1992-03-16

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved: that Bill C-279, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (breast prostheses) be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and honoured to introduce for debate today private member's Bill C-279, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (breast prostheses).
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that people are protected from dangerous and potentially dangerous breast prostheses. Bill C-279 would have a number of direct affects on the regulation of the breast prostheses industry.
First, it would create within the current Food and Drugs Act a specific category for breast prostheses apart from other medical devices. At the moment, the only devices that receive specific mention in the regulations are contact lenses and menstrual tampons.
These two items should, of course, be carefully regulated. But it seems very strange to me that they should be uniquely singled out while breast prostheses should be lost in the catch-all grouping of "any device designed to be implanted into the tissue or body cavity of a person for 30 days or more".
If breast implants are given individual mention, hopefully Health and Welfare Canada might re-examine its policy about other implants as well, ensuring the safety of still more Canadians, and specifically Canadian women.
Second, Bill C-279 would affect all breast implants regardless of when they became available on the market. When the current regulations to the Food and Drugs Act were introduced in 1982, products that were already on the market had no obligation to meet the new safety requirements.
The government has yet to produce the necessary evidence that would demonstrate that the Meme implant was one of these. In fact, to this day, the only proof supplied by the government to back up its claim that the Meme implant was on sale in Canada before October 8, 1982 is a series of advertisements in various journals dating back to that period.
Based on this meagre evidence, there was no obligation to question the safety of the Meme and, therefore, to conduct a full safety review. I might add that because of this, the Meme implant was really on the market in Canada illegally.
The Meme implant is widely used throughout Canada and is by far the most popular implant in the province of Quebec. Plastic surgeons like the Meme because it is much easier to implant than some of the others that are on the market.
Thousands of women across Canada have received these implants and many are veiy happy with the results that this medical device has achieved. Eighty per cent of those are within the province of Quebec. However, there are also many women who have suffered tremendously because of this product.
I wonder, would these women be in the situation that they are in today had the Meme manufacturers been obligated to prove the safety of this implant. Or would the manufacturers have been forced to modify the implant so that no woman would have to go through the hell that some of the implant recipients have endured.

March 16, 1992
Private Members' Business
The third effect of Bill C-279 would be to ban absolutely the specific category of breast implants that contain a degradable ingredient such as silicone that is likely to cause the presence in the body of a substance that the Food and Drugs Act prohibits.
It seems strange that the current regulations are not sufficient to protect women from substances that are prohibited by legislation, but it is clear from the evidence presented by groups such as I knowUe sais, that they are not.
Perhaps the most important effect that Bill C-279 will have is the indirect influence it will exert on the breast prosthesis manufacturers. When they realize that the Government of Canada is finally taking this issue seriously, they will be forced to make sure that any breast implant they make for distribution in Canada will have to be unequivocally safe.
I first introduced Bill C-279 in this House almost two years ago, in June 1990. At that time, the government already had overwhelming evidence there was a problem with the regulations as they stood. One of Health and Welfare's own scientists, Dr. Pierre Blais, had spoken out about the many dangers of the Meme implant as early as 1986. Yet two years later, this government still is waffling.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the Meme implant, it is a breast prosthesis composed of a silicon gel contained inside a polyurethane foam covering. This is the same foam that you will find inside furniture cushions, carburetors or air conditioners, except in this case it is inside women.
Rather than removing the Meme implant from the market, the Minister of National Health and Welfare chose to remove Dr. Blais from the department. Dr. Blais was forced to resign in 1989.
In May 1989, the government commissioned a review of the safety of the Meme implant. The doctor commissioned to carry out the work, Dr. Carolyn Kerrigan, was a plastic surgeon from Montreal who used the implants herself. She implanted them in her patients and benefited from the Meme's continued presence on the market. This was not a very unbiased study, was it? There is no conflict of interest here.
Her results were: "There is inadequate evidence in the experimental and clinical literature to implicate polyurethane covered implants as initiators of human cancer".
"Inadequate evidence" that they were dangerous? How about adequate evidence that they were safe? In any case, cancer is certainly not the only health risk to humans. We now know that these implants can cause a variety of diseases from arthritis to kidney failure to failure of the auto-immune system as well as a series of ailments including persistent headaches, muscular inflammation, circulation disorders, back pains and skin diseases.
Five full years after Dr. Blais' first warnings, in April 1991, the Meme was removed from the market. Last month, Dow Coming, a major American manufacturer of silicone gel implants, released evidence that it has known the dangers of silicone gel implants for over two decades. That is more than 20 years.
The mandate of Health and Welfare Canada is to protect Canadians from health hazards. It is not enough for the Minister of National Health and Welfare merely to accept the evidence it is given by the manufacturer. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the conflict of interest that is involved here.
On January 8 of this year, in response to the actions of the food and drag administration of the United States, the government asked manufacturers to stop distributing silicon gel implants in Canada. Over a month later, on February 17, an advisory committee was established to study silicone gel implants. It could be months before the study is complete.
I am glad that the government is finally acknowledging that a problem exists. Why is it taking so long? Obviously there is a problem with the legislation as well as with the process.
Even now, rather than proceeding cautiously, the government is forging ahead with plans to speed up the approval of new products. Drug reviews are being contracted out to private consultants. Many of these consultants are being paid to conduct research for the very same companies that are being investigated.
The government policy at the moment seems to be "better sorry than safe". It is not enough to have biased opinions from plastic surgeons saying there is insufficient evidence to show that a product is dangerous. Canadian
March 16, 1992

women deserve more that that. They deserve legislated protection from less scrupulous manufacturers that may want to market unsafe breast implants in the future.
Each year, over one million Canadian women discover they have breast cancer. Many of these women have resorted to reconstructive breast surgery to try to ease the trauma of the painful and humiliating disfigurement that results. For some the cure is worse than the disease. Marcella Tardif was one such survivor. She had surgery for cancer. The implants she received following her surgery caused her physical pain long after she should have fully recovered.
Ms. Tardif started a support group for women who had suffered from breast implants. She found that she was not alone. Hundreds of women had been severely harmed by these implants. They have formed a support group that is called I know//e sais. It has helped many women but the price has been very high.
Ms. Tardif has even received death threats for her attempts to get the government to do something. I myself have received a letter of threat. Obviously someone out there is very sensitive to the attention that some of us have tried to bring to this tragic issue.
It is also evident that Health and Welfare Canada is either incapable or unwilling to protect the women of Canada from unsafe medical devices. Therefore, these amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are very much required to put in place a legally binding process.
Every woman has a right to choose implantation, whether for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes. It is the government of Canada's unequivocal duty and responsibility to guarantee, to the best of its ability, that these women can fulfil that right safely. This bill takes a giant step in that direction and I can only hope that this government will have the common sense and the dignity to recognize these facts.
This is something I have been researching for two years. I do not take this issue lightly. I have spoken with experts in Canada. I have spoken with experts in the United States of America. The evidence is there. We have to make legislation or regulations. The Government of Canada has to protect these prostheses here in this country.
Private Members' Business
I urge this government to act upon this. This is not a votable bill, but I urge it to act upon this and to implement measures that will provide the safety for Canadian women.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare recognizes the importance of ensuring that dangerous or potentially dangerous breast prostheses are not sold in Canada. We also acknowledge that this is the intended purpose of Bill C-279 proposed by the hon. member.
However, Bill C-279 overlooks some important facts. The regulatory authority of the Food and Drugs Act and medical devices regulations is now comprehensive in ensuring that all medical devices meet the level of assurance that is being proposed.
But because many breast implants along with hundreds of other medical devices were on the market when the current regulations came into effect the manufacturers were not required to comply with some of the regulatory steps described below. But things have changed. The important elements of the hon. member's proposal are now already included in the current legislation.
Breast prostheses are regulated under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act. This legislation pertains to all medical devices including breast prostheses. To ensure that unsafe and ineffective medical devices are not sold in Canada the Food and Drugs Act prohibits any person from selling any medical device, including breast prostheses, that when used according to directions or under such conditions as are customary or usual, may cause injury to the health of the purchaser or user.
It prohibits any person from labelling, packaging, treating, processing, selling, or advertising any medical device in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive, or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its design, construction, performance, intended use, quantity, character, value, composition, merit or safety.
The Food and Drugs Act provides authority for designated inspectors of health and welfare to enter at any reasonable time any place where medical devices are manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged or stored.

Private Members' Business
Inspectors may examine anything used in conducting tests on a medical device. They also have the authority to sample, seize, detain or make copies of documents if they believe that the Food and Drugs Act or the regulations have been contravened.
The act also requires every medical device to be labelled and packaged in accordance with the medical devices regulations and to conform to prescribed standards. These broad provisions ensure that unsafe and ineffective medical devices are not sold in Canada.
Every medical device poses a degree of risk. However, those medical devices which pose an unacceptable health risk to Canadians are prohibited from being sold.
The definition of a medical device as stated in the Food and Drugs Act includes any article, instrument, apparatus, or contrivance, including any component, part, or accessory thereof manufactured, sold or represented for use in (a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof in man or animal, (b) restoring, correcting, or modifying a body function or the body structure of man or animal.
Breast prostheses are included in the definition of a device under the act. Therefore these products are subject to the many regulatory provisions of the act and the medical devices regulations.
The hon. member's bill proposes to include a new definition for breast prostheses which parallels, if not duplicates, the definition of a medical device already found in the act.
Both describe the product as an article, instrument, or apparatus or contrivance. Both include any component, part or accessory of a product. Both definitions relate to modifying, correcting, or restoring the body structure.
If breast prostheses are included in the definition of a medical device, then one must ask why it is necessary to have a separate definition for this specific device.
Obviously, the hon. member by introducing this bill wishes to introduce new legislative elements specific to breast prostheses. However, these important elements are already entrenched in the current legislation.
This proposal seeks to establish conditions which, if satisfied, would permit the sale of breast prostheses in Canada. The provisions require that tests must be conducted in respect of the device.
The medical devices regulations already require the testing of all medical devices before they are sold. Every manufacturer must conduct tests on the medical device and the test must indicate the benefit and the performance claimed for the device are justified.
Members will be aware that the products on the market were excluded from this requirement and that several breast prostheses were in effect grandfathered when the new legislation was passed. Any new breast implant being introduced would have to submit an indication that such tests had been done if they were currently being introduced.
This bill seeks to provide the Governor in Council with authority to make regulations respecting, among other things, the circumstances and conditions under which breast prostheses may be advertised.
I wish to point out once again that this authority is already provided for in the current legislation.
The Food and Drugs Act gives the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations respecting the offering, exposing and advertising for sale of any device to prevent the purchaser or the consumer of the device from being deceived or misled in respect of the design, construction, performance, intended use, quantity, character, value, composition, merit or safety of the device or prevent injury to the health of the purchaser or consumer. Over and above this, the Department of National Health and Welfare produced a handbook available to women considering breast implantation.
This bill makes further proposals which include first, requiring the department to issue the manufacturer of breast prostheses a notice of safety compliance which acknowledges that the prostheses is considered to be safe and effective for its intended use.
Second, the bill proposes banning the sale, manufacture or importation of breast prostheses which contain dangerous properties thereby ensuring that Canadians have access to safe breast implants.
March 16, 1992

These objectives are important to the government. The regulatory authority of the Food and Drugs Act and medical devices regulations is comprehensive in ensuring that these vital objectives are fulfilled.
Under the authority of the medical devices regulations a notice of compliance is required from the Department of National Health and Welfare prior to the sale of any new breast prostheses in Canada.
The issuance of a notice of compliance signifies that the department has received sufficient clinical and physical testing data to be satisfied that the medical device being reviewed does not pose an unacceptable risk to health.
The requirements contained in the regulations under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act ensure that the meaningful objectives of the hon. member's bill are achieved.
It is important to point out once again that no medical device is free of risk. The Department of National Health and Welfare reviews and assesses the data respecting the safety and effectiveness of implantable medical devices such as breast prostheses prior to their sale to ensure that unsafe and ineffective devices are not sold in Canada.
The second objective of the proposed bill concerns the banning of breast prostheses which contain dangerous properties including specified prohibited substances or are prescribed under regulations at a later date. This is not a new provision when considering the authority of the current Food and Drugs Act.
Section 19 of the Food and Drugs Act clearly prohibits the sale of any medical device that when used according to directions or under such conditions as are customary or usual may cause injury to the health of the purchaser or user.
The hon. member's proposal does not allow for risks and benefits to be considered and assessed. Instead the proposal requires that implants be banned entirely.
The Department of National Health and Welfare undertakes a scientific risk assessment approach when considering the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This approach enables the department to assess fully the health risk by a substance present in a medical device. If a medical device poses an unacceptable health
Private Members' Business
risk which may cause injury to the health of the purchaser or user, it is prohibited.
In closing, I hope that I have illustrated that the regulatory provisions currently provided in the Food and Drugs Act and medical devices regulations are comprehensive in addressing the safety and effectiveness of all medical devices including breast prostheses.
The concepts proposed by the hon. member through Bill C-279 are considered to be vitally important, but breast prostheses-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to rising and having a very factful and important debate on the subject of breast implants. I was looking forward to it a great deal. I expected that I could put forward some information that would be useful to the discussion and that would in fact help the government.
However, I have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg South, after two or three years of the opposition raising this question in the House of Commons, sanctimoniously say the legislation is adequate and sanctimoniously provide us with words like this is there to take care of any company that brings forward a product in a false, deceptive way, whose competition and merit and safety, et cetera are in question.
We have given two years of evidence in this House that this implant is not safe, that all implants are not safe. We have given indication after indication. We have met with the minister. We have provided him with documentation. We have had doctors in addition to Pierre Blais, who the government up and fired. We have provided documentation to the minister. In fact, what happens? Unsafe and ineffective medical devices, which this hon. member for Winnipeg South says will not be on the market and there are provisions to ensure they will not be on the market and are still on the market.
Do not be mistaken. We do not have a ban on implants in Canada. We have a voluntary moratorium on the use of implants. The day before the report was tabled with the food and drug administration calling for a ban on silicone implants except for reconstructive purposes, we had plastic surgeons in Quebec holding a press conference telling Canadian women breast implants were safe.

March 16, 1992
Private Members' Business
I have some real concerns about the effect of voluntary removal of breast implants from the marketplace when we have plastic surgeons insisting that they are safe. We know that the two companies, the company that produced the Meme implant, Surgitek, and the company that produced the majority of the silicone gel implants, Dow Coming, have withdrawn their products from the market. There are an awful lot of implants still lurking around in closets, in hospitals and doctors' offices that are available for use.
The sanctimonious, arrogant response from the member for Winnipeg South goes beyond the pale.
This piece of legislation proposed by the hon. member for Nepean is designed to clarify regulations to ensure that the problems experienced with this kind of implant do not happen again.
There is some speculation that some people from the company of Union Carbide for example were supplying silicone to Dow Coming in bulk. This is speculation. We do not have the entire proof, but we have some pretty exciting documentation. The company believes that the silicone gel used for the implants cannot be purified. Therefore, we have women with implants already in their bodies running the risk that they may fail and will have unpurified silicone gel running through their systems.
Strict labelling is useful but I have yet to talk to one woman who has had a breast implant who has been shown the label before she goes into surgery.
If I had any concerns about the legislation before us it is this. This legislation, according to the comments of the hon. member for Nepean in this morning's Ottawa Sun, calls for manufacturers to be the first to ensure that any breast implant is unequivocally safe. "This bill puts the onus on the manufacturer", it says.
It has been our experience in fact that manufacturers are the people who have been lying to us about the safety of these implants. They have not proven that they are safe. I would hope that this government would take its responsibility seriously and go beyond this bill. It should not rely on manufacturers but should listen to independent scientific study and studies in its departments to ensure that breast implants are safe.
Canada's slowness and Canada's ineptitude on this issue has created a situation where it is laughed at by the United States. The record of the United States is not much better.
We have been raising this issue in the House of Commons since before 1988 and we raised it regularly. I have asked to no avail in question after question in this House for the government to move on this matter.
Finally, after three attempts, our minister had a meeting last July with Marcella Tardif, Linda Wilson, and myself on the subject of breast implants. At that meeting, after he had told these women they were isolated cases, I know//e sais was formed.
In Quebec we had a meeting of 250 women. A couple of weeks ago and we had a meeting in Vancouver of 150 women. All those women were in pain, all were worried, and are desperate for sensitive medical help.
In addition we know that I know/Je sais has grown. In addition to Marcella Tardif in Quebec and Linda Wilson in B.C., Janet Fontaine in Ontario and Laurie Dobson in Alberta have formed an I know/Je sais.
We are facing a serious situation. The problem we are facing is that we are waiting for a report from Dr. Baines, the woman who said when watching the food and drug administration committee at work that the women who were complaining about this were the squeaky wheels trying to get the grease. She said that we were more concerned about lawsuits and winning lawsuits than we were about women's safety. This is the person we are relying on to come back to the House of Commons and to the minister to tell us whether or not breast implants should go on the Canadian market. I would say that Dr. Baines' position on this issue is somewhat suspect because she has made it very clear that she has no respect for us.
In fact those of us in this House from the opposition who raised this issue of great concern have been accused of being medical terrorists. I would say that those who are willing to continue to experiment on Canadian women should be considered medical fascists. We remember what happened to women in the 1940s used in testing and experimentation.
March 16, 1992

I know I have very little time and there is so much to say, but I just want to refer to a couple of concerns raised by women in their letters to me. One said: "I had a silicone breast implant inserted in 1974 in Vancouver. The plastic surgeon mentioned no risks and never did it occur to me that the implants would bleed silicone into my system. I have been sick chronically for the past 10 years at least, going from doctor to doctor, even a psychiatrist to no avail. Finally I have just been living in silent misery".
A woman, also from B.C., wrote: "I am writing concerning breast implants and their safety. I wish the Canadian government had responded earlier with legislation indicating that they really had the interests and safety of women in mind rather than waiting until pressure was applied by women who had seen what happened in the U.S. regarding this bill".
I do not want to take the time to read the other letters, but I have a thick file folder of letters from women regarding breast implants. I want to say that one of them told me she is contemplating suicide because she cannot get a disability pension. Nobody considers the condition a person ends up with from a failed implant or from side effects from the implant a disability or an illness. There are serious problems that have to be addressed by the government.
I have a chronology of events I would love to go through on this issue. I have it in both official languages, but I would hope, in concluding my remarks, that we could have all-party agreement for me to table the chronology of events on this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no agreement.
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest on debate.


