there was volatility in the financial markets and that it had been caused by a number of factors, including the constitutional issue. I repeat that again. I think that all learned observers would share that view.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada held a press conference and, although invited to do so by journalists, he declined to agree with the Minister of Finance that the current constitutional uncertainty was to blame for the government's return to high interest rates.
Why does the minister insist on an excuse that even his buddy, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, refuses to accept?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about high interest rates.
I remind him that we have the lowest interest rates in 19 years. They are certainly a heck of a lot lower than when the hon. member presided over here on the treasury benches. At that time, five-year mortgages for homes was 19.75 per cent.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada did not deny that the constitutional issue was a factor. As I said yesterday, there are many factors that affect the markets. Whenever there are uncertainties in the markets, it creates a certain amount of volatility, both in the exchange market and in the money markets.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, with the same forbearance and indulgence you gave the Leader of the Official Opposition, I have just a few comments on behalf of our party.
I want to say how pleased we are with the outcome of the vote in South Africa, and I want to compliment the Prime Minister for consistently sticking to a matter of principle at the Commonwealth conferences regarding South Africa.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: And that is that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Back to normal.
March 18, 1992


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about the North American free trade agreement. I was interested in the fact that both the old line parties blamed each other's recession on each other's bureaucrats and any other excuse they could find. Neither one of them spoke about the damage to the economy of this country done by the free trade agreement. None.
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade this question. Considering our experience with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, has this government made up-to-date impact studies, sector by sector, of what the draft bracketed agreement will mean to jobs here in Canada, from textiles to automobile parts and automobiles themselves? Has this government done impact studies, sector by sector? If so, will it make them available to the members of this House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his question, the first part of which is one of the finest he has asked in this House.
I should tell my hon. friend that in a conversation this morning with President de Klerk of South Africa, I conveyed the congratulations of all members of the House of Commons for the excellence of his courageous leadership in bringing this about.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As my hon. friend points out, it was on Canada's behalf, with the Commonwealth, a lonely battle from time to time and the government was sustained throughout by the overwhelming majority of the House of Commons. This was a policy that was consistently followed by successive governments over many years and I think it says something about some of the fundamental values of this country of which we can all be proud.
With regard to the less elegant part of the question, my hon. friend asks about the North American free trade negotiations that are presently ongoing. My understanding is that there was the offer of a full briefing for my hon. friend and others tomorrow.


Ms. Copps:: Secret.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it is not secret. My hon. friend says it is secret. It is not secret. How could it be secret if we offer to brief the hon. member?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is an oxymoron, but I invite my hon. friend to come to the briefing. He will find that the Government of Canada will be full and forthcoming in its sharing of information. I look forward to having the opportunity of briefing my hon. friend and then having the House get the benefit of his views thereafter.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is making an offer to committee members that they are free to discuss anything they heard in the briefing, I will accept the offer. However, if the conditions remain that we are sworn to confidentiality, when I am sworn to confidentiality, I keep my word. Therefore, I will not go into a secret meeting, sworn to confidentiality.
I asked the Minister for International Trade a specific question about impact studies. My next question is also for the Minister for International Trade. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in the United States Congress has made a thorough study of the impact of NAFTA on the United States economy. She has determined that over
100,000	jobs have been lost in the U.S. automobile industry alone, many of them shifting to Mexico. General Motors has recently decided to shift the Moraine Engine Plant to Mexico with a loss to the United States of some 1,000 jobs.
I ask this government whether or not it too has done any specific studies. Has it heard or seen from General Motors that their over-all strategy is quietly to shift its production to Mexico while the negotiations are going on and at the end of the negotiations voila, be almost out of Canada, significantly out of the United States, with the jobs all going to Mexico because of the North American free trade agreement?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, let me just comment on my hon. friend's point on the access that we have offered members of Parliament with regard to negotiations on the North American free trade agreement.
The committee members, through the committee chairman, came to the government and requested access to the document and the opportunity to have briefings. We, as consistent with the United States and Mexico, have offered confidential briefings to the committee members. It was on that basis that the offer was made.

March 18, 1992
Oral Questions
I believe it is the first time this type of access and involvement in the making of treaties has been offered to opposition members in the House of Commons. My hon. friend-and I believe it is the case with the Liberal Party-has chosen to forgo this opportunity to participate in making policy in order that they can participate in Question Period and in politics of the basest sort. It is that sort of approach that I do not think is becoming of members of Parliament when this unprecedented offer has been made.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the question for the Minister for International Trade is not whether the confidential information is available or not. The question is basically: When is this government going to share with the Canadian people its objectives in the North American free trade negotiations? It is a simple question.
The minister refers to the committee being given information. Many months ago, a year and a half ago, the committee called for the closest possible consultation with Parliament so that the people of Canada had the opportunity to understand what was happening in the negotiations.
Is the minister now saying that the confidentiality rule will not be attempted and, rather, that we will have an open discussion in the committee of the government's policies in this vital issue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made known our objectives in the committee hearing about three weeks ago. I have made a number of speeches where I have set out quite clearly what the objectives of the Government of Canada are in the North American free trade negotiations.
What we have offered to both opposition party members of the committee is access to more detailed briefings on a confidential basis so that we can gain the benefit of their judgment on how the process should proceed. It is similar to the process we have under way with the International Trade Advisory Committee and the industry advisory committees where we meet with them on a regular basis, together with the provinces, in seeking
broad sources of advice on the specific elements of the negotiations.
As I have said in my previous answer, this has never been done in the House of Commons. Quite frankly I am disappointed in the hon. member and his colleagues in not allowing this process to proceed in that open way.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, what benefit does this bring to the Canadian people? Am I supposed to spend my whole time talking to the member from the New Democratic Party about the deal behind some sort of closed doors?
The question is: What is this government doing to inform the Canadian people? What is it doing about the 50 per cent rule in automotive products? What is it doing on a subsidy code? What is it doing on a dispute settlement mechanism that will be prompt and binding?
These are the questions that we should be having answers to. When is this government going to share with the Canadian people what it is doing in these negotiations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that in the previous rounds of multilateral trade negotiations or in the auto pact negotiations his party, the governments that he supported in the past on the Liberal side, gave no information to members of Parliament and gave precious little information to Canadians who were going to be affected by the process.
What we have done on our side when we have been negotiating treaties, the free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement and the multilateral treaties, is that we have opened up the process.
My hon. friend is very well aware that during the process the government is provided information by industry that is confidential, that is commercially important to other countries if that confidential information is provided. It is on that basis that we have to draw a line. I think my hon. friend is well aware as a member of the private sector before he got to the House of Commons why we must draw that line for commercially confidential reasons.
March 18, 1992


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. The minister knows Canadian fruit and vegetable farmers already feel that they have been sold out under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. These farmers do an incredible job ensuring food security for Canada, and all they want is to be assured by this government that they will be able to continue to provide this food security for all Canadians.
Why does the government refuse to give this guarantee to Canadian farmers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the Government of Canada has been extremely forthright and firm as far as the farmers of Canada are concerned.
The positions we have taken in both the multilateral negotiations in Geneva and in the North American free trade negotiations have been developed in concert, in full discussion with the farmers of Canada. It is a position that is supported by the farmers of Canada in both the North American as well as the Uruguay round negotiations.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The government knows that a system of tariffication will not provide the same level of protection for Canadian dairy, egg and poultry farmers as the present system. Yet reports out of the United States say that NAFTA negotiators are discussing a system of tariffication.
How can the government say that it is working against tariffication at the GATT negotiations and at the same time negotiate tariffication at the NAFTA negotiations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is we are not negotiating that.
My hon. friend knows-it is an open secret-that a number of countries in the negotiations like to see tariffication without exception. That has been presented. But are we negotiating it with them? No, we are not negotiating it with them.
Oral Questions BREAST IMPLANTS


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this past Monday the Minister of National Health and Welfare rose in the House and insisted that breast implants were not available to women in Canada because of the voluntary moratorium. Yet, in the March 9 edition of Maclean's magazine in an article called "Beauty and the Breast", it is reported that an Ontario woman ignored the controversy and had implants the first week in March.
Will the minister investigate and advise the House about this incident as well as how many other incidents of implant surgery have taken place since the moratorium?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the statements I made on breast implants in the last press release, I said that we had asked all concerned, surgeons as well as manufacturers, to refrain not only from using but also from obtaining silicone based breast implants. Of course, if my colleague refers to a specific case which can be investigated to determine exactly what happened, we shall do so and inform her accordingly.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that was a yes, that the minister will look into this incident and see if there are any other incidents as well.
Yesterday, the plastic surgeons of Quebec held yet another press conference on breast implants and Dr. Roland Charbonneau said that studies have shown women who have breast implants in their body "are getting frightened and it is not justified". He also said that women who want breast implants are "psychologically disabled. They are not happy about their image".
I want to tell the minister that I like my image just fine, and I want to ask the minister if he shares the views of this plastic surgeon that I along with 150,000 Canadian women who are implantees are psychologically disabled?

March 18, 1992
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member asked me that question. She knows very well that what she said was said by somebody else. I never used those words. I always said that the health of women was paramount in terms of how we should deal with that.
I totally agree that there are women who need implants. They need all information available to make their own decision which we must all respect.
In that respect she knows that even if there were requests by the Plastic Surgeons Association in Quebec I did not put out the moratorium. I do not intend to do that as long as the committee agrees.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, today, at the request of this government, GATT is looking into the softwood dispute between Canada and the U.S.
Our softwood industry cannot afford a long, drawn-out process. Does the Minister for International Trade feel that we can get an early resolution through GAIT? When does he expect a decision?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are two processes under way. There is one process, the countervailing duty process, which is under way in the United States. Following that process there could well be the dispute settlement mechanism, the binding decision by a panel on the process in the United States.
The second process is the GATT process to which my hon. friend has referred. We may well see some decisions on the GATT process some time this summer.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade and it concerns the softwood lumber industry.
The government has recently told us on many occasions about the virtues of the bi-national dispute settlement mechanism in the free trade agreement the minister just mentioned. By the time we get a resolution with this process it can take up to two years. In the
meantime the damage would have been done to many of our mills, particularly our smaller mills.
If the government believes that our softwood industry is not being subsidized, what programs and options is it considering? Will it provide interim relief to this industry while the dispute works its way through the process?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is referring to some of the same elements as the previous questioner did.
It is quite right. We have taken action against the United States on the softwood issue, on three different elements of the decision or the action it took. As I indicated, we should see the first indications of those decisions some time this summer; not the two years my hon. friend has referred to.
Let us see what happens with the process as it unfolds. As the member from Winnipeg drew to the attention of the House a week or so ago, certain options are available to us. I think it is important that we complete this process in the strongest possible way and try to win the decisions as quickly as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister answering for agriculture today.
Late last month it was announced that farmers would immediately be able to truck their grain to the United States without off-loading at country elevators and without the regular charges.
This came as a shock to the grain companies. Clearly it was done without consultation. Clearly it was a political directive and clearly it undermined the independence of the Canadian Wheat Board.
What possible explanation does the minister have? Is it one more step toward dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains, I will take note of the question and make inquiries on it.
March 18, 1992

It is in the interest of us all including Canadian farmers to sell as much wheat as possible as quickly as possible.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister responding for revenue today.
Until recently Canadian farmers trucking grain to the United States were required to fill out what was called the B-13 form for customs officials at the border. I am now advised by customs officials in the province of Manitoba that this practice has been dropped. This raises the possibility that some farmers will neglect going to the elevator and acquiring an export permit. They will simply cross the border, no questions asked.
My question is what possible motive lies behind the elimination of customs inspection of grain shipments by truck?
[Translation\


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, once again I shall note the question, which is technical, and answer my colleague as soon as possible.


THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health and welfare regarding the extraordinary assistance plan for thalidomide victims.
I brought three thalidomide victims cases from my riding to the minister's attention in November 1991. All have legal medical proof that their mothers took thalidomide during pregnancy. However, the bureaucrat in his department is stonewalling, refusing to grant hearings, and making unqualified decisions.
As the program expires on March 31, is he going to take his ministerial responsibilities seriously and look over those decisions and ensure that my constituents receive all the benefits they are entitled to?
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I always take all my responsibilities seriously.
I just want to say that the member is right, those decisions were made by the office, but they were made in collaboration with all organizations dealing with the problem of thalidomide.
Moreover, it was done in a way that today all those who qualified as victims are satisfied with the settlement we proposed. We are very close to making the final announcement. Those who were not considered were not considered because they were not qualified under the policy we recently put forward.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy with the response of the minister. He tells me that the decision was made by his bureaucrat. My information is that the bureaucrat had no consultation with physicians or legal people. Is the minister going to take his responsibility seriously and review those cases instead of letting them be handled by someone who is not qualified? Yes or no.


Benoît Bouchard: No.


ATMOSPHERIC CONTAMINANTS
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister of health.
A delegation of B.C. New Democrat MPs has just returned from a tour of the Hanford nuclear bomb plant in Richland, Washington. The scientists at Hanford confirmed that residents of southeastern British Columbia were likely exposed to atmospheric radioactive contamination from the years of both accidental and deliberate releases of atmospheric contaminants from Hanford. What we do not know is how much or whether there have been any long-term health effects.
Will the minister recognize the need to send a Canadian team of scientists to Hanford to work with the scientists involved in the Hanford Dose Reconstruction Project in order to better determine the extent to which Canadians may have been put at risk?

March 18, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member he would know that the Atomic Energy Control Board is responsible for radiation as well as radiation limits.
The agency works very closely with health and welfare in terms of any crossovers relating to health risk. I will be in touch with the president of the AECB later today and ask him for an update on the issue that the member has raised.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response.
On another item, the U.S. authorities are currently undertaking a wide ranging epidemiological study to investigate the increased incidences of thyroid disease and cancer that may be associated with radioactive Iodine-131 releases coming from Hanford.
Should the American studies indicate that significant levels of radioactive contamination did in fact cross the U.S.-Canada border, is the minister prepared to initiate similar epidemiological studies to investigate possible long-term health effects to the Canadian population?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will not speculate on the issue that the hon. member raised. My first answer applies also to his second question. If there is scientific evidence, if there is direction from the AECB, we will follow that up.
I think it is very important, and I know that the hon. member did it in good conscience when he asked his question, that in these areas we do not speculate, but we base our information on science. I am sure that is what he is interested in and that is what I am interested in.


SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Our government showed the way by imposing sanctions against South Africa. The overwhelming yes response to the referendum has opened a window of opportunity for new economic relations between our two great peoples. Will the Prime Minister now seize this opportunity to place
trade officials in South Africa so that business, trade and investment in London-Middlesex, and indeed across Canada, may flourish as partners in the rebirth of this great nation before the window is slammed shut?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for an important question. As the House knows, the government, as an indication of the regard that we have for the importance of the decision taken by President De Klerk, committed $5 million today to assist black and white South Africans, particularly black South Africans, to participate economically in development in that area, particularly in regard to the democratic process.
Sanctions that we have followed from the very beginning have been followed jointly with other members of the Commonwealth. The Secretary of State for External Affairs presently chairs the Commonwealth Committee on Sanctions. We met earlier today and agreed that the government will, in co-operation with our Commonwealth partners, seek to send a further signal of confidence to underline the tremendous contribution and leadership shown by President De Klerk at this most critical moment in the evolution of the life of South Africa.
We have always worked together with our Commonwealth allies and we would not want to break ranks now. We will be communicating with members of the Commonwealth to urge them to take some actions now which would send a very positive signal to the President of South Africa and to trading partners around the world and would have the effect of achieving some of the objectives requested by my hon. friend from London a few moments ago.


GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The most recent figures show the number of daily car trips by Canadians to the U.S. is continuing to increase. Committees of mayors, reeves and business people in border towns attribute this tendency to the wide discrepancy in the price of gasoline between Canada and the United States.
March 18, 1992

Why will the minister not announce immediately that he is eliminating the 8.5 cents a litre federal tax on gasoline to reduce the number of day trips by Canadians to the U.S.?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question which covers a number of different portfolios. May I just say to him that the difference on diesel on the federal excise tax in Canada now is lower than that of the United States. That was done by our government and that should be kept in mind.
Second, we have done a survey of taking the federal excise tax on gasoline, as compared to the American, and we are higher on gasoline, but if you take a look at a comparison as well of a province, say my own province of Manitoba and the neighbouring state of North Dakota and compare those two figures in every province and every state, you will find that if there is room and if there would be any change at all, there would have to be very close provincial co-operation.


Jim Jordan: I appreciate that answer, but most of the trips that are made in my community are not made by diesel operated vehicles. I think that is a bit of a myth.
In any event, will the minister conduct a study to compare the amount of revenue generated by the federal tax on gasoline as opposed to the cumulative loss caused by cross-border shopping through unemployment, bankruptcies, a lowered municipal tax base and all the other negative effects that one day cross-border shopping trips are having on border towns across this nation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was making the case of diesel where, if you look at some of the diesel sales even where we are lower, some of the very arguments that he uses still apply.
I only say to the hon. member that we have used our tax structure, both at the national level and at the provincial level, in a different manner than the Americans have. If there is to be a review, that would be up to our government.
I say to him that there are other factors as well. If you take a look at the over-all tax structure in the United States as compared to Canada, there are for example areas relating to the cost of university fees-I give you
Oral Questions
that-health care fees, or estate taxes which we have eliminated. Those are all differences as well.
One cannot simply look at the one area, though I know he raises it from a very specific perspective. All of those areas have to be looked at as well.


TERRORISM
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Over the past three weeks we have watched tragically five separate terrorist attacks taking place against Israeli nationals. There were three in Israel itself, one in Turkey and the tragic bombing in Argentine yesterday. The result is over 15 deaths, 125 wounded and many of them schoolchildren, which is something that I think we all abhor.
What action is the Government of Canada taking to protest against these terrorist actions and trying to mobilize international opposition in an effort to stop them while the peace process is gong on?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a point of view that all of us in this House share.
Yesterday the Prime Minister sent the following message to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel: "Canadians were shocked and outraged today at the news of the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. We join with civilized people everywhere in condemning this further brutal violence against the state of Israel".
There are a number of steps that we are taking. One is our activity in the multilateral round of the Middle East peace talks where we are chairing the working group on the very sensitive issue of refugees.
We have urged all sides to take confidence building measures while these negotiations are going on and to cease acts of violence that lead to the kind of things that we saw yesterday. We do not want to see any repetition on any side at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we certainly support sending a letter of condolence to the Prime Minister of Israel.
We are really asking if the Government of Canada is taking action with other countries in the Middle East to ask them to also raise their voice of condemnation especially at a time when the Middle East peace process is so important?

March 18, 1992
Oral Questions
Will the Government of Canada be asking the governments of Egypt, Syria and Jordan to also join the international community in protesting against acts of terrorism so that there can be a total agreement and consensus among all countries in the Middle East that terrorism is not the way to peace?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is a consistent part of our message to all of the countries in the Middle East.
In the multilateral round concerning the peace process that was held in Moscow, I had a first-hand opportunity to speak to many of the countries on both sides of this issue and explain to them Canada's very strongly held views considering terrorism and violence among many of the other things that we talked about, but that certainly is a key part of the message that we portrayed then. We will continue to make it not just in the case of this instance but on a consistent basis.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It focuses on the indications of the Saskatchewan Romanow government that the energy agreement between Canada and Saskatchewan and the nuclear agreement between AECL and Sask Power will be ripped up.
What does the minister see as the potential impact of this premature action by the NDP Government of Saskatchewan? What will it mean for the future of energy for the people of Saskatchewan, including our aboriginal community in my province?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we were very much involved in the agreement that AECL entered into with the Saskatchewan government on behalf of Canada.
With the diversification which I as a member coming from from the prairies know has to take place, we thought we could get diversification in Saskatchewan because it has a world class uranium industry. In fact, it is the single largest private employer in Saskatchewan today.
We also are willing to have an examination. We were not forcing a Candu III on them. We were looking at an ability for them to get the engineering, the research, the technical help and also research, for instance, at the University of Saskatchewan. All those things were included. In fact, we were ready to transfer up to 170 people into Saskatchewan. That has all been stopped by the recent announcement of the premier.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister of Veterans Affairs that the merchant mariners of World War II have been asking for justice since 1945 and still do not have it.
Last October the standing committee tabled a unanimous report recommending that merchant navy veterans be recognized as full veterans entitled to all veterans benefits, that an appropriate memorial be erected for merchant seamen and that a Book of Remembrance be placed in the Peace Tower.
The minister's response consisted of a letter to the chairman saying his reply was going to take another month.
When does the minister expect a report from General Smith, his so-called adviser? Will he table his recommendations in this House? When does he expect to report further to the House? Will he do it by making a statement in this House or is he going to continue the callous disregard and indifference to merchant seamen by every government since 1945?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly I and all of my predecessors, and I am sure every parliamentarian here, agree that the merchant mariners underwent some very difficult conditions during the war supplying our troops and so on.
For that very reason, not only this government but previous governments as well, gave them a whole array of programs. There is a misconception out there that they are not getting anything. They get disability pensions, Veterans Independence Programs in some circumstances, civilian war allowance, prisoner of war allowance, campaign medals except the CVSM, atten-
March 18, 1992

dants' allowance, clothing allowance and exceptional incapacity allowance.
I do understand that the merchant mariners want their access criteria widened to other programs the veterans have. In response to that, I might say that this government has undertaken, with veterans groups, the most comprehensive review of this issue since World War II.
I indicated on February 28 that I would have an answer shortly. When the government has a response, we will make a response in the Elouse or elsewhere.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Heinz Fischer, President of the National Council of Austria.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period I put a question, answered by the government House leader, in which I asked him why the government was continuing to index judges' salaries-they are making over $147,000 a year- and freezing other salaries. One hundred thousand PSAC people make less than $25,000 a year.
The minister answered my question by saying he could not answer because there was a bill before the House with respect to judges' salaries.
Ironically, on checking, I found that the bill does not deal with indexing at all. However, that is not the point. The point is that a minister can answer in the House by saying that there is no answer and he cannot give an answer because a bill is before the House.
I made reference to Beauchesne's in which it clearly says that when we are talking about a bill before the House, we are talking about a bill to be debated that day. The Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker, in your absence, indicated that she did not know that there had been a ruling in the House that day, a House order, that the
Privilege
debate for the afternoon would be on the environment, not on a judges' bill.
I raise the matter because I am concerned that we might fall into a bad practice in the House. I think this matter needs clearing up because it affects future questions. If a minister can simply stand up and say: "Well I am answering by saying I don't have to answer this question because there is a bill before the House", a pension bill, an environmental bill or whatever, it would seem to me that the government could duck answering a lot of questions. I think this should be cleared up.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear further, but I think it is important if there is going to be any discussion on this to understand clearly what the issue is.
The first issue is whether or not the question put by the hon. member yesterday is out of order because it anticipates an Order of the Day. That is the first question.
If it is, then the second matter of whether or not the minister has to answer does not even come into play. Of course a minister does not have to give an answer if the minister does not wish to do so.
But I think the issue we really have to look at here that the hon. member has raised is this: Is the question in order?
The hon. member may want to address the Chair further on that, because that really is the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question was: Is the answer in order? But, of course, a question has to be in order before an answer can be in order.
I would submit the question was in order, in that no Order of the Day was anticipated because the Order of the Day was to discuss an environmental bill. There was before the House sitting on the table a bill on judges' salaries which, of course, did not even deal with indexing, which is what my question was about. But even if it had dealt with indexing-I do not want to stray from the point-my submission is that I could still ask the question because we were not debating that bill.
There are a whole slew of bills before the House and we can still ask general questions on those bills.
The question clearly dealt with what was the government's priority, where it was granting indexing to one group and freezing salaries and not granting indexing to another group?