An hon. member:: What about rotation?
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In Private Members' Business there is no rotation, but I will do whatever hon. members want. If they agree that is fine.
The hon. member for Hamilton East can have the floor and I believe that she is going to split her time with the hon. member for Halifax.
The hon. member for Hamilton East has five minutes.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence.
I guess there is not a woman in this country, that includes women on all sides of the House, who does not fear the threat of breast cancer. The statistics are there and my colleague, the member for Nepean, has raised them again, again and again as have other members of the House.
One million Canadian women can expect to contract breast cancer this year. The statistics on death are equally as staggering. I dare say there is not a woman in this House who does not have a relative or a close friend who has been the victim of this insidious disease.
One of the reasons we have to unanimously support this bill, notwithstanding the comments of the previous member, is that we have to send a message to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that women's bodies are not the subject of experimentation.
The onus and burden of proof should not be on the woman to show that she is being maimed and dying because of a breast implant. Rather, the onus and the burden of proof should be on the manufacturer.
My colleague, the member for Nepean, made a number of very telling points in her speech. The one point that she made in passing that bears repeating is that she and others have faced actual threat for raising this issue.
I would like to read a letter into the record that I think bears repeating. It is a letter written by-

-Real Laperriere Inc., already known for its public comments and I quote:

March 16, 1992
Private Members' Business
Madam:
It is with amazement that I read the stupid allegations you have made concerning breast implants.
I challenge you to repeat them outside the House of Commons, if you are brave enough to do so, which I doubt.
Before making such stupid statements, you should first check the Kerrigan Report, which was commissioned by Health and Welfare Canada.
It is a good thing -
and that is the most important part, Mr. Speaker.
-that ridicule has never killed anyone, you would be long gone.
This letter was sent to a member who is responsible in this House for women's health. And this letter refers to the report by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, this phoney report produced in spite of all the evidence heard even from within his own department.
I think it is obvious from this letter and from all the evidence heard and the proofs provided to this House that now is not the time to back down and shrink away from this problem. Now is the time to recognize that it is the Minister of National Health and Welfare's direct responsibility to protect women's health, especially considering that the manufacturers of this product are still distributing it on the market and that even a "voluntary recall" will not stop them.

These distributors, the people who are out making a buck on the bodies of women, are not going to be stopped by a voluntary recall. They need a very specific message. That message should come from the minister of health and should say to the likes of Real Laperriere, who frankly is a disgrace to the profession of medical distribution, that we do not take threats lightly in this House of Commons.

The person receiving those threats in Montreal does not take them lightly. It is a very serious matter. And it is incumbent upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make sure once and for all that he is going to put the health of women before the interest of manufacturers. What is more important, our health or a manufacturing process that results in such a disaster?
One million Canadian women will be faced with cancer this year. It could hit me or another female
member in this House, who knows? We at least want to be sure that our government is going to protect us. At present, the minister of health is not protecting us, quite the contrary. If it were testicular cancer or another form of cancer affecting the male members of this House that we were dealing with, I am convinced we would not have had to wait two or three years after Dr. Blais' resignation to at least do something about it.
Therefore, I urge all of you to support this bill as presented by my hon. colleague.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to stand in this House today and support the private member's bill of my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean, but I am very sad that it is necessary to do so.
Ever since I first became involved in this issue several years ago one sentence has been running through my head, and that sentence is: Show me the studies that show Canadian women that these implants are safe. It is a very simple phrase.
I have listened in committee. I have asked questions of experts on all sides of the issue, and the question I have posed over and over again is: Where are the studies that reassure Canadian women that these implants are safe? Is this a difficult concept? Is this something that is impossible to do?
Since this controversy arose we have discovered that Canadian women, and American women too, have been used in a political battle that is frightening in its ramifications. Last week some of us visited the United States and spoke with both legislators and staffers in Washington about this issue. We have heard that women who had breast implants, particularly those who had them in a post-mastectomy situation, have been particularly used by special interest groups, including their own doctors.
As my colleague from British Columbia said or my colleague from Nepean, or possibly both, "the silicone implant is particularly popular with doctors because it is easy to implant". Certainly we have no difficulty with that. But is "easy to implant" enough when we know that there are 6,000 women in this country alone who are having severe difficulties with this prosthesis? Is 6,000
March 16, 1992

women statistically insignificant to the members opposite?
I know that members opposite care what happens to the health of people in this country, but we have been subjected over the years with regard to breast implants to a question of smoke and mirrors. We have been told over and over again by people who have a vested interest in their success that they are successful and voices like the voices of I know//e sais are crying out in the wilderness and not being listened to. Again I ask: Where are the studies?
We supposedly have a department of health and welfare that is one of the finest in the world. It has protected Canadians on many occasions from drugs and other medical equipment that would be inappropriate. Where was it this time?
If there are studies, let the minister of health or let the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health, or let somebody on the government side come forward and table those studies so we can see them. The answer to the question is that there are no studies. There are no studies to prove that the implants are safe and there are no studies to prove that they are not harmful, and there is a dichotomy between those two.
We do not have studies. There were studies commissioned in the United States, of which we heard from various Congress people when we were in Washington last week, that fell apart within months of being commissioned, that lost half of their participants because of poor follow-up and because of no budget.
We have smoke and mirrors. We have people saying yes, they are safe and no empirical evidence to back this up.
There is not a great deal that we ask in this. We merely ask that the government show us that the Department of National Health and Welfare at the Health Protection Branch is indeed doing what it is supposed to do and that is protecting Canadian women. That is what the bill my colleague for Nepean is bringing forward and wants to do. It is a tragedy that it is not a votable bill.
What we want to know is where are the studies and show us now.
Private Members' Business


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to emphasize that the health and safety of Canadian women are paramount and the subject of breast prostheses is a very important and a very current one.
The importance of ensuring that breast implants sold in Canada do not pose an unacceptable risk to health has been a concern of the Department of National Health and Welfare for many many years and it will continue to be. However, the legislative regime of ensuring that unsafe and ineffective medical devices are not sold in Canada should not be specifically tailored to one class of a medical device as is the case with this proposed bill, Bill C-279.
Let me make it very clear that every medical device does have some sort of degree of risk associated with it. Canadians choose to use medical devices including heart valves, pacemakers, X-ray machines, breast implants because the benefits associated with the device outweigh the risk to health. Canadians do benefit from medical devices in the form of increased mobility, longevity and the quality of life.
The health of women who have implants is the priority concern of the minister and of the department. The department has published a "Dear Doctor" letter advising all doctors across the country of the status of breast implants in Canada. Doctors have been kept informed and they have been kept up to date. A hotline was established to advise women. Last November, the department also identified specific labelling requirements for silicone gel-filled and saline-filled breast implants. Manufacturers of breast implants have been advised that specific cautions and warnings must be part of the labelling of all these products. This information assists women in consultation with their physicians to make informed decisions about the risks associated with breast implants.
There are a number of risks which are required and must be explained as part of labelling. This labelling information forms part of the type of information that is required to comply with the existing medical devices regulations. Manufacturers are advised that patients' considering silicone gel-filled and saline-filled breast implants should receive information pointing out the

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
risks associated with surgical procedures. As well, they should be advised on specific risks associated with capsular contracture calcium deposits, rupture of the implant, changes to breast sensation and interference with mammography. This information is required as part of the labelling of every breast implant sold in Canada today. It forms part of the information necessary for all women, with their physicians, to make informed decisions regarding implantation.
All of these efforts are directed to providing information for any health risk associated with these devices to women, to their physicians and to the Canadian public in general. Information of this type enables all women to make informed choices regarding breast implants. The hon. member's bill, however, would ban certain breast implants if they contained any amount of a prescribed substances without the benefit of scientifically evaluating the risks and the benefits of the medical device, and every device has an element of risk. It is the evaluation of that risk weighed against the possible benefits which ensure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


Beryl Gaffney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that most members in this House will agree that we have been discussing a very important topic this morning and I would like unanimous approval of the House to continue the debate on this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, as reported (with amendments) from Legislative Committee C.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are 35 amendment motions for report stage of Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process.

Motions Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 35, standing in the name of the Minister of the Environment, all propose technical corrections to one language only. They will be grouped for debate, with a vote on Motion No. 1 being applied to the other 15 motions.
Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 20 and 26, standing in the name of the Minister of the Environment, propose technical changes, notably to bring the text of the bill into conformity with amendments made at the committee stage or to correct discrepancies within the bill. They will be grouped for debate, with a vote on Motion No. 2 being applied to the other seven motions.

Motions Nos. 11 and 18, standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport, will be grouped for the purposes of debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 19 and 29, also standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport, will be grouped for debate. The vote on Motion No. 19 will apply to Motion No. 29.
Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 30, standing in the name of the Minister of the Environment, will be grouped for debate. The vote on Motion No. 30 will apply to Motions Nos. 21 and 22.

***********I
March 16, 1992



Motion No. 31, standing in the name of the hon. member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 32, standing in the name of the hon. member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake, motion No. 33, standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport and motion No. 34, standing in the name of the Minister of the Environment, will be grouped for debate. Motions Nos. 32 and 33 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on motion No. 32 will obviate the need for a vote on motion No. 34, while a negative vote on motion No. 32 will require a vote on motion No. 34.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (for the Minister of the Environment) moved:: Government Orders
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-13 be amended in the French version in Clause 50
(a)	by striking out line 17 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"nuation indiquees, la realisation du projet";
(b)	by striking out line 33 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion indiquees, la realisation du projet n'est".
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-13 be amended in the French version in Clause 51
(a)	by striking out lines 16 and 17 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion des mesures d'attenuation indiquees, la realisation du projet n'est pas";
(b)	by striking out line 26 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"des mesures d'attenuation indiquees, la";
(c)	by striking out line 30 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"qu'ils sont justifiables dans les circonstances."
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-13 be amended in the French version in Clause 55 by striking out lines 38 and 39 at page 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"I'acces d Vinformation s'appliquent, avec les adaptations necessaires, a toute"..
Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-13 be amended in the French version in Clause 58
(a)	by striking out line 13 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"indiquees, est susceptible d'entrainer des";
(b)	by striking out lines 12 to 14 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"de codes de pratique, d'accords, de criteres ou d'arretes etablis en application du present article, ainsi que la possibility, pour quicon-".
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-13 be amended in the French version in Clause 72 by striking out line 7 at page 50 and substituting the following therefor:
"lors de cette entree en vigueur."


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, first of all let me say to the House that it is a pleasure to be able to participate in our discussions today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and also to express to the House his regrets that he cannot be present during the course of today's discussions due to
commitments that take him to an important conference, the Globe 92 Conference, and to a meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment which is taking place during the course of the week.
The amendments which are grouped together before us at this stage are technical amendments. They are designed to correct some grammatical errors that were there in the latter stages of our process. In most cases they are designed to ensure that the French text is complete and accurate and so I do not think there are any areas of contention in respect to the amendments which are before us. I would like to take this opportunity, although perhaps I will do so again, to thank the members of the committee. As the committee knows we have been working on this legislation for many months.


An hon. member:: Years.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: My hon. friend says years. I say however with total conviction that the legislation which is before us is better legislation as a result of the extensive debate and study which took place. As we will see during the course of the day, a number of the amendments brought forward by the government are in fact an acceptance of amendments offered by various members of the committee. Indeed, although they are in the name of the Minister of the Environment in a very real sense members of the committee will recognize that they played a very significant role in that process.
I will come back to this at a later point, but I would like to thank those members for their very active work and for their co-operation. I think as a committee we set some sort of a model in terms of our ability to work together. We also called upon the assistance of two lawyers provided to us by the Canadian Environmental Network in the latter stages of our process which I think was a significant step and one which I suspect will be adopted by this committee and perhaps other committees in the future.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, having read both the English and the French versions of the bill I believe that these "technical amendments" raise very important points of principle and I would like to speak to those and I also would like to reply to the parliamentary secretary.
March 16, 1992



Bill C-13 will have a major impact on Canada's environmental future. Environmental assessment lies at the heart of a major effort at consciousness raising. The global ecosystem is not an inexhaustible resource.
That is why we unreservedly support the principle of an environmental assessment law for Canada. Furthermore, the Brundtland report considers impact studies to be a key to sustainable development.
If the experience of eastern Europe can teach us one thing, it is that blind development at the expense of environmental quality is not really development at all, since it is only short term and cannot last.
That is why the time has come to completely rethink our approach to development and the progress associated with it, because human progress depends on a healthy planet.

The bill we are examining today is the child of several years of court cases which have forced the government into action. It is also, as the parliamentary secretary said, the child of almost two years of intense work in legislative committee, work which transformed the bill before us from toothless legislation into something that at least has baby teeth.
The process of creating this bill was in itself unusual. We Liberals were strongly opposed to the original legislation. We heard from several dozen witnesses following second reading. These witnesses from industry and from environmental groups agreed with us. Tb its credit, I must say, and I would like to compliment the parliamentary secretary, to his credit, the government chose to heed many of the concerns that had been so strongly expressed and introduced substantial amendments.
In effect, as a result of our committee work, of which the parliamentary secretary was a vital cog, we were practically dealing with a whole new bill.
The committee then called a dozen witnesses to comment on the proposed amendments. Their interventions once again substantially influenced the bill. When
Government Orders
the final clause by clause review began, as was just said, we were again involved with two special witnesses who shared with us their significant expertise in environmental law. The result is this bill which is being reported on today.
We must remember the context within which this legislation has been developed. It comes after several years of intense controversy regarding the environmental assessment of major projects; Rafferty-Alameda, Oldman, ALPAC, Kemano, Point Anconi. The ongoing charade regarding these projects has resulted in deep public scepticism as to the integrity of the environmental assessment process. It has created widespread planning uncertainty in the public and the private sectors.
What we have virtually had in the last few years is environmental assessment through court order. In January of this year the Supreme Court of Canada delivered the final judgment on a string of court rulings on the application of the EARP guidelines. They affirm that the federal government has substantial constitutional powers to undertake environmental assessments.
We now have legislation before this House. This legislation will provide a predictable framework for project assessment. However, let me state that what is before us is far from the state of the art on environmental assessments. There are a number of fundamental conceptual flaws in the bill.
Let me enumerate a few. It does not apply to government programs and policies. It does not provide for compulsory intervening funding. It does not require the integration of environmental considerations such as the need for a project. It does not require alternative responses early enough in the planning process. It leaves the power to give the go ahead on a project to the minister with the most vested interest. It includes no direct mechanisms for the effective enforcement of the terms and conditions for product approval.
To begin with, we believe that the preamble of the bill should cite the peace, order and good government clause of the Constitution as a basis for proceeding. The Supreme Court ruling on the Oldman River dam determined that the earlier guidelines fell within the POGG power. This was a veiy significant interpretation and we believe it should be reflected in Bill C-13.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
We also regret that the government has restricted application to the assessment process to physical works alone and did not include programs and policies. The past year has shown that a legislative basis is needed for environmental assessments of policies and programs. In June 1990, when this bill was first introduced by the then minister, the present Secretary of State, he promised that all proposals going before the federal cabinet would be subject to an internal environmental assessment. He promised that a statement on the environmental implications of new policies and programs would be made public at the time the cabinet initiative was announced.
Twenty-one months have passed and we have yet to see a single policy assessment announced. The current Minister of the Environment has stated again and again that these reviews have not been conducted because developing the methodology is very complicated.
It is not hard to interpret this as meaning that the government did not realize the implications of the statement of the now Secretary of State of Canada that it is delaying and stalling for time.
It is clear to us that just as this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the entire Canadian judicial system before it would implement project assessments, there needs to be a legally enforceable method for keeping its promise on policy assessments.
This act does not include the most basic principle of a truly participatory assessment system, a mandatory intervening funding program. While it gives the minister the power to establish such a program, it is purely discretionary.
Liberals view intervener funding as critical to the entire environmental assessment process. It vastly improves the decisions made and is one of the few avenues in society for public participation in the decisions regarding major project developments.
Individual Canadians are far ahead of their governments in their concern for environmental protection and in their desire for full and open government empowering people to protect the environment. To participate in environmental decision-making is key to moving toward a sustainable economy and building public understanding of the changes which need to be made.
Intervener funding is pivotal to this legislation. The examination to continue of the need of possible alternatives to a project is not applied at screening stage under this bill. Yet integration of environmental considerations and initial planning is essential to an effective assessment regime.
By limiting the consideration of need and alternative methods of meeting this need to the comprehensive study stage, environmental considerations are imposed retroactively after the project proposal has been developed. We also regret the responsible minister was given so much power to decide whether the project should go ahead.
Bill C-13 limits the environmental assessment panel to making only recommendations to the Minister of the Environment and the minister who is ultimately responsible. It leaves it entirely up to that minister, the latter, the responsible minister to determine what course of action should be taken following consideration of the review panel's report. This structure is open to inappropriate political considerations and political interference.
Liberals support a more independent structure. We support an independent agency which would administer and enforce the federal environment assessment process. It would report directly to cabinet. It would have the authority to improve an initiative, refer it to mediation or a panel for public hearings, or deny approval. Its decision in the end would then be subject to appeal to cabinet.
Finally, we are concerned that the bill includes no mechanism for effective enforcement of the terms and conditions of approval where a project has been approved.
In conclusion, I see this bill as a step forward, a step out of the quagmire of environmental assessment by court ruling. It will provide greater certainty for all players in Canada.
That being said, however, it is very clear that a future Liberal government will have to make many changes to this bill if it is to be truly of use as an instrument for promoting environmentally sustainable development.
Those are my comments on the technical aspects of the changes being made.
March 16, 1992

Government Orders


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. like to thank Beverley Hobby for the work she was able
Speaker, it has been some time in coming, getting Bill to provide to all of us at the committee stage to get us to C-13 on to the floor of the House of Commons. this point.
I for one have been with this process almost from the beginning including my appointment to the pre-study committee that considered Bill C-78, this bill's predecessor, so I am very happy to see it come to this stage.
I am also very happy to see the changes that have been added to this bill since the initial drafting occurred. I have a number of introductory remarks to make at this stage. Before I do that I just want to express one concern on the process that has occurred here in bringing the bill to the floor of the House today.
Of all the weeks in the year for the government to call this bill, it chose the one in which the Minister of the Environment has other commitments outside of Ottawa. He is attending Globe 92, a very important and interesting environment conference. The dates of the conference have been known for many, many months.
It just so happens that while this bill has been ready to be called to the House at report stage for some time now, this is the week that has been chosen.
I am most disappointed that despite all the work the Minister of the Environment has done to get us to this point that he is unable to be with us here today to see the conclusion of his and our efforts through the departmental and committee stages of this bill.
Before getting into the specifics of the amendments and later on the bill, I want to mention that I have a great deal of thanks for the Minister of the Environment for the direction he has allowed this bill to take.
He has been counselled very well by members of his staff, by departmental officials and in particular by members of FEARO and Department of Justice officials. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has been most helpful during the committee stages.
I was most happy to work with the parliamentary secretary and officials from the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. The president, Michael Do-rais, and the vice-president, Karen Brown, have been most helpful throughout the whole developmental process. From the Department of Justice, I would very much
As my Liberal friend noted earlier the committee was aided in its work by two environmental lawyers. This is a first, I believe, for committee work in the House of Commons. The committee was very well served by Bill Andrews from the West Coast Environmental Law Association and Brian Pannell from McJannet, Rich in Winnipeg who provided their expert assistance during the amending process of the bill.
Obviously, any member of this House who has a chance to read Bill C-13 and compare it to former Bill C-78 would know of the vast differences between the two bills and the excellent contribution that both those individuals gave to us. It is a credit to the committee chair for allowing this process to fall into place and to be used.
I also want to have on record my particular and personal thanks to Louis-Philippe Cote from the Library of Parliament who was of great assistance in writing amendments for my side of the table and to my own staff and the research staff of my party, Bruce Thte and Sue Wilms, who have provided a tremendous amount of assistance in achieving the things that we have with this bill.
It will be seen as we go through the rest of these amendments today and at third reading later that the amending process and the amendments which were brought forward have vastly improved the bill.
I want to note one other thing at this point. I am hoping that the government takes note. This process began a little over two years ago. Actually, it probably began about four years ago when the need for environmental assessment legislation became known. But a little over two years ago the government recognized that specific legislation was going to require quite a bit of work.
The government began a process known as pre-study-ing the bill. In fact the committee was struck to pre-study former Bill C-78. I was appointed to that committee, and before the committee actually got to do most of its pre-study work the bill was introduced into the House and the committee got changed to a legislative committee looking at Bill C-78.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
I want to stress very strongly that the government should be doing more pre-study work on bills of this nature, bills that are of great importance, bills that have a fairly technical nature to them.
It is obvious with the changes that this bill has undertaken that we could have saved a tremendous amount of time within the department and the ministry, and on all sides of the House, if in fact the pre-study stage had taken us almost to the point we are at today before the final bill was drafted and introduced for continuing debate in the House.
I was very supportive of the pre-study work. I was most disappointed when the pre-study ended and the bill was introduced as it was. As a result we have noted very clearly that the bill was drafted without all the benefit of the knowledge that was required to produce a specific and very important bill.
On that final point, I do want to note that we in the New Democratic Party who have worked on this bill and who have consulted on this bill recognize that Bill C-13 is perhaps the most important piece of environmental legislation that this government has had to deal with.
The Environmental Protection Act that passed in the Chamber a while ago was an important piece of legislation that took us forward in terms of environmental legislation. But with this bill on environmental assessment, if the people of Canada cannot participate in environment assessment, if the public is not involved in environmental assessment, and if the government is not serious about environmental assessment, the country and the world, the planet is doomed.
The people who are going to Brazil in June of this year recognize-and I know they already do because I have read the round-table reports and other reports that take us toward Brazil in June of 1992-that the importance of this legislation is one that we have to recognize right from the beginning of this debate.
The government has indicated through its acceptance of many of the amendments that have been put forward that it considers this bill to be important, and I am very pleased that we are going to take this in the next couple of days through to conclusion and put in place an environmental assessment bill that is going to serve the country well.
Like my colleague who spoke just moments ago, I want to stress in the beginning moments of this debate that in fact, if this bill were written by a New Democratic Party government it would have significant changes over and above those which we are taking here today.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-13, particularly on this first grouping of amendments. They would certainly appear to be very technical in nature, as my friend the parliamentary secretary points out.
It is worth while to take a good look at these particular amendments. It is good to let the public know what these changes are about and what kinds of changes the government should also be including at this time and which it has neglected to do.
Most members in this House and many Canadians are aware that the environmental assessment process in this country really got going in 1974 with the rather loosely worded guideline to cabinet-that was during a minority government in 1972 to 1974. That was followed up by the EARP guidelines order that came in in 1984 which through a series of court decisions such as the Rafferty-Alameda decision and others has come to have the impact of administrative law.
I know the government has been concerned about the growth in the number of review panels that it has basically been forced by the courts to undertake. It has gone from about three panels a year four years ago to more than twenty per year now.
Moments ago I was looking at a ministerial document stamped secret, always handy to have during a debate. You can get a pretty good idea of what kinds of expenditures and PYs the government is planning in terms of this legislation and what kinds of loopholes it wants to build in and the ones it has left built in. One of the concerns that will be heard over and over during the debate this week is that the government tried, and successfully it seems, to court proof some sections of Bill C-13 to make it more difficult for the public interest to have certain kinds of projects properly assessed. There are also some Mack truck loopholes built in and we will certainly be dealing with those. Some of them are right within these motions and I will be dealing with them more specifically in a moment.
March 16, 1992

Of course there is the whole regulatory question. There are 15 sets of regulations, as my friend for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake reminded me this morning. He has done a terrific job in stick handling more than 100 amendments to try to clean up a very complex piece of legislation, perhaps too complex. When you think of 15 sets of regulations and pages and pages, there is an old adage that the longer the law, the more loopholes there are.
It is like income tax. The reason the government continues to produce huge amounts of tax laws is so that it can create loopholes for its friends.
Let us look at what the expected costs were when the Minister of Environment was having an assessment following the Speech from the Throne promise of what can be expected. In the 1989-90 fiscal year the A-base was expected to administer the 1984 cabinet guidelines order. This is immediately following the federal ruling on Rafferty-Alameda. It expected an A-base of $53 million. It only asked for a $500,000 increase and it wanted the person-year A-base to go up to 351 persons, an increase of 300 persons as a result of the court rulings. By 1993-94, it expected the A-base to increase to $118 million per year and person-years to go to 351. So the actual number of people it expected would be working would be 537 administering in relation to court rulings.
This is the process that got us where we are. The cabinet makes a loose ruling in 1974. In 1984 we get a natural cabinet order. In 1987 Our Common Future is published. More widely known as the Brundtland report, it recommends that all countries in the world have a mandatory, legislatively based environment assessment process. By 1987 it came to be recognized that it is not only cost effective and cost efficient, it is the only way we can actually have sustainable development. We must start right at the initial screening process and look at the alternatives to projects which regrettably, as my colleague for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has pointed out, were dispensed with by the government. It refuses to accept looking at alternatives at the most important stage, right when a project is being conceptualized. The importance of having these kinds of assessments is now globally recognized because the environment in many, if not most areas of the world, is continuing to decline and
Government Orders
be degraded because of inappropriate construction, development, dumping practices and so on.
The government made a commitment. Our own Prime Minister in the fall of 1987 endorsed, as did the premiers, the Brundtland commission report and for the past four years, first Bill C-78 and now subsequently Bill C-13, which has risen from the ashes of Bill C-78, has finally made its way to the floor of the House. Today we are looking at the amendments which are proposed by the government, by my friend for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and my friend in the Liberal Party who described this bill as having baby teeth. I am not sure the baby teeth have even grown in yet. I would say it is a bit gummy yet. We are going to have to see how the government goes about gumming some of the big projects that are out there like James Bay, Rafferty-Alameda, Oldman dam, Kemano II, and Point Aconi because there is somewhere between $20 billion and $60 billion worth of projects that have been conceptualized and are coming off the drawing boards or, like Oldman, are in fact there.
Legislation can often be judged by how a government has been acting in the period leading up to that legislation. If one looks, for example, at Oldman one has to ask why the Minister of Transport has not even put in place an order for which he has power, authority and control under the Navigable Waters Act to require that the impoundment not be filled any further. TTie studies are still being done. The panel is still there. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on it and this government will not even live up to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling.
When I say that this is gummy legislation, it is administered by the Gummy Bears. We have the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport and all of these other ministers. They have a piece of legislation full of loopholes, full of discretionary authorities and powers, 15 sets of regulatory authority, bureaucrats all over the place and you have to look for will.
Mr. Speaker, I know you, having played centre in football, understand the need for will. You have always exercised your will well here, but I am just not quite so confident about some of your colleagues when I look at some of the major projects that are out there that they have exercised their will and their discretion in the best interest of the environment.

Government Orders
We look at the major projects out there and how they have fumbled the ball time after time. You never missed a snap. I have looked at the old footage. But these ministers have played a lot of ball without a helmet and it worries the public out there that this government has not really shown the kind of really serious interest in protecting the water quality, the forests, the wildlife, air quality and even our international commitments on global warming, the ozone and so on.
I would describe this as pretty gummy legislation. The Liberals say there are still baby teeth. We may hear from the minister later in the week that this is dentured legislation.
Let me look, in somewhat more depth, at some of the particular projects in relation to this legislation and see where it would lead us. There is the discretionary power and the ability of the government to move to mediation rather than to public review panels and to not have included legislatively, as it should be, intervener funding which should be in there with a trigger that the public can access so that they know if there is an initial screening being done, they can trigger certain kinds of funding. If it is a review panel or mediation it is there and it can be triggered if necessary through the courts.
The government is sending out a mixed message. It is giving the hubbub, you do not need to worry message to the provinces and the territories and it is giving: "Don't worry, be happy"-you know the little whistling song, Mr. Speaker-to the private sector: "Don't worry, be happy. As soon as this is in place, you will be able to go on with your major projects because we have got all these discretionary opportunities with this legislation".
As my friend, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard pointed out, there is going to be an election fairly soon and the New Democrat government is very likely going to have to redraft some major parts of this legislation because it is pretty loosey-goosey. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like loosey-goosey legislation and neither do I. We should have got nose to nose and shoulder to shoulder a little earlier on all sides of the House and moved forward a better quality of legislation, but I guess the government had more members and it decided that was not the way to go.
My friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake did do an excellent job in getting it patched up a bit. The Liberals swung in there from time to time and got a few Johnson & Johnson bandages on to the legislation, but there is work to be done in the next few days. I hope the government is going to co-operate in putting some serious thought to accepting some of the major amendments that we have proposed. I know it has accepted many, but there are some more to be accepted. I think the public wants to know that this is going to be truly workable and useful legislation.
I was looking, just for a moment, at what is called the "Communications Synopsis". It is stamped "secret, for the ministers' eyes only" but it is always worth having a look at. It is called "anticipated impact of having this legislation passed". It is anticipated that 90 per cent of Canadians are going to think very highly of it.
It is expected that media attention could be a four on a scale of five. The media are going to give this a four, and possible headlines. These are the headlines expected. I will just give you two headlines. The positive one that the minister expects is "Government Reform to Aid Sustainable Development", the negative one could be if things did not go well with the media this week: "Feds Back Off Environmental Promises".
I look forward, over the next few days, to participating in the various motions as they come up. I regret that there are only 10 minutes with each opportunity, but I suppose there will be a number of opportunities for me to carry on in dissecting this legislation so that the public knows exactly what there could and should be in it and what is not there.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add my voice to the debate on this very important legislation and on the so-called technical amendments that the parliamentary secretary has put forward this morning.
I wonder about the timing of the introduction of this legislation. One wonders if the legislative agenda of this government is really as out of control as it appears when the Minister of the Environment has to attend, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, a very important
March 16, 1992

conference in Vancouver and yet the government chooses this week to introduce this legislation, Bill C-13.
The Minister of the Environment has acknowledged in committee that it is: "One of the most important projects to be introduced in this Parliament". I agree with that. Bill C-13 attempts to go on from the 1984 cabinet guidelines order, which was never intended as an environmental assessment review process.
It was a stop gap measure because of the vacuum in legislation. What has flowed from that 1984 cabinet guidelines order is a large number of court cases because of the vacuum in legislation.
The committee studying Bill C-13 has worked very long and hard on making the necessary amendments. I want to give a lot of credit to my colleague from the Battlefords-Meadow Lake because I know the introduction of 111 amendments takes an awful lot of energy and I would also like to give some credit to, and unsolicited of course, my colleague from the Liberal Party because of all the work that has been done.
There has been a lot of co-operation in committee to try to make this environmental assessment process more clear and to give more certainty. We have seen the sector of court cases, the Rafferty-Alameda process, the Point Aconi process, the Oldman River process, the Kemano project in British Columbia, in my province.
This legislation is trying to stop the use of the courts as a means of determining legislation and to take it back to the House of Commons. It is our responsibility as legislators to do this. It should not be left up to the courts. It is a quest for clarity and for certainty, but it is not quite there yet.
There are other major gaps in this legislation that we will be highlighting in the coming days because it is not quite good enough for us to support yet. This is the most important environmental legislation to come before this House in many years. We are not prepared to give a rubber stamp of approval until we are certain that it has proceeded far enough so that those court cases will no longer have to be the mechanism where people can get involved in environmental assessment. We want a transparent process so that the public can be involved in assessing the environmental projects or any projects
Government Orders
brought forth with federal funding. We also want it seen to be a transparent process so that the public is involved.
Many amendments have yet to be debated. The regulations, as has been pointed out, are crucial to the enforcement of this legislation. They are the teeth, the baby teeth, the dentures, whatever. The regulations are the real teeth.
We need some reassurance that we will be able to look at them. As legislators we are here to fulfil our responsibility to the people of Canada in a serious way to make sure that environmental review is done properly and done responsibly. That is what we are elected to do. It is not what the judges are appointed to do.
I also want to point out that we found how far we have come since 1984 with the cabinet guidelines order, how much has happened. We need to have some sort of time line that this bill, even if it is passed, gets reviewed. That is another amendment that has been put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
In conclusion, this is going to be a very interesting couple of days. I hope that the Minister of the Environment and his cabinet colleagues will see fit to be participants in this debate. It is, as the minister himself said, the most important environmental legislation to be put forth in this Parliament.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare Motion No. 1 agreed to. That means that Motions Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 35 have all been adopted.


Lucien Bouchard: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out lines 2 and 3 at page 7 and substituting the
following therefor:

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
"project is required before a federal authority exercises one of the following powers or performs one of the following duties or functions in respect of a project, namely, where a federal authority
(a)	is the proponent of the project";
(b)	by striking out, in the English version, lines 22 and 23 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
(c)	has the administration of federal lands and sells, leases or otherwise disposes of";
(c)	by striking out line 37 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"of this Act,
(a)	an environmental assessment of a project is required before the Governor in Council,";
(d)	by striking out lines 42 to 45 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"enabling the projet to be carried out in whole or in part; and";
(e)	by striking out lines 4 to 6 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"in Council take an action refered to in paragraph (a) in relation to that project";
(f)	by striking out line 10 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made,";
(?) by striking out lines 18 to 22 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iv) where applicable, shall perform the duties of the responsible authority in relation to the project under section 38 as if it were the responsible authority in relation to the project for the purposes of paragraphs 20(l)(a) and 37(l)(a)."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 39 at page 8 and subtituting the following therefor:
"response to an emergency and carry-".
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 15 to 18 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
' 'ducted in accordance with any regulations made for that purpose under paragraph 59(f) as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made."
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 43 to 46 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"conducted in accordance with any regulations made for that purpose under paragraph 59(k) as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 10
(a)	by striking out line 47 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"10. (1) Before a person or body receives";
(b)	by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"Indian Act, the council of the band for whose use";
(c)	by striking out lines 9 to 16 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"ducted in accordance with any regulations made for that purpose under paragraph 59(f) as early as is practicable in the planning stage of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made.
(2) Notwithstanding paragrah 51(l)(h), an environmental assessment of a project is not required by reason only of the provision of financial assistance for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)."
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 30 by striking out line 37 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"subparagraph 29(l)(a)(i) in relation to a project,".
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 40
(a)	by striking out line 5 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) may enter into";
(b)	by striking out line 26 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"may enter into an";
(c)	by striking out lines 33 to 36 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Any agreement or arrangement referred to in subsection (2) or (3) shall be published before the commencement of the hearings conducted by the review panel."
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 54
(a)	by striking out line 5 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"graph 5(1)(6) in relation to projects";
(b)	by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"those projects, before irrevocable decisions are made, in accordance with";
(c)	by striking out lines 16 to 21 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) a process for the assessment of the environmental effects of projects that is consistent with the requirements of this Act and is in effect in the province where the projects are to be carried out.";


March 16, 1992

(d)	by striking out line 44 at page 38 and substituting the following
therefor:
"those projects, before irrevocable decisions are made, in accordance with";
(e)	by striking out lines 47 to 49 at page 38 and lines 1 and 2 at page
39 and substituting the following therefor:
"environmental effects of projects that is consistent with the requirements of this Act and is in effect in the foreign state whre the projects are to be carried out."