March 18, 1992
Privilege
I am in perfect agreement with the minister and with the Speaker that the minister could stand up and say he was not answering that question. He has a perfect right to do that. But I submit that he cannot stand up and say that he is answering the question by saying: "I don't have to answer the question because there is a bill sitting there on the table", which may or may not deal with the subject matter, but certainly was not dealing with the subject matter on the day when I put the question.
So the question is in order. I ask the minister to simply stand in the House and indicate that he was wrong. I do not think we should establish a bad precedent like this.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, talk about a tempest in a teapot. The hon. member stood and said this was a point of privilege but I have yet to hear any evidence from him or any suggestions that it is a point of privilege. So I hope you would acknowledge that it is not a point of privilege.
Second, he described his question as a supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East. 1 think checking into the two questions shows that it was not supplementary in any way, shape or form.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That's not the issue.


Harvie Andre: Now he says that is not at issue. Whether his question was supplementary or not is not at issue. He acknowledges that there is no obligation on the part of the government to answer the question anyway, so how can he suggest that an unsatisfactory answer somehow reflects on his privileges, since no answer is a satisfactory answer, or anything else.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could help the hon. government House leader? The hon. government House leader has remarked that this probably is not a question of privilege. It is not a question of privilege; it is a point of order.
But, now that we are into it, I am certainly going to hear it. The hon. government House leader.


Harvie Andre: As I was saying, I think it is a specious point of order anyway.
Perhaps the hon. member will also withdraw his comments where he says "the government has awarded some indexing" and appreciate that in fact the indexing of judges' salaries is a result of an act of Parliament and
not a decision by this government to do anything, not something that can be changed. That is another reason why the question was inaccurate because of its implications or imputations that somehow a decision was made.
I well acknowledge that I was of the opinion that questions, which do occur frequently on here, that deal with legislation that is before the House were out of order. Frankly I think they should be. I think that Question Period should be restricted to what Beau-chesne describes Question Period as, namely an opportunity to seek information from the government that cannot be sought in other ways, such as questions on a bill then before the House. I do not think Question Period should be used for that purpose.
But we can talk about those rules at another occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The hon. member has raised a matter by way of a question of privilege and I have pointed out that it is not a question of privilege, it is a point of order. Surely his colleagues ought to allow the government House leader to respond. The hon. government House leader.


Harvie Andre: As I was saying, I was of the opinion that a question dealing with legislation ought not to be put in Question Period. That is why we have debates. Question Period is not described in Beauchesne and ought not, I believe, be an addition to the debates we have here on legislation.
As to the question of the quality of my answer, all right, I will concede it could have been a higher quality answer. I get back to the comments I made yesterday which the hon. member heard. In fact no answer is required. I was mistaken in suggesting that I did not have to answer. Instead of this answer, please take it out and say my answer is no answer.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government House leader, if I understand him correctly, has done what needed to be done, that is acknowledged that the answer he gave in using a procedural argument for not answering when in fact all he had to do was not answer. That is what is at stake here. We acknowledged yesterday that no minister, according to the rules of this House, has to answer a question when it is asked.
March 18, 1992

What we took issue with yesterday was the minister using an interpretation of the rules of the House which was subsequently not validated by the Speaker in order to not answer the question. What we needed either from the Speaker was an instruction that this not happen in the future or an admission by the government House leader that that was not the way he should have dealt with it. I think that is what we just got and perhaps the matter can rest there.
It was certainly never the case that the admissibility of the question was at issue. Whether or not the question was in order was not what was at issue yesterday. Certainly if that had been the case, Madam Speaker would have said something about that. She did not.
What was at issue was whether or not the answer was in order, because it gave what we thought at the time, and still do, and what Madam Speaker appeared to think yesterday, an interpretation to the rules of this House which we felt set a bad precedent. If I understand everything that has been said here today, we agree on that and perhaps the matter does not need to be pursued any further.


Harvie Andre: Except for one thing, the hon. member's question was out of order. It was not a supplementary to the previous question. It was a total distortion.
I will say this about the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. I want to congratulate him for not screaming and yelling at the top of his lungs today like he did yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member rises further, I will hear him.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to wind up the matter. I see the government House leader has left. I just want to point out very quietly that he is not the Speaker, he is the government House leader and maybe he should remember that.
I want to thank you for hearing me on the point. I accept the government House leader's acknowledgement that he has a different view today than he had yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, I am very pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report for the 1990-91 crop year of the Canadian Grain Commission, pursuant to section 15 of the Canada Grain Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.



BILL C-61 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE C

['Agreed.']
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of Legislative Committee C on Bill C-61, an act to provide Borrowing Authority for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1992, without amendment.
I would also like to acknowledge the fine co-operation I received from the members of all three parties who participated on this committee.

March 18, 1992
Routine Proceedings HOUSE MANAGEMENT
28TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 28th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a series of petitions signed by over 300 residents of northwestern Ontario, Red Rock, Nipigon, Schreiber, Terrace Bay, Marathon, Heron Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.
All of those citizens lost their rail services two years ago. They call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore VIA Rail service cut on January 15, 1990, particularly those services eliminated along the north shore of Lake Superior, maintain and upgrade Ontario's services upon which many residents rely, provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail and make available to VIA the resources it needs to become a modem passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world.
I hope the government is listening.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, since August 1991, colleagues of mine have been presenting large numbers of petitions in the House dealing with the Nina de Villiers murder in August 1991.
Today I have 24 sheets signed by petitioners who claim that the current criminal law does not require bail hearings in crimes of violence to be presided over by judges and that the risk to society posed by the early release of a violent offender appears to be of secondary consideration to the rights of the individual criminal.
Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
I humbly present these petitions to Parliament. [Translation]


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by electors in Quebec who deplore the fact that for over half a century there has been an illegal trade in Haitian workers between Haiti and the Dominican Republic and that these human beings, who are treated like cattle, are confined within the bateys and obliged to cut sugar cane under conditions that fly in the face of human rights.
Consequently your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to impose diplomatic, political and economic sanctions on the Dominican Republic, until such time as the rights of these Haitian braceros and their families are respected in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present two petitions from hundreds of residents all across the country, petitioning Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


TAXATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: I have the honour to present two petitions in the name of my constituents.
On the first one, my petitioners indicate that the government is denying equal financial benefits to those who are at home caring for their children as opposed to those who have receipted day care receipts and they want that corrected.
They wanted, as well, that married couples enjoy the same tax benefits and opportunities as common-law couples, but that has changed in the reverse direction in the last budget. They deplore the fact there are many programs that are often confusing and work against the family. They would like to see all of this changed.
March 18, 1992


RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
Ron J. Duhamel: With regard to the second petition, the people of my riding want the CRTC to regulate foul language on radio and television.
They see often their efforts as parents being eroded and undermined by the language that is often used on radio and television programs. They find that foul language in any language is simply unacceptable. They want the CRTC to enforce strict rules of language conduct on radio and television.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions this afternoon.
First of all, I have a petition from residents of Alberta and British Columbia, who point out that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison.
They have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination in sentencing and parole. The cumulative effect of these irregularities provides ample ground for the government of Canada to seek a remedy on their behalf and that remedy is expulsion.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to their homes in Canada.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Quebec City who point out that Canada enjoys an international reputation as a leading defender of human rights.
Considering the fact that for over half a century there has been an illegal trade in Haitian workers between Haiti and the Dominican Republic and that these human beings, who are treated like cattle, are confined within the bateys and obliged to cut sugar cane under conditions that fly in the face of human rights, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to impose diplomatic, political and econom-
Routine Proceedings
ic sanctions on the Dominican Republic and to take the initiative by raising this issue at the United Nations to ensure that the UN makes it one of its priorities.


CANADA POST
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, as well, I have a petition which is signed by hundreds of residents of North Burnaby who note that Canada Post is continuing to close and privatize postal stations and that the counter service at the North Burnaby postal station on South MacDonald Street in Burnaby has been closed down.
Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to stop the closure and privatization of postal services and to reopen the counter service at the North Burnaby postal station in its same location run by the Canada Post corporation.


PENSIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition which is signed by hundreds of residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia and in particular, by Agriculture Canada employees at Royal Avenue in New Westminster, British Columbia, who are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
They point out that indexed pensions for all Canadians are essential. They are concerned that linking pension benefits to increases in the cost of living at least allows pensioners to maintain the value of whatever pensions they receive. They are concerned about the government's decision to restrict and remove full inflation protection.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to maintain full inflation protection for federal public employees as a demonstration of the government's commitment to full indexed pensions for all Canadians.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Svend Johannes Robinson: Finally, Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by residents of Ottawa and Montreal, which points out that the National Film Board Studio D is recognized world-wide as a production centre for films pertaining to and made in the interests of women.

Routine Proceedings
They point out that it is very dependent on federal funding but it must be independent in its production of films, and that one such production of Studio D, The Burning Times, has been subject to public pressure by small groups.
Therefore, they call upon the Government of Canada to continue its funding of the National Film Board Studio D and to permit film makers to make films and maintain freedom of expression without the pressure of Government.


IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by more than 1,000 individuals who came to Canada from eastern Europe as self-exiled individuals under our refugee and immigration legislation and whose applications have been delayed for hearing up to three years.
These petitioners ask the government and the Parliament of Canada to co-operate in speeding up the processing of their outstanding applications, to remove the quotas which have been implemented without regulation or Parliamentary approval, to apply the traditional sunset provisions in the processing of outstanding self-exiled applications, to allow these self-exiled applicants in Canada to work and to go to school during the traditional period and to accept all persons registered in the refugee backlog who are established in Canada for landed immigrant status at their pre-inquiry humanitarian and compassionate reviews.


CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents from all parts of Canada-Winnipeg, Manitoba; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Kingston, Ontario; Kirkland Lake, Ontario; Comox, British Columbia, and many many other places too numerous to mention.
The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and call upon this House to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act in order to ensure that these crimes are reduced as far as possible in this country.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from 186 residents of Canada in Grand Falls, Newfoundland; West Lome, Ottawa, Chatham, Val Therese, Nepean, Thornhill, North Bay and Belleville, Ontario; and Quebec City who are concerned for the spouses and children of people who have been accepted for landing as either members of the refugee backlog or as refugees.
They urge Parliament to call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to issue minister's permits for spouses and dependent children of refugee claimants who have been permitted to apply for landing from within Canada including persons in the backlog and persons accepted under the new legislation and allow them to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a number of petitions that also deal with the concerns of many Canadians, mainly from Quebec, on the continuing trade in humans and indentured labour between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
The Canadian Institute of Human Rights and Democratic Development is studying this issue and holding a conference on the subject on Monday, March 23.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to use their good offices to encourage the government and the United Nations to take action on this disregard for human rights which allows the trade in human beings.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition certified correct under Standing Order 36 wherein the petitioners note that the goods and services tax applies to female sanitary products such as tampons and pads. These products are necessities for women between puberty and menopause.
The government has decided that the goods and services tax should not apply to certain foods because they are necessities. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider removing the goods and services tax from women's sanitary products.
March 18, 1992


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, Question No. 217 will be answered today.

Question No. 217


Mr. Fulton:: Do Revenue Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have paid informant programs and, if so, how many people have received payments (a) in what amounts (6) how many were residing outside Canada (c) how many were non-Canadian citizens (d) how many were government employees (including RCMP and CSIS)?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed by the departments of revenue and fisheries and oceans as follows:
Revenue Canada, Taxation does not have paid informant programs.
Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise has a paid informant program. A review of their files between April 1984 and November 1991 indicates payments to informants totalling $836,078 with an average payment of approximately $2,900.
Under this program statistical data are compiled based on the number of payments. The department cannot be categoric about the actual number of informants for two reasons. One, a single payment could be split between multiple informants and, two, a single informant may furnish information on numerous case each warranting separate payments.
The department does not specifically record the citizenship of informants. Residency is not known in all cases: However, in at least 30 instances payments were made to non-residents. To their knowledge no payments have been made to government employees. Furthermore, departmental policy prohibits any award to members of Customs and Excise or the RCMP (including CSIS).
Fisheries and oceans does not have an ongoing paid informant program.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 193 and 226 could be made Orders for Returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Starred Questions Nos. 193 and 226 be made Orders for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fulton: Since September 1984 has the government paid informants and, if so, for each department (a) what was the total amount paid, (b) what the average payment, (c) how many charges were laid as a result of such information, (d) what steps have been taken to ensure public accountability for such expenses?
Return tabled.

Question No. 226-Mr. Althouse:
With respect to Transportation Thlks, a public forum on grain transportation, (a) how much money has Agriculture Canada and the government spent in their involvement in that forum (b) how many Department of Agriculture officials were involved in the over-all project (c) how many private consultants or contractors were hired to work on Transportation talks project (i) what are their names (ii) how much were they paid (iii) when were the contracts for this program signed (iv) what were the directives given to the contracting agencies by the department or the minister (v) when was the contract to be completed?
Return tabled.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could indicate whether or not there is some likely date when questions that I have had on the Order Paper for quite some period of time,

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
whether or not they could be answered in the near future.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to Question No. 193 standing in his name. This question involved dealing with several departments. It is my understanding that we have just about completed the process and we should be able to give him an answer in the not very distant future. I will certainly check on it to see if we can speed it up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could indicate when the papers I have requested to be produced could be?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. member has two motions for the production of papers. One I understand that the department or officials will be in touch with him to speak with him about it. The other one is again being finalized right now. I would expect that perhaps as early as next Wednesday we would be able to answer it.
As I say on the first one, I understand somebody will be in touch with him to discuss it and to see if they can resolve the question with him.


Mrs. Venne:: Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask the parliamentary secretary when he intends to produce a response to my Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers with respect to research contracts awarded by the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I do not have any information on that particular motion. I suspect that
is because it has not yet reached the 45 day time period. I would not have the information unless it was late. I will certainly check on it and see what I can do.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charest that Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has eight minutes remaining in debate.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon when the time ran out on the debate, I was discussing the matter of policy relating to environmental assessment. At that time, I was talking about the free trade deal with Mexico as being a matter of policy that should be discussed. I will continue that line of debate that began yesterday.
In order to bring in foreign investment and appease International Monetary Fund and World Bank demands, the future of our planet is being, quite simply, sold off at bargain basement prices. Stephen Hasell addressed the committee on behalf of the Canadian Environmental Network. He said: "We think the assessment of the environmental effects of policy and programs should be subject to the over-all legislative framework of Bill C-13".
The essence of our case made by the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland report, can be summarized as follows: human stresses on the planetary ecosystem are now endangering the basic integrity of the system. A good part of
March 18, 1992

the current problem and a worsening concern for the future is the rising numbers and desperation of the world's poor. The living standards of the poor must be raised substantially if population is to be stabilized and environmental abuses resulting from economic desperation are to be eliminated.
Even if the needed economic improvements are achieved quickly, the human population will increase from the current 5 billion to at least 8 billion before stabilizing. The development effort needed to ensure sufficiency and security for all these people is substantial. For many goods, production levels several times higher than current levels are required.
At the same time, development must ensure environmental sustainability or the economic gains will not last.
Finally, development with environmental sustainability can be achieved only if growth is accompanied by strenuous efforts to improve efficiencies and minimize negative impacts, replace environmentally destructive technologies with relatively benign ones, and respect carrying capacities.
The federal government has refused to respect the urgent case made by the World Commission on the Environment and Development. As a result of the fact that current human demands and practices are not sustainable, steps to combat poverty through sustainable development in poor regions and nations must be accompanied by a sizeable over-all reduction of resource use and environmental impact, especially by wealthy nations and regions like Canada. Otherwise, global deterioration will continue.
At the same time it is important to give credit where credit is due. The federal government agreed to include a commitment to sustainable development in the preamble of the bill before us.
The government also agreed to an amendment which significantly expands the definition of environmental effects to include physical and cultural heritage. There was also agreement to include the Brundtland definition of sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The government also agreed to amendments that would establish public participation at many important steps within the bill. Unfortunately, the legislation itself
Government Orders
does not establish adequate intervener funding, that will be left to the regulations. However, there is no question that room has been made for public involvement in the federal environmental assessment process.
There is also no question that there have been significant improvements to the environmental assessment process itself. With the glaring exception of the screening stage, I was able to win support for amendments which ensure that when a project is to be assessed by a more thorough comprehensive study, a mediation, or an assessment by a review panel the following factors must be taken into account: the purpose of the project, alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible, the environmental effects of any such alternatives, the need for-and this is important-and the requirement of any follow-up program with respect to the project, and the capacity of renewable resources likely to be significantly affected by the project to meet the needs of the present and the future.
The government is to be commended, as is the process during the committee's clause by clause review, for strengthening this important part of the bill.
Another important step the government agreed to in the committee's deliberations was to take into account the impact of any mitigation measures on the decisionmaking process. Also, the government agreed to examine not only the project being assessed but the cumulative impact of the project and other projects on the environment.
For example, if there was a proposal to build a pulp mill which would discharge a certain amount of effluent into a river and also a proposal to reduce the flow of that river for energy purposes the cumulative impact of the effluent on the reduced flow would have to be assessed.
The government also agreed to extend the protection of aboriginal lands in the proposed legislation. The inclusion of several changes, most notably including consideration of lands in which Indians have an interest and aboriginal lands to which claim has been laid, improves the way in which the bill includes these territories in the scope of environmental assessment.
When all is said and done, Bill C-13, an act to provide for a federal environmental assessment process, represents a major step forward. The existing EARP guidelines are tremendously flawed and inefficient. The court cases dealing with Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
Dam attest to that. As well, the inability to effectively assess projects such as Kemano and Point Aconi further underscore the serious shortcoming of EARP's assessment provision.
When this act was first introduced as Bill C-78 and then reintroduced as Bill C-13 was worse than the existing guidelines. The bill was drafted to please major developers and made it permanent open season on the environment. There is no question that the acceptance by the government of so many of the amendments brought forward during the committee stage went a long, long way toward developing the type of environmental legislation more appropriate to the needs of this country.
The recent acceptance of the concept of the five-year review represents a further step in this long journey toward a delicate and important environmental assessment process.
However let us make no mistake, as I have said earlier there are serious flaws with the bill. It is not the bill we would write if the New Democratic Party were the government in this country. Many of these flaws were consciously put in the bill by members of the cabinet. This government refused to accept attempts to move amendments to further protect Canada's environment by fixing these flaws.
I serve notice to the government and the members of this House that I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will work, and work hard, to introduce changes to this legislation in the period during this five-year review to leave Canadians with a better environmental assessment process and, we hope, therefore a better environment for the generations that will come after us.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague who just made an eloquent speech. I know that he worked very hard at the committee regarding the report stage of the bill that is now in third reading, and I want to ask him what he thinks of the consideration of this bill. At a time when there is a lot of talk about constitutional issues, at a
time when we wonder, for instance, about the degree of jurisdiction that the provinces should have, at a time when the three main federalist parties all say that they are open to a constitutional renewal, would the hon. member not prefer that this debate take place only in a few months, so as to avoid this whole issue of federal-provincial jurisdictions, and instead give serious thought to what should be a true environmental bill in terms of exclusive federal jurisdiction, and to leave to provinces their own jurisdiction? Like the Canadian Electrical Association says, this bill deals with just about everything but it does not solve the environment problem in a thorough manner.
This legislation will only delay hydroelectric projects and other initiatives that have no impact on the environment. Because of all those delays, and I am talking about delays that are not fixed but that can be extended as much as we want, in the context of the bill this could affect investment planning and those investments might well be made in other countries precisely because our jurisdiction is not clear. We already know that with such a bill, and Minister Paradis from Quebec said so yesterday, we open the door to all kinds of judicial procedures in order to determine which government must intervene: the provincial or the federal.
Does my colleague wish, as a champion of the environment, for this debate to take place in a few months, once we have defined what kind of Constitution we will have in Canada? Are we heading toward sovereignty in Quebec, with two governments having important central powers and with joint economic arrangements? Or are we heading towards a redefinition of Canada, as the three federalist parties hope, with a well defined distribution of powers, for example in the energy sector, like the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee was told? Since this whole debate is not over yet, are we not throwing oil on the fire with such a bill? Are we not thwarting the legitimate aspirations of some provinces like Quebec, which has always wanted better jurisdiction as regards the environment, a full and comprehensive jurisdiction, without constant interference from the federal government to slow down its economic development?
I ask my colleague if he has given some thought to that issue and if he is prepared to share his views with us.
March 18, 1992


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am happy to try to answer this question. On numerous occasions in this House I have expressed my belief that the environment is a matter that knows no provincial boundaries, it knows no political or historic boundaries created by humans. The environment extends beyond those artificial boundaries, whether they are created by politics, history, heritage or whatever.
I have always looked at the development of this bill first in terms of the protection of the environment and second, in terms of the way in which the various players in this country would fit into it.
I was not surprised by the remarks of Mr. Paradis that appeared in the media this morning. However, I was a little surprised at the time it has taken for those remarks to come to our attention.
The bill has been with us for over two years. It is a bill that has had considerable attention inside and outside the House of Commons. If I am not mistaken it is a bill that was originally drafted when the member for Lac-Saint-Jean was the Minister of the Environment. It took into account a number of jurisdictional areas.
The bill, as I read it, goes no further on the environment than what was recommended by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Oldman Dam decision. As I recall all judges were of the same opinion on the jurisdictional issues regarding the environment. This bill simply reinforces the Supreme Court decision.
I listened very carefully during committee hearings when the Council of Ministers of the Environment, then represented by the provincial minister of British Columbia, was heard. The Council of the Ministers of the Environment is now headed by the federal Minister of the Environment. At that time there was a fairly strong representation about the ability of the various jurisdictions to work hand in hand.
Although it has some faults, the decision of our committee on the joint review panels very successfully dealt with this area of jurisdiction. While the federal authority is in essence paramount, the joint panels have a significant participation from within the provincial offices. The joint panels, when they are convened, will serve the environment and provincial needs quite well.
Government Orders
Therefore, at least in this part of Bill C-13,1 feel quite comfortable with the direction that has been taken. I feel that the government and the committee have taken the correct steps in this regard.
[Translation\


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are two and a half minutes left in the debate. Does the hon. member for Richelieu wish to speak?


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, the previous speaker stated that the environment is neither a federal nor a provincial matter, that it knows no boundaries. That is fine, we all agree on that, but this does not mean that the environment is not managed as well when it is managed provincially rather than, federally. That is my point.
Why this overlap, this duplication of efforts, as it is referred to by the Canadian Electric Association, by the Quebec government-because this encroachment Mr. Paradis talks about would have an impact-when there are very well defined provincial jurisdictions which are, indeed, very well managed? This environmental clause will empower the federal government, upon granting any amount as a result of its spending authority, to get involved in them environmental assessment of the operations of small and medium sized businesses despite the fact this is a matter over which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction. That is why Mr. Paradis expressed concern although he is a known federalist. He says the same thing happens with regard to energy, forestry, transportation and so on. We could go down the entire list of ministries. He calls it a real Trojan horse.
The point I wanted to get across to my hon. colleague is that federal involvement in environmental matters does not mean a better environment. Everybody wants a better environment, but when the province is perfectly capable of providing this better environment, why would the federal government get involved, thus doubling the costs?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, the specific example the member points out, which is that if the federal government wants to get involved in a matter of environmental assessment with a province it can simply grant money to that area and then require an environmental assessment, stretches the point to a considerable degree.

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
We have been critical of the government's approach in the regulation making process, which is that there will be exemptions and there will be inclusions. As the hon. member for Davenport said the other day, you are either in or you are out or you are out or you are in. Those sorts of matters, as far as the regulations are concerned, have been of great concern to us. However it has been on the major bigger projects that we have expressed concern.
As for the matter of granting funds strictly for the purpose of conducting an environmental assessment, the federal government has many other ways in which it can participate in an environmental assessment process if there is a fear that the environment will be compromised.
The essence of this bill is to ensure that the environmental assessment process is available to us should we need it. Regardless of how we get to it that is the bottom line and what is important in this case.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and some feeling of personal satisfaction to rise in the House today to speak during third reading of Bill C-13, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
I have the honour of being the chairman of the committee which pre-studied this bill. I am pleased and proud to see that there were so many positive changes made to the bill while it was in committee.
The quality of the witnesses and the expertise of the department staff was most impressive throughout our long study period.
It is the view of this government that the legislation before us today will help us to take a major step forward in our nation's campaign to anticipate and prevent environmental problems before they happen.
Bill C-13 is central to the over-all goal of Canada's green plan, which is to secure for current and future generations a strong and prosperous economy and a safe and healthy environment. In fact, the government believes that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will result in an environmental assessment process which is more powerful in its impact on decision making than any other environmental assessment legislation in the world.
During various speeches in the House over the last couple of days, and certainly in some of the comments made in committee, various individuals or groups were quite critical and some remain quite critical of this bill. It is important to examine what other environmental leaders around the world think about what is happening with this legislation in Canada.
I would like to refer to a letter which came from the head of the environmental assessment group in Holland. This is an unsolicited letter written to Mr. Ray Robinson, who was the former chairman of FEARO.
The contents of this letter were read into the proceedings of the committee at an earlier date, therefore I only want to highlight a couple of sentences. The letter is from Mr. Jan Jaap de Boer, head of the environmental assessment department of Holland, which has one of the best-if not the best-environmental legislations in the world at the present time. He writes:
We, the whole EIA-department, would like to congratulate you
and FEARO with this milestone. These new elements will bring
Canada back to the lead in E. I. A. regulation. And give us inspiration
for new developments.
This hardly sounds like some of the comments that have been made at various times by certain groups here in Canada. He goes on to list some of the new developments in the Canadian act that are particularly important in the development of environmental assessment legislation on a world-wide basis.
I think we can say that this is now the best, or one of the best, pieces of environmental legislation in the world.
For the first time the act will entrench in legislation this government's desire and obligation to integrate environmental factors into planning and the decisionmaking process in a manner that promotes sustainable development. It will empower decision makers to make practical, responsible and informed choices.
As such, the act sets out clearly in law the roles and the responsibilities of all participants in a project development. It provides additional opportunities for public participation in all phases of the process, especially in the assessment of major projects. It requires that the process be administered before a federal decision can be taken to proceed with the project.
March 18, 1992

The intent of this legislation is not to stop development but to ensure that it proceeds with full knowledge of the potential impact of a proposed project on the ecosystem-our air, water, land and living organisms. The process helps factor environmental effects into project proposals in much the same way as cost resources and labour are regularly considered.
In fact, one of the greatest benefits of this legislation is that it will streamline the federal environmental assessment considerably and make it more efficient and effective.
As many hon. colleagues are well aware, efficiency is very important. If we are to make environmental assessments central to our process of decision making then it goes without saying that this process must identify environmental impacts as expeditiously as possible. This is important to both business and governments alike.
I would like to add that just because it increases efficiency and effectiveness does not necessarily mean that it is just a rubber stamp for projects. The importance is that environmental factors will be considered early. A decision will be made and the process will then either proceed or not proceed.
In the time allotted to me today I want to highlight just a few of the features of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. First, the act ensures that resources are focused where most needed by dividing projects into categories according to their degree of environmental risk. In this manner the act ensures that projects posing the greatest environmental risk receive the most attention.
The act also requires that the cumulative environmental effects of a project in combination with other projects or activities be reviewed. As well, the act ensures that public comments and concerns, and technically and economically feasible measures for mitigating any environmental effects are considered in the assessment.
The act also introduces features to streamline the public review process.
The act introduces, for the first time, mediation as a means of making the public review of major projects more efficient. Mediation ensures that all environmental
Government Orders
facts are reviewed, but without the formality, length and cost of a panel review.
We have also listened to the concerns of provinces regarding efficiency. In the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act this government has provided measures to permit joint assessment with the provinces with the intention of minimizing the duplication of assessment processes.
Another way in which this legislation will streamline the federal environmental assessment process and make it more effective is by giving review panels, for the first time, the power to subpoena witnesses and information required for the assessment. Currently review panels rely solely on the good will of participants.
Further, to ensure that the new process is effective it incorporates a requirement for feedback programs. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that follow-up and monitoring plans be prepared as part of the final assessment report on major projects.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is a product of more than four years of broad consultations with a wide spectrum of Canadians. The act has benefited from the contributions of governments, the private sector, native peoples, environmental and other nongovernmental groups, the legal community, environmental assessment professionals and individuals.
Common sense tells us that an efficient and effective environmental assessment process saves time and money in the long run. By integrating environmental factors at the planning stage business and governments avoid expensive and sometimes controversial remedial action programs.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is an expression of this government's commitment to a healthy and competitive future. It will help us to sustain an environmentally sound and economically prosperous future for all Canadians.
As I have followed this bill for the last year and a half or more there have been many stages and many changes during the activities of the committee. The evolution of this bill reflects at least two things.
First, it reflects a willingness to change and be progressive in the development of environmental policy within the government. It also reflects the very rapid advancement of environmental legislation on a world-wide basis.

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
The changes that were made in committee keep this act at the forefront of environmental legislation in the world.
In summary, I hope that hon. members in this House and in the other house will see the benefits of this important piece of legislation and be able to support the passage of Bill C-13, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I just have a short question for my friend. I know that as chair of the committee he has a great body of knowledge in relation to this legislation. I am particularly interested in his views on the regulatory powers because, as he knows, the majority of witnesses who appeared on this legislation were concerned that the sleeping giant of Bill C-13 is really the 15 sets of regulatory powers. I would like to hear from the member whether he thinks it would be appropriate to have a regularly scheduled process or a regularly legislated method by which members could get at these regulations. As he is probably aware, the proposals for exemptions would include major linear development such as highways, transmission lines, pipelines, airports-those are all exempt from comprehensive evaluation-abandonment of rail lines, and twin tracking. There could be an initial environmental evaluation but no comprehensive review.
Now We have the parliamentary secretary trying to cause trouble. I am addressing my questions to the member who just spoke.
New rail lines of less than 100 kilometres in length would be exempt, port facilities, certain kinds of industrial facilities, including the decommissioning of them, nuclear reactors of less than 30 thermal megawatts would be exempt; mines of less than 10,000 tonnes per day, regardless of what they are producing, dams that would restrict at less than 100 cubic metres per second, the modification of national parks as long as the government is not going to take more than 10 per cent out. That would be exempt from any kind of comprehensive review.
I do not want to list too many, but I wonder if the hon. member could comment on whether or not he thinks exempting those classes of projects through regulation is appropriate, and whether or not he believes that there should be an opportunity for regulations to be brought
before Parliament so that they can be properly reviewed if, say, for example 20 members felt that such a requirement was necessary.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: I think the hon. member used the term that these things "would be exempt". I think possibly he, as usual, could have used the term "could be exempt" because at any time when there is any public concern over any particular project, the Minister of the Environment has the power to call a panel to examine any project that he feels warrants an examination. Certainly if there was any significant public concern about a project, I have no doubt that in the future the minister would take the appropriate action. There are a number of options that the minister has under the current legislation.
In addition, it is quite possible that some of the projects that the member raises could be handled, or would be handled, under class assessments. Further, if there are any escapes, if you will, of things that in the public view possibly should be reviewed, the five-year review process that is part of the act will certainly allow for changes to be made in the not too distant future.
[Translation\


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Durham whether Quebec's objections were given any consideration. As you know, the Quebec environment minister, Mr. Pierre Paradis, sent a telegram on Monday to his federal counterpart. There have been some major objections from the Quebec government, which incidentally, just passed a resolution to once again inform the federal government that it would not consider talks with 11 and certainly not with 17. The National Assembly's resolution specifies the need for bilateral negotiations, either with the federal government or the provinces.
My question is this: Is this one more attempt to make matters worse and cause a complete breakdown of relations between the Quebec government and the federal government? Is that the ultimate objective?
It was said earlier that several months or perhaps years ago, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, tabled this bill in the House of Commons. I may add that the bill was modified since that time. Meanwhile, the Meech Lake Accord was shot down.
March 18, 1992

I wonder whether the hon. member could tell me whether he realizes that once again, the Quebec government's rights are being violated and once again, the Government of Quebec is objecting. Remember, this is not a separatist government, this is Robert Bourassa's government objecting through Environment Minister Pierre Paradis, who is not known as a sovereignist.
I would like the hon. member to tell me whether he is aware of what is being said about this in Quebec City and whether the government intends to wait before proceeding with the final stages of this bill.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Madam Speaker, I was somewhat surprised at the nature of the press report of this morning relating to the statement from the Quebec government. Certainly, while I was chair of the pre-study committee, the committee sent out a notice to all individuals and groups across Canada, including ministers of environment for all provinces and territories, that we were holding public hearings and inviting anyone who wished to appear at those hearings, and stating that we would be pleased to hear from them.
The minister of the environment for the Northwest Territories chose to appear and the minister of the environment for British Columbia, who at that time was chair of the Canadian Committee for Resource and Environment Ministers, appeared on behalf of the ministers of environment across Canada.
They expressed the concerns of their respective groups at that time. Indeed, the chair of the Committee of Environment Ministers brought with him a number of amendments to the bill, some of which were accepted in one form or another in the new legislation. Certainly, there has been ample opportunity over the last many months for Quebec to state its concerns. I am quite confident that there have been bilateral meetings along the way between federal officials and provincial officials and I would think between the federal minister and the
Government Orders
Quebec minister of the environment on this bill through its development.
The bill as it is written today reflects the differences which exist from province to province in the provincial environmental assessment legislation. In the provision for joint panels, where they are necessary, that sort of flexibility is written into the current act to adjust for the unique situations from province to province.
As a federal government, it is our obligation to assess projects that are being funded by federal tax dollars. One could not consider a situation where federal taxpayers' dollars were going to projects in any part of Canada with some environmental implication and the federal government would choose to ignore the assessment of those projects.
It seems to me the bill is adequate as written for the situation at hand.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 provides a framework or structure for procedures which I hope will be improved as the legislation is implemented. Although it does not respond to all the concerns of Canadians, it describes an environmental assessment process, which is a significant step but does not, I repeat, does not specify which projects will be subject to assessment and how the legislation will be implemented. We will get that when the Governor in Council has had a chance to look at the regulations and as soon as a thorough and, I imagine, complex study of the appropriate regulations is published.
These regulations may establish which projects will be subject to environmental assessment, unlike the present bill which does not provide that information. They will also tell us what decision will set the environmental assessment process into motion and how other levels of government will be involved, and this may answer one of the concerns of my friends in the Bloc quebecois. For instance, how will aboriginal governments be involved? I do not know. I do not know yet. That will depend on the regulations.

March 18, 1992
Government Orders

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on this important bill which establishes, in my view, a more effective environmental assessment process which replaces the EARP guidelines that we had for some time.
As I said in speaking on its predecessor bill, Bill C-78 from the previous session, the principle behind this bill is a good one. No one can dispute the importance of determining the environmental impact of projects before they are begun.
The federal government and other levels of government must be leaders in this area. As we have learned, much to our distress sometimes, and it should be something that all Canadians understand, it is easier to avoid environmental disasters, environmental damage, in the first place than to try to repair it later. That is essentially the purpose at hand.
Too many environmental mistakes have been made in the past because of our collective negligence. Because I have been, like many members in this House, preoccupied with other committees, I have not had a chance to sit on this committee, but I have an interest in it because in my riding it is the number one issue.
When I ask constituents to list the number of issues and the priority in which they see them, they list environment and their jobs as being those two preoccupations to which they think we should attach importance.
Bill C-13 which is before us on third reading has come a long way in my view from its predecessor bill, Bill C-78. It is significantly improved, although I admit it still has some flaws. I want to give credit to those who worked on this committee and pay tribute to a member of this House, the member for Davenport, who has in my view, brought forward his work, his expertise, his advice and his concerns. He has improved this bill by being very much interested in environmental questions. Yesterday the Canadian environmental assessment caucus stated in its press release: "It is best to look at this legislation as a glass half full rather than half empty".
This group which includes environmental lawyers and advocates from organizations across Canada noted in its
press release that there are still many improvements that can be made to this legislation.
I want to list some of the issues that the Canadian environmental assessment caucus put forth. First, it said that the environmental review process should apply to government programs and policies, not just projects which would include the North American free trade deal.
Second, the definition of federal authority should include federal agencies such as the Harbour Commission. I will come back to that in a few minutes because I have some suggestions of my own to make.
Third, the right of the public to participate in the process should be less discretionaiy and spelled out in more detail.
Fourth, eveiy screening and study should include determining the purpose of and need for a project, the alternatives to the project, and ultimate means of carrying out the project.
Last, the bill should contain stronger powers to enforce compliance with the assessment process.
The bill still leaves the minister in charge of a project rather than the Minister of the Environment with the power to decide whether a project should go ahead. This leaves the process open to possible political interference.
The environment should not be sacrificed for political gains.

On a loftier plane we could say that the environment is a moral and social responsibility. Each and everyone of us is aware, now more than ever before, of the importance of preserving our environment and, especially, of being wary of polluting substances which have often been a source of environmental problems.
In Ottawa-Vanier, in my riding, for instance, I have had some experience with projects that were environmentally harmful and had not been examined or assessed for the impact they would have on the environment. However, thanks to a local organization, which I mention here because they are people from communities in my riding, we were able to prevent construction of an incinerator in Overbrook, which the regional govern-
March 18, 1992

ment had planned to locate right in the middle of a town. The plan was to build an enormous stack, burn waste and in the process cover the community with all kinds of toxic substances. The project was cancelled because people got involved. They held public meetings, they had consultations, and they managed to make their point.
It is possible to improve the consultation and co-operation that takes place as part of an environmental assessment process. In my riding, I had problems with interprovincial transport, with trucks usually bound for Quebec, from one of Ontario's industrial areas. These trucks use the Queensway-Dalhousie-Besserer-Cum-berland-King Edward corridor and cross the Macdo-nald-Cartier bridge on their way to deliver their goods to one of the pulp and paper mills or one of the organizations or industries on the Quebec side. The different levels of government must be able to agree on solutions for the shipment of materials and other goods that can be dangerous, toxic, et cetera. The municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments must be able to agree that we face a serious environmental problem. One accident is all it would take.
Every day in my riding, between 2,200 and 2,500 trucks use the route I just described between the Queensway and the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge right in the national capital, Ottawa. Between 2,200 and 2,500 trucks a day means that about four heavy trucks spill pollutants, make noise and are a safety hazard and they can have accidents. One unfortunate incident and people will scream murder. They will say that we were negligent.
If I understood right, this Bill C-13 gives us an opportunity to work together, to decide together, to ask the various levels of government to agree on solutions and alternatives, for example so that future generations do not have to bear the financial burden of cleaning up when we here today can take the required regulatory action to ban pollutants.
Some claim that the bill before us gives too much discretionary authority to the minister and that it even protects the government from legal challenge. To be sure, Bill C-13 will change some of the things that some governments and agencies do. It may even change the behaviour of the federal government itself, which is not above reproach on this issue.
I remember that in 1987, in this House, the Bank of Canada was found guilty of negligence in choosing an
Government Orders
illegal carrier to dispose of its toxic wastes. We will remember that. As a result of this negligence, the selected carrier dumped 45 gallons of paints, varsol and other solvents down a sewer on Power Road in Gloucester. As we know, this sewer is connected to the Green Creek Pollution Control Plant, which empties into the Ottawa River. The departments of Transport and Supply and Services were also accused of breaking the law by dumping toxic waste and chemicals in the Ottawa River.
Listen to what happened later. Instead of accepting the courts' verdict that the federal government was guilty, the federal government went to court claiming that the provincial law and provincial legislation in general did not apply to the federal government. That was in 1987; that was not centuries ago, but barely four or five years back.
It is important for us in the federal government not only to preach by example but also to implement environmentally friendly measures. We must regulate but also implement administrative measures to choose wisely in awarding contracts so that departments do not do things like what happened in 1987.
Similarly, Public Works Canada, an important government department, should involve my constituents so that they can express themselves and consider not only the environmental dangers but also the public welfare when it decides to do certain things like sell land. In Carson Grove, which is located in my riding, not far from here to the east, Public Works plans to sell and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is actually selling land for housing development or other purposes without knowing what impact the future use of this land will have.
If Bill C-13 is passed, departments and agencies such as these will be subject to a strict screening regarding the purpose of the project and its environmental effects, if the minister so decides.
Take the Vanier Parkway, in my riding. Many people oppose a project to make it connect the Queensway to the Macdonald-Cartier bridge to ease the interprovincial traffic. For years now, twenty years for sure, this matter comes to a head at every election. Someone raised the question of whether we should extend, complete the Vanier thoroughfare. For one thing, it is a parkway, not a thoroughfare. Second, the land was sold to the regional

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
municipality by the federal government, through the National Capital Commission. The NCC sold the land for the purpose of building a parkway with restricted access to trucks. No trucks over five tonnes were to be allowed. Go and see if the police and the municipal authorities are enforcing that provision of the contract.
As I said, if a link is created by extending the Vanier thoroughfare, or parkway rather, to facilitate interprovincial traffic, it would be totally unacceptable that the federal government be party to a deal that is going to destroy the quality of life in my riding. What for? To allow dangerous materials and other goods to travel through the city of Ottawa, when many other alternatives exist. Bill C-13 calls for, suggests and provides that not only the impacts but also possible alternatives be investigated.