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by noting again that a series of motions is before us which indeed are technical. Having said that, I must congratulate hon. members on their ability to turn debate on such technical amendments into such far-ranging and interesting topics.
We have before us a series of motions designed in some cases to remove redundant or unnecessary words, because we are anxious to have the legislation as tightly drafted as can be; in some cases to add additional words by way of explanation; and to ensure the words are used in a consistent fashion throughout the bill.
I would also note that during clause-by-clause consideration the committee amended subclause 5(1) to clarify that an environmental assessment must be carried out before a responsible authority can take any action. This required changes as well to subclauses 5(2), 5(l)(c) and 5(2)(b) in order to ensure consistency throughout.
I would hope, therefore, that we could give careful but speedy consideration to the specific motions before us.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in addressing only Motion No. 261 would like to say that we are very pleased to see the government agreeing with the principle that it is important to ensure that irrevocable decisions are dealt with before they become irrevocable and in harmony with the purposes of the bill as set out in clause 4. Particularly I would refer to purpose (a), which is to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before responsible authorities take actions in connection with them. It seems to me that Motion No. 26 falls within the spirit of this purpose.
Government Orders
I would like to conclude by putting on record the fact that under the Liberal government in 1984 an assessment process was outlined in the Order in Council guidelines on environmental assessment matters which ensured, and I quote from the text, that "environmental matters are to be taken into account throughout the planning and implementation of all proposals falling under federal jurisdiction. This is to be done before commitments or irrevocable decisions are made".
The government has done well with Motion No. 26.1 congratulate the parliamentary secretary for having taken this action.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in the House on this environmental bill.
It is true this set of amendments deals with technical amendments, but these technical changes are very important. For example, the set of amendments deals with projects to be assessed, excluded projects, Crown corporations, Indian bands, appointment of mediators, joint review panels, and provincial agencies.
I want to deal with these in a somewhat broader context. Let me say right away that there is no more important an issue in Canada and in the world than the environment. When the Minister of the Environment allegedly said that our kids should not go out in the sun, or parents should be very careful about letting their kids going out in the sun, people were shocked. I think people are still reacting to that.
I had a chance to speak to some of my colleagues and friends on the west coast who are particularly interested in the environment. Indeed some of them founded a group called Greenpeace in one of my friend's basements a number of years ago in Kitsilano, in Vancouver. Of course Greenpeace now is a world environmental agency, but it started right here in Canada, right in my own backyard in the Vancouver area.
My friends who were involved in the founding of Greenpeace tell me that the minister's warning about the sun and about the kids going out in the sun is only the beginning. As a matter of fact it is chilling, what they tell us.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: The warming is chilling.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The warming is chilling. I do not intend to make a pun or make fun of that. This is a deadly serious mattef.
What may lie ahead for us is a very different world than what we were used to. That is why I say the environment is the most important issue.
I look, as do all of us, at the letters I get from my riding. We now get faxes and telephone calls. They are very interesting, at least in my case. I note when environmental matters come up that they are inevitably from young people. When we talk to young people in they schools they ask us about the environment. I remember talking to students in the Coquitlam and Port Moody schools in my riding, a suburb of Vancouver with excellent schools and students who are very motivated in environmental concerns. Inevitably the question is the environment.
I was thinking today about the upcoming election. Someone mentioned that it may be within a year. I remember an all-party debate at Centennial High School in Coquitlam, British Columbia, during the last election. The teachers did a bit of a poll as to which party's candidate was winning. I must say that I was somewhat shocked because I was in third place in that poll as we went in.
I remember we only had a short period of time, a few minutes, and I chose to comment on the environment. When I came out of the debate I was quite far ahead in the poll because clearly I had chosen an issue the students were really interested in. They wanted to vote for someone who would champion such issues.
I took part in the study of the previous bill on the environment in the last Parliament. I was on the legislative committee. Having had that experience, I want to congratulate the members who took part in this legislative committee, especially the member for The Battle-fords-Meadowlake. When he goes back to speak to the high school students in his riding in Saskatchewan I hope he will say: "I took part in the process that led to Bill C-13" because it is really important.
I say to the hon. member who is behind me in the House that I took part earlier this year in a bill on gun control. It took a long time and a lot of effort. I remember thinking at the time: You do not get a lot of credit for this; you do not get your name in the headlines on this. There is a lot of work behind the scenes. It is a heck of a lot of work and I want to congratulate him.
The world may not know what he is doing, but young people will know and are concerned about what he is doing. As a matter of fact, I noticed that the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has spoken on this issue a number of times. I was just trying to find copies of his speech. I just want to quote the hon. member when he said: "Our children are inheriting a country which is sick and diseased compared to the state of our country a generation ago. Our ozone layer has been destroyed to the extent where the federal Minister of the Environment has warned that our children should not expose themselves to the sun. Many of our lakes and rivers are dead and dying. Our forests are sold off in unimaginably large tracts to pulp and paper companies. We continue to encourage global warming and our children have been robbed of the opportunity to share our environment with many species of animals, plants, fish and birds now extinct through bad choices we have made as individuals and through our government. We can change the future".
I hope this bill will go some way to changing that future because the environment is our future. Canada must have the best environment in the world, and that is what we should be committed to as politicians. I hope this bill will go some way to doing that.
I just want to go over a couple of parts in the bill and make some comments on them. The bill, as I understand it, sets out to trigger the set-off of environmental assessment. We have seen a number of projects such as the Rafferty-Alameda project in Saskatchewan, the James Bay project in Quebec, the Oldman Dam project in Alberta and the Kemano project in British Columbia. The bill triggers these environment assessments. The intensity of the assessment from a simple screening to a full panel or mediation is dealt with; what sort of projects, activities or undertakings are to be assessed; the factors to be assessed are taken into account; who is to do the assessing; the role of the public; and the responsibility and authority of the minister.
Now it is very important that these assessments be clear and we set out a procedure. We in the New Democratic Party would like to see a better environmental assessment procedure. We believe the assessment should be done by an independent agency free from political pressure or influence peddling and the decision should be final and binding.
March 16, 1992

I am going to conclude there and come back later in the debate to speak about the role of the environmental community which was involved in this bill, and I applaud that, and some of the shortcomings of the bill which still treats environment and economic development as tradeoffs. I want to talk about where I think we can strengthen the bill by making a much clearer process, a stronger process and better public input.
Let me conclude where I began. As the hon. member from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has said, I have visited his riding and it is a beautiful environment.
I want to conclude by saying that the environment is the major issue for the future. The young people of Canada understand that. They demand that their members of Parliament, as far as possible, put partisanship aside, as has been done a lot in this committee, to strengthen this bill, to make a strong environmental bill with clear protections and a clear process when we are to begin big projects in this country which could damage our environment. We have just begun the fight.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add a few words here. I am prompted by my friend from British Columbia who has visited my constituency and travelled in particular to Meeting Lake Regional Park at one point. He rode in an antique vehicle that had been provided to us for the afternoon on a beautiful summer day on the banks of the beautiful lake at Meeting Lake Regional Park in northwest Saskatchewan.
The hon. member speaks volumes when he talks about the importance of the environment to us as human beings. We all would be much poorer without the ability to have those clean lakes and the clean air around us.
I visited India last year for the world conference with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I must say touring a country with a population of 850 million people and trying to find a clean lake like we have in northern Saskatchewan is a task that I do not think anyone could perform.
We have a lot of work to do in this world and starting here at home is a must.
Government Orders
The hon. member talked about regulations and he talked about working on Bill C-17, the gun control legislation. I had to tell him, as we had discussed privately during that bill, my major concern with the gun control legislation was the lack of the ability of members of Parliament and others to have access to and discuss the regulatory process.
On the member's work on that committee, it defined a regulation-making process that gave members of Parliament and members of the other place an opportunity to have a look at the regulations prior to their coming into force and being a part of the process that flows out of that legislation.
The member from British Columbia will note that one of the amendments that will come up later today is virtually word for word from Bill C-17.
I put on the table for this environmental legislation an amendment which would provide members of this House and members of the other place an opportunity to review the stacks of regulations that are going to come down in relation to this particular piece of legislation.
I am most concerned that in fact the regulation-making process is going to be the one that is going to have the most follow-up when Bill C-13 is finally law and we are operating with it in developing the environmental assessment process in Canada.
I would like to see, and I will be urging later in the day that my amendment, which was modelled on the one put forward by the hon. member in Bill C-17, regarding the regulatory process will be accepted by the members on the other side and the members to my right in the Liberal Party.
I do not have enough time to speak about this section, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that but I understand the rules and will be happy to follow the rules. This set of amendments, while it deals with a broad range of subjects, inserts a few technical matters into those sections, but in particular, Motion No. 20 dealing with the joint review panel is one that I would like to say a few words about.

Government Orders
The process of the review panel matters is most important to us. When we heard from one provincial minister speaking on behalf of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, he put up quite an argument that in fact the provincial process is one that has to be the governing process.
I feel very strongly that environmental assessment legislation has to be federal in nature with its strengths resting with the federal government. As we know from the environment committee's report tabled earlier this year, the environment knows no boundaries.
The environment does not recognize these historical and political boundaries that we as humans have drawn on the maps. When toxic materials go into the air and when toxic materials flow into rivers they do not stop when they come to a provincial border. They flow on and they flow on and the damage that can result is most intense.
We heard from the people in the Northwest Territories who argued very strongly that actions that take place in northern Alberta for example will have devastating effects in the Northwest Territories because of the way in which the rivers flow.
We have to be most informed, knowledgeable and sensitive to those facts.
I must say there has been a significant strengthening of the environmental and administrative credibility of the federal environmental assessment process within this bill.
The government has made it clear in the bill that joint panels must adhere to specific standards. These joint panels are an essential part of the process and a major part of this piece of legislation.
Those specific standards which the joint panels must adhere to include factors to be considered, participation in subsequent reports. The government has also through this legislation ensured a clear federal presence on the joint panels which will be put in place.
I believe that in this case the legislation is quite clear and joint panel reviews must meet the same requirements as federal panel reviews. This means that it is the standards that are set by the federal process that in fact run supreme in terms of the over-all assessment process and we will all benefit as a result of that.
In conclusion, I just want to point out to those who are watching part of the conditions under which a joint panel operates. As you know, Mr. Speaker, because I know you have read this legislation very closely as you do all legislation that in this case the minister appoints or approves the appointment of a chairperson for the joint panels and appoints at least one other member of that panel. That ensures that the federal presence is very secure.
The legislation, thanks to amendments which were brought forward, ensures that the members of the panel are to be unbiased and free from any conflict of interest relative to the project. That is not always easy to do, but it is guaranteed here in the legislation that the panel members must not have a bias or a conflict when it comes to reviewing the project on the panel.
Of course the Minister of the Environment fixes or approves the terms of reference for that joint panel. That is a very positive step.
There are hours worth of matters to be discussed here. Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling that my time is up. I recognize and understand that and will continue the debate as we go through the day.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting series of amendments that we are dealing with now.
Some of them touch on the regulatory provisions of Bill C-13. Many people would think that those are something that would only be of interest to lawyers or specialists or certain people in corporations who are proposing projects and might be particularly interested in some of those regulatory provisions.
As I have had an opportunity to discern, these 15 sets of regulations look a bit like a gigantic box of Cheerios. There are all kinds of loopholes being built into these regulations that neither the members of the legislative committee, who were scrutinizing the legislation, nor in fact the parliamentary secretary had a chance to go through. I am certain the minister has not even had a chance to go through all of the regulations.
It is important to put on the record some of the concerns that we have even in terms of this part of the process. There has been a growing and good habit on the government side of including more and more of the
March 16, 1992

regulatory provisions of legislation with the legislation at the time of its passage.
If the government does not include the regulations, then such as we found with the recent farms legislation, an opportunity is placed right within the legislation for regulatory scrutiny. Regrettably, the government has prohibited that opportunity so far. It still has an opportunity at this time to introduce such an opportunity.
It is very important where the regulatory spread is so wide and where so many people of good interest have urged the government to include the opportunity for policies to be evaluated through environmental assessment right at its initial promulgation. Just as with a project as policies are being developed they should be scrutinized, just as should be the budget and development projects outside of Canada that either make use of Canadian capital or resources, be it intellectual or direct development resources.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the concerns that have been raised by the national environmental law section of the Canadian Bar Association in terms of some of the regulatory sections that are now being worked. There is out there for some consultative purposes a work book on regulations.
In what would appear to the public to be a good piece of legislation, one would assume in its mandatory study list to include things such as new nuclear reactor sites, new major hydroelectric dams, new major forestry proposals that would impact on an entire watershed. One would think that those sorts of things would be there.
I noticed under the nuclear and related facilities assessment section by the legal community the following was found. I will try to simplify it and just get to the nub of it. It is the kind of regulatory exclusion that the public would have some difficulty digesting.
It says that the limit for items (a) through (g) in the new section on regulations related to new nuclear facilities is not justified in the view of the definitions of projects under subsection (2)(1) of bill C-13.
In addition, NELS apprehends that almost all of the limits on inclusion of projects in the comprehensive study list under this heading have been imposed not on the basis of any environmental criteria but rather to ensure minimal interference of the environmental asses-
Govemment Orders
sment process with the ordinary course of business of the Canadian nuclear industry.
For example, the limit under (c) to nuclear reactors with a power capacity greater than 30 thermal megawatts would effectively remove from the comprehensive study the slowpoke reactors which Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has proposed for such densely populated and sensitive locations as hospitals and university campuses.
This is what we have. As I said earlier, the process began in 1974. We got our first cabinet directive for Canada in 1984 that was consolidated into the 1984 cabinet guidelines order.
In 1987 the Brundtland report Our Common Future recommended to all countries in the world that there be mandatory legislated environmental assessment processes that would include the public. By 1988 the gears had been put into forward motion here in Ottawa.
The bureaucracy was drafting, in justice and in other departments, legislation to come before the House. During that period 80 government departments and agencies were consulted. I have gone through one of these "for minister's eyes only" stamped "secret" documents for what was going on in there.
It is kind of alarming because we can go back three years and find on page 4 regarding departmental positions: "Energy, Mines and Resources supports the legislation", that is referring to the legislation before us today, "but opposes applying it to Petro-Canada and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Finances concerned about intervener funding, the inclusion of Crown corporations and the magnitude of uncertainty of the costs of the proposal". On it goes.
As the consultative process was going on, we find different ministers and different agencies trying to pave ways within the legislative process where they can find ways to slip out of, slide out of, avoid having to undergo even an initial screening.
As many people have come to realize, the court judgments that were coming down on the 1984 cabinet guidelines order, whether it was on Rafferty-Alameda, the Oldman through the Supreme Court of Canada decision earlier this year, the court rulings in relation to the Great Whale or the court process involving Kemano II or the Kemano completion process in British Colum-

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
bia, there was starting to be a growing body of administrative law.
Two other processes were going on. Ministers and agencies were trying to find permanent loopholes. At the political level, government ministers were trying to convince the private sector, the provinces and the territories not to woriy about this new legislation because the loopholes for them would not be seen immediately within Bill C-13, but they would come in all of these regulatory mechanisms.
Take the one example I raised. Why should Candu's new phase of nuclear reactors, the slowpokes, because they are less than 30 thermal watts, be excluded? Why should existing sites which may be more dangerous than proposed new sites be excluded?
If we are going to have environmental assessment legislation that is worth anything, it means we get out there and identify from a-I do not want to use overly complex language here-truly ecologically sustainable development perspective what are the best ways of maintaining the Brundtland definition of "sustainable development", which is that we pass on to future generations, a habitable, liveable, sustainable ecology.
That does not seem to be the case. I do not point my finger at anyone, but it does not seem to be what we are doing in the country. As I said earlier, I see the chair of the Rivers Defence Coalition here in the House today, Pat Moss, who has worked long and hard to get sensible policies applied to a major project in British Columbia, Alcan's second phase of the Kemano project.
People like Miss Moss look at Bill C-13 and say: "How would this apply to a project that already has $.5 billion spend on it in the area that I live. Would I be better with the 1984 guidelines order, or would I be better with Bill C-13?" What we do know in terms of the guidelines order is that the government, rather than even having the assessment procedures apply, used what is now recognized as an unconstitutional approach, the same Order in Council powers to exempt the project from an environmental assessment.
That demonstrates to the informed environmental community in Canada the will of the government. If the will of the government on a project that is here now in 1992 and is before us is to sneak around having an assessment, what kind of credibility should members of this House or the public put in a hidden regulatory process?
That is why it is very important to examine this series of motions. We certainly look forward to hearing from members on the government side as to exactly what
kinds of assurances we can have that there is not going to be an undoing, through the regulatory Governor in Council processes of this legislation what members such as the for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and others have fought so hard to have placed within the legislation in a clear and understandable way, through a process with Bill Andrews and Mr. Pannell, that was unique and informative and had great potential.
I look forward to pursuing both the regulatory and the policy matters in the next section of amendments.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard in the speeches today in this House, the complexity of this bill is becoming clear. There are major motions still being put forward at the report stage of this bill.
I would like to focus on Motion No. 26 in particular. The language in it is: "before irrevocable decisions are made". It is very clear from our most recent history on environmental concerns that we have the language in this legislation to ensure that environmental assessment carries through before irrevocable decisions are made. That means that, yes, things will have to slow down, that maybe development is not going to go at the pace the major corporations would want it to.
Canadians have told members of this House that there cannot be development without some consideration for the environment. We now know that the Supreme Court decision on the Oldman River has come down. This is not just a victory for the environmental movements, it is also a victory for the people who made it clear in the language of this motion that irrevocable decisions have been made. The Oldman River dam is now reportedly 25 storeys tall. The taxpayers of Alberta and the taxpayers of Canada will be the ones who are paying the bill on that. This is not responsible behaviour. It was pushed through with the assumption that all was going to be well and that provincial jurisdiction was going to be paramount.
The Supreme Court has decided: "No, wait a minute. There is federal paramountcy on environmental concerns". The Oldman River decision is crucial to the way we jig the kind of jurisdictional squabbles between the levels of government.
The federal government has to have supreme authority on environmental issues. It just makes good sense. Often in this House good sense does not prevail. Rivers do flow across provincial boundaries, air flows across not just provincial boundaries but international boundaries. My colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has pointed out that the environment does not respect the
March 16, 1992

nice little maps we have drawn on the globe. Therefore, we have to find the best way of determining how to care for the environment. Canada, that is the federal government, has to have the supreme authority on those decisions. Canada is the one that is speaking, not just for the country but for all the people in each of the territories and the provinces.
Motion No. 26 makes certain that the environment has to be considered before irrevocable decisions are made, so that the tax dollars that went into that 25 storey structure on the Oldman River will not be wasted in the future. It is not irresponsible environmentalists that are trying to block progress, it is very responsible environmentalists wanting to ensure that the project will only proceed when all things have been considered. That is the complexity of this bill and we will be talking about it over the next few days. For those people who are watching, please bear with us. It is complex and we want to do the best we can for environmental assessment in Canada because it is so important.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 2 is agreed to. Therefore Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 20, 26 are carried.
Motion Nos. 11 and 18, standing in the name for the hon. member for Davenport, will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 17 by adding immediately
after line 34 at page 14 the following:
Government Orders
"(3) The Minister may terminate any agreements made pursuant to subsection 17(1) if the person, body or jurisdiction fails to comply with any section of this Act and the regulations, and refer the project back to the responsible authority."
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 37
(a)	by striking out line 20 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"37. (1) The Governor in Council shall";
(b)	by striking out line 38 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Governor in Council shall, by order, authorize the responsible authority to exercise any";
(c)	by striking out line 41 at page 24, and substituting the following therefor:
"out in whole or in part and to ensure".
He said: Mr. Speaker, briefly the explanation of this motion is that there is a provision in the proposed bill on environmental assessment whereby the minister can delegate to any person, body or jurisdiction the authority to conduct any part of this screening of a comprehensive study of a project or the preparation of a screening report.
Having done so and having delegated that authority, the proposed legislation is silent on whether or not the minister can revoke this authority, if he or she deems fit to do so.
With this amendment, we are proposing to the government that it be made quite clear and specific that if for any reason the minister deems that the process is not being conducted satisfactorily, then the delegation of authority can be revoked by the same minister in charge of that process.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will also deal with motion 18 since you have already called it. What we are proposing on the Liberal side is an amendment to shift the decision-making responsibility from the minister who proposes that particular project to the entire cabinet. This may sound a bit dramatic and sweeping but nevertheless decisions are made in cabinet which are far reaching, national and of a scope that sometimes reaches