If there is a hook in that proposed extension of the Vanier arterial which has a federal implication, I can say right now that we will fight that project, and I think we are right to do it.
I notice you are giving me a signal, Madam Speaker, that my time is just about up. I have two minutes.
The stated purpose of the bill mentioned in clause 4 includes ensuring that environmental effects projects receive careful consideration, encouraging responsible authorities to take actions to promote sustainable development in order to achieve and maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy, and ensuring opportunities for public participation in the environmental assessment process. These are certainly worthy objectives. It is my hope that this government will take them to heart when it applies legislation to projects. I hope it will ensure that the regulations have teeth and are strong enough that we are caring for our future and making sure we do not pollute.
I want to make sure that the NCC, the National Capital Commission which is an agency of this government, a Crown corporation, is covered by this bill. I know clause 8 of the bill says Crown corporations within the meaning of the present administration act are covered and it refers to another clause for the regulations. The
regulations are very important to us because they will give us the direction the government wants to go in.
I end this short comment by saying that Bill C-13 is an important, positive step in joining concrete actions to symbolic commitments for a better protection of our environment. I hope the regulations that go with this bill will carry enough weight, as I said, to ensure an effective and much improved environmental assessment process.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, the member for Ottawa-Vanier made an excellent speech, particularly since he wanted to protect the interests of his constituency. At one point, he also talked about the political stakes of this bill. He said that this legislation would keep provincial and federal governments from doing too much politics with the environment because, in his opinion, the environment is very important. He added that everybody was interested in the environment and that it was necessaiy to keep politicians from making politics with that. He also said that the federal government must not interfere in his constituency in Ottawa. There is a bit of contradiction in that.
I believe that this bill is probably acceptable for the small provinces that do not have the resources to tackle the environment issue. However, the larger provinces such as Quebec and Ontario should be the first to decide, because they can afford to conduct their own environmental assessments. That would keep the federal government from interfering and bothering businesses that want to settle in those provinces, as well as delaying economic projects, for instance in the province of Quebec.
This is the big problem that the bill will create by enabling the federal government to encroach on provincial jurisdictions such as Quebec, which has its own department of environment, as well as the resources to conduct its own assessments, in the same manner, to protect the environment. Why would the federal government again interfere and take on more power in Quebec if the government of that province objects to that? I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that the Quebec National Assembly just voted, five minutes ago, on a motion which says: "That the National Assembly strongly disapproves of Bill C-13 of the federal government, an act to
March 18, 1992

establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it is contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, and that the National Assembly opposes its passage by the federal Parliament". I just received that motion which the Government of Quebec approved unanimously just a few minutes ago.
I say to the member for Ottawa-Vanier that we who represent the Bloc Quebecois and who are here in this House strictly to defend the interests of Quebec, believe that this bill is unacceptable for Quebec. We considered this bill to be unacceptable for Quebec even before the vote taken by the National Assembly. The Quebec government just confirmed our opinion and Premier Bourassa, who is not a sovereignist, says that this legislation will harm the economic development in Quebec, adding that Quebec is quite capable of solving its environmental problems. I have a question for the member for Ottawa-Vanier. First, what does he think of all that? Second, he said earlier that there were some political stakes and that the bill would keep politicians from making politics with the environment because the environment is very important. I personally consider this to be a very important issue as well. However, I believe that just the opposite will happen with this bill. There will be chaos again regarding powers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I did not say the bill was the invention of the century. I did not claim either that it satisfied everybody. I simply said that it was a step in the right direction. If the hon. member thought that I was taking it out on the federal government, he was mistaken. The federal government should support the environmental assessments which, maybe, could show us that a project is not good or that there are alternatives to it.
If I fully understood the bill-and I admit that I have not examined it clause by clause, like several of my colleagues, but rather that I read it and examined it in my own way-one of the positive aspects that I recognize and see in it is certainly the establishment of a formal assessment process and a joint review mechanism in the case of conflicts between levels of government.
Government Orders
I talked about my riding which, being situated in the national capital region, occupies a key place in interprovincial transportation. I think that the Quebec side cannot go it alone and say: "Too bad, but we do not care about making it easier for trucks to carry materials into our province. We are not interested in finding out whether it is a good thing or not to allow such a road link between two places". I think the bill suggests a framework for different levels of government, federal or provincial, native or provincial, federal or foreign. I refer particularly to the United States.
Today reviews are undertaken on an ad hoc basis. Somebody makes a decision but there is no structure, no formal framework. That is precisely what the bill provides, a framework for the process, but we have not seen the regulations. I ask hon. members to wait a while, like we all do, until we see the regulations. We will have an opportunity to discuss them further in the House. Reviews will be made regularly and five years from now maybe we will look at the bill and realize that it was not appropriate, that it did not help to solve the problem. We will see. But we should not say today that the measure is bad because it provides a framework, and I feel this is a positive aspect, as it allows the establishment of a formal process for joint consultations between different levels of government.
If the Quebec government or the Quebec legislature voted against Bill C-13,1 will wait to see the results. I did not understand why, but perhaps I missed something, I admit.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I agree that the environment is extremely important for our society but, nevertheless, it is up to the provinces to determine whether they have the means to go ahead with a given project.
I would like to quote, for example, Mr. Klein, the environment minister for Alberta, who appeared on November 19, 1991, before the Legislative Committee on Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process. I would like to quote what he said on page 10:

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
Very simply, we believe the federal government should recognize, if the provinces have in place a process, and if that process is as good as or better than the federal process, that as a legitimate process to adjudicate the environmental worthiness of various projects.
I think that is the key. If a provincial government has a department of environment, it should be capable of deciding what is good for the province. Otherwise, we will have a conflict between the federal and provincial governments, and I would like to quote the minister again: " By getting into those kinds of issues, we think the federal government would be clearly intruding on the province's constitutional rights to determine destiny over their resources".
This is fundamental. Provinces should have jurisdiction over environment-obviously with some co-operation from federal experts if necessary-and should have the last word.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I understand the interventions of the members for Longueuil and for Calgary Northeast. I should not have to repeat that way back in 1984 we started talking about the possibility of bringing in legislation to try to implement a better framework. It has been quite a while. Now we have reached the last stage, the third reading of the bill, and some members would like to start over, to have this House re-examine all of that legislation. I am not a government member. I am part of the opposition, but I want to tell them that this bill is not all bad. I simply want to say that I can feel a possibility for co-operation among all levels of government-federal, provincial, municipal or regional-with a view to coordinating efforts in order to ensure a more complete and more efficient evaluation of all environmental projets. That is all I said today.
I understand that some provinces might say: "Our environment is our business; the air we breathe is our business; the water we drink is our business". I understand, but it just so happens that our country is huge and that we must take into account the relationship between provinces. All I am saying therefore is that there might be in Bill C-13 a begining, a step in the right direction toward a better co-operation between all levels of government. What to do about those who do not agree? Pray for them.


Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Madam Speaker, in light of the discussion that has gone on in this debate with regard to the attention paid to the bill now before this House by other legislatures and by other jurisdictions, I thought it was important to address some of the concerns with the press release that has just been released by the Minister of the Environment in Vancouver.
Generally the release outlines some of the background of the bill and some information that I think is very pertinent to the debate. Much of the controversy, as we know in the parliamentary business, is sometimes based on misinformation or a lack of information. So I would like to take this opportunity to just go through the press release that was released in Vancouver today and perhaps it will resolve some of the questions put before this House.
The Minister of the Environment disagrees with Quebec's reaction to the bill on the federal environmental assessment process which is presently at its third reading in the House of Commons.
The minister reiterated that the purpose of the bill is to assess decisions that are to be made by the federal government within its own jurisdiction and that it only applies in these circumstances.
In his public statements, Quebec's environment minister raised a number of issues which must be addressed.
With regard to the background, in 1987, having recognized that the federal guidelines order for the environmental assessment of federal decisions was seriously flawed, the Government of Canada initiated the preparation of a bill to regulate the environmental assessment of its decisions.
The proposed legislation was frequently discussed in federal-provincial meetings and in June 1990, the government tabled Bill C-78 concerning an environmental assessment process. Discussions with the provinces were then intensified in the context of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
The bill was reintroduced as Bill C-13 in May 1991 in the new parliamentary session. All the provinces and territories, including Quebec, were kept informed of the progress of the bill and the contents of the amendments were the subject of several multilateral and bilateral meetings.
March 18, 1992

On December 9, 1991, the legislative committee responsible for reviewing the bill tabled its report in the House after having heard a number of witnesses including provinces.
The bill has now passed all stages of the federal legislative process and today is in third reading before being forwarded to the Senate.
Regarding the question of federal jurisdiction, it is the duty of a modern responsible government to equip itself with tools to assess the environmental implications of its own decisions. In the Oldman River case the Supreme Court of Canada unequivocally concluded that: "The Constitution Act, 1867, has not assigned the matter of environment sui generis to either the provinces or Parliament. The environment, as understood in its generic sense, encompasses the physical, economic and social environment touching several of the heads of power assigned to the respective levels of government". That is from page 62 of the judgment. The Supreme Court also firmly established that the federal department responsible for the environmental assessment process could not use it: "as a colourable device to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction which are unconnected to the relevant heads of federal power".
The minister noted that this bill was drafted carefully to respect jurisdictions and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be applied in the same fashion.
With regard to agreements with the provinces, contrary to the existing guidelines order the new bill recognizes the environmental assessment processes of all Canadian provinces. It will be possible to negotiate framework agreements with each province and territory to avoid duplication and encourage joint approaches in cases of shared responsibility while being respectful of the decision-making powers of each level of government.
With regard to spending powers, the existing guidelines order, as well as the new bill, covers all the decisions that the government may be called upon to take in respect of a project or an activity. The federal government continues to ensure that environmental assessments are completed before projects are financed. However, money transfers, made within general federal-provincial agreements which may generate projects, may be submitted to provincial procedures. In all other cases
Government Orders
it is always possible and desirable to adopt an approach which encourages joint assessments involving both levels of government.
With regard to the application to the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement area, this agreement is one of the claims which provide for an environmental assessment process. The Inuvialuit Agreement is another example, and agreements applicable to Yukon, the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut territory and the Gwii-chin territory are also being negotiated. To avoid duplicating the federal process provided for in all these agreements the government provided itself substitution powers which it could use when required.
The issue with respect to the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement is not to overcome federal-provincial duplication but rather duplication which is internal to the federal government, and the government provided itself with the tools required to avoid such situations.
With regard to native territorial claims, the bill does not cover the lands claimed by native people as it has been suggested. The selected lands mentioned in the bill refer to lands selected by both levels of government after a claim has been negotiated and an agreement concluded between all parties involved in order to transfer these lands to the native people.
On the issue of transboundary projects, the bill gives the federal Minister of the Environment the power to exercise his responsibilities in cases in which more than one province or territorial authority are involved. However, when two provinces agree on an environmental assessment of a transboundary project the federal government is not involved.
The federal involvement in this area of federal jurisdiction is triggered only if the provinces concerned are unable to reach an agreement. However, if requested to do so by citizens whose property rights are affected by the project the federal minister has the duty to review the situation and ensure that the ongoing environmental assessment complies with the basic criteria specified in the act.
The minister is convinced that the decision-making system which permits the integration of the environmental factors proposed by the government to guide its own decisions, complements the assessment procedures that all provinces and territories have instituted. He encour-

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
ages Quebec and all other Canadian provinces to initiate the necessary discussions to conclude the administrative agreements necessary for efficient management when projects involve shared responsibilities.
That is where the press release ended. In summary, the intent of the bill is not to overstep provincial jurisdiction but simply to foster and facilitate a new era of provincial and federal co-operation. Responsibility for the environment does not end at the boundary of a province.
The environment does not know provincial boundaries. In fact, the environment does not know international boundaries. Just recently the Government of the United States of America joined together with the Government of Canada in agreeing on a historic acid rain agreement.
This is but one example of governments taking leadership in developing partnerships to resolve environmental issues. This is a very important example demonstrating the way to resolve problems that are of a global nature. Many of our environmental problems are not isolated or limited to provincial, municipal, or for that matter national jurisdictions.
They are of a global nature and require global solutions to solve them. The first step in achieving these solutions is forming partnerships. As for the concerns expressed by some of the members, it is important for them to consider that partnerships would have to be forged between provinces and between a province and the federal government.
The old style and the old approach of confrontation is them against us and me against you. That has proven not to work. That is the old way and not what Canadians and citizens of the world are looking for. The citizens of the world are looking more and more at partnerships, shared responsibilities and co-operation.
I believe this is an important bill. It is a bill that clarifies some of the concerns that have been expressed in the past with regard to environmental assessment. The bill does not intrude on provincial jurisdiction. It simply applies only to those areas in which the federal government has a defined role.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, we all know that the environment is a major issue. Nobody questions the fact that we must do everything in our power to protect it. But with Bill C-13, and it is one of the main reasons the Bloc Quebecois is here in this House, it is a matter of protecting Quebec's best interests.
In this case, Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously passed a motion this afternoon which says: "That, as required by an unanimous motion of the commission for development and facilities, the National Assembly strongly disagrees with the federal government 's Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, since it is contrary to Quebec's best interests, and objects to its passing in the federal Parliament".
Earlier our colleague from Alberta north east mentioned that last November the Alberta minister of the environment made similar remarks to the effect that since the provinces are powerful enough, have their own ministers of the environment and the capacities and the means to manage their own department and their own affairs, we should avoid this duplication, this overlap. Right now in Quebec, the minister, Mr. Paradis, is speaking out against Ottawa's totalitarianism. If Bill C-13 is passed in the House, it will allow the federal government, for instance, to conduct its own environmental assessments in several areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is an obvious encroachment on provincial jurisdictions, and in Quebec a motion was unanimously passed against such a thing. It is not of question of partisanship. Our role here is to tell the House that this is not a constitutional issue, like those being discussed by the federal government and the provinces. It is about one jurisdiction, the environment.
We have to recognize that no boundary circumscribes the environment. As everyone knows, you cannot build a wall to prevent bees from flying over to your neighbour's backyard. But when you talk about encroachment, Mr. Speaker, you have to remember what happened last year. Mr. Paradis has spoken against this federal bill before. Besides, his colleague, the minister for energy, Lise Bacon, once accused Ottawa of hiding behind the environment banner.
March 18, 1992

I would like to ask the previous speaker this: Is he aware of Quebec's firm opposition? Will he ask his government colleagues to postpone this bill as long as there is no agreement between the Canadian provinces, in particular with the province of Quebec, for which we are fighting in this House?


Mr. O'Kurley:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the questions and the comments with regard to my previous intervention in this House. The member from the Bloc Quebecois suggested that his party was here simply to defend the interests of Quebec and said that was the primary reason for its members being here and that they had no other responsibilities whatsoever.
As a member of the legislative committee on Bill C-13 I was curious as to why neither he nor any members of his party attended any of the hearings on Bill C-13. If the interests of Quebec were so important why did it take until this time before he or any of his party members made representation before that committee?
In addition, the Government of Quebec was, as were all provinces, invited to participate in the legislative hearings on Bill C-13. Certainly we did not hear from any representatives of the Government of Quebec on this bill. I am not doubting the hon. member's word but if his responsibility to defend the interests of Quebec is so paramount why did he wait until now to express those concerns or interests?
With regard to the concern about intruding on other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court confirmed that the role of the federal government is legitimate in areas in which the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be involved. I would like to reiterate the fact that Bill C-13 is built on the need for co-operation. The whole intent of this bill is to foster and facilitate co-operation. It is not us and them. It is not me against you. It is we together working to resolve environmental problems which know no provincial boundaries, no jurisdictional boundaries.
I think it is important for the member, and indeed for all of those who have concerns about jurisdiction, to realize that partnership is the essence of this bill.
Government Orders
Certainly that is what the bill was intended for and I am sure that is what it will result in.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the hon. member accused my colleague of not having taken part in the work of the legislative committee. I want to tell him that we are not welcome as members of the legislative committee nor as members of the various standing committees of the House of Commons. We cannot be blamed because we are not allowed to speak at committee meetings.
We can intervene but we cannot vote. Sometimes, we are forced to wait all day before being given a brief opportunity to speak at the very last moment. That is why it is not very interesting for members of the Bloc Quebecois to sit on a committee. That is why we try to do our work in the House of Commons and to work with the Quebec government since the only reason for our being here is to stand up for Quebec in Ottawa. It is in that context that I blame the hon. member for accusing us of not sitting on committees, because when we do we are not allowed to speak.


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I had no intention of doubting the sincerity of the members opposite. My question was with regard to why none of them had appeared at the committee.
What the member said' just now is not necessarily 100 per cent accurate in the sense that committee meetings are open to the public. They are open to all individuals who have any interest at all. We have other tools in the parliamentary system such as Standing Order 31 where members of Parliament of all parties of all political stripes can stand up and make representation on behalf of their constituents. We can ask questions in Question Period of ministers.
Not once have I heard the members of the Bloc Quebecois stand up under Standing Order 31 on a statement in the House of Commons before Question Period and express concerns on this issue. Not once have I seen any of those members in the committee even though they are open to the public.

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
I have some questions about why now do they express this concern.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words concerning this piece of legislation before the House before it passes into final reading.
I note that there is a restriction in the legislation in that it is restricted to projects, projects being defined as a physical act, as some sort of physical activity. Of course this means that a great many things are excluded under this piece of legislation.
In fact, when it comes to an assessment being made of the environmental impact of decisions by the Government of Canada, the major decisions of the Government of Canada that impact adversely upon our environment will not be covered under this legislation. In fact, it will be so limited as to involve only projects that are built in a certain place and that are built under a certain authority. Very restrictive defines what federal lands are, what federal authority is. I note that it even goes so far as to define the authority under the act for a project that extends out to the edge of the continental sheif. It says either to the economic zone of 200 miles or beyond out to the edge of the continental shelf, whichever is the greater of the distances.
My observation that I make while this bill is passing third reading is that it is very limited in its scope. It does say, I know, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process. In the actual title and in the preamble to the bill it talks about environmental assessment, about an effective means of integrating environmental factors into planning and decision-making processes. It talks about achieving sustainable development by conserving and enhancing environmental quality, and by encouraging and promoting economic development.
The reason I say that this bill is too limited is this. The very department that is sponsoring this bill is the federal Department of the Environment. The federal Department of the Environment passes judgment all the time on things that are of great danger to our environment, that destroy our environment; destroys our environment in our forests and in our lakes and streams and in the ocean. The Department of the Environment, the very department that is bringing in this bill, allows no public process in its determination of whether or not a chemical
can be used to eradicate an insect in the forest. It makes no reference to that. It has no jurisdiction.
In other words, whereas it enables the government to set into motion an assessment process that involves public input, that allows interested parties to comment on and to make decisions upon whether or not a project, so to speak, shall go ahead for environmental purposes, it makes no such claims for great decisions, very large decisions that are made by this very government department in its every day activities influencing our environment.
I want to give one example, which is a prime example this time of the year.
The Department of the Environment sits down with two other federal government agencies, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Health and Welfare. They sit down from time to time and determine whether or not to legalize herbicides or pesticides in Canada. They sit down and determine in that committee, in that review process, whether or not to license or to recommend to the Pest Control Division of Agriculture Canada, that would make a judgment based upon an act of Parliament, whether or not to legalize a substance for use in our environment.
Let me give an example. If you were today to ask the Department of the Environment what substance it approves for use on all of our forest lands in Canada, it will say to you one word: fenitrothion, a chemical which has proven to kill birds, to not allow them to reproduce, killing the very things that eat the very insects that they are trying to get rid of.
Imagine, aeroplanes up in the air dumping down in big crates, in big enormous barrels, chemicals to spill all over our magnificent forest lands in British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, all over the place and the Government of Canada comes up with this bill. Here we are talking today about an environmental assessment process. An assessment process? About wharves, about breakwaters, dams?
We know that this government department says that you can dump thousands upon thousands of gallons of chemicals all over your forest land, all over your rivers, all over Canada. Just imagine. There is only one other thing they allow for use in our forest lands to get rid of these pests. You go around with a little squirter and you squirt and you get rid of insects in trees. But the way we do it in Canada is we dump it out of aeroplanes over
March 18, 1992

incredibly large territories. The National Research of Canada has a report in its possession which shows that this chemical destroys harmless insects, spiders, bumblebees, and destroys the reproductive cycle of birds. You can go to most of our forest lands in Canada and you cannot even hear a bird sing. I wonder why. I wonder why. They have got chemicals dropped down from away up above, from aeroplanes, approved by the Department of the Environment, the very department that is coming in here today and saying "Oh, we are going to give you an environmental assessment process for public works". For public works, Mr. Speaker.
There is only one other thing they licence that they say is legal, this panel set up by Environment Canada, Health and Welfare. It used to be the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but they dropped out last year. They are no longer on the panel. You see, they could not justify, I do not think, dumping oil, which is the agent that brings down the chemical to destroy everything in the forest. They just could not sit there because all of those chemicals were going into our rivers and our streams and destroying our salmon and our spawning grounds for our trout. No. Has that also violated the Fisheries Act or our Clean Water Act?
The very action of the Department of the Environment, the process which is closed, not open for public assessment, not a review process like this is, is for them to sit down and make that decision.
There is one further agent, not a chemical but a bacteria agent that is licensed for use. It was developed in the Quebec region of the Canadian Forestry Service by some of the finest scientists and biologists that we have in this country today. They developed a non-chemical substance for use to get rid of such things as the spruce budworm, the balsam woolly aphid, the hemlock looper and all of these various insects which are predators in our forests.
That particular substance is called BT. It stands for Bacillus Pherengensus. That is a substance that is a bacteria which will also kill these insects, but costs more, as I understand it, than the chemical that is used in our forests. So the chemical is preferred by our paper companies and by our provincial governments in Canada. Of course, then the paper companies and the provincial governments can turn around and say: "Who licensed the chemicals for use in all of our forest land? Why, it is
Government Orders
the Department of the Environment". They licensed it through the federal Department of Agriculture because they have a review process which is not open to the public, but they license the material for use in all of our forest lands.
Now, the environmental assessment process. I understand that all of these acts are under review by the Government of Canada. They are reviewing the Pest Control Act and various other acts of Parliament with the view to opening up the process to allow more public input into what we do in our environment and the review procedures that are in place for various government departments. I understand that the procedure is being opened up for the use of herbicides and pesticides and that a new act is in the works for the Government of Canada to present to the Parliament of Canada to allow for a review process. Of course, this allows some people in Canada who want to even have more chemicals used in our forests, more chemicals dropped out of aeroplanes from on high to destroy insects in our forests. That review process, which is being suggested by the Government of Canada, should be watched very closely by the legislators in the Parliament of Canada.
All in all I do not see any problem with the legislation, I must admit, but it seems rather strange to me that they would so restrict this legislation to deal with only one aspect of environmental assessment and that they do not refer to anything else.
We have allowed the Government of Canada, through its policies, to destroy our marine environment. That has been adequately destroyed through policies of the Government of Canada which allow in large ships from foreign nations, massive factory freezer trawlers utilizing the ultimate in new modem technology, to destroy all of our spawning grounds and to destroy our cod fishery for generations to come. We have allowed that and that happens today.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced yesterday some more foreign quotas inside the 200-mile zone: 55,000 more tonnes of fish to be taken by seven foreign nations which will further destroy our marine environment, along with the fact that the Department of the Environment itself is a contributor to the destruction of our wildlife and our forest lands in Canada by allowing and encouraging the use of chemicals.

Government Orders


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to ask my hon. friend a question.
I just had a group of European journalists in my office in an attempt to provide them with some facts about our forestry practices, our green plan, the way we worry about our environment, and our sense of obligation to the rest of the world as stewards and custodians of 10 per cent of the planet's forests.
I asked a journalist from Germany where he would have got the information that appeared in an article he had written in a particular paper. He said: "Look, we are here every day looking in on the debates of the House of Commons". Now I know where he got the information from. He received it from my friend, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.
When did the member last see squadrons of hundreds of aeroplanes flying over huge areas of forest land in our country, killing everything in their sight with Agent Orange? Everything in its path would be destroyed recklessly. That is what we read in European newspapers. That is why there are promotions for boycotts on our lumber products, for God's sake, in Europe.
Does the member not know that he has a responsibility to stick a bit closer to the truth? Does he not know that our forest industry uses 10 per cent of the chemicals used in the food chain in agriculture in Canada and that is 10 per cent of what the Europeans use in their agriculture, having destroyed all their land? Does he not feel a sense of responsibility to be factual about what he says? Does he know that the chemical of which he speaks, incidentally, is the same chemical that mothers use to eradicate head lice on their children's heads and use to spray on their plants inside their homes? Does he not know that the forest industry no longer uses chemicals to the extent that it did 10 or 20 years ago?
BT is actually 80 per cent of all the sprays that are being used to eradicate some of the insects that destroyed, incidentally, all the forests on Cape Breton Island and other forests in his own province. Does the hon. member know that? If he does not, could I ask him to inform himself? And, after he has done that, could I ask him to be a bit more responsible and sensitive to the
fact that what we say in this House is actually repeated by people in other parts of the world to the detriment of our industry, our workers, and our communities?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, if people repeat what is said in this House then I can imagine what they are going to repeat after listening to the hon. member. They are going to repeat this: that the very thing that is used to eradicate head lice is being sprayed in all of our forest lands. That is what the hon. gentleman just said a moment ago.
As far as Europe is concerned and how it gets rid of the problem of forest insects, the hon. member should take a very careful look at woodlot developments in Europe where bird hatcheries are sometimes encouraged. Instead of killing birds that are the very predators of the insects we are trying to get rid of in our forest lands, perhaps we should be following the record of some woodlots in Europe and developing bird hatcheries.
Let us turn to this business of using fenitrothion on only 20 per cent of our forest lands. He mentioned Agent Orange. That has nothing to do with fenitrothion. That is 2,4-D. That is what he is talking about. I am not talking about herbicides. I am talking about fenitrothion. If BT is as useful as fenitrothion then why is BT not used throughout this country to get rid of these insects?
I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker, but you have to go a way back. Once upon a time we used DDT in our forests. That is what the Canadian government was recommending. We used DDT until the investigators found that it was destroying everything. Then we switched to other chemicals. We are at the point now where in Canada we are the proud owners of one of the most effective means of getting rid of forest insects, Bacillus Therengensis, BT, developed in the Quebec region by a brilliant man. His last name, I recall, is Mr. Smirnoff and he developed BT. It had an effect right around the world. In Japan it was welcomed. Countries right around the world said: "What a marvellous discovery". This man who dedicated his life to getting rid of the use of chemicals in our forest lands, as any sensible government should do, devised the method of using BT.
March 18, 1992

I would suggest to the Government of Canada that we should use BT 100 per cent. If there is a deficiency, if there are companies that say it costs too much money, then perhaps the Government of Canada should put some money where its mouth is and stop this destruction of our environment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the final reading of Bill C-13. One thing I do find regrettable-and it is perhaps the symptom of the political priorities of some members of this House-is that there are two ministers responsible for the environment and neither has participated in the third reading process this week.
I do recognize why the Minister of the Environment is in Vancouver. As a matter of fact there is some history I am interested in noting. A federal contract was released to Burson-Marstellar Canada Limited in the amount of $189,524 to implement the media relations and communications program for Environment Canada at Globe 92. I am sure the minister wanted to make sure that he got good mileage out of that almost $200,000 expenditure with Burson-Marstellar of Bhopal fame.
Similarly I find somewhat less than amusing in this part of the debate that neither of the Liberal environment critics could find the political will or political priority to participate in a debate which the Minister of the Environment described when he appeared before the standing committee as follows: "In this case we have legislation that is complex. I think it is one of the most important projects to be introduced in this Parliament".
That is the minister's view on the priority, regrettably, of a very important and very complex bill, one that I regret to say truly is only a half full glass. That extra effort could have been made to make this the kind of legislation that would withstand the test of time. We have seen how quickly the 1984 cabinet guidelines order has come apart, or in some people's minds came together as an administrative law, as a result of the various and many court rulings there have been to take it from an Order in Council to the administrative law it is now recognized as being.
As I said, it is regrettable the two political parties that frequently go out and try to sell themselves as the great answer on serious environmental issues have taken the most important phase of this legislation so abominably laxly.
Government Orders
Out there, there is concern. Members from the Bloc have been raising on a regular basis the fact that this afternoon in the Quebec assembly a unanimous motion was passed opposing this legislation. It is also worthy of note that the province of Quebec-and I quote from today's press coverage of it-is not calling for withdrawal of the bill.
Let us keep in mind this day that Bill C-13 in its final stages is being used as a political lightening rod and as an opportunity to create focus in the province of Quebec on a constitutional issue. As the member for Elk Island and others have pointed out, there has been an abundance of opportunities for members of the Bloc and for other Quebec members to have appeared before the Bill C-13 committee.
We must keep in mind that this piece of legislation has been moving for four and a half years. It was introduced for debate by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. The bill, without change, was transformed at the end of the last session from Bill C-78 and given new light so that it could be Bill C-13. The words that were there on the last day of the last session are the same words in Bill C-13. It is precisely the same bill.
The kind of brinksmanship, or perhaps more properly put, brinkspersonship, that is practised a bit too often on some issues is being applied here and it should not be. Anyone who truly understands and has taken the time to understand what the Brundtland commission said in the spring of 1987 on sustainable development and on how we can perhaps, and only perhaps, achieve a sustainable environment for human life and for the life of most other species would not be playing these kinds of political games on a piece of legislation I personally do not support because it does not go far enough. I ask my friends in the Bloc Quebecois and every member of the National Assembly in Quebec today to keep in mind not only what was said in Brundtland but what is going on in the environment of this planet.
This is not an issue to play politics with. Birds fly between boundaries. Fish swim between boundaries. The air above us is seriously affected by global warming and by the hole in the ozone. We have recognized, perhaps for the first time in this century in just the last few years, that the exponential rate has climbed in the extinction of species. For the first 50 years of this century it was one

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
specie a year. It has now accelerated to 10 species per hour. Entire species are becoming extinct: 10 within this hour of debate. We have the extremely unusual, naive and opportunistic politics that are being practised to try to go after this piece of legislation, saying: "Here is the big, mean hand of the feds coming into Quebec".
Mr. Paradis, a Quebec minister, has had many opportunities to communicate with the federal minister and with any member of this House on Bill C-13; similarly any member of the National Assembly. Groups from Quebec came. There was support from all across the country for this kind of an approach on a very important piece of legislation.
On January 23 this year the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, including the three justices from the province of Quebec, unanimously on the Oldman decision made it very clear that this kind of legislative approach was totally constitutional, totally appropriate. It is not a colourable device. The justices warned that the feds should not be inappropriately or unethically intervening in areas of clear provincial jurisdiction, and this does not do that. No members on the committee that I am aware of attempted to force legislation that intervened specifically in the provincial jurisdiction. I warn the members of the Quebec assembly and I warn members of the Bloc that this issue transcends normal partisan debate.
This is an issue of enormous future consequence to the lives of all humans, to the nature of this land, and the biophysical nature of this nation. Quebec in that sense will always be part of Canada. No one for a moment can ever suggest that biophysically Quebec will ever be located anywhere else than where it presently is. The birds will fly, the fish will swim. The lives of people will continue to be affected by this kind of legislation.
The real test of the intended ineffectiveness of this bill has been clearly established though by this government. It is only appropriate in third and final reading that Canadians have a sense of why this bill does not meet the real test of where it should be as a piece of legislation.
We have examples in every province and in every region of the country but let me just point out a few. There is Kemano II, Alcan's project in British Columbia; there is the Oldman River dam, an Alberta government project; Rafferty-Alameda in the province of Saskatchewan; the Great Whale in la belle province; and Point Aconi in Nova Scotia.
On the other hand, we can look at the 15 sets of regulations which are in the government's hands and not in the hands of members. Because of the result of a vote yesterday, we have been refused the opportunity to bring those regulations before the House, even though it is good enough for firearms regulations but not when it comes to the most important issue in Canada. We can see regulations on firearms, but we cannot see regulations and scrutinize them in the House of Commons.
What kind of a government would do that and what is it hiding? I intend to come to what it is hiding.
Let me deal with the exercise and the expression of government will on major projects. This is a source of great frustration to many Canadians. It is a situation which has brought many Canadians I have met to the point of openly exerting violence to try to get some kind of democratic procedures in place to deal with serious environmental issues.
On Kemano II, the Order in Council exemption has already been found to be unconstitutional and it has been found to be illegal and was quashed by Mr. Justice Allison Walsh last year and it is back before the courts. The Kemano settlement agreement similarly was quashed by the Federal Court because of the questionable way that it had been produced behind closed doors.
The Oldman River dam on January 23, 1992 the Supreme Court found affirmative regulatory duty. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport know full well that they have an affirmative regulatory duty. They should make an order that the valves at the dam should remain open so that the reservoir does not fill. I quote from a letter from Martha Kostuch, the vice-president of the Friends of the Oldman River, dated March 10, to the Minister of Transport. She states:
March 18, 1992

It is clear from the January 23, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada Ruling that the Alberta Government requires approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the Oldman Dam. Since approval for the Oldman Dam under the Navigable Waters Protection Act was quashed on March 13, 1990 by the Federal Court of Appeal, the Alberta Government is clearly in breach of the Act.
On behalf of the Friends of the Oldman River, I request that pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Act you direct the Alberta Government to keep the valves and the spillway gates open until such time as the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel has completed their report and you have made your decision based of their recommendations.
I could cany on and read the rest of the letter, but it is abundantly clear the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in terms of affirmative regulatory duty. Here is the expression of political will by a government. It broke the law and violated the Constitution of Canada to make a special deal for Alcan on Kemano II and there is still no review taking place in British Columbia in federal jurisdiction.
In Alberta, the highest court in Alberta quashed a permit allowing for construction. The dam itself is illegal. It was constructed illegally. To allow it to fill is a violation of an affirmative regulatory duty. Does the government express itself in its affirmative regulatory duty, either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of the Environment? No. The reason that I raise these is that the public has a right to take a look at a piece of legislation from both ends. One must look at how a government deals with major environmental issues as a new piece of legislation is approached because the same kind of political behaviour can be expected once the legislative tool is in place.
That is why I was shocked to read the secret cabinet memoranda on this new legislation and to discover while we have 20 panel reviews in place right now, this new legislation will allow so many exemptions that there will probably only be a couple of review panels per year, according to the memorandum.
Everything else will either be exempted or given permits or go through a mitigative process. That to most Canadians will be viewed as an entirely inadequate approach.
With Rafferty-Alameda, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the minister to comply with the international river improvement act. Since then we have had four ministers, Minister MacMillan who cut the original deal
Government Orders
as a land trade, Minister Bouchard now with the Bloc Quebecois who failed to live up to the law, Minister de Cotret, and Minister Charest, all Tories, all four of whom have done nothing to live up to the laws as passed by this Parliament.
They violate in each of the western provinces on a regular basis the laws and statutes passed by this Parliament. And Parliament acts as though we are entirely neutered, that we can do nothing, ministers of the Crown flagrantly violating the Constitution and the laws. Would any rational Canadian think that they would do anything other with Bill C-13 than to use it as a game of snakes and ladders, to use every loophole that they could find?
Let me come to some of those loopholes. The Great Whale project, the Grande Baleine project in Quebec, again is another example where the Minister of the Environment had to be practically bludgeoned, had to be dragged through the courts to live up to an existing trilateral agreement between the Cree, the province of Quebec, and the federal government. He had to be dragged through the courts to live up to that, simply to get the review process going. Agreement between the Quebec and federal Ministers of the Environment is just finally getting underway. It is a process that we will have to wait and see how it works out.
With Point Aconi in Nova Scotia, the wrong minister was made the minister. The minister of fisheries and the Supreme Court of Canada have found there is no trigger mechanism under the fisheries act to require the minister to go beyond an initial environmental assessment.
The minister of fisheries says, "Well, Point Aconi is not going to affect fish". Well, every scientist in the country knew that Point Aconi was going to affect the atmosphere, not the warm water outflow. It was the atmosphere.
Did the Minister of the Environment who was taking this legislation through committee bother to do anything about Point Aconi himself? No. Even though the previous Minister of the Environment had told me to my face that that was precisely what should have been reviewed because it violated Canada's sacred commitment in Geneva from a year ago to at least stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels.
That project will violate without any opportunity for mitigation or mediation a solemn commitment that we made to more than 100 countries.

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
What about this legislation? Will it bring about integrated economic environmental decision-making? I do not think so, particularly when looking at the regulatory loopholes.
Let us take a look at some of them because as witnesses told the committee one after the other, Mr. Bruchet from the Canadian Petroleum Association said: "It is not necessarily the legislation but the regulations that have the greatest impact".
There are 15 sets of regulations, like a telephone book, being hidden in the minister's office at this very moment so that members of the House cannot see them when we are voting on the legislation, so the public has never had a chance to see them. I will outline why that is so important.
Bill Andrews from the West Coast Environmental Law Association stated: "The regulations themselves are an important if not the most important part of the bill".
Professor Morse from the Canadian Bar Association stated before committee: "About the importance of reviewing regulations before the passage of the bill is that it is very important. There is just too much scope left for regulations".
Even Ms. Brown from the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office stated: "The regulations will define a comprehensive study list and the exclusion list".
So any Canadian who naively believes that this legislation when passed would indicate what the comprehensive study hit list would be, what projects for sure would be studied or which ones would be excluded, is dreaming in technicolor.
Let me give some examples. The proof is really in the pudding. This was kindly prepared by Franklin S. Ger-tler, chairman of the national environmental law section of the Canadian Bar Association.
Let me give some examples of things that will be excluded by regulation. This really tells it all. Airports, major linear developments, highways, transmission lines and pipelines will be exempt. Any new railroad extension of less than 100 kilometres will be exempt. It does not matter where it is in the country, if it is less than 100 kilometres, it will be exempt.
There is no understanding of ecosystems or biophysical reality demonstrated there. That 100 kilometre section of railroad could be in the most sensitive environment in
all of Canada. There is a review for a 500 kilometre one in an area of the country where is does not affect anything, but it is exempted in a highly sensitive area. Railroads would be built 99 kilometres at a time. It is pretty obvious what it is planning.
An exemption for the abandonment of rail lines, the exemption of twin-tracking, the exemption of new nuclear reactors, slow-pokes, anything under 30 thermal megawatts would be exempted. Can you imagine? A nuclear reactor is put in a hospital and it is not necessary to assess the impact of bringing the radiated materials into or out of the hospital. Give me a break.
Mines are exempted, as long as they are less than
10,000	tonnes per day. It does not matter whether they are high arsenic, high acid content, they are exempted. There will be a lot of mines producing 9,999 tonnes a day so that they can be exempted. It does not matter whether it is asbestos or whatever.
On dams, as long as not more than 100 cubic meters per second is being taken, they are exempt.
On a final point, Mr. Speaker, this is an exemption that I know you in particular would be concerned about. That is the exemption to reduce the size of national parks in Canada so long as it is done in increments of less than 10 per cent an environmental assessment is not required.
I look forward to questions, as members can probably tell. I am interested in this topic. There are some serious problems that can only be addressed by a redraft of the bill.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. critic's remarks especially when he mentioned Rafferty-Alameda dam.
I served the area that has the two projects in it. One of the problems that came up during this project-and there has been a lot said about the Rafferty-Alameda dam in this House-many of the people who pass judgment on the project have never seen the project. They simply pass judgment for political benefit. They knew nothing about it. At times they tried to indicate that the farmers or the people in that area were less environmentally conscious of what was going on. It was just for plain political rhetoric. It had absolutely no benefit to building sound environmental direction that would be sustainable for the future.
March 18, 1992

I recall sitting in committee when various members of the opposition, who came from centres that were spewing out all kinds of pollution and polluting the environment in an unlimited manner, passed judgment on a project that was going ahead and was as environmentally sound as could possibly be.
All three governments that were in, including the NDP, the prior Liberal governments, and the Conservative government recommended study after study that the project go ahead. Just because the Conservatives built it, they were opposed to it.
I want to say this. Watch the NDP in Saskatchewan complete it. They are not going to blow it up. It is not going to be done away with.
It is important that this kind of legislation come through the House so that we move ahead in a positive direction on the environment. Bill C-15 brings forward sound regulations and legislation.
I just wanted to make that comment after hearing so many remarks about a project that many people know nothing about and will probably never see.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have received the question from the hon. member. The bill is actually Bill C-13 that we are debating here today.
In terms of his comments on Rafferty-Alameda, the concern that I think is held very widely among residents of Saskatchewan, whether they are for or opposed to the project, is that this government continually and flagrantly violated the laws passed by this Parliament. The courts made that abundantly clear. It was the Federal Court of Appeal, not just the Federal Court, that ordered the minister to comply with statutes passed by this Parliament.
The other point I want to make is that by the time the Rafferty-Alameda project was being actively considered for development, it was abundantly clear what direction the government agencies should be taking in terms of the 1984 cabinet guidelines order. It was not known that it was a mandatory law of general application. A lot of the administrative law that we talk about here in March 1992 on the floor of the House has come since the beginning of Rafferty-Alameda.
Government Orders
The concern that I think residents of Saskatchewan hold, though, is that the Government of Canada refused to hold back on the project and to use the trigger powers that it had under the International Rivers Improvement Act to allow the studies to be completed, to allow the panels to complete the process that they were required to undertake by law.
So there was the violation of the statutes of Canada; there was the violation of the government's own code of conduct, the 1984 cabinet guidelines order, which were not suddenly hatched, Mr. Speaker, in 1984; these regulations came originally from a cabinet directive in 1974. They were rewritten and became an Order in Council in 1984.
On the technical questions about the Rafferty-Alameda dam, we will find out over time that it is not an effective impoundment system that has been proposed. If one looks at the rate of rainfall in that area of Saskatchewan over a long period of time, particularly when one looks at it over multiple decades, one looks at the amount of flow that could be required in relation to the Souris, if one looks at the implications of adding coal-fired thermal heated water back into those systems, what the implications may well be, one ends up with a kind of impoundment system that will not be pleasant for boating, it will not be pleasant for fishing, it will not be particularly good for irrigation, it will not be particularly good for flood protection.
If the hon. member took more time to speak to people like the Tetslaff brothers and got a grip on the number of federal jurisdictions that have been abused and maligned and contravened by government action, including the continual slap in the face to the Federal Court of Appeal that has been taken by the Government of Canada, one would realize why a very dim view of the political behaviour of Progressive Conservatives at the federal level is held by many people, not just in Saskatchewan, on environmental issues, but in many provinces, in Quebec, in Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland, in British Columbia. Because if one continues to flagrantly crap in the nest, to say "Oh, we are passing these laws; look at us, we are great. We've got a green plan" and then, behind closed doors, to cut deals with corporations and provincial authorities, and so on.