Government Orders
well beyond the boundaries of one district or one province.
In clause 4 of the bill, the purpose of the bill is expressed in the manner that it justifies the kind of amendment I submit. There is a collective responsibility that ought to be discharged by the entire cabinet and not only by the proposing minister, including the Prime Minister. In doing so, I submit that actually the four purposes outlined in the early part of the bill, which sets out what this bill intends to achieve, would not be compromised. It would be accomplished and accomplished better.
In this amendment there is also a provision for proceeding by way of Order in Council, rather than by way of a decision that is not made public. As you know, an Order in Council has to be made known to the public by way of The Canada Gazette.
This is a very important step because it gives a clear and public record of the decision made by the government, by cabinet. It spells out the conditions of the approval including the mitigation measures in the approval, and it does empower the responsible authority to enforce the conditions of the order.
So there are several goals that are achieved by way of this amendment. They are: enforce the bill, make the public information process valid and real, and also give the enforcing authority the validity and the power and the weight of public opinion in the process of enforcing the measure itself.
So for these reasons which flow from clause 4 of the bill in which the purposes are outlined, as I already indicated a few times, the amendments are submitted to this House in the hope that they will be received favourably.
If Motion No. 18 were to be accepted, it would go a long way in defusing some of the criticism that is being addressed to this bill.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Davenport for bringing this matter to our attention today.
It is obvious that there is a bit of a failing in that part of the bill as to the time when the ministers can delegate authority for various matters and not have a termination clause present.
I want to commend the member for bringing this to our attention today. I want to urge the government and other members to support this amendment because of its necessity.
Just to follow on the argument in support of the member's amendment, I want to quote a brief statement from the Minister of the Environment when he appeared before the legislative committee studying Bill C-13 on October 10, 1991.
The Minister of the Environment said that "while the amendments and proposed regulatory process are the product of more than four years of work, the bill before us will affect all parts of our society and it will create a new dynamic in environmental assessment. More than 80 departments and agencies have been involved, as well as the provinces, the territories, environmental and industry groups, and many others. Let us keep in mind that this act reflects a consensus which, in turn, reflects the growing understanding and concern Canadians share about the relationship between our economic activities and our natural environment".
I will just continue the quote for another brief second. The Minister of the Environment said: "I believe that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act provides us with a flexible instrument with which we can meet the environmental challenges of the future. This bill constitutes a major advance in the field of environmental assessment. It encourages projects and practices that respect the environment, and it increases the public's influence over decision-making. This is not the end of the debate, but rather the beginning of a new era in environmental assessment".
If we take the Minister of the Environment at his word in this matter, we see that these are very strong, caring words about building an environmental assessment process that will, in fact, protect the environment over a long period of time.
March 16, 1992

What the member for Davenport has pointed out to us today is that part of the process of protecting the environment is being delegated to others, perhaps outside of the department, perhaps to anyone. We are being asked to trust the delegation of authority to those out there.
I read into the record the section that we are talking about here, section 17 on page 14:
A responsible authority may delegate to any person, body or jurisdiction within the meaning of subsection 12(5), any part of the screening or comprehensive study of a project or the preparation of the screening report or comprehensive study report, and may delegate any part of the design and implementation of a follow-up program, but shall not delegate the duty to take a course of action pursuant to subsection 20(1) or 37(1).
What the member for Davenport is telling us is that while this is an important part of the process, because we cannot expect the Minister of the Environment to do everything, it is an important part of the process that we have to protect, without giving the minister the opportunity to terminate agreements that have been reached by responsible authorities, then what we are doing is we are allowing on some occasions perhaps an inadequate process to carry on to an end that none of us will find acceptable.
A termination policy must be in place during the course of any of this delegation of authority. It is only the minister who should eventually have the ability to terminate that agreement.
I find it would be a failure on the part of this act not to have that in place.. The amendment before us today sets out very clearly and easily a way to achieve the results that I think we are all looking for.
When the Minister of the Environment says that we are talking about the beginning of a process, a beginning of a debate, we have to recognize that he is understanding and very sympathetic to the ongoing nature of the process that we have begun here.
Another amendment deals with a five year review of the act and gives us an understanding that the government is prepared to acknowledge that there are some failures that we are not quite ready to acknowledge yet because we do not know how everything is going to pan out so to speak.
We have an opportunity right now to correct one of
Government Orders
those deficiencies without waiting for five years to do the review and to put it all into place. This is a very easy way to achieve that. Accepting the member for Davenport's fine amendment at this point is something that is the least that the House can do at this time.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the amendments put forth by the member for Davenport demonstrate not only the value of the committee work that has preceded this debate in the House, but also the depth of talent within this House.
The member for Davenport is a former minister of the environment and he has brought that history to the committee. He has seen where there are little loopholes. As my colleague from Skeena has pointed out, the longer the bill is, the more opportunity there is for loopholes.
The committee work in this House is much misunderstood and yet it is some of the most important work of this House. I know the media is focusing mostly on Question Period and perhaps on debates in the House. But behind the scenes there are some very good people doing some very good work for the people of Canada.
This is just one instance where the member for Davenport, from his experience that he has drawn on by having been a minister of the environment, has put forward these very useful and important amendments.
I hope the government will see fit to support these amendments.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise in support of the amendments of my colleague the hon. member for Davenport.
I would actually like to pick up on the comments that have just been made by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands both as to the truly effective work that was done by the committee and the way in which the committee came together to substantially improve this bill, much of which is really as a result of the individual skills of the members.
The fact that the member for Davenport is a former member of the cabinet and indeed perhaps that person who more than any other in the political process brought environmental concerns to the forefront of the nation's concerns is indicated in these amendments.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
When he talks about the way that cabinet works as opposed to an individual member, all members in this House would do well to pay heed.
The amendments he has brought forth are the fruit of a lengthy experience and it is indeed pretty heart-warming for me as a member of this House to see those opinions expressed here.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three points I would like to make in response to other comments made in the House.
First of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Davenport for his continued practice of speaking very specifically to the issue at hand.
I would also like to make specific comments to Motions Nos. 11 and 18. With respect to Motion No. 11 my hon. friend for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake read clause 17(1) which relates to a minister's power in the process of delegation.
The first thing that must be stressed lest anyone watching perhaps misunderstands is that the responsible authority in the end of course is left with the decisionmaking authority. That is the ultimate power.
Although there is provision in the bill whereby responsible authority may enter into arrangements to delegate part of the screening or comprehensive study, including the preparation of that material to a provincial body or body set up under the lands claims agreement or any other self-governing agreement, what is clear is that the responsible authority in the end is left with the decisionmaking process. I think that is as all of us would wish.
It is also important to note in clause 17(2) because my hon. friend read all of clause 17(1), but in clause 17(2) in the proposed legislation it says "for greater certainty a responsible authority shall not take a course of action pursuant to subsection 20(1), or 37(1) which relates to decision-making power unless it is satisfied that any duty or function delegated pursuant to subsection 1 has been carried out in accordance with this act and the regulations".
In other words what is very clear is the responsible authority, the relevant minister, does indeed have the
power to ensure that any part of the process that has been delegated has been done so in accordance with the act and in accordance with the regulations.
It is for that reason that I would suggest to you that the proposed Motion No. 11 of the hon. member for Davenport is not necessary.
With respect to Motion No. 18 which refers to clause 37(1) in the bill, I would note and perhaps it will be recalled from previous debates, that part of the philosophy in this legislation is indeed the principle of selfassessment. It is an important principle and perhaps it is one which is not fully understood.
Part of the principle of self-assessment is indeed to accept the fact that all those who might have a responsibility pertaining to the environment are required to accept that responsibility. There have been times during the hearings when this was questioned.
The concept of self-assessment is important because it is saying really that one cannot ask any one individual, any one minister, to become in a sense a superpower.
The philosophy indeed is that this is a responsibility which must be shared by all participants, not just by all ministers within the federal government, present or future. What is consistent within the legislation is the realization that it must also be shared by other jurisdictions, and in a sense by way of implication it says by Canadians everywhere. The reason I think this principle is important is that it must be clearly understood that government alone cannot be held accountable for the protection of the environment. It is a responsibility that must go far beyond the Chamber, the cabinet or future cabinets to other jurisdictions, to Canadians everywhere.
I would also note that there is an important aspect of accountability in this process. We must remember that as politicians we are accountable for each and every one of our actions. Clauses 22 and clauses 36 to 38 provide for the publication of reports and the justification for not following the recommendation of those reports.
What is clear is there is a direct line between the decision-making part of government, irrespective of which responsible authority that might be, back to the public at large. I think that line is very important. It is a line which must be maintained.
March 16, 1992

I would also like to make note of the earlier discussion when the hon. member for Skeena, who is present, was referring to the comprehensive list and making reference to the fact that perhaps a nuclear reactor would not be on that comprehensive list. What is important in this legislation is to understand that we are proposing to put into law the methodology by which environmental assessment can occur. We are trying to make it as specific, as well understood, and as all inclusive as we can.
The fact that a particular project is not on a comprehensive list does not of course in any way preclude the fact that that project could indeed be subject to an assessment by an environmental panel, to be referred to a full review, once it has gone through the screening process. We are simply trying to delineate much more clearly now and into the future how that procedure will take place rather than the more loosely drafted guidelines which have been in place since 1984. It was not the intention that they would be law at that point in time; they were designed to be guidelines and were subsequently given the force of law by court decisions.
Here we have what we think is an attempt to clarify and to solidify the environmental assessment process. We believe that indeed we have gone significant steps forward. I would not pretend, as no other member would pretend in this House, that any law passed in the year 1992 is going to necessarily meet the needs of 1994,1996, or whatever the time may be. We truly believe that what we have in our hands today is, as other members have said, a very significant step beyond that which we have had during the course of this administration.
I want it to be understood therefore that the decision as to whether or not a project would be assessed by way of a public panel will be the result of this process unfolding as it does. There is a series of steps in that regard and certainly I think we will discover there is a very significant opportunity for public participation in that process. Certainly, in my mind at least, we will see much more public involvement in the future than we have on occasions in the past.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my friend from Davenport. Even as members of the public were listen-
Govemment Orders
ing to the parliamentary secretary read clause 17, it became quite clear that the termination wording as proposed by the member for Davenport is precisely required.
Before I get into the specifics of it, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you a little story. It is always good to have an occasional little story. My friend from Crowfoot likes to hear occasional stories.
I used to live next to one of the most beautiful areas of British Columbia where the Parsnip and the Finley rivers join. A dam by the name of the W. A. C. Bennett Dam was built and flooded it back and created what is known as Williston Lake. My friend who is here, the member from Port Moody, also did some work up in that same area with the Beaver people who lived there, the Sekanni people who were flooded out as that lake was rising. They were flooded out of their home communities and they moved into Ingenika and Fort Weir and some moved on down to Bear Lake and elsewhere.
One of the things that I found interesting that they were confounded by, and it still sticks in my memory to this very day, is that during the wintertime because it is so cold in that area the surface of the lake would freeze hard with three or four feet of ice. During the winter months because of the hydro requirements in big cities like Vancouver the turbines would run all winter long and draw the lake down.
If one were to look out as the Saw people took me out to do, the Beaver people who lived that area, one would see the lake. If one were asked "how deep is the lake", one would see the frozen ice going from one shore to the other of one of the largest lakes in Canada, more than 100 miles long. One would say that it was a very deep lake. If one ever fell through the ice, as some people did in logging trucks and in other circumstances, one would fall farther than from the top of this Chamber to the floor. That would be the depth of the ice, and the whole lake had been drawn down.
The reason I raise this story is to illustrate that what you see, Mr. Speaker, is not always what you get. Looking at it in the wintertime it would look like a nice frozen lake, but if you fell through you would not get your legs in the water while you still held on to the ice.

Government Orders
Bill C-13 is a bit like the ice above the lake. What is really underneath, what is really found in the regulatory powers and so on, is what this bill is all about.
Let us look at what my friend from Davenport is seeking. If we look at clause 17(1), it refers to the delegation of authority and says: "A responsible authority may delegate to any person, body or jurisdiction within the meaning-any part of the screening or comprehensive study of a project or the preparation of a screening report or comprehensive study report", and on it goes. The authority can be delegated.
Then it says, as my friend the parliamentary secretary read: "For greater certainty, a responsible authority shall not take a course of action pursuant to these other subsections unless it is satisfied that any duty or function delegated pursuant to section 1 has been carried out in accordance with this act and the regulations".
We would never know that. Clearly there should be another clause to allow for termination. Let me give another example.
A friend of mine who teaches law in British Columbia was working at the University of Victoria law school. The Minister of the Environment allowed him to go in and do a computer search of what are known as class 1 and class 2 permits which allow for pollution of water, air or land, mostly pulp mills and large industries. He went through all the computer base and Canada, this Parliament, had passed over or delegated to the province of British Columbia under the Fisheries Act the right to administer the permitting structures in relation to those class 1 and class 2 permits to place effluents into water. Of course there are fish in the water.
Therefore it is a federal power very clearly understood constitutionally in this country. What he found was shocking and it still shocks me to this day. He found 75 per cent significant, non-compliance for more than a year of the permits that had been delegated from Canada to the province. The province had its environment people out there but in three-quarters of the cases there was significant non-compliance for more than a year.
My friend from Davenport is seeking what one would intelligently expect in a large federation such as ours with two huge territories and 10 provinces and without
the kinds of enforceable national standards that would be required for the assessments of policy, projects large and small, comprehensive studies, and so on. Without that in place he is simply asking for an intelligent safety mechanism where a minister comes to be apprised that a delegated authority is either incompetent for a variety of reasons, perhaps not even intentionally, and comes to find himself or herself or the corporate entity to be incompetent to complete a study, to complete an assessment or whatever.
Basically what the House has to recognize during this debate is that clause 17 is simply inadequate. It does not provide the minister with the kind of authority he or she simply requires in order to be able to have either a review panel or a mitigation process properly carried out.
Again I dip into my bank of documents stamped "Secret, for minister's eyes only". It is often in these kinds of documents that one will find the tacky track record of the senior bureaucracy at the political level and what it was thinking about while this material was being prepared. I quote from "Secret, FEARO" page 3, section 10: "Mandatory procedures including public review established by the proposed legislation will apply only to projects as the case may dictate. Ministers will have an obligation to assess new policy proposals but procedures will be discretionary. Public review of policy proposals would be at the discretion of the responsible minister".
We sort of learn as we go along. We can look at Oldman. We know in the case of Oldman that the Minister of Transport is still not even living up to the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was found to have an affirmative, regulatory duty. Has the Minister of Transport lived up to an affirmative, regulatory duty? Every member of this House knows what that is. Every member of this House has a copy of the Navigable Waters Act and we all know the Minister of Transport is not living up to it for political reasons.
What should be done is that the reservoir should not be filled any further. When we look at this legislation we are looking particularly at the proposed additional clause of the member for Davenport. I see you nodding, Mr. Speaker. You are in agreement now, after this vigorous and not overly protracted debate, that this is the kind of thing that should be included. I see we are able to
March 16, 1992

persuade the parliamentary secretary now. Perhaps, if the minister were not at Globe 92, he would rise now before Question Period and agree that this is the kind of clause that should be included.
I think it has been a fairly successful debate this morning. I would just like to close off, Mr. Speaker. You have had a moment to reflect on my story about the level of the ice and the real level of Bill C-13. We have an opportunity, this being the springtime, to fill it back up again with goodwill on behalf of Canada's environment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena, our environment critic, spoke eloquently on this amendment to clause 17. The amendment is in the name of my friend from Davenport who is a former environment minister and whose amendments and remarks are always worth considering and are usually persuasive in this House. I rise to speak on that.
The hon. member for Skeena mentioned the notion of Williston Lake. I happened to be with him one time going up that lake. It is really quite startling. It is a 100-mile long lake that was created by us, really, by engineers and so on. They created that lake and that caused some very strange things to happen.
The member mentioned what it was like in winter and the illusion of the ice, the illusion of normality. One should see it in summer. There used to be some beautiful native villages and a beautiful valley there.
It was decided that we needed this power. There was no environmental assessment, nothing. There was a dam. The Bennett dam was built there. In the summer you cannot go along that lake in a canoe because, if you do, you are liable to get a missile hitting you from the bottom. The trees at the bottom were left there when it was flooded. Over time they have become loose. As you go along, occasionally the trees will just come up like a guided missile from the bottom and surface on the lake. People have actually been hurt in boats and canoes. They cannot go on the lake.
It is important that we now get a modem environmental process that really works. That is why the minister's discretion must be looked at very carefully. As the member for Skeena said, there must be enforceable national standards. We must not set up an act in which a weak minister or a weak government like this Conservative government can start ignoring things to help their
friends as they did with the Oldman Dam in Saskatchewan.
I know we are going into Question Period, so we will come back to this amendment. I hope the House can support this amendment so that we can make a strong, enforceable standard here.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now hear statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, the issue is credit card interest rates. With the downturn of the economy, there are more credit cards in circulation. An estimated 55 million have been issued. That is more than two cards per Canadian over the age of 18.
Why are credit card rates so high? Is there an agreement between the credit companies to keep the rates sky-high at the expense of consumers? Why are the rates twice that of the prime interest rate? These are the questions that the banks, the financial institutions, the retail stores and the trust companies must answer.
While consumers are being ripped off with high credit card interest rates, the financial institutions are making huge profits and paying little income tax.
Madam Speaker, this is not the Canadian way of fairness. I call on Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada to take action immediately.


LAW OF THE SEA
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is unwilling to ratify the Law of the Sea, yet invokes it when asking for international restraint in fishing stocks such as the northern cod.
The government cannot have it both ways. Last week the Minister of Fisheries said he will put fish on the table at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development next June in Rio de Janiero where conventions on the environment and natural resources will be examined.

March 16, 1992
For the minister to be taken seriously at this conference, the government to have credibility abroad should at last ratify the Law of the Sea. There is little time left and unfortunately there seems to be very little political will on the part of the Government of Canada.


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms of the federal Department of Justice will shortly submit its first report on the regulations that will accompany Bill C-17. A number of sources have indicated that the advisory council will recommend relaxing restrictions on cartridge magazine capacity, as far as the five-and ten-bullet limit is concerned, and that the safe storage requirement will also be downgraded.
Now is the time for federal and provincial members, the medical community, municipalities, the police, representatives of the public and all Canadian students to make themselves heard. Madam Speaker, we must all show our support for the coalition for gun control in Canada.


CAPE BRETON ECONOMY
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, the recent Tory budget not only promises to privatize the Cape Breton Development Corporation, but plans to amalgamate Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into ACOA.
Once again, the Conservative government deals a low blow to the island of Cape Breton. The Cape Breton Development Corporation is a major employer on the island, employing approximately 3,000 people. Now all of these jobs are at risk.
To add fuel to this fire of devastation, the amalgamation of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into ACOA will remove local control from the island. This means there will be no designated budget for this corporation and little emphasis on promoting economic diversification on the island.
These two manoeuvres will add to the already desperate economic conditions that plague the region.
The Mulroney government is continuously sneaking out of its commitment to this region of the country. The Conservative government has abandoned the people of Cape Breton and the communities that are struggling to survive. The only sense of unity this government has been successful at generating across this country are the feelings of hopelessness and economic desperation.


CHILDREN AND HOSPITALS WEEK
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, this is the thirteenth annual Children and Hospitals Week. The theme this year is commitment to caring. The goal is to increase public, parental and professional knowledge about the need for sensitive and appropriate care for children.
This week includes special activities such as health fairs, hospital tours, school programs, teddy bear or doll clinics and the distribution of resource materials.
Children and Hospitals Week is sponsored by the Association for the Care of Children's Health. It is an international, multi-disciplinary association of health care providers, organizations and parents committed to improving the quality of health care for children and their families.
I applaud the association and its members for promoting their commitment to caring for the well-being of children, and I invite members and indeed all Canadians to participate in local activities.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend I and the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, attended the First Peoples and the Constitution conference held in the Parliament Buildings.
The conference was a success in bringing native constitutional concerns to many non-aboriginal Canadians. Metis, Indian and Inuit representatives, including native women, discussed their goals, constitutional objectives and their vision for aboriginal people in our country.
March 16, 1992

The conference did not solve all disputes but problems and concerns were addressed, not avoided.
All those who planned and participated deserve to be commended. Their example of working together in open dialogue should be followed as we attempt to solve the constitutional issues that this nation faces.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I would like to share with the House some of the excellent comments and advice my constituents are giving me.
James Fisher of Burlington writes:
If you do nothing else before the next election, continue to hold firm on costs, the GST, et cetera and bring the deficit down. If you can do that your party will gain credibility (and votes?). Remember your own survey showed the federal debt is a main concern of your constituents.
R. A. Law of Glen Williams writes:
Don't give in to people who can't take the austerity measures you are using. We must keep our deficit down.
Eliminate duplication of government levels which are everywhere.
Donna and Mark Bowman of Bolton write:
The Quebec issue must be cleared up with Quebec staying in a new "fighting trim" Canada, it has been necessary to trim the fat and lower expectations if we are to survive in the world marketplace. Inflation had to be brought under control. Our federal deficit is a continuing worry as is the status of our political leaders in the minds of Canadians.
Finally, Graham Duff of Cheltenham writes:
We have to reduce government spending, government involvement and the civil service.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday Canadians learned of a devastating natural disaster, an earthquake in Turkey, which was followed on Sunday by a second with the possibility of a third yet to come.
I am certain I speak for everyone in this House in expressing sympathy to the people of Turkey and to their families here in Canada.
As well, I appreciate that the Minister of External Relations and International Development swiftly routed $350,000 from CIDA to the emergency relief fund.
Canadians have always demonstrated a generosity of spirit toward those in need after natural disasters. There is an immediate and desperate need for medicine, doctors, tents, warm clothing and rescue crews to dig for survivors. In the longer term there will be a need for housing, hospitals, food, and medicine.
Through either the various local Thrkish earthquake relief funds or through the Red Cross, I urge Canadians to supplement the government aid, which is only a fraction of what will be needed for recovery from this massive devastation.


REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, Canadians must be made aware of the Reform Party's doublespeak. The Reform Party of Canada put up billboards across Canada advertising that the Reform Party will run its election campaign how Canada should be run, debt free.
Now the Reform Party is encouraging members to buy life insurance, name the Reform Party as the beneficiary, and then transfer the ownership of the plan to the party. The member forks over the funds to the Reform Party for the policy's upkeep which secures themselves a tax deductible receipt for a donation to a political party. In addition the Reform Party then borrows against the policies to fund its federal election campaign.
How will this massive program of massive borrowing be debt-free for their party? There are contradictions here that Canadians must know. The Reform Party said it will run its election debt-free and then it puts into place this policy so that it can borrow large sums of money to run its campaign.
Preston Manning has spoken out-

March 16, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry. The time has expired.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, in the Victorian era hysteria was considered an illness characteristic of the mentally unstable gender: the females.
It was argued that hysteria was tolerated and encouraged by the male dominated medical profession as an outlet for women's frustrations because such expressions of discontent did not have the power to effect socioeconomic and political change.
Discontent with their status quo expressed through political agitation at the time would have been more dangerous.
Today one wonders just how much has changed. Women who have protested and asked for a ban of the Meme implant on the basis of its perceived hazards have been dismissed as hysterical. They have been called medical terrorists for raising doubts about the medical viability of such devices. They have been silenced when they have put forth evidence of their own mutilated bodies as living proof of the problems associated with their implants. They have been treated as hypochondriacs and deemed hysterical for thinking that their sufferings were imaginary.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but time has expired.


EL SALVADOR
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to review the current refugee policy for claimants from El Salvador.
While we all laud this country for reaching a peace settlement, the fact is that El Salvador is still not safe for all of its citizens.
British Columbians have rallied behind the Garcia family whose claim to remain here in Canada has been rejected. There is every reason to believe that the Garcias would be in danger if they are returned to El Salvador.
Mrs. Garcia was under suspicion just for being a trade unionist. While living in El Salvador, the family car was riddled with bullets, the family home was bombed and the Garcias were held hostage for 11 days.
Just last week, a trade unionist was assassinated in El Salvador. Incredibly, the Immigration Department feels that this is a safe environment.
I ask the Minister of Immigration to look realistically at the situation in El Salvador and to review the claim by the Garcias. This could be a matter of life and death.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the time has expired.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, while financing municipal infrastructure may not, in normal times, be the responsibility of the federal government, it clearly is the federal government's responsibility to institute policies that encourage competitiveness and full employment.
The Minister of Finance recognized the link between infrastructure and competitiveness in his budget speech when he said: "At the recent First Ministers' meeting many governments stressed the important contribution that adequate infrastructure makes to our competitive position. The Government of Canada agrees that this is important".
At the same time, there can be absolutely no doubt about the link between job creation and a works program to build and repair infrastructure needed to help make us competitive.
At this abnormal time, when we desperately need to improve our competitiveness and create jobs, the government must initiate a fiscally responsible program to finance the upgrading of municipal infrastructure.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, according to The Citizen this morning, it cost last year $840,000 to supply the Prime Minister's Office with information. The study by Brad Mann Communications Consulting Inc. found that the sheer volume and variety of clipping packages means that some of these products are not being used.

If you think it is expensive to get all this information into the Prime Minister's office, take a look at the other side of the coin. Stevie Cameron, writing in The Globe and Mail this morning, reports that last year when she asked for information on redecorating the Prime Minister's official residence, the government asked for $19,000 as a fee for providing that information.
The government is now saying that all of those agencies that do annual reports simply cannot afford to do that any more. Maybe we should all get hold of Brad Mann Communications Consulting and see if we cannot straighten out what is an obviously very expensive problem where it costs too much money to get information to the Prime Minister and he does not have any left to provide the Canadian people with any information on his own.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, this past weekend's constitutional conference highlights a week of tremendous advancement for aboriginal peoples in Canada, beginning with a Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada recommending the entrenchment of an inherent right to self-government, this Chamber's recognition of Louis Riel's contribution to Confederation and leaders of the four national aboriginal organizations being invited to become full participants in the constitutional process of the Canada round.
Yesterday, the sixth conference of First Peoples and the Constitution concluded on a very positive note under the excellent leadership of co-chairs Premier Joe Ghiz and ICC President Mary Simon.
Issues on the inherent right to self-government, jurisdiction and responsibility, implementation and the First Peoples' recognition were deliberated with enthusiasm.
A very positive message was also sent to Quebec by the aboriginal peoples in seeking a strong united Canada.
I rise today to ask this House to join me in thanking our Prime Minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney, and
the Minister for National Unity, the right hon. Joe Clark, for making all these successes possible.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the time has expired.


KOREAN VETERANS
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, on June 17, 1991, the government announced the awarding of service medals for those who took part in Canada's military operations in Korea.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs stated in a press release that: "The Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea recognizes the major contribution of those volunteers who served with United Nations' Forces in Korea". Canada is the only member of the Commonwealth to give our Korean veterans this distinct recognition.
I fully realize that a medal is but a token which Canadians can offer to reflect the magnitude of the sacrifice of those volunteers who served in Korea. I would like to inform this House that there are Korean veterans in Sudbury who have received the medal, yet there was no ceremony to mark the occasion. Instead they received the medals in the mail along with a form letter written on behalf of the Governor General.
I think it is shameful the way the government has overlooked Sudbury's Korean War veterans who served with distinction, especially since-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


RESEARCH
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Madam Speaker, a unique union of science and business is being fused in Winnipeg, resulting in the establishment of a world class diagnostic research centre, thanks in no small way to a $7 million contribution from the Department of Western Economic Diversification.
By the time the centre becomes fully operational in September 1993, it will have a staff of 70 with up to 30 visiting researchers. Considering that the international market for biodiagnostics is expected to grow to over $50

March 16, 1992
Oral Questions
million over the next five years, Manitoba is now well positioned to reap substantial benefits from this new and exciting growth industry.
Along with the Health Science Centre of the University of Manitoba and the Centre for Disease Control, this new research centre will elevate Winnipeg into one of the world's premier centres for medical research.
Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind the House that yesterday Mr. Vic Peters and his rink won the national curling championship, so that is number two for Manitoba this year.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Madam Speaker, it is so big that nobody will suffer any illusion about what the member is asking. If he wants all that information and he believes it is being hidden, why does he not ask the committee to work exactly as it should within the operation of the House of Commons?\nWhy does he want to play politics with something that is not? We do the best we can in terms of the health of people, but I will not give information if that information is secret, if it does not have to be made available.\nOnce again I am amazed because normally the member for Hamilton East has that kind of approach. I did not believe it could be that contagious within that party.']
Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
There is a report in today's London Free Press about a speech made Saturday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At a meeting of the Progressive Conservative Campus Association at the University of Western Ontario, the minister said that Canada would be better off to wait a few years before signing a North American free trade deal.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister: Is this the position that the government will be taking when the Prime Minister has his telephone conversations with Presidents Bush and Salinas, that Canada does not want to sign a trade deal at this time?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I read the same article in the London Free Press this morning. I must admit that I was surprised to find myself in it, based on what I actually said.
The point that I was making to the students in response to a question was that it would always be very nice to do things in boxes, to do the free trade agreement, to do GATT, to do the NAFTA in a little box, but that is not the way life works. I never in any instance called for a delay in the agreement because these negotiations are going to lead to more jobs for Canadians and better trading arrangements throughout North America.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, in the statement to the students the minister said that
the federal government is "happy to be involved, but I would like it to have come a little later when the country is in better economic shape".
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether in his conversations with Presidents Salinas and Bush the Prime Minister will be asking them to delay the deal until the country is in better economic shape, as his colleague has suggested, or is he in fact taking another different secret tack?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, first of all that is not what I said. The hon. member is reading from a newspaper article. There is some semblance of accuracy in this, but they have missed the main point of what I was saying. The point that I was making was that the greater trading relationship will be of assistance in providing jobs for Canadians and in growth in this economy.
I continue to stand by that and so does the government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I spoke to the reporter and he stands by his story. It will be interesting to see who is actually telling the truth in this one.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs has admitted it is not the right time to sign this three-way trade agreement. Furthermore, the Prime Minister must be aware of the GATT report which says that today, regional trade agreements are weakening the global trading system.
How can the Prime Minister be so obsessed with signing another agreement with the United States and Mexico that he would ignore the GATT report and the interests of Canadians?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Madam Speaker, it is well known that the Government of Canada has always supported the GATT system. However, that does not mean that we are not prepared to proceed with the free trade agreement, the new NAFTA, because we believe that trading agreements, particularly if we can carry over things from the FTA into GATT, are bound to be good for the whole world, not just Canada.
March 16, 1992


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns Ideal Equipment Co. Ltd. in Montreal, which produces sewing machine parts in Mexico. As a result of this transfer of the company's operations to Mexico, 110 jobs in Montreal have been lost.
In the light of the proposed free trade agreement with Mexico, could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House how the government will prevent an exodus of manufacturers from Montreal, where the average wage is $14, to Mexico, where the hourly wage is $3?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, the question is always the same. Somehow or other, if any country has lower wage rates than Canada, we are not supposed to be able to compete. You compete because of good management and because of good technology. These things Canada has.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, the government in the last election and during the negotiations of free trade with the United States promised generous retraining programs. The government has failed to deliver such programs.
In case there is a free trade agreement with Mexico, can the government promise a generous adjustment program, and this time deliver?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, Canada has one of the most generous training programs in the world and we intend to continue.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Go to Mexico.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Many times in the House I have raised the issue that Canadians have a right to have a full debate in the House of Commons with their representatives on the projected trade deal with Mexico. There are a lot of concerns in
Oral Questions
Canada about the results of the Canada-U.S. trade deal. Millions of Canadians are worried and anxious about what this government is trading away this time.
Today we hear that the Prime Minister will have a telephone conversation with Presidents Bush and Salinas. We do not know what the content will be. Canadians do not know the content. We also see that the government is offering a secret briefing to committee members. When is the government going to talk to the Canadian people to allow a full debate on this trade deal with Mexico? Canadians have a right to know. Why is the government being so secretive?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party knows that we have a whole system in place for consultation with the SAGIT system and that continues
to operate.
I would think that she might wait and listen to what the minister has to say to the committee on Thursday.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, every time in this House we ask on behalf of Canadians to have some information, we are told to wait.
Now we hear there will be a telephone conversation today between Presidents Bush and Salinas and the Prime Minister where details of the trade deal are going to be discussed. Canadians do not want to wait until after a deal is signed to find out what has happened to shape the future of Canada. I ask the Acting Prime Minister why does he not, on behalf of his government today, come clean with Canadians and tell Canadians what is happening in this debate so that we can have a full discussion in the House of Commons?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I am sure if the President of Mexico wishes to have a three-way conversation, that conversation may well take place.


Mr. McCurdy:: Open the door.
Mr. Winegard It is just ludicrous to believe that the three principal heads of government are going to negotiate over the telephone.

March 16, 1992
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The government thinks it is consulting. In June, Canada's chief negotiator said that the Government of Canada would consult Canadians. However, the government has refused to allow a debate here in the House of Commons to give Canadians more information.
The Financial Post has information; the Mexicans have information; and U.S. senators also have information. Where is the information to which Canadians are entitled?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, the opposition has had an opportunity in committee to hear everything the minister has to say about the NAFTA. Last week we sat through a whole day debating the issues around the North American Free Trade Agreement. There is another meeting scheduled for Thursday. There are all kinds of opportunities for the opposition parties to learn what this agreement is about.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and her famous London speech where she is quoted as saying that the the minister would like to have the North American Free Trade Agreement come a little bit later because Canada is not ready for it yet.
I want to ask the minister why this government is allowing itself to be pushed into another trade deal through a quickie conference call when the minister herself admits that Canada is not ready for such a deal and that it is far too early to make any judgement upon its impact. Why are we allowing ourselves to be pushed around with somebody else's timetable?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I think this is really a silly line of questioning. I have already explained the context in which I made the remarks. I also went on to point out the great advantages to Canada that would come from a North American Free Trade Agreement, including to our telecommunications industry among others, where there is great demand in Mexico for some of the things Canada is very good at. It was well received
by the students and I think it should be well received by the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in 1988 we got the same assurances that there would be thousands of jobs created in Canada. The minister in the same speech conceded that there have been major disruptions as a consequence of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
I want to ask the minister how this government can support another trade deal without knowing how many jobs would be lost. How can Canadians trust any deal this government negotiates when they know, to use the minister's words, the major disruptions that have been experienced as a result of the first trade deal it got us into?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Those are the hon. member's words, not my words.
What is important for the future is that the world is moving toward more open trading situations, including Canada, the United States and Mexico. We are doing it through the GATT round and through NAFTA, because that is where the future of this country lies in terms of jobs. We have had increased investment in this country as a result of the free trade agreement. That is going to lead to more jobs in the future. So will the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States. Because in the 1990s we cannot bury our heads in the sand like the Liberals did for 20 years.



Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister of health.
Private Members' Bill C-279, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, was debated in this House this morning. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that people are protected from dangerous or potentially dangerous breast prostheses.
I would like to ask the minister why, if the current legislation under the Food and Drugs Act is sufficient, did it take 10 years for the government to recognize the health hazards pertaining to the Meme and the silicone gel implants and to eventually decide to remove both from the market? I would like to know why and everybody in this House would like to know why.
March 16, 1992

Oral Questions


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I already answered that question many, many times.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You never answered.


Benoît Bouchard: Yes, I did. I repeat what I said. I will share something with my colleague, that the health of women is the paramount issue we have to keep in mind here. At the same time all those operations were done over many years. The decisions made by her own government before 1984 and those made since 1984 were made in light of the information we have on the question of the breast implant. As soon as I had information which led me to believe that we have to be prudent with that operation, we did what should be done. The Meme breast implant was withdrawn from the market in June and in January we decided to remove all breast implants from the market. Even if the preliminary report from the United States, which she knows very well, was such that in the United States they considered re-installing the silicone gel breast implants back on to the market, I said, and I repeat what I said at the time: I do not have the evidence now that it should be returned on the market. As far as the department and myself are concerned, we do not intend for now to put those breast implants on the market.
I think it is what my hon. friend is looking for and it is what we are looking for also. I understand and I agree with her that all has to be done to protect the health of women. I believe, with all honesty, that that is what I did since I have been Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, one minister after another has consistently told this House about information received, investigations done, reports that failed to prove implants are hazardous to the health of Canadian women. We have heard this consistently. If there are so many reports and so much information is available out there, will the minister table those reports in this House today so I can see them, too?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, information on breast implants, both in Canada and the United States, has in general always been available to everyone. Recently, at Food and Drug Administration hearings in the United States, to which we sent a multi-person committee that attended the presentation of briefs, everything was available. There is no question of the minister hiding any information whatever. The only issue here is whether or not certain medical devices can be used. For the time being, they are not available and I just said in English that I do not intend to allow them to be sold in the coming weeks.
So I think that I have answered the hon. member's first question to me.


Beryl Gaffney: Thble them in the House.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Show us.


RETRAINING
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it concerns retraining.
I was pleased to hear from the minister in a letter dated March 6 that UI recipients could now qualify for two or three consecutive years of retraining rather than one year. Legislation has allowed the two or three year option, but different policies and a lack of guidelines for employment counsellors across the country left applicants in limbo.
Will the minister now assure all eligible Canadians that two or three year retraining is a national government policy and will be applied right across the country?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: What I can assure the member of is that developmental use of UI, which I know the opposition strenuously opposed when we brought this forth, will go on and will take place. The Labour Force Development Board has made recommendations to the government to increase the training under UI by $300 million in this

March 16, 1992
Oral Questions
fiscal year. We have accepted their recommendation. We will be spending $300 million more.
As to the issue of how and whether every Canadian unemployed can qualify tomorrow morning for two or three years of training, I cannot say that because that program of retraining is developed according to the needs of the regions of the country. In certain areas for certain trades, yes, this is possible; for others it is not. But this is a developmental program that will continue. I think that unemployed Canadians will benefit from it.


Steve Butland: The minister probably knows that in B.C. the answer is "yes"; in Newfoundland it is "maybe", and in Ontario it is "no" to two or three years of retraining. So it is an inconsistent policy. The policy was inconsistent, now it is unjustifiable. The new policy states that you may seek two or three years of retraining at a community college, but not at a university.
The minister is dictating the type of training an individual must pursue. Will the minister reverse his decision and allow UI recipients to attend either a community college or a university?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Labour Force Development Board and the government are open to any suggestions for trying to improve how we train Canadians.
We have under the Prosperity Initiative led by Madam Marie Jose Drouin and David McCamus groups of people throughout the country looking at the whole training system we have which includes both the trade side and the post-secondary university side of it.
If the hon. member or his party have suggestions, I am sure that they would be considered because this is about trying to equip Canadians with the tools they need to keep this country competitive. Any suggestions in that regard will be welcome.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth.
The government has not yet announced the budget for Challenge '92 program, the student summer employment program. In view of the massive levels of student unemployment, around 15 per cent last summer and expected to be worse this year, surely a decision is
needed now. When will the government respond to the real and pressing employment needs of Canada's students? When?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the program is going on known as Challenge '92, as he called it, and the numbers and details should be announced as soon as possible.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. We are now in one of the worst recessions in Canada's history. Students have to cope with all kinds of additional costs for education, and I am thinking of the GST and the alarming increase in tuition fees and other expenses.
Students feel utterly helpless. When will this government produce a student employment polity that is commensurate with their needs?
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Madam Speaker, of course I do not agree with the hon. member's opening remarks, especially about this being the worst recession, because I am sure everyone will recall that the worst recession was in 1981-82, when the hon. member's party was in power.
As for the summer program, with which the hon. member is familiar since he referred to it as Challenge '92, it is an excellent program which we have had for a number of years and which will still be around this summer. The figures will be announced as soon as possible, probably this week, and I am sure the hon. member and all students will be delighted.


BILL C-55
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Bill C-55 would give the Conservative Government the power to do serious damage to public service pensions. The government could give itself a premium holiday by refusing to pay employer contributions identical to those paid by the employee. It could change the rate of interest on the pension fund, without consultation. It could reduce indexation, and it could do
March 16, 1992

all that by regulation, without going before Parliament or submitting to committee scrutiny.
Is the government aware of the devastating impact Bill C-55 will have if it keeps supporting these clauses in the bill? Is it prepared to withdraw these clauses, at the very least?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should have asked me a few questions about this matter privately, instead of believing every thing he read in a press release by PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which appears to be particularly keen on drawing our attention to problems that are non-existent, since the government has no intention of doing what the hon. member just said. PSAC is now appearing before the Labour Relations Board because of its actions during the strike. Understandably, they would like the public to believe all this, but the government has no intention of doing what the hon. member said.
In fact, when I tabled Bill C-55, I announced in the House that any problems concerning financing, indexation, and so forth, would be examined with the unions at the appropriate time. The purpose of Bill C-55 is to bring pension legislation into line with the Income Tax Act.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, Bill C-55 is a sugar-coated poison pill.
In 1984 the minister said: "Have confidence we will not do it". Why put it in the bill if they are not going to use it? They promised they would never deindex Public Service pensions and today they are proposing exactly that.
Bill C-55 could be used together with the Income Thx Act to deindex the Public Service pensions of Canada.
To use the words of a union leader this morning: Why is the government using such sneaky and sleazy methods by giving itself the power to change pensions by regula-
Oral Questions
tions rather than coming before Parliament for public scrutiny and legislative approval?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I suppose that the hon. member, being from the Ottawa region, pays great attention to statements that are made by the unions. With respect to the truth, I will be appearing in front of the House committee tomorrow to discuss Bill C-55. It does nothing of the sort that the hon. member has indicated.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth.
Almost every year for the last 10 years the Challenge program in support of summer employment for students has been announced in February. It has not yet been announced by the minister, although he has his press release half prepared.
Will the minister confirm that in fact his shyness with respect to the Challenge program is because the funds will be frozen once more as they were last year in spite of rising unemployment rates among students?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, since my hon. colleague seems to be well informed in the sense that I have a half prepared press release, it is a good reason for me not to release it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the students across this country are going to be very much amused by the minister's facetiousness.
I ask him once more to let the students across this country, whose unemployment rate is 15 per cent, know this weekend whether there are any serious prospects for them having jobs.

March 16, 1992
Oral Questions
I ask the minister: Where is the funding necessary to double the number of mathematicians, scientists and engineers, that this government says should be done, if it is not prepared to put money in the pot? What is going to be in the Challenge program in 1992?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, although he seems to be losing his cool today, the program has been announced and numbers will be made public as quickly as possible.
I am sure that the students are going to be more amused with the numbers than my colleague's facetiousness.


RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. CN has appealed the National Transportation Agency's decision to maintain service on the Franquet-Chapais subdivisions in Abitibi. Can the minister tell us today when this case will be heard?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I note again that my colleague from Abitibi is very involved in this issue, which he really cares about. I commend him for that, but unfortunately, I do not have the authority to decide when cases will be heard in court.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
The minister ought to know that the investor immigrant program is in jeopardy and our reputation in the Pacific Rim is being tainted. Investor immigrants from Hong Kong and Taiwan thought they were buying western Canadian real estate. Instead their money was spent on rural Saskatchewan gold mines. The prospectus of the offering was approved by the federal government. Therefore, the minister is ultimately responsible.
What will the minister do to protect the investor immigrant program so that people who are thinking of investing their fortunes in this country can do so with some confidence and some assurance that this government will look after those investments?


Bernard Valcourt: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, that is the objective of the government in implementing the investor program. If the hon. member has a suggestion as to how we can improve it, we are in the process of revisiting the whole program to ensure exactly that and also to make sure that regions in Canada do benefit from that program. If the hon. member has suggestions to make, I will be pleased to consider them.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, the Hong Kong and Taiwanese investors the minister will know invested in Canada, much of it in western Canada, approximately $4 billion in 1990 alone. The federal investor immigrant program is sponsored by the Government of Canada, not by the province of Alberta in this case. The individual in question was acting as a private individual at the time these allegations took place.
Two hundred and seventy-eight Pacific Rim investors want to know why $34 million went to a gold mine in Saskatchewan instead of shopping centres elsewhere in the province.
What will the minister do as minister today to ensure that Canada's name is not further tainted in the Pacific Rim which is very important to western Canada and all of Canada in terms of investments?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a case that is before the courts and as soon as the courts have dealt with this case-


David Kilgour: Three years from now.


Bernard Valcourt: I know Liberals would jump the court. I will not. I am going to await the decision of the court in this matter. If it calls for a change to the way we are dealing with the investor program, we will do that because we pursue the same objectives that I am sure the hon. member wants for Canada. Any change that can improve this program will be made.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In tabling a document on Friday the minister implied that the Ontario government supported his plan to start privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport.
In fact the report he tabled states that the government's plan could seriously prejudice financing for the future of the airport.
In view of the fact that every responsible group, both in the private and public sectors, questions the minister's timing and his motives on this announcement why is the government in such a hurry?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, when I answered the hon. member's question in the House on Friday, I mentioned and, in fact, showed him a document that had been distributed at a meeting with the Minister of Transport, the Minister of the Environment and four or five mayors from the Toronto area last Monday evening. At the time, the government mentioned something very important, and I quote:

The analysis presented has been prepared by a team of airport consultants using information collected over the course of several years and where necessary professional judgment. However it would not be prudent to make business decisions on the basis of the analysis presented in the document.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, what is clear to Canadians and what is clear to those stakeholders at Pearson airport is that this minister's drive to privatize is nothing more than politically motivated. It is a pathetic attempt to rescue Tory seats in Toronto.
Will the Minister of Transport do the right thing, right now, and withdraw his request for proposals and have another look at all the alternatives being presented to him by the stakeholders of this country?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, judging from the preamble the hon. member is asking us to hold the RFP back because if we do proceed
Oral Questions
it might give us some additional seats in the region at the next election.
If that is right it would certainly be because this proposal is going to create 3,200 jobs for people in the Toronto area for five years.


CHILD POVERTY
Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, in 1981 there was one food bank in Canada. Today there are close to 300. Two million Canadians, including 700,000 children depend on food banks. My question is for the minister of health.
The new child benefit package gives a small top-up to working poor families, but not to families on social assistance which is creating the "deserving poor" and the "undeserving poor" in Canada. It categorizes and penalizes children for their parents' situation.
Why has the government taken out an advertisement in all Canadian newspapers claiming that this is the fairer way, the simpler way, the more generous way? Are these benefits for children or are they for some Tory right-wing agenda?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, obviously the terms of reference for us are not those for the NDP. There is no government in the world that can sustain the kind of approach the NDP is going to have in terms of resources. What we do is we use the resources we have and we say to Canadians: "Here is the best way we can provide help to Canadians".
I agree that as long as there are children going to food banks, we have to do the best we can to correct the situation. The reality is, however, that the resources we have in the budget are being used to help the families of low-income workers and I appreciate the member is against that.
Second, I said that soon we will announce a package for children at risk, where a lot of the children she is talking about will be targeted in a way that we can give more help than now. But there is no doubt that it has to be done within the capacity that we have to pay for it. She can be sure that certainly that is what we will do.
Oral Questions BREAST IMPLANTS

March 16, 1992


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stood in this House today and told us that breast implants had been withdrawn from the market and that they will not be put back on the market.
It is true that some manufacturers have ceased production of implants but there are thousands of previously distributed implants in hospitals and doctors' offices. Only three weeks ago Quebec plastic surgeons held a press conference to announce that they believe implants to be safe.
My question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare is, what is the minister doing to ensure that implants are not being used? Second, what will the penalty be if a doctor were to violate the voluntary removal of the implants?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I cannot prevent the Plastic Surgeons Association of Quebec from asking for what they want. The question is that I did not say yes. That is what the member wanted me to do and I did it.
Second, when she is referring to the manufacturers, she should certainly look at the press release I gave out when we created the advisory board. I said explicitly that I asked the department to trace the manufacturers to be sure that no silicone gel breast implant would be given to any surgeon here in Canada from now on.
She knows very well that we did what should be done. The fact of the matter is that the silicone gel filled implants are not available on the market and they will not be in the future. That is exactly what the member wanted.


MORDECAI RICHLER
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Madam Speaker, for a week Quebecers have been the victims of hate propaganda. They have been called a mean-spirited racist tribe in public. Quebecers' symbols are mocked in order to publicize a book by Mordecai Richler.
Does the government intend to ban this book as hate propaganda? Does the government intend to use the Criminal Code to ban this book, as the Code allows it to do?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, there are two points. First, if the Criminal Code is violated, there will of course be a response.
Second, I think that it would be informative for Canadians to know the Bloc Quebecois' position on the freedom to publish; they want to know the Bloc's position on fundamental rights in Canada.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, that is no way to answer Quebecers about hate propaganda. Certainly not. The Criminal Code clearly says in section-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member please put her question?


Pierrette Venne: Yes. Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the government intends to use section 319 of the Criminal Code, which clearly mentions public incitement to hate and fomenting hatred.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I believe that I just answered that question. The law is there. If there is a reason to invoke the law, the government is ready to do so. I hope that is the answer sought by the hon. member, except that she may have some other motivation.


CHILD POVERTY
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of health.
The federal government announced three weeks ago in its budget that it was cutting back on advertising, yet last week the minister of health found $500,000 for advertising across the country of a so-called child benefit package.
How did the minister find this money when he was unable to find any extra money for Canada's poorest of poor children?
March 16, 1992


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, the budget did not say that we will not inform Canadians. The budget said that we will look at the way we use advertising to keep Canadians informed.
I am amazed to hear from the member that he does not agree with all the phone calls we had at the Department of National Health and Welfare asking for more information in the form of child benefit packages that we could not provide that information.
The best way to do that was to advertise in newspapers. We first did it nationally. We will do it now regionally and even with the aboriginal newspapers to be sure that Canadians are aware of the good news.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, since the minister knows that under the present program family allowances are universal and that he mentions in his own advertisement that all family allowance cheques are going to include publicity, I fail to see why he has to spend another $500,000 informing Canadians.
Statistics Canada, the government's own agency, admitted that we have 292 food banks in Canada and four out of ten Canadians using these food banks are children. Instead of buying ads perhaps the minister will consider buying food.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question, but for the instruction of my friend, I will repeat what I said.
Everybody agrees that we should not have food banks. But we know very well, and he knows very well, the reasons they are there. We have to deal with that. That is exactly what we are doing with the child benefit package. We are trying to provide more income for low income workers to be able to deal with that.
All members of this House should be trying to do their best so that we can cope with that in the future.
Once again, I will announce a major package for what we call children at risk and within that group we also have those children that he is talking about. Nobody in the world has the resources that the NDP has. In the
Oral Questions
provinces where they are it is amazing to see that they do not cope with those kinds of problems either.


GOVERNMENT TRAVEL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the acting Minister of Supply and Services.
Last fall the government gave the lucrative government travel contract to Rider Travel rather than Marlin Travel. In so doing the computer reservation system for tickets was transferred from Canada to the United States to a subsidiary of American Airlines.
I want to ask the government why it transferred these high-tech computer jobs to the U.S.A.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could take that question on behalf of the Minister of Supply and Services.
As the hon. member knows, we have for some years now had a process of having the private sector arrange for travel for public servants and government travel. In the process we have saved Canadian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.
The specifics of what the hon. member is talking about will be looked into and I am sure the minister will get back to him.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, according to the Canadian Travel Press Weekly, every time a member of the House or an official uses Rider Travel, three dollars in royalties for the computer system go to the United States. What will the government do to repatriate this money and the jobs which it has exported to the United States?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, again as I indicated earlier, I will look into the particular accusations the hon. member has raised.
What the hon. member seems to be suggesting, in this area as in so many other areas, is that the option for Canada is to opt out of the world.

March 16, 1992
Routine Proceedings


ALLAN MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I have before me a letter from one Richard Clements of Vancouver who 30 years ago was the subject of brainwashing experiments at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal. They were sponsored by the CIA and the Canadian government.
Mr. Clements wants to know and I want to ask on his behalf: Will the government settle these cases so that a person like Mr. Clements can finally have justice after 30
years?


Benoît Bouchard: What I can tell the member, Madam Speaker, is that that case, as 'with many other cases, is being considered by the Department of Justice. Unfortunately the minister is not here today, but we are informed that the Minister of Justice should be able to give that information soon.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a follow-up to the question asked by my colleague from Nepean.
Would the minister indicate why he refuses to table in this House all the reports done in Canada and all the reports which may be in the possession of the Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to the breast implant? Would the minister explain to the House why he refuses to table all of this information?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I first would like to know exactly what document or information the members are talking about. I am ready-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What documents?


Benoît Bouchard: The member for Hamilton East is always impatient. If she would listen for once I would give the answer to her colleague.
I just want to say that I will look at what information he is talking about that would not be available to the opposition and if it is releasable. He knows very well, in terms of health and that kind of reality, that we cannot always give information which would deal with something that is particularly very delicate.
Once again, if there is any possibility that I can make that available, I will. I have nothing to hide. The question is to deal with health and information the best we can.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, if the minister has nothing to hide, which he has suggested inside the House and outside the House, would he not avail himself of the opportunity to present all the documentation in the possession of his department, Canadian, American, as well as that of other countries, all reports and studies? Will he table all of that information in the House of Commons so that Canadians, and in particular women, will have all of the knowledge and all of the information?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, it is so big that nobody will suffer any illusion about what the member is asking. If he wants all that information and he believes it is being hidden, why does he not ask the committee to work exactly as it should within the operation of the House of Commons?
Why does he want to play politics with something that is not? We do the best we can in terms of the health of people, but I will not give information if that information is secret, if it does not have to be made available.
Once again I am amazed because normally the member for Hamilton East has that kind of approach. I did not believe it could be that contagious within that party.



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.]



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Barbara Jean McDougall: for leave to introduce Bill C-64, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mrs. McDougall (for Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre)), moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the Sir Frederick Banting Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam, British Columbia.
The students say that in 1982 the International Whaling Commission declared a moratorium on commercial whaling. A loophole in the IWC moratorium, however, allowed for whales to be killed for scientific research purposes and under the guise of science hundreds of whales have been butchered. Some research is conducted. Then the whale meat is sent to the marketplace as an expensive delicacy. Now Iceland, Norway and Japan are threatening to ignore or leave the IWC and start full-scale commercial whaling once more.
The students demand that the international laws be introduced and enforced to eliminate the scientific research loophole so the world's whales can be preserved.


Michael James Breaugh: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 38 people from the Oshawa area.
Routine Proceedings
They are basically requesting that the Parliament of Canada investigate the possibility of making home renovations tax deductible to the home owner, as has been done in the United States, in the current tax year so that jobs could be created in the building industry and therefore help to stimulate the economy.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 36 I wish to present 64 petitions containing approximately 8,150 signatures of citizens of Burlington, Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Dundas, Mississauga, Oakville, Scarborough, Guelph, Kitchener, Toronto, and other locations in southwest Ontario.
The petition urges the government to stiffen the penalties for violent crime and points in particular to the death of Ms. Nina de Villiers who was brutally murdered on August 9, 1991.
The petitioners ask the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to continue to review all legislation that deals with public safety and negotiate where necessary with the provincial authorities to ensure that the laws are amended to reflect the concerns expressed by the petitioners on public safety.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, on Friday, March 13, close to 1,000 people demonstrated in front of Toronto City Hall to protest this government's bungling of the processing of the refugees in the refugee backlog.
Those petitions have been given to the clerk for approval. The present petitioners here do state that refugee claimants who although successfully established in Canada are being refused landing at the pre-inquiry humanitarian and compassionate reviews.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External affairs 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.

March 16, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present around 300 petitions which have over 6,000 signatures.
These petitioners feel that there are still very serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system in Canada. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent. They ask the government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, as the spokesman for international development in the New Democratic Party, I have been receiving a number of petitions.
I have eight of them with me here from people, mostly in Quebec, who are concerned about the trade in humans, the indentured labour between the countries of Haiti and Dominican Republic.
They call upon Parliament, in light of our position, the Canadian position on human rights, to encourage the Government of Canada and the United Nations to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that this trade in humans is stopped between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions on two subjects from my constituents of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
The first has to do with the dockside monitoring program. It is from constituents, many of whom are fishermen, who wish to urge Parliament and the government to rescind any further plans for user fees for this program, to absorb the costs and to supply qualified personnel for this program.
The petitioners urge Parliament to withdraw the onerous fees which have been associated with this dockside monitoring program in Atlantic Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): The second petition, Madam Speaker, is from women in my constituency and it has to do with the Meme breast implant.
The petitioners urge, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to establish an independent judicial inquiry into the testing and approval process for all medical devices, and in particular the Meme breast implant.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 211, 212, 213, 214 and 231.


Ms. Phinney: What is the percentage of disabled people living in Canada today?


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: By the
Hon. Michael H. Wilson, Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada reports:
In 1986, (latest data available) there were an estimated 3.3 million persons with disabilities residing in households and in health-related institutions. This represented 13.2 per cent of the Canadian population in 1986. Data from the 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey will be released in September of this year.