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
I honestly believe that is why the testability and the popularity of politicians generically as a profession in this country is lower than that for convicted assassins.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Just one comment, Mr. Speaker.
Again the hon. member is speaking about something that he does not understand. The Alameda dam in a run-off last fall filled up with water. They could boat there last fall, lots of boating. The water was several metres deep. It was unbelievable the amount of run-off that came down that dam. They were boating and they will be boating again this summer.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the member likes to pose questions and that is fine, but it seems to me that if one is ethical about these kinds of issues one would take the time to respond to the point that I had raised, the continued flagrant violation of the law.
We pass laws in here and we expect Canadians, one and all, to live up to those laws. Elowever, when those laws apply to this particular Conservative government, in almost every province, in almost every jurisdiction, on environmental issues, and I predict it will be the same, if not worse with C-13 when it is law, the flagrant abuse of the rights of Canadians and of the ecological integrity of this country will continue unabashed because of behaviour and attitudes such as that just exposed by the member who just asked the question.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate.
I want to begin this address with some introductory remarks, putting this debate in context.
As the House is aware, this debate comes at a time which is bridging my responsibilities on the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee and now resuming my responsibilities as associate critic for international environment. It is in that context that I want to begin.
As we have heard, the Minister of the Environment is not able to be here today and yet this is the most important environmental legislation to be introduced in this House in many, many years. I find it very sad that he is not able to be here. Allegedly the reason for his absence is his attendance at the Conference of Ministers
of the Environment in Vancouver, which is occurring this afternoon and tomorrow.
I remind the people who are watching that this government, of which the minister is a part, has the ability to call bills at its convenience. It has control over the timing of the legislative agenda, not us. So I think a House leader's role is behind the scenes because the real reason the Minister of the Environment is not here is because this has become a political football in Quebec and he is a Quebec minister.


Mr. Pronovost:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made three remarks in 60 seconds on the absence from the House of another member or a minister. Everybody knows that ministers and members have numerous occupations outside this House. It is out of order and quite contrary to our rules that experienced members repeat this kind of comment two or three times in just a few seconds.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is true that our Standing Orders forbid comments on the presence or absence of other members in this House.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note that in this practice we are simply following the lead taken by the parliamentary secretary who, at the beginning of the debate at third reading, indicated the absence of the Minister of the Environment during the debate and expressed the apologies of the minister to the House for not being able to be present.
We are simply following up on the comments that were brought to the attention of the House by the-


Some hon. members:: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I request the co-operation of members on both sides of the House. I think both points have been heard and we could go back to the substance of the debate.
The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has the floor.
March 18, 1992


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, to resume my train of thought, because of the priority of this legislation, I find it curious in the extreme that there are not more ministers speaking out not only for Canada but for the world's environment. I find it curious that the Official Opposition is not giving this issue the kind of priority it should. If this is the most important environmental legislation to come before this House in many, many years, where is the so-called Official Opposition? Why are they not participating in this debate?
I want to now go back and review a little bit of the history of this bill. Bill C-13 is much improved. The all-party committee that put forward the amendments over a 20-month period worked hard, and the legislation is much improved. My colleague from The Battlefords- Meadow Lake has achieved many, many amendments through this long and arduous process. We must remember that there was the pre-study, there was Bill C-78 and then Parliament was prorogued. When Bill C-13 came back in the new Parliament, the government had incorporated many of the amendments that had been brought forward in Bill C-78. All of that work needs to be acknowledged. I think that people who are watching this debate and will be reading Hansard need to know the kind of progress that has been made.
My colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake put forward two very important amendments to this legislation. One of them was passed, that is the five year review. The other one regarding regulations was not. The government chose to vote against it. That is an important, crucial part of the legislation. This was made very clear in committee. As was said, far more than in most legislation, the teeth to federal environmental assessment lies in regulations yet to be approved or drafted.
The exclusion list outlining what projects and what types of projects will not be required to be subjected to review will be in the regulations. The procedures governing how public participation will occur will be left to regulations. The comprehensive study list will be left to regulations. Procedures for examining written evidence will be left to regulations. Public registries will be dealt with in regulations. The workings of follow-up programs will be left to regulations. The absence of those regula-
Government Orders
tions and bringing them back to the House is a real vacuum of power. We have, as I see it, a major deficiency in the bill because of the government's choice not to support that amendment from my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
I would like to turn to my area of responsibility and that is the international environment. There are two major projects I want to put forward as examples. The first is the Three Gorges project in China. Canada, through CIDA, has put forward $14 million for a feasibility study. This, under this legislation, would not be able to be reviewed. This is not a project; it is a feasibility study. Yet, this Three Gorges project will have an enormous impact on the environment in China. It will have an enormous impact on the lives of the people there. We are talking about destruction of whole ecosystems. It will change the river's hydrology. It will jeopardize a cultural heritage and $14 million of our tax dollars has gone to a feasibility study.
There has now been a ruling. The jury of the second international water tribunal has found that feasibility study far short of what should be desired. We have seen major deficiencies and yet, with regard to the Three Gorges project, China has said: "Yes, we will take that feasibility study" which says the Three Gorges project should be proceeded with, "as a rationale to proceed". China will come back to Canada and say: "You guys thought it was a good idea. Now, we would like some more money please so that we can proceed with the construction of the dam on the Three Gorges".
This is just not acceptable to Canadians. This is a major deficiency in this bill as well.
The second example is the new project on which my friend Tom Berger from British Columbia is currently doing an independent review for the World Bank. It is called the Sardar Saravor Dam in India. It is the World Bank linkages that I want to address my comments to.
This dam is a major project. The World Bank is paying about 15 per cent of approximately $6 billion for this dam. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance for Canada sits on the board of directors of the World Bank. There is no transparency in what his decisions might be and in how they might affect the world's environment. We do not know. They get into a room. They close the doors. They make the decisions. It is our tax dollars that are financing it.

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
Canadians need to have that transparency. They want to know when the Minister of Finance is making decisions of that type that he is making the right decisions. Bill C-13 has not got the ability to be able to call an environmental assessment on those projects. Yet it is federal money. There is a federal role. Bill C-13 says that we should be talking about federal areas of jurisdiction, federal responsibilities. Those are two major examples on the international environment front that will not be reviewed, will not be assessed.
There is also the other deficiency in this. It is something that we are going to have to work on further. This is like capital projects kind of thinking, that that is what will be reviewed or assessed.
The policies of this government are not up for review or assessment and we have got before us now the possibility of a North American free trade agreement. What will be the environmental consequences of that agreement? Will we be able to assess it? Not under this legislation. What about the GST? Would such a major policy of the government be assessed? Not under this legislation.
Ask me what kind of environmental effects that would have. When you think about global warming, you think about the kind of petrochemical products that are put into the atmosphere that cause global warning. Why are cars taxed with the GST? Obviously that is a sensible move, if you believe in the GST. But why are bikes not exempt? Bicycles are an alternative transportation but they are taxed just the same as cars.
There is no environmental sensitivity to that kind of policy. The GST and the North American free trade agreement are two policies that I am putting forward as examples that this government is introducing or has introduced that will have enormous environmental consequences. Yet we have no ability to review them. There is no environmental assessment. There is no understanding that sustainable development begins here and that we need to have a process of assessing the sustainability if we really do believe that the world's environment is worthy of assessment, not just the Canadian environment. Of course we are concerned about that, but it extends.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying let us put this in context. We are going to have the Earth Summit in Brazil in June. Canada has an opportunity in the days leading up to the Earth Summit to create the best environmental legislation in the world. I have reviewed environmental assessment legislation in other jurisdictions. There are many similarities to this. There are many differences.
Bill C-13 does not cut it. It is not good enough. It has come a long way. I once again compliment the members of the committee in the major amendments, the major changes to the legislation, but it is not good enough.
This planet is dying, and we have to find a way to stop it. We have to find a way. We have to put the legislation, the bill, the regulations to ensure the dying planet at least slows down that death. This bill does not do it.
I am sorry to say that I cannot support this bill. [Translation]


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing what the hon. member who just spoke had to say about the position taken by the Government of Quebec. Early this afternoon, the leader of the opposition, Mr. Parizeau, said this was one of the most serious attempts at economic centralization, using the environment as an excuse, that we had seen so far.
In the Quebec National Assembly, the following was said: Bill C-13, an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, constitutes an unacceptable encroachment on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, will introduce an assessment process that will be unworkable. Furthermore, Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, will lead to costly administrative duplication and court challenges. Furthermore, the federal government will be able to proceed unilaterally, and adopt Bill C-13 without considering Quebec's objectives.
I think this is entirely unacceptable to those of us who want to represent Quebec's interests. I thought a number of Conservative members who represent this government would rise this afternoon, but I have neither seen nor heard them.
March 18, 1992

My question is this: Considering the fact that the Government of Quebec unanimously passed a resolution this afternoon that the National Assembly strongly disapproves of the federal government's Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, since it is contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, and objects to its passage by the Parliament of Canada, I fail to understand why members who claim to defend the interests of Quebec, especially Conservative members who represent the federal government, did not rise this afternoon to object to a bill that goes against the interests of Quebec and Quebec's economic development.
I want to ask the hon. member from Vancouver: What does she think of the federal government's arrogance in wanting to interfere in Quebec's affairs, since the federal government knows perfectly well the Government of Quebec can judge for itself what is or is not good for the environment?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I find it really disturbing that a member sitting in this House is playing petty politics with the world's environment and wanting to get some points in the Quebec legislature when we are talking about a dying planet.
The priorities are mind boggling. What this government is doing by introducing this bill is a laudable goal. What we are seeing is here. Rather than having the courage to come to any meetings with either the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs or the Ministers of the Environment, the Quebec legislators are giving out their ideas on what the restructuring of our federalism should be through press releases.
I challenge the members from Quebec to come and talk. Tell us what you want. It does not seem to be an unreasonable approach. No, they do not. They sit in their houses in Quebec City and issue edicts of what is acceptable and what is not. This is environmental legislation that is crucial. It is flawed but it is crucial. We have heard from the Bloc Quebecois that it is willing to play petty politics with little maps with which it would like to be able to preserve the world environment. The world's environment is not protected by drawing lines on a globe.
Government Orders


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, we do not play politics with the environment. What we in the Bloc Quebecois are saying is that Quebec is as capable as the federal government of making decisions about the environment with its partners, be they the United States, the rest of Canada, the maritimes, Europe or Brazil, as she said. I do not want us to be called anti-environment. On the contrary, we say that we are as capable as the federal government, that it will go much better and would be much more efficient.


Lynn Hunter: I want to make it very clear in case people have missed it. I speak for Canada. I see Canada as part of the world. I think that the Canadian government, the federal government, has a responsibility and I want that responsibility to be paramount in environmental concerns. That is why I worked hard on the Beaudoin-Dob-bie committee to ensure that the residual power stayed with the federal government-peace, order and good government.
We are a nation state. Quebec is not. If it wants to change the arrangements down the road I will cry. I will weep for Canada and for Quebec because it will be bad for Quebec, bad for Canada and bad for the world. It is not just the environment that will suffer. The economy and our international reputation will also suffer.
When I say the member is playing petty politics I mean it. This is the pettiest of politics. He is going to be blamed for the amount of concern he has expressed for the environment, which is none.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the debate that has been raging for the last little while requires a little more attention. One of the things I thought every right-minded person in the world had come to realize, particularly in a post-Brund-tland report world, was that the environment is not something which can be neatly circumscribed by boundaries, either national boundaries or provincial boundaries. Therefore I find the position being taken by the Bloc Quebecois to be quite questionable and reprehensible because it is asking the rest of us to accept that what

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
happens to the environment in Quebec is none of our business.
What happens to the environment in Quebec is our business. It is the business of the Parliament of Canada, it is the business of everyone else who lives in Canada and of everyone else in the world.
Let us consider some of the things that are to be done in Quebec, particularly the Great Whale Project. It is everyone's business on planet earth that the province of Quebec wants to flood God knows how many hundreds and thousands of square miles in northern Quebec in order to create hydroelectricity. It is a fool's paradise to think otherwise, to think that this is just a parochial issue that everyone else should keep their nose out of. It is a fool's paradise but unfortunately it will not only be the fools who will suffer. Everyone suffers from this kind of myopia when it comes to the environment.
I want to make it very clear that although the NDP intends to vote against this bill because we do not think it goes far enough and because we are concerned about matters pertaining to regulation and possible exemptions, and issues such as that.
This is a bill which is an improvement over things as they are and a bill which recognizes the federal jurisdiction in these matters. We support that and we want to make it very clear that we do not have any association with the position which has been expressed whatsoever. The member for Skeena did so very clearly earlier on. However I think it needs some repetition.
This position that somehow the environment as it pertains to Quebec is not the business of the Parliament of Canada has to be rejected time and time again. I do not think it is an appropriate position.
One has to wonder what is really going on here. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands said that the members of the Bloc Quebecois were playing petty politics with this issue. There cannot be any stronger evidence than the fact that this bill was drafted and once introduced by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois when he was the Minister of the Environment, back in the old days before he had done his most current thing.
The fact is that this bill, particularly those parts which pertain to federal-provincial relations, jurisdiction, et cetera-presumably those issues which the members
find so objectionable, unless they feel that dealing with the whole notion of the environment is objectionable, presumably it is the federal-provincial aspects- remain untouched.
Those aspects are basically the same as they were in the previous bill, Bill C-78, that came before this House under the name of the Minister of the Environment, who now leads the Bloc Quebecois. If it were not against the rules I might ask about the coincidence of his absence during this debate.
I would not do that. Possibly members of the Bloc Quebecois might want to explain why the member for Saguenay is not here to defend the bill which he actually introduced himself.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief opposition Whip to defer the division until a later time.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon when the division bells will ring for at most 15 minutes.
March 18, 1992

Government Orders
Would someone on the government side kindly tell the Chair if he or she wants to call other bills on the agenda or perhaps suggest suspending the sitting until the time for Private Members' Business?


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in the best interests of the House to suspend the House until private members' hour at seven o'clock because those members who plan to participate have that time on their timetable. It would not be fair to them to move along too quickly. They would not necessarily be present. Seven o'clock, if the House is willing, would be the suggestion.


An hon. member:: No.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES WATER ACT
Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-51, an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of unusual to have this kind of an opportunity for debate. The government members obviously do not want to defend their own legislation. That is becoming a bit of a habit on that side of the House, but as you would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this particular legislation is an act respecting the water resources of the Northwest Territories and comes with a companion piece of legislation called Bill C-52 which is an act respecting the water resources in the Yukon territory. It has been important for some time to get this kind of legislation up for debate. I am quite confident that this will have to go to the legislative committee. We will need to have the Minister of Natural Resources from the Northwest Territories down and I am sure we will want to hear from other witnesses because the Northwest Territories contains some of the largest fresh water bodies on earth and some of the larger water systems from south of 60 flow from the provinces up into the Northwest Territories.
I always like to tell a few stories as I start getting into a piece of legislation. As members know, some of the major river systems that flow out of British Columbia and Alberta flow into the Northwest Territories through Canada's largest national park.
[Translation]	.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not seem to be a quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am not sure whether to count the member for Richelieu as being present or not- There is a quorum. I give the floor to the hon. member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is always good to get the government members out of the trough at any opportunity. I would have thought they would rather debate Bill C-51 than feed themselves, but they now get a chance to listen to my story.
As I was saying, I always like to draw the attention of members to the importance of a piece of legislation by telling a few stories. As members know, Wood Buffalo National Park is the largest national park in Canada, and the United Nations has taken a very dim view of what is happening in our largest national park. It has the largest free roaming herd of bison left on earth; it has the largest whooping crane nesting areas.
One of the problems with it results from a dam actually built in British Columbia which has a direct impact on the Northwest Territories and its ability to deal effectively with water issues. That is why I know that the government of the Northwest Territories will be critically interested in this legislation, particularly if it needs to be amended in any way.
Let me get to the story here. The water used to flow in the Finlay and the Parsnip systems, in the Rocky cordillera of northern British Columbia, an area you may not have had much time to hang around in, Mr. Speaker, but I have. As these two mighty river systems were dammed by the W.A.C. Bennett dam, it slowed down the flow of water coming out of British Columbia into a mighty river that you probably have heard of called the Peace. The

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
Peace River flows in a easterly direction and goes into Wood Buffalo National Park.
The Athabaska flows on the eastern boundary of Wood Buffalo National Park and the Peace flows right through the middle of it. There is a gigantic estuary there, one of the largest freshwater marine estuaries in the world. This is of critical interest to the government of the Northwest Territories and that is why it is critically interested in the outcome of the debate and the legislative process involving Bill C-51.
The water has slowed down because it is impounded in the Williston reservoir. The natural flood flows which ordinarily would come in the spring, in the coming months from now, would go in and flush a lot of the various small kinds of plants and bushes and so on out of the sedimented sands that are in this huge freshwater estuary and would create an enormously important part of the biosystem, not only for birds such as the whooping cranes but also for the bison.
The government has yet to seriously address this problem. When I speak about government I include the federal government but also both the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia and obviously the Northwest Territories because as the waters flow north from their point of joining at Wood Buffalo National Park they flow on up into the Northwest Territories where there are major lake systems such as Great Slave and other very large bodies of water.
One of the difficulties encountered by the duly democratically elected legislature of the Northwest Territories is that it has been unable to properly administer many of the issues affecting water, whether it is for water supply for communities or the disposal of various kinds of contaminants into water systems. In the Northwest Territories and Yukon, mining issues such as placer mining, need regulatory authority and enforcement authorities so that they can control the kinds of activities that affect their water supply. They need permitting structures and, in order to do that, they need legislation such as this.
There is serious interest among residents in the Northwest Territories to get transferred powers so that they can conduct the kind of work that historically has been done by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As members can appreciate, it is a rather difficult job for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to conduct from Ottawa, to deal with all of the permitting and regulatory matters affecting the
Northwest Territories and, as we will find in the following debate, affecting Yukon.
The majority of the water movement in the Northwest Territories is either into Hudson Bay or on up into the Beaufort. I think most members of the House are aware of mighty rivers such as the Mackenzie and others that flow in a northerly direction up through the territories and into the Arctic or into Hudson Bay.
It being second reading of this legislation, I would like to take an opportunity to assist those who might be interested in reading this debate or who are watching this debate in terms of some of the definitions that are going to be provided in Bill C-51.
In the interpretation section, "board", for the purposes of this legislation, is going to mean the Northwest Territories Water Board as established in this act. What you can see is the intent of the legislation, in the interpretation section, to develop a more territorially based administrative system.
"Domestic user" means a person using waters for household requirements, for watering of domestic animals and so on. That, of course, would involve all of the residents of the N.W.T.
"Instream user" means a person using waters otherwise than so described. The licensing provisions are going to be transferred in a similar way to the Northwest Territories.
As I was saying earlier, it is one of the more difficult issues for a small government, because administratively the government of the Northwest Territories does not have a large bureaucracy in a contemporary sense when compared with the provinces or with the federal government and the major difficulties it is now starting to have to deal with, in many cases, come from the provinces.
We can look again to western Canada to problems being created for the Northwest Territories in terms of water quality and waste being discharged into systems like the Peace and the Athabaska from some of the major new pulp mills that are being constructed there. Many of those toxic contaminants move not just hundreds, but in some cases thousands of miles up these majestic and beautiful water systems.
Not only can these kinds of toxic contaminants be carried from other jurisdictions such as the provinces on up systems like the Peace and the Athabaska to contaminate major river and lake systems in the Northwest Territories, but fish species that move up and down these enormous water systems can pick up large amounts of the contaminants in their flesh near points of contamina-
March 18, 1992

tion and move up into the system and thus carry the contamination much further.
The definition of "waste", as placed into Bill C-51, reads:
(a) any substance that, if added to water, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of the water to the extent that is detrimental to its use by people or by any animal, fish or plant,
That sounds like quite a mouthful. However, the Fisheries Act contains some very strong provisional sections in terms of the placement of deleterious substances into water. The attempt in this piece of legislation, at least I would say at first blush, is to cover principal users of water, that being humans, animals and fish, although as the legislative committee deals with it there may well be a need to expand this particular definition to include birds and perhaps other users.
We see that the definition of waters means any inland water, whether in a liquid or frozen state, on or below the surface of the land in the Northwest Territories. This is a very extensive piece of legislation in that it applies to aquifer water, whether it is frozen or liquid and whether it is frozen or liquid on the surface of the land, so long as it is inland water. This piece of legislation does not apply once we go beyond the estuary of the water that flows either into the Beaufort or into Hudson Bay.
The legislation under its general section deals with the traditional clause of the legislation being binding on Her Majesty. In clause 4, in terms of a section called waters vested in Her Majesty, it states:
Subject to any rights, powers or privileges granted pursuant to the Dominion Water Power Act or preserved under that Act, the property in and the right to the use and flow of all waters are vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada.
That is to make clear legislatively that this legislation is a delegation of authority from the Crown to another order of government. In terms of application of other acts, it makes clear:
Nothing in this Act, the regulations or a licence authorizes a person to contravene or fail to comply with any other Act or any other regulation or order made thereunder, except as provided in that other Act, regulation or order.
Government Orders
This legislation is quite tight in terms of scope, even though I think it will be of considerable administrative benefit to the N.W.T.
The actual delegation section is clause 6. It is worthy of note because it is really the active part of this piece of legislation. It states in clause 6:
The Minister may, in writing, delegate to the person occupying
the recognized position of Minister of the Northwest Territories
responsible for water resources any of the Minister's functions under
section 10 -
It goes on and lists a series of sections:
-either generally or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation.
There have been many debates and arguments in this House about duplication. I think we as a Parliament and as legislators make efforts wherever possible to try to avoid or reduce duplication. There are few enough dollars to go around and large enough jobs to do in the environmental field that duplication is certainly something that should and must be avoided.
In this particular clause the delegation of authority is designed to take an administrative function that is presently handled by the Minister of Indian Affairs, and following the election of each new minister responsible for water resources in the N.W.T., and redelegate it.
It also provides in the subsequent clause for agreements with provinces and territories, which obviously is necessary. As I pointed out when I began my remarks, waters flow from the provinces, particularly from British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, to the N.W.T. Naturally there is a need for agreements and the minister to whom the power is delegated naturally requires the capacity for agreements.
That clause states: "With the approval of the Governor in Council and subject to any agreement entered into pursuant to sections 5 or 11 of the Canada Water Act, the minister may on behalf of the Government of Canada enter into an agreement with a provincial or territorial government providing for the management of any waters situated partially in the Northwest Territories and partially in a province or the Yukon territory or flowing between the Northwest Territories and a province or the Yukon territory".

March 18, 1992
Government Orders
The reason for this is in many cases in relation to hydroelectric developments of which there are many under consideration. As we know there has been a growing need over the last number of years for a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of hydroelectric projects on the Hudson Bay and generally not just on the acquatics but the entire biosystems north of 60, and to a certain extent south of 60.
Perhaps I could take a moment on this point. It is really very germane to this piece of legislation. If we look at a major project such as James Bay I, or if we even included James Bay II, la Grande Baleine as it is known or the Great Whale project, and then look at some of the other major hydroelectric projects that are proposed for the entire Hudson Bay-James Bay basin, we realize very quickly the cumulative impact of all these water diversions, water impoundments and reservoir systems can be major on an entire biosystem. There have not been these kinds of cumulative studies done. I certainly believe that by transferring and delegating this kind of administrative authority we avoid duplication. We also provide localized control where we can have better democratic input in terms of decisions that are going to be made on either water withdrawals or potential water contaminations. As I said in terms of potential diversions or obstructions of water systems, we should end up with a better system. But I really do urge upon the Government of the N.W.T., the provinces and Crown Canada to enter into a serious cumulative impact evaluation of alterations or modifications to existing water systems as quickly as possibly, not only of the N.W.T. but of all of this country. We can learn more from work such as that of Dr. Rudd who has been doing particular work on potential methane releases from the James Bay II, from la Grande Baleine.
As he has pointed out, his preliminary investigations indicate that the amount of methane releases over several decades from the Great Whale project would be comparable to that power being produced by thermal coal generation. That is the amount of methane that would be released if we converted it into carbon dioxide equivalents that would be released.
These extremely important matters related to water are often overlooked by people in bureaucracies who are issuing permits for people to withdraw water or to be involved in hydraulic mining such as placer mining and
are concerned about fish, bird breeding areas and all other such things. They tend to lose track of the larger scope, the cumulative impact of some of these major diversion and water modification projects.
It is critical that the kinds of agreements the N.W.T. may consider entering into with this newly delegated authority take account of these kinds of major issues. I pointed out the toxification and the contamination of waters flowing from British Columbia and from Alberta up through Wood Buffalo are of great concern in the Northwest Territories.
It has every right to be concerned because contamination particularly of the fisheries can have tragic consequences as we learn only too sadly of Grassy Narrows and at other locations. In the particular case of Grassy Narrows it was methyl mercury contamination. The concerns in the Northwest Territories in terms of the major pulp projects in Alberta are about the increased loadings of organo-chlorines and dioxins into the water systems.
What happens is that the flesh of the fish gets very high concentrations of these materials and it works its way up. It called bioaccumulation and biomagnification, something that those who study water and fisheries come to understand quite quickly, that the longer fish live, the more they eat a particular diet. It is not as though they are just eating a marshmallow with poison in it and then excreting it and the poison is gone. What happens in their body systems and in the ecosystem itself is that as more toxic contaminants are put in, their body loadings continue to go up to the point where there are some fish in some systems in Canada where we would not be safe eating one fish a year. Regrettably that is the concern right now in the Northwest Territories.
Once this legislation is properly amended before the legislative committee, brought back for debate and given Royal Assent, I am quite confident that it will have been the kind of serious debate that could, should and must take place in the N.W.T. assembly as it looks at how it should, from a regulatory perspective and from a longterm development perspective, handle permits for withdrawing water and allowing waste to go in, and how it will deal with the transboundary issues of the movement
March 18, 1992

of contaminants either from another territory or from the provinces into its area.
A much more serious problem particularly affecting the Canadian Arctic now is the transportation of airborne toxics. They are carried in the higher areas of the atmosphere and come down either as toxified rain or snow. A very similar phenomenon to that which we know much more about is known as acid rain.
We are starting to find in the bodies of seal populations north of 60, in walrus and other marine mammals at the top of the food chain and in the polar bear population, the increasing likelihood that they will be unable in some major areas of the Arctic because of ecosystem contamination from the atmosphere to continue to reproduce. In the principal genital tracts of both male and female polar bears very high levels of contamination have already been found leading to the incapacity and inability to reproduce.
These are the major and difficult issues the Government of the N.W.T. will have to face. There is great fear in small communities such as some of those in the high Arctic where the breast milk of mothers was sampled in the last couple of years and very high levels of PCBs were found. No one could figure out how these high levels of PCBs could be getting into the mothers' systems. It was discovered that the PCBs were moving as aerosols, not through the ocean and not being carried up and dumped in the ocean by human accident in Canada. These were severe contaminants coming as airborne aerosols from Europe, the former Soviet Union, and continental North America. These airborne toxics and acid precipitation are starting to affect the entire ecosystems of the Northwest Territories.
It has an enormous task to assume because of this kind of global contamination problems which we find are increasingly carried through our water systems. The largest solar engine on earth is the movement of water. It is lifted by the heat of the sun into the sky. It falls either as rain or as snow or hail. It comes back on to the land and then the movement of water from there back to the oceans of the world occurs through gravity. These enormous system assessments will have to be undertaken by the Government of the Northwest Territories as part of its new duties.
It is one of the things I urge upon the new minister who is about to receive this delegated authority. That
Government Orders
new minister should look carefully at what kinds of economic instruments might best be sought to carry on this kind of nationally significant assessment of water contamination, water diversion, and the movement of these toxics through marine organisms.
I am glad to see my colleague who is an expert in microbiology and these kinds of biosystems here. He could well be of assistance to the Government of the Northwest Territories in preparing its first five-year fiscal approach to permitting regulation and assessment of these major topics.
I would hope by now that some government member would want to stand up for its legislation.


Mr. Edwards:: Right here.


James Ross Fulton: My cousin is here, Mr. Speaker. You probably did not know this.
I think I have mentioned this before, but brother Edwards is actually related to me. I believe we are second cousins. We are not actually first cousins. This means that we are-I have digressed for a moment-related on my mother's side and his mother's side as well. He is a government member and I wish him well because he is going to be on this side of the House fairly soon.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am not joining your party.


James Ross Fulton: No. I was not suggesting that for a moment. I do not think my Uncle Bruce would approve of either of us crossing the floor. I think he is quite happy with us where we both are.
We are getting into some of the critical sections of the legislation. Under the conditions for the issue of licences-very important stuff-it is listed here. This flows right along with what I was talking about earlier. There are domestic users. I touched on that piece of legislation earlier about domestic users, such as I and others. We are there. We take out a pail of water, pump it out and use it for whatever we like.
Then there are instream users. A different kind of licence is required. Then there are authorized users. There are authorized waste depositors, that would apply to villages large and small. It would apply to individuals who might have small plaster operations or small industries of some kind who might need to make use of the water system to dispose of some kinds of material.
Then there are owners of property and occupiers of property. This is a particular area to which there should be some amendments. I do not think that the definitions are clear enough. I look forward to the legislative committee taking a look at clauses 6 and 7. In an area like the Northwest Territories there have been some substantial comprehensive claim settlements, there has been the Inuvialuit settlement in the Beaufort region.
Interestingly enough, the Inuvialuit people moved over from Alaska about a century and a half ago. They are actually Canadians now. There are other kinds of licences. There are those holding an outfitting concession. There are registered trapline holders and holders of other rights of a similar nature.
I would encourage the legislative committee to consult a little more with the representatives of the Northwest Territories and perhaps be a little bit clearer. The following section is not quite as clearly drafted-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: As it should be.


James Ross Fulton: -as it should be, as my friend from Winnipeg Transcona properly points out. It says:
-who were such licensees, users, depositors, owners, occupiers or holders, whether in or outside the water management area to which the application relates, at the time when the applicant filed an application with the Board in accordance with the regulations made under paragraphs 33(l)(d) and (e), and who would be adversely affected by the use of waters or deposit of waste proposed by the applicant.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: There you go.


James Ross Fulton: That is quite a mouthful. It should be more clearly drafted here.
I see my friend from Newfoundland is nodding in agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being seven o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was just wondering whether my colleague had managed to complete the entire 40 minutes that was allocated because I think that many in the House would be anxious, if he were not finished, to hear him finish his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If he wants to resume speaking on the bill, the hon. member for Skeena will have nine minutes.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a Canadian Council on Education, funded in part by government and the private sector, which would provide independent research and policy advice on education for the benefit of governments in the development and implementation of national goals for education.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if you have been perusing the newspapers across the country, as I am sure you have, and observing what has been discussed in the media you will understand that education at all levels-training, even day care as an educational function-is being increasingly widely discussed in Canada. This is because people are beginning to understand that the development of skills-education, literacy, the number of scientists, engineers and mathematicians that we produce, and the number of technologists we produce-is fundamental to our economic future. It is fundamental to prosperity.
For all that one might say about the government's prosperity and initiative one of the documents that accompanies that process that has been initiated is entitled Living and Learning. Both documents place a great deal of emphasis on education, on learning. There is a very sensible reason for that. Quite simply, it that when one examines the Canadian economy our capacity to create value added is fundamental to prosperity. The creation of wealth is directly related to the knowledge that we can invest in our products and in our services.
If one were to examine the fundamentals underlying any future prospect of Canadian prosperity, for all the analysis we have heard, one would see that our future prosperity depends upon creating opportunities for Canadians. Rather than talking about the competitiveness agenda we should be talking about the opportunity agenda. Yet, one of the things that can be observed

March 18, 1992
Private Members' Business


March 18, 1992

about Canada, it was cited some time ago by the OECD and has been repeatedly cited by a number of observers, is the complete absence of any national framework for policy definition that would relate education and training to our economic development.
This turns out to be one of the key deficiencies that we face. In spite of the government's citation of training and education in connection with its prosperity agenda there have been few initiatives that would correct that situation. Even in the United States, which shares the same kind of jurisdictional divisions we have with respect to education, there is a department of education: the department of health, education and welfare. There was the President's commission on education. There is the President's panel on educational goals, which continues to operate. There is the Carnegie Foundation and the Hudson Institute. As well, a number of other initiatives have looked at the question of educational goals, educational policies, curriculum, teaching techniques and all of those things as fundamental to the educational process there as they are here.
When looking at the situation in Canada where we have a number of jurisdictions acting, it seemed to me that it was necessary to find some way of reconciling those jurisdictional differences with the absolute need in this country to have some national focus on education, to address certain problems that we have.
Among the problems we have is in the recent international testing results it was revealed that in spite of the fact that Canada spends more on education than almost any other industrial nation, our students ended up in about the middle of the industrial nations with respect to both science and math which are obviously two critical areas of educational or intellectual performance.
Serious questions are raised with respect to what we are getting out of the educational system and how we are going to tune in our educational system to our economic needs.
In fact, a number of organizations have suggested that there should be some kind of national council on education. At first the focus was on post-secondary education.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Federation of Students for example had sug-
Private Members' Business
gested that there be an advisory board on post-secondary education on the premise that there was a federal involvement in post-secondary education as there is, until now, no federal role in primary and secondary education, although recently there has been some discussion of federal initiatives in the area of day care.
With respect to day care we only have to say that it is increasingly to be regarded as a significant part of the educational process for young people who are more and more brought up in families in which both parents work and in which they are deprived significantly of the development of learning skills necessary for their future ability to thrive in whatever educational stream in which they may find themselves.
More recently it has become obvious that even as was suggested with respect to my comments on day care that there is a continuum in education that relates to all levels and all kinds of education. There is no real clear distinction to be made among training and education and post-secondary education, all of which are options that young people may pursue.
As I have said, of late there has been concern from a number of agencies that there be some kind of national focus, some national capacity to look at educational policy, to look at teaching methods, to look at some of the problems that we have in our educational system.
Among others, the Canadian Federation of Teachers has suggested that there be a Canadian office on education with an advisory board associated with it to carry out studies of benefit to the various jurisdictions involved in education.
The National Advisory Board on Science and Technology had made suggestions that there be a national task force for example that would involve the various governments and the various elements which have an interest in education, from industry, the academic field, labour, and so on.
There was a recent joint conference between members of Parliament and the scientific community that suggested very strongly that there needs to be some kind of national advisory council on education, that would fulfil the role that we define here for the body that I am proposing. The Science Council suggested a national council on science education.

March 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
However, on close scrutiny one has to conclude that there is no real distinction to be made between science education and any other kind of education in terms of what kinds of problems, policies, teaching techniques, curriculum and so on that need to be examined.
The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in its report Canada Must Compete proposed that there be a national council on education.
The government responded by pointing out that there was a great deal of work presently being done by the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada and posed the question whether a new national body such as a council is required in these circumstances. It would require careful consideration by all stakeholders. The merits of the proposition that I advance here have to some degree been recognized by the government and taken under advisement.
The difficulty with the Council of Ministers of Education is that this is an ad hoc arrangement among politicians that can get intertwined with all kinds of political and jurisdictional considerations. It is not the kind of body that is necessary in this country if we are to look at education within the context that virtually every other country has managed to do, especially those countries that do not have the jurisdiction divisions that Canada and the United States have.
We have to look for an approach to the question of a national council on education which will avoid the implication that the federal government is stepping on provincial jurisdictions. Rather, a body is needed that will provide the studies, recommendations and so on after carrying out or commissioning studies which will help the responsible bodies, whether these be provincial governments or even school-boards, in carrying out their responsibilities.
There is no paucity of issues to be looked at within the Canadian educational context. For example, the government has looked at a number of problems such as those I cited earlier which have been so widely reported, for example the deficiency of industrial trainees in this country, the high level of illiteracy and the high dropout rates in our schools.
The government suggested among other things that it would double the number of scientists, engineers and mathematicians that were produced in this country. It would eliminate illiteracy, quadruple the number of trainees and would increase the number of graduates coming from schools.
Those in fact are goals that are stated as a part of the prosperity initiative of this government and things that are being studied in these rather useless fora that constitute the prosperity initiative.
I have to say that all of us are extremely disappointed not to find any evidence of any of these initiatives or any other initiatives having to do with training and education such as those that it was suggested were government goals for action in the area of learning and education.
Should the government decide to do any of these things one of the questions that would have to be asked is: How is it going to do it? In which policy framework could this be done? How will we go about evaluating to what degree it has been accomplished after a period of time?
There is a good deal more that such a body could undertake including looking at the question of educational techniques. It is true that we have a very high dropout rate in this country. We should be asking why that is so. We should be asking questions about why so few of our students manage to enter into mathematics, engineering and science.
We should be asking whether the old teaching techniques still make sense. In spite of the fact that there has been a great deal of experimentation, particularly with students who are disadvantaged, with new information and teaching technologies, we are still burdened with the old-fashioned techniques that have been used since time immemorial.
It strikes me that one of the things that might be looked at is whether we are using our resources efficiently for students. We have had a change in the ethnic make up of our country. That is an issue that could be looked at.
There is the question of curriculum content, about which there has been little done in this country, while numerous studies have been done in this regard in the United States.
March 18, 1992

There are a great many areas of education that require some national focus for which the national education council that I propose would be a significant step forward in accomplishing.
However, I cannot evince a great deal of confidence in the capacity of the government to understand how useful it would be to it to have an independent source of policy studies, curriculum studies, methodology studies, in the sphere of education when just recently two significant bodies that have called attention to the issue of education, the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada, were eliminated by this government presumably because those two agencies were capable of and did criticize government policy.
And so I stand here before you proposing yet another independent arm's length organization that would have an analogous role with respect to education that the Science Council and the Economic Council had concerning science and economics respectively.
But the nature of the council would be such that it would be funded by the provincial governments, the federal government, private sources, industry and labour. It would have as its role the initiation of studies such as those I described earlier without any regulatory or other powers except to provide information, to provide studies, to provide policy proposals, to carry out research within its own walls or to commission research in the universities and other institutions that are capable of pursuing it.
To summarize, Canada stands alone among the industrialized nations of the world in having some capacity to develop education goals and means of achieving those goals which are coherent with the educational goals of the country. Canada desperately needs it. We have delayed it too long. Our prosperity depends upon it.
It is clear that if we are to become competitive, it is through the capacity to invest our skills, our knowledge, our capacity to create in our products and services so that we can produce those things necessary to sell.
That means that the economic agenda should be an agenda of opportunity. We should exhibit a commitment to that agenda of opportunity by having a means by which education throughout this country can be improved.
Private Members' Business
I submit that a national education council is an appropriate means. I hope that this House will support that proposition.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank my colleague from Laval-Est, the parliamentary secretary, for kindly letting me speak first on this motion.
I heard my colleague from Windsor-St. Clair talk about education. I am a father and it made me think of my three daughters, Marie-Eve, who is ten, Pascale, seven, and Gabrielle, six. I wonder if my children, when they are older, will ask themselves whether today's adults really fulfilled their responsibilities for education. They will probably wonder if it was another federal-provincial quarrel on whether to have national education standards or not. Will we have another fight about that, especially between Quebec and the federal government?
And I told myself that there are few children in Canada and in Quebec who think in terms of constitutional battles; rather, they want us to preserve then-future. I believe that the role of this Parliament is to preserve that future by establishing national standards for education. The role of this government and of this House is to work towards that goal.
Allow me first to discuss the motion of the member for Windsor-St. Clair. I want to tell him as well as the House that the quality of education in our country is, and has always been, one of the main concerns of the government. Nobody in this country can claim that having a school drop-out rate of 30 per cent is an acceptable figure. Nobody can claim that our literacy rate as well as the rate for basic calculus knowledge are sufficiently high. And, Mr. Speaker, nobody can claim that in the field of education you can simply maintain the status quo to face an increasingly stiffer international competition, and to rely more on industries and occupations that are based on knowledge.
More and more Canadians think that we must take a serious look at our attitude as regards education. We are all aware that we must review our objectives, our training programs and our priorities in the field of education. However, it is also clear that the challenges that Cana-