Mr. Fulton: Has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans allocated resources, both human and physical, to conduct a technical evaluation and/or impact assessment studies on the operation of Cominco's large hover-craft (ACV) on the Stikine River system between Wrangell, Alaska and the Iskut Mines and, if so, (a) what are the results, (b) when will the Department make these studies public?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: (a) DFO initiated an environmental screening of Cominco Mineral Limited's use of hover-
March 16, 1992

craft to transport materials between Bronson Creek on the Iskut River and Wrangell, Alaska, which was originally completed in February, 1991.
The screening report concluded that some of the potentially adverse effects of the hovercraft operations were unknown, and thus the project fell within section 12(d) of the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) guidelines order. The report recommended that Cominco prepare a contingency plan for prevention, containment and clean-up of spilled fuel and hazardous products, as well as collect additional information to assess the effects of hovercraft operation on fish and wildlife. The project was permitted to proceed on this basis and was to employ a "thalweg" approach to navigation, i.e. keeping to main channels, that avoids fish spawning and rearing areas and commercial fishing operations on the Iskut and Stikine Rivers.
In June 1991, the EARP screening report was revised to incorporate further information regarding the effects of hovercraft operation on fish and wildlife. No evidence was found to indicate that noise generated by hovercraft would be harmful to any life stage of salmon, and keeping hovercraft operation to the main channels of the rivers would minimize disturbance to salmon and other wildlife species. The screening decision was revised to 12(c) after DFO concluded that potentially adverse effects could be mitigated with existing technology.
In response to public concerns, the impact of wake generated by hovercraft operations on the river shoreline was investigated. An inspection of hovercraft operation was made on October 24, 1991. The wave produced by the hovercraft was estimated to be 0.15 metres in height, comparable to waves generated by typical river-boats of much smaller size. The Stikine and Iskut Rivers are very large and dynamic systems, subject to extremely high spring and summer flows and icing during the winter. Erosion is a constant occurrence during widely fluctuating water levels and velocity regimes; thus, disturbances caused by minor boat wake are not significant when compared to the magnitude of natural occurrences.
(b)	When the finalized contingency plan from Cominco Minerals Limited is received by DFO, the EARP screening report will be revised to incorporate additional
Routine Proceedings
information. The report will be made available when the revisions are completed.


Mr. Stupich: Following the announcement in November 1989 to limit the Pacific Shrimp Trap Fishery, (a) how many such licences were granted in each of the years 1990 and 1991 (b) how many applications were received (c) how many of these licences were granted upon initial application and how many following appeals (d) how many appeals were made in each year (e) how many appeals were successful in each year (f) what were the criteria used to decide eligibility for licences in successful appeals in each year?


John Carnell Crosbie: (a) In 1990 272 Pacific Shrimp by Trap Licences were issued and 275 were issued in 1991.
(b)	523 preliminary applications for a Pacific Shrimp by Trap Licence were received.
(c)	129 licences were issued based on initial applications and an additional 146 licences were issued based on appeals.
(d)	322 appeals were heard in 1990 and 12 appeals were heard in 1991.
(e)	143 appeals were successful in 1990 and 3 appeals were successful in 1991.
(f)	Each licence appeal was considered on its own merit and considered the personal circumstances of each appellant. The Pacific Region Licence Appeal Board considered all relevant material presented in support of a licence appeal, e.g. sales slips, log books, affidavits attesting to fishing activity or sale of fish, invoices supporting vessel repairs, etc.
The aim of the licence appeal process is to determine if the appellant was treated fairly in accordance with the licensing policies, practices and procedures of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and if extenuating circumstances existed for deviation from the established policies, practices and procedure.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): 
John Carnell Crosbie: (a) & (b) Since the establishment of the Dockside Monitoring Program, the Government of Can-

Government Orders
ada has not received annual payments from fishermen in the Scotia-Fundy region. There are therefore no outstanding payments for Scotia-Fundy fishermen for 1991.
In the fall of 1991, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the formation of a Task Force on Dockside Monitoring. Over the past months, the task force has been studying how the program can be designed to apply on a consistent basis in eastern Canada and how it should be financed. The task force should forward its recommendations for ministerial consideration in the upcoming months.


Mr. Mifflin: With respect to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans projects concerning the resurfacing of the wharf at Catalina, Nfld., and of the deep water wharf in Bonavista, Nfld., (a) are they being proceeded with and, if not, for what reasons (b) have they been tendered (c) have they been awarded (d) what is the anticipated start of work on the projects?


John Carnell Crosbie: (a) Both projects have been deferred due to the government's effort to restrain spending as announced on January 27, 1992.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	No.
(d)	The start date for work is uncertain at this time. [English]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, as reported (with amendments) from Legislative Committee C; and Motions Nos. 11 and 18 of Mr. Caccia (p. 8263).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Skeena seeking the floor. He has spoken.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I was just checking to to make sure that I had a chance to speak.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has spoken on this motion.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam was on his feet when we adjourned for Question Period. I believe that he is just coming into the Chamber right now, and I am wondering if the Chair could recognize him to complete his remarks.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, welcome back.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for your generosity to me now and in Question Period this afternoon. I do appreciate that.
I will just conclude. I tried to ask a short question, I point out, in return. I just wanted to conclude my remarks.
We are speaking on this very important environmental bill. The House has heard a number of speeches this morning. It has heard from the member for Skeena, the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who worked so hard on this committee, and the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands who worked so hard on environmental issues.
You will recall I presented a petition in the House a few minutes ago. I was just out getting a photocopy of that because it reflected, in a sense, what I was saying in
March 16, 1992

my first speech, that young people are really concerned about the environment. This was on a broader environmental issue. The petition, as you will recall, was from the students at Sir Frederick Banting Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam. Those students were concerned about a loophole.
It is very technical. You really have to know what you are talking about to get into this issue. The students really got into it. They found a loophole in the international whaling commission moratorium on commercial whaling. They found that you could in fact kill whales for scientific research purposes. Under the guise of science, you can butcher a number of whales and you can supposedly conduct the research. You then send the whales to the marketplace and sell them. What happens then is that countries like Iceland, Norway and Japan which were trying to observe the whaling moratorium then say: "Well, we had better get back into a full scale commercial whaling because it has been going on anyway".
I cite the petition of the students from Banting Junior Secondary School for two reasons. One of the reasons is the sophistication of the young people dealing with a major international environmental issue in a complicated way. Second, as the member for Skeena was saying, it shows once again that what you see is sometimes not exactly what exists, in this case sort of looking at a way of killing whales for scientific research when in fact they are still trying to look at money in the market. That is why we have to be so careful with this particular bill.
I was just looking at the press release that was put out on this bill by my party where the hon. member had outlined a number of points. There were a number of points that we put forward to try and amend this bill. There were 111 amendments introduced during the committee's review of the legislation. Some of them were accepted. We, in the New Democratic Party, managed to change the bill by including some of the changes.
First, forcing the government to assess alternatives to major projects affecting federal jurisdiction and requiring that the need for a project in the first place be determined before it goes ahead.
Second, drastically reducing government discretion- that is why this amendment is important here-in
Government Orders
deciding what projects are assessed, how they are assessed and what factors have to be taken into account during the assessment and whether a project should go ahead.
Third, requiring a review of this bill after five years.
Fourth, improving public participation, strengthening support for sustainable development, increasing the protection of aboriginal rights and including physical and cultural heritage in the definition of the environment.
It is very important having these items to strengthen the bill. We must go farther in this debate in the House and seriously consider the amendment that has just been presented by the hon. member for Davenport. As I understand it, it is an amendment that will protect us from a minister who is not particularly sympathetic or weak, present company excepted, who will be lobbied by a large corporation or by some other interest and will back off and delegate his or her power to some other group. That is why this has to be very tightly controlled.
While I am on my feet, I also want to make reference to something that the hon. member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake said. He said that the environment in his riding is truly beautiful. He mentioned Meadow Lake and a summer picnic I had the privilege of attending with him.


An hon. member:: You were the guest speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says I was the guest speaker. Well it became less nice after that. The hon. member said he had been to India after that and stated how difficult it was to find a pristine lake in India.
One great British Columbian, former Justice Tom Berger, I want to inform the House, is in India doing the first of its kind, an international impact study sponsored by the World Bank dealing with the Saravar Dam in India on the Narmada River. That is very interesting because 15 years ago or so, Justice Berger did the first environmental assessment of a great megaproject, the proposed Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline from Alaska and the Mackenzie delta down to southern Canada and the United States. This was the first of its kind in the world. It was the first real look at a project before the project was built. That is where we learned a lot of matters that are in this bill. We learned how to

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
really do an environmental assessment. We learned how to conduct public hearings. We learned how to fund interveners and what an advantage, not a disadvantage, that was to governments and the process to have all broad points of view.
Let me conclude by saying that we have done great things in the world on the environment. We are pioneering. We have a bill to which we in this party, who are committed to the environment, proposed 111 amendments. There is another amendment on the floor which we think will strengthen the bill. We ask the government and the House to support this amendment.
Remember what the students of Sir Frederick Banting Junior Secondary School said, that the environment is the key issue in the modem world.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and all committee members on this work.
I would like to put forward to members that there is confusion from time to time in the overlapping jurisdictions. I want to bring this down to my own community in Toronto where we have three rivers that flow through the centre of our city; the Don River, the Rouge River and the Humber River. They flow into Lake Ontario which is a lake that we share with the United States. These are the most polluted rivers in all of Canada.
For years we have had the toxic and biological waste from the largest city in Canada flowing down these rivers into Lake Ontario. They are now just chemical cauldrons.
It seems that because of the overlapping jurisdictions from the municipality to the province, to the conservation boards and ultimately, because of the Great Lakes, the federal jurisdiction, there is always the pointing of fingers at each other, that the municipality is responsible for a certain facet and then ultimately the province. We do report after report but there is never, ever a real final
action plan or the resources to begin reclaiming these rivers.
I hope that as we go through the various phases of this bill that we can somehow give the national government a clear cut responsibility for acting when we have overlapping jurisdictions on a particular environmental disaster. Yet there does not seem to be the will of those like the province, those bodies responsible to take action.
I cite another example from two years ago in Barrier Lake, just three hours north of us, where it was obvious the clear-cutting that was done in that area was beyond the sustainable development definition. The Algonguins of Barrier Lake could not get the support of the province to stop the clear-cutting. It was a clear cut case where the province should have stepped in and stopped it.
Yet, we as a national government, other than moral suasion, were not really in a position to do anything about it. We have a similar situation in Alberta with the pulp and paper mills going into the Athabasca River region.
My concern is that there should be some clear definition so that the national government can step in and put a much more aggressive position forward, the ultimate position when the operating authorities fail to act.
I hope in committee that specific examples like that can be addressed. Quite frankly, if there is one frustration I face it is that every month I get approached from constituents in my riding asking: "What specific action is taking place on the clean-up of the Don River? What is the national government doing about it?" You turn around and say: "It is the province that is supposed to be doing something about it". The province says: "It is the municipality". We, as a national government, seem to have either relinquished or do not have that final thrust.
I hope that we can have a clear-cut definition of our responsibility by the time we bring this bill to its final resting place.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I would just like to reinforce to the committee what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has just said. I have the same problem in my riding of Parkdale- High Park.
Every summer, when the temperatures reach 80 and 90 degrees, the beaches on Lake Ontario are closed all along Mississauga, Toronto, et cetera. Just when the
March 16, 1992

children want to jump into the lake and swim, the beaches are closed. When you try to get to the bottom of the cause of these pollutants again you get this buck passing; municipalities looking to the province for solutions, the province looking to the federal government and vice versa.
Forty years ago, when I came to Ontario, the joy that we had was to be able to swim in Lake Ontario. Now, 40 years later, we cannot swim in the same lake that we swam 40 years ago. Because Lake Ontario joins the Great Lakes, there is international involvement here so the federal government has to be involved. Pollutants do come down the Humber River to the mouth of the Humber so the province is involved.
Canada geese do a lot of polluting. Everyone is powerless to even reduce the number of Canada geese on the beaches when the rain washes their waste into Lake Ontario.
I am glad that the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood gave that direction to the committee. I would also like to emphasize that because it is very very important. In my area, it is four levels of government. It is the federal government, the provincial government, the metropolitan Toronto government and the city of Toronto. There are four jurisdictions there and four jurisdictions cannot solve this little problem of keeping the beaches open for the children when the temperatures reach 80 and 90 degrees in July and August. Something is wrong with us, the politicians, if we cannot get four levels of government together to clean up the beaches for our children every summer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 11.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motions Nos. 19 and 29 which are grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 19 will apply to Motion No. 29.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 37 by striking out line 37 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"can be justified in the circumstances because the project contributes to the goal of achieving sustainable development," Motion No. 29
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out line 17 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor
"justified in the circumstances because the project contributes to the goal of achieving sustainable development;"
He said: Madam Speaker, before Question Period I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary and to his rebuttal on Motion No. 11 and the arguments which he made in determining that my amendment was at that point unnecessary.
I have to recognize and admit that his arguments were quite good and that he certainly made a good point which I fully accept.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
However, I did have difficulty with his rebuttal on Motion No. 18 when he elaborated on the theme of self-assessment philosophy and approach that would apply in the implementation of the clause then under discussion, clause 37.
We are now approaching another aspect of clause 37. We have a real difficult issue at stake and I look forward to hearing the well thought out rebuttal by the parliamentary secretary.
I would argue that this is a bad clause. It is a bad clause because it opens a serious loophole in the system and in the whole approach and application of this proposed bill on environmental assessment.
In other words, the way one reads this clause and interprets it, one must conclude that here you would have a provision whereby projects would go ahead through the back door, although the same project is contrary to the purpose of the bill as outlined in clause 4 and in particular clause 4(a) (b) and (d).
The purpose of this bill as outlined in the clause reads that it is to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before responsible authorities take actions in connection with them.
Then the other purpose outlined in the same clause is that the purpose of this bill is to encourage responsible authorities to take actions that promote sustainable development, and finally, that the purpose of this act is to ensure that there be an opportunity for public participation in the environmental assessment process.
Having said that in the opening paragraph of this bill, what we find here in clause 37 is permission that allows a project to be approved if it is likely to cause significant, adverse environmental effects so long as the project can be justified "in the circumstances".
That is a very disturbing passage in this proposed legislation because "in the circumstances" is wide open. It is an immense loophole through which you could drive a tractor trailer, to say the least.
When the Minister of the Environment appeared before the committee, we asked him to give us an example of the type of projects that would be referred to in this particular clause. He could not give us an example. We wanted to know what kind of project would qualify for this type of exemption from the principles of sustainable development.
The bill does not require the minister to make the decision. The bill does not request the minister to
provide the public with the rationale for his or her decision.
Therefore, for all these reasons contained in the description of the purposes in clause 4, and for the reasons the minister and officials were not able to provide us with specific examples as to what kind of projects would be dealt with in this particular instance and for the reason that the minister making the decision would not be required to provide a rationale for public consumption, one must conclude that this loophole-I am not saying it will-but it could become a political escape hatch to enable a minister to approve a project regardless of the outcome of an environmental assessment.
This is bad public policy. This is not a good approach, having gone to the trouble of putting together a bill providing future generations of Canadians with a substantial step forward in the field of environmental impact assessment.
Our amendment, to conclude, is one that would require that a project, approved despite significant adverse environmental effects, can really and only be approved if it contributes to the stated goal and purposes of the bill as outlined in clause 4, namely, the implementation of sustainable development. In doing so, we will close this substantial loophole.
It is my hope that our amendment will close this serious loophole and eliminate an escape hatch that could be politically misused by future generations of ministers and really run counter to the intent, the spirit and the purpose of this particular bill, Bill C-13.1 hope the government will be giving this amendment favourable consideration. I thank you for your attention.
If you would like, I will also deal with Motion No. 29, if you have already called it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The two motions are being dealt with concurrently and they will be voted upon separately. There are two minutes left, if the hon. member wants to talk about Motion No. 29 as well.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, very briefly, this motion is an amendment that is complementary to the one I just described a moment ago. It makes the language consistent to ensure that when the minister establishes guidelines, codes and practices or criteria to define what is "justified in the circumstances", it will relate specifically,
March 16, 1992

precisely and clearly to the goal of achieving sustainable development.
Therefore, I believe this motion will come up for a vote if the preceding motion, Motion No. 19, is given favourable consideration.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I would like to focus my remarks today on Motions Nos. 19 and 29 as put forward by the member for Davenport. As the member articulated, this focuses our attention not just on the mitigating nature of this bill but also a positive interjection; that is, that it would contribute to sustainable development.
As this House knows, Our Common Future, the report of the UN environment program chaired by former Prime Minister Gro Brundtland, was put forth in the spring of 1987. Sustainable development was incorporated into our lexicon from that report. Often I hear that the term "sustainable development" is made up of antagonistic words: how can you be sustainable as well as having development? That is the challenge we have to face in our world, and that is why I think these amendments that have been put forth by the member for Davenport are a challenge to us in this bill. That is what we are trying to do in Canada and in the world. We are trying to allow for development but to make certain that future generations are not going to pay the price for what we have done in this generation.
It is a very positive contribution to the modification of this bill, and I look forward to hearing from the government members, if they oppose this, as to why they oppose this. It is a very important addition, and it does close a major loophole.
It is important because it challenges us on sustainable development, that whole definition of sustainable development that reverberates throughout the environmental community and the development community. I know it takes more than just a public relations exercise to convince people of a project's worthiness now, and that is why it is important to have the public process, to have the people who are going to be affected by a project involved in the assessment process. It is not just the
Government Orders
projects that are going to occur in Canada; it is all of those projects that have any Canadian involvement.
My colleague from Port Moody -Coquitlam earlier today talked about a major project that is planned for the Narmada River in India, and our esteemed colleague in our party, former Justice Tom Berger, has a very important role in that project in deciding whether or not it will proceed. He has been contracted by the World Bank to assess the worthiness of that project, and he has to ask the question of himself, and ask the people who are affected by it, whether or not this is sustainable development. Is this just another megaproject that is going to benefit the wealthy and harm those who are less wealthy? There are plenty of those in India, as you well know, Madam Speaker.
The same goes for the Three Gorges Project in China, where the Canadian corporation Lavalin has a major role to play. So it is Canadian corporations internationally that are acting on these projects. We have to determine, because we have the responsibility in this House of Commons, whether our corporations are behaving in a sustainable manner, and not just in Canada but outside Canada.
To conclude, the motions put forth by the member for Davenport, Motions Nos. 19 and 29, are a positive contribution. I look forward to hearing from the government members and I invite their support. This is the very crux of it: whether or not we can achieve an environmental assessment review process that will allow for sustainable development. I am sure those in the development industries are wanting that as well, because they also have children and grandchildren to whom they want to pass on a healthier planet.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support both of the proposed amendments by the member for Davenport. I think they are quite clear and I think they are quite clearly justifiable.
If one looks at the wording both in Motion No. 19, which says "can be justified in the circumstances because the project contributes to the goal of achieving sustainable development," one also finds in Motion No. 29 the same wording. The member for Davenport, I think, has

Government Orders
argued