March 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
dians are facing in education can only be taken up through defined, coordinated and joint initiatives.
It is only too obvious that we must act through partnership and consensus, given the primacy of education among provincial responsibilities. We have already told the member for Windsor-St. Clair that we understand his concerns regarding the future of education in Canada and that we support his desire to promote a reform of education at the national level.
I want to tell all the members of this House as well as the Canadian population that this problem is at the top of the national issues on our agenda. We have set up partnerships with businesses and unions, with the field of education and with social services, in order to make all Canadians aware of the great challenge of our times: the development of our human resources to foster a modem economy.
The present government recognizes that Canadians would like to see, by the year 2000, in eight short years from now, with the approval and the cooperation of the provinces, objectives for all of Canada. I can already hear the Bloc Quebecois members say that education is a provincial matter. We fully agree with that. However, I must tell you that in Quebec 30 per cent of students drop out of school. The rate is the same in Ontario. In western Canada, it is between 30 and 40 per cent. In Newfoundland it is a little bit higher but, over all, it stands at 30 per cent.
This means that whether the education is in French or in English, whether you live in the distinct society or elsewhere in Canada, there is a national problem that remains the same. Thirty per cent of students drop out of school. We must stop closing our eyes and pretending, like the members of the Bloc Quebecois do when they say that education is a local problem, a provincial issue. This is a provincial problem, yes, but it is also a competition problem and a national problem because we find the same problem in every Canadian province.
I would like also to tell Canadians that the efforts currently undertaken by the provinces to create a uniform system of educational educators is supported by the federal government. Even the Quebec government agrees with this objective.
At their last meeting in August 1991, the premiers asked the Council of Ministers of Education to pursue their efforts in that direction. This government commends and strongly support this initiative. It is also of the opinion that this body is the best qualified for this kind of national educational objectives. We fully understand that if we fall seriously behind on training in comparison with other countries-and those are our real competitors; they are not the anglophones and the francophones in Canada, but Canada, both the Canadians and the Quebecers, against the other industrialized nations-our manpower and our industry will be badly equipped to fight against our competitors in a world economy based on information.
Those are the reasons, that prompted the federal government to achieve this national consensus among the provinces whose collaboration we will be asking and whom we will be consulting before taking decisions.
On October 29, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, sent out a discussion paper on learning entitled "Learning Well-Living Well". This paper is part and parcel of our national strategy which is to move toward life-long learning and toward developing national goals. The first one-there is no harm in that, but it is important that it be attained in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada-is a 50 per cent reduction in the illiteracy rate and ensuring that 90 per cent of Canadians get a high school diploma or the equivalent. What difference does it make, Mr. Speaker, if you require this from a Quebecer or an Ontarian? We can have that kind of national standards without encroaching upon provincial jurisdiction regarding education.
We also want to double, in Quebec as well as elsewhere-and I think it is a worthwhile goal that we could pursue-the number of post-secondary graduates in science. We want to increase fourfold the training provided by employers to their employees. Training could be given in French in Quebec and in English in the rest of the country, but it will all be co-ordinated nationally so that we can compete with the Americans, the Germans, the Japanese-


Mr. Della Noce:: The Italians.
March 18, 1992


Denis Pronovost: -all our competitors on the international scene, including the Italians.
As part of our latest prosperity initiative, we are consulting on the subject of education and training throughout the country, including in Quebec. All the stakeholders in the learning system are invited to discuss the national goals in this regard. This action plan will call upon all levels of government, the private sector, the workers, the teachers as well as all Canadians.
We are firmly committed to building a world-class labour force and we are on the right track, but this is no small task. A recent survey by the Hudson institute shows that 66 per cent of businesses expect problems in recruiting personnel with technical skills by 1996. Employment and Immigration Canada reported that 300,000 jobs were not filled in 1991 due to a shortage of skilled workers. This problem is as prevalent in Quebec as in the rest of Canada. It is nation-wide.
I will end, although I would have much more to say, by saying that I can assure all Quebecers and all Canadians that this government is looking into these problems very seriously. As a matter of fact, we are in the process of developing, in conjunction with the provinces, the communities and the major stakeholders, an action plan to enable every Canadian to meet the learning standards required to maintain and increase our standard of living in the years to come. Our economic survival as a nation depends on this initiative.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank my two colleagues for their comments on this bill. I support most of these arguments. What I will try to do now is add a few details and explain my point of view.

We are here to discuss the possibility of establishing a Canadian council on education that would be funded by governments and the private sector, that would provide independent research and policy advice on education for governments in the development and implementation of national goals and education.

This will not be easy if we really want to meet this objective. I happen to be in favour of respecting provin-
Private Members' Business
cial jurisdiction over education. I have no problem with this, because it has always been my policy, even when I was deputy minister, and I maintain that view. But there is no law against co-operation, and I would even say it is absolutely essential. Take Europe, for instance. In Europe we have a large number of countries with different languages which realized they had to co-operate, they had to work together. Why? To strengthen their assets, to give their people a better education, to ensure that their training and upgrading programs and research and development projects are among the best in the world.
You may have guessed I support this particular trend. [English]
I support it. It is in line with two of the policy papers I have developed with the help of some colleagues. It is also in agreement with some of the comments and some of the initiatives that my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, has undertaken.
Why do I support it? I have already mentioned that I think it is essential to co-operate and co-operation does not mean threatening anyone's autonomy. Quite to the contrary, I think it respects it.
There is a relationship between education and prosperity. If you look at the high standards of living in the world, you will find some important investments in education broadly defined: training, retraining, research and development, additional impetus, a focus on the sciences and technologies. So there is that relationship and we need to be aware of it. We may not like it, but it is real.
If we want to be leaders as opposed to followers, we really have no choice. We are living in a changing world. I am not always particularly enthralled with all of the changes, but they are there and I think it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. We talk about-

-globalization, but what does it mean? We talk about it a lot, but what does it mean to us? We have to study these issues. We have to understand what is involved. We all know that despite the tremendous progress made in certain countries, there is far too much poverty in the world, especially among young people.

March 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
We also know the environment is in serious trouble. We need more education and co-operation in this area as well. We know that when we look at the international scene people are still far too inclined to try and resolve their conflicts. How? By going to war, by using very powerful weapons that could destroy the planet, let alone the countries involved. We really have no choice. We have to decide one way or the other. We can say we do not need our neighbours, but in the end, we realize it is probably easier to co-operate with them. To co-operate does not mean I lose my autonomy, my sovereignty or my independence. In fact respect for autonomy and co-operation go hand in hand.

The project, as proposed, has raised a number of questions and a number of important questions which I would like to deal with. Before I do that, I want to stress that we often talk about education and economic development. I have no difficulties with that. I think that is very, very important. We talk about it in terms of increased competitiveness and more productivity, and that is important too. I applaud that, but let us also talk about it as the development of the human being, the realization of the potential that each and everyone has within us. It is more than making more for more money, although that is interesting. It is also about trying to develop that human being to his or her fullest potential. That is terribly important because those people who I suspect are the happiest in the world are those who have been fortunate enough to realize a great deal of that potential. They have in fact been able to utilize that to the welfare of their immediate community and sometimes the larger community.
Let us talk competitiveness, globalization, increased competitiveness and all of those other terms, I have no difficulty with that, but let us not forget the human dimension of education which makes me more of what I am as a result of education.
The question that this particular project raises is what is the role of the Canadian Council of Education Ministers. That is not quite the accurate term. I think the term is CMEC. If I were to think just for a few moments I would probably get it correct, but it is really an
organization that permits all of the ministers of education to get together to talk about education and some co-ordination.
What would happen to this particular organization, the Council for the Ministers of Education Canada? What about research. This project has a lot of emphasis on research and I think that is great, but what about the research on education that is already going on in universities? How would that fit in. How would that dovetail with this particular kind of initiative?
When we talk about the private sector I think we have to define it a bit. It is composed of what exactly? Are we talking about the total private sector, larger elements of that private sector or are we talking about small business? We need some definition there.
We need, as well, to recognize that the moment we talk about private sector it gives a dollar connotation. It gives a bottom line message. That may sour it a bit. As I indicated just a few moments ago, it is all very well to talk about more education for more wealth. It is also very important to talk about more education to deal with some of our social problems and Vepanouissement de la personne.
If we look at our problems in Canada today, we have serious economic problems. There is no doubt about that. We are talking about large unemployment, social assistance, people who are being fed at food banks. We are talking of 1.5 million to 2 million people, poverty of roughly 5 million people. If we look at it, it is an economic problem but there are also serious social problems. We must never forget that.

When we talk about violence against children, women and the elderly, when we talk about poverty and people who do not have enough to eat or who are homeless, these are economic problems. Yes, they are, but there is a human dimension, a social dimension which is extremely important.

I would hope that if we were able to go forward with such a project that we would not just have projects that are focused upon the economics but also focused upon the human dimension and the social problems.
March 18, 1992

Let me just come to a conclusion very shortly because I think that my time is almost up. I have to raise the question: Where do we go from here? What happens now?
If we were to do a poll and ask Canadians: "Do we want this kind of initiative?", I suspect that most would say yes. There are a number of well placed powerful individuals who say: "Yes, but only so far". We have got to break through that kind of elitism. We have got to take that extra step forward.
I think the people of Canada, all regions, all provinces want it. I think the government needs to take a serious look at this proposal. It needs to refine it, if it wishes to do so. It needs to discuss it with the various stakeholders, that is the provinces, the territories, the private sector and the people of Canada. Then the government needs to go forward with something extremely concrete.
Again, I must say that I am delighted that this project has been brought forward. I have said it and I am going to say it again. Education in the broadest sense of the terms is really a cornerstone of the modern, progressive, dynamic society. If we can learn to work together and synergize that which we do, then we will all profit from it, from an economic as well as a social, human dimension perspective.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I want to say that I hope the government will give this motion serious consideration and perhaps have it brought before the House again.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the proposal made by the member for Windsor-St. Clair with respect to the establishment of a Canadian Council on Education.
We all know how important education is for the future of our country, for its development and above all for its prosperity. Our standard of living, current and future, depends on our capacity to develop educational resources which should be efficient, attractive and accessible as well. Providing services is not enough for in order to do so, we must also have a thorough knowledge of all facets of this complex issue which is education. In this ever-growing and more complex world the needs in this area are increasingly varied.
Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to that reality. That would practically amount to suicide for our society.
More than one hundred and twenty-five years ago, Charles Darwin, the naturalist, stated a fact that is still very real when he said that one has to adapt to be able to survive.
To be able to survive as a prosperous nation and as a nation whose standard of living is directly related to its competitiveness, Canada must adapt to new realities in the field of education. And those realities are as numerous as varied.
One of them, which is not the least, is that trades are increasingly specialized. In less than a century, our society went from a economy largely based on the primary sector to an economy especially based on industry, that is the processing of raw materials into finished products.
As we said in those times, you don't need a degree to become a farmer. Later on, since industrialization created needs, it became significantly more compelling to gain expertise in the various sectors associated with the production of goods. The incredible technologies that have developed over the last few decades have created a very different world. Today, it is obvious for everybody that in the 21st century we will have a service-based economy. There is a good reason why this is obvious for everybody-we already live in this futuristic world.
Mr. Speaker, this is a world of computers, aerospace and biotechnology. In short, it is a high technology world. That is precisely where education matters. Canada must have the capacity to train people for these jobs, to further knowledge in this area, and to understand clearly the social, economic, and cultural changes brought by high technology.
If we are to fulfill this ambition, our education systems must absolutely develop, they must progress more according to the new requirements that we now face. In that context, research on education would have all its meaning.
In that spirit, the federal government has tabled a paper entitled "Learning Well-Living Well", to initiate, on the national level, a discussion on Canadian objectives and priorities in learning and training, which will lead to a consensus. It is the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is responsible for holding this

March 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
discussion with national organizations, communities and different sectors concerned with education and training. Learn Well- Live Well recognizes among other things that, in order to remain internationally competitive, Canada must enhance knowledge and have an environment where millions of Canadians will commit themselves to making education and training a lifetime endeavour.
Earlier, my colleague from Saint-Maurice corrected the record, and I would also like to do it so that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, on the other side, will be happy. It is true that education is a provincial matter, a good responsibility, which I think extends beyond the Quebec border or any provincial border, because everything that is related to the development of such a great country as Canada is also related to the federal government. I think that to better coordinate education, while giving rights to the provinces, and we are living a very typical moment in history, Canadian unity is important. But it is not why I say that; it is because I really believe that Canada must have a special interest in the education of all its citizens.
A while ago, my colleague was talking about certain countries, and about how Canada compares with Germany and France. I even noted that Italy had the same problems. They make good progress, so why satisfy ourselves. For myself, as an immigrant, as an Italian Canadian, education is much more important. One language is not enough for us, neither are the two official languages. We would like to have three or four languages. For us, three is a minimum. Why? Because for our people, education means respect. For instance, in Italy, when a teacher or even certain politicians walk down the street, people stop to greet them. That shows how important education is. Professors have the title of doctor, whatever their subject. It is like in French, when they say "maitre" to a lawyer. Why? Because education is very important for our people and we do not see that only in one area of the country, but everywhere. It is also because the development of education is of vital importance for the future of our businesses. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, who is also Minister of International Trade, recognized this explicitly in Prosperity through Competitiveness which was made public, I think, at the same time as Learning Well-Living Well.
This opinion is in fact shared by most countries around the world. Everyone is now aware of the absolute
necessity for the education system to adapt to the skilled labour requirements of the business sector in order to satisfy its needs efficiently.
The Governor General of Canada provided us with several disquieting facts in his throne speech last May. Three out of ten students drop out of high school before graduating; four out of ten adults cannot read or count well enough to perform everyday tasks; Canadian industry spends than half as much on training as American industry, a fifth as much as the Japanese and an eight as much as the Germans.
He confirmed that the time has come, without infringing on provincial jurisdiction in this field, as I explained earlier, to reach a national consensus on performance, goals partnerships and priorities for learning. We are well aware of the challenges this will create.
This government has for many years recognized that drop-outs, the high cost of employee training in industry and illiteracy pose very serious problems.
To conclude, one can only applaud the member for Windsor-Lake St.-Clair's initiative in creating a Canadian Education Council. Such an agency, jointly funded by government and the private sector, which would provide the government with independent advice on research and action programs, is of obvious interest.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time allotted to me. The federal government intends to make every effort to support this essential cause.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion and, above all, to say how surprised I am to see Conservative members from Quebec speak with such eagerness in favour of a motion that gives the federal government more power in the area of education.
If there is an area that, historically, Quebec politicians wanted unanimously to keep under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, it is education. We can go back to Duplessis, who did not want the federal government to give money to universities because it was outside its jurisdiction.
March 18, 1992

Let us not forget the great struggles lead by Lesage in the 1960's, by Bourassa, by Bertrand, by Levesque, and again recently by Bourassa who condemned, by means of a unanimous resolution of the National Assembly, that is a resolution supported by both the Parti quebecois and the Liberal Party, the federal government's intention to establish national standards for labour training as expressed in last May's Speech from the Throne.
Today, we see Conservative members from Quebec say yes to a motion presented by a member of a party in favor of centralization, say yes to a motion that would allow the federal government to take charge of an area that, historically, has been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec government. It is unbelievable. They seem unaware of what they are doing recently, those Tory MPs from Quebec. We saw them say yes to a motion, to a Speech from the Throne that talked about interfering in the area of labour training. We saw them applaud the Minister of Communications who wanted to interfere in the area of telecommunications, an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Again Quebec expressed its disagreement.
We saw the same thing in the debate we had today on the environmental bill, an area that Quebec wants to have under its jurisdiction.
Today the Quebec legislature unanimously condemned the federal government for trying to intervene with this environmental legislation, Bill C-13. What will it be tomorrow? Will we see Conservative members from Quebec voting against Quebec, as the Liberals did in 1982 when the Constitution was brought home? You will recall Quebecers call these 73 Liberal members noodles them. How would they call the Conservative members now. There is no doubt that they will be treated just like the Liberal members were treated then. When I watch them reach with their big hands into such sacred areas of jurisdiction as education, I think: Never have the Conservative members so openly said such stupid things.
I am deeply shocked, to see the support those two Quebec members just lent to such interfering in education. I recall all the motions which were unanimously passed by the Quebec legislature, whatever party was in office, and which said: No interfering in education, never
Private Members' Business
in such a sacred area of jurisdiction. Manpower training is also a sacred area of jurisdiction, witness the fact that agreements have been reached in all the areas of manpower training so that Quebec can keep its powers.
Again I am flabbergasted to see these two members accept such a thing. Whether we are talking about manpower training or training in the primary and secondary industries, education is under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government and the federal government should never interfere in that field, as we have done in the past and as we are trying to do right now, as I mentioned earlier, in the areas of education, communication, and whatnot. Let us not forget that during previous and current constitutional discussions and during all the debates which took place, there has never been any questioning about the fact that education is a provincial responsibility.
But today, on a motion presented by a member of a party in favour of centralization, two Conservative members from Quebec rise to say that, from now on, education should be a federal responsibility. The federal government should take up sacred jurisdictions. The federal government should administer everything, and the provinces should become large city councils. They should not have any responsibility in areas such as communications and education, in all areas where Quebec performed so well.
I remind the hon. member for Laval-Est that when you talk about vocational training you have to remember that the needs are different. The needs in Quebec are not the same as the needs in the east where the economy is based on fishing, or in the west where it is based on agriculture, or in Ontario where it is industry, especially automotive industry. We have diversified. I remind the two conservative members who just spoke that during an employment forum held in Montreal, with the Conseil du Patronat, all the Quebec unions, opposition members, provincial liberal members, there was unanimity to demand exclusive jurisdiction in that field in the constitutional talks. Quebec should have sole jurisdiction over education, including vocational training. There was unanimity. When Mr. Bourassa was touring Quebec a year ago he was saying: "There is one priority, one area where we will never give up, and that is getting back sole jurisdiction over vocational training".

March 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
This is what people from Quebec expect from their members, that they rise, like I did today, and that they uphold the superior interests of Quebec, that they prevent the federal government from interfering in areas as sacred as education, and not-


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously is interested in protecting the interests of his province, even though he is not really interested in having it as part of Canada.
In his speech, he has made reference to Ontario and how we have a very narrow automotive industry as our only industry and that Quebec is so much more diversified than the rest of Canada. Since he is demanding members stand and rise, I would like to rise and point out to him that Ontario has a very diverse economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I again give the floor to the hon. member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will add the time that the hon. member just took, since it was not a point of order but an opinion that he expressed. He talks about diversification. I admit that Ontario has diversified, and has diversified greatly throughout Canada's history. It does so by doing its own occupational training. It is an example for industry where a province has developed industries by using its own powers.
In Quebec today, occupational training is very diversified because no industry is larger than 10 per cent of Quebec's economy. This very diversity means that the needs are often very specific to a region and cannot tolerate interference from a central government in terms of national standards. I was about to say how much all Quebec governments recognized this. Every government of Quebec has recognized this point. The Premier of Quebec has been saying so for a year, his ministers too, his Cabinet, the opposition as well, the Conseil du patronat, all the unions say the same thing. Quebec's interests will be well defended in Ottawa if we take back all responsibility for occupational training. It is unacceptable for Conservative members from Quebec to prostitute themselves in the same way as Liberal members in 1982 to cut services that Quebec already controls.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to my colleague and hon. friend, I would like to say first of all that I do not feel included in that category of traitors of which he spoke earlier. I invite him to read again the two speeches and also to say the truth. On top of that, I would like to remind him, concerning the environment bill he defended, the one before this one, that it was his chief, the member for Lac-Saint-J ean-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Longueuil.


Nic Leblanc: Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On debate, the hon. member for Ontario.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but this is not a point of order. I will now recognize the hon. member for Ontario.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this very important occasion. What you have heard from the members today on this motion of the member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member for Richelieu rises a point of order, but if he only wants to know whom I will recognize next, I will interrupt him immediately.


Louis Plamondon: I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, how you decide which members will be recognized. Do you recognize those who rise first or do you have a list?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair tries to see to it that all points of view are expressed in the House. According to tradition, after having recognized a member on one side of the House, the Speaker looks on the other side of the House. That is what I do by recognizing the hon. member for Ontario.
March 18, 1992


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that you are providing.
To make sure the member understands, I did make a point of advising you that I was most anxious to speak on this motion on education. Education is extremely important, not just to the province of Quebec or to the province of Ontario. It is obviously very important to everyone in this country and it has been very important to this government as we have indicated in our past actions. It continues to be a very prime concern on actions that we are involved in.
I hope that nobody, not the members opposite nor the members on our side, can be happy that we have a 30 per cent drop-out rate from our high schools. No one pretends that our literacy and numeracy rates are adequate because they are certainly not.
No one pretends that the educational status quo will do in the face of increasing competition globally and our
Private Members' Business
growing reliance on knowledge based industries and occupations. In fact there is an emerging consensus that we in this country must seriously reassess our current approach to education in Canada. We all appreciate that we must reconsider our education goals, our training programs and our teaching priorities.
However, it is also clear that the challenges that confront Canadians in education will only be resolved through a measured, co-ordinated and co-operative program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 8 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 19,1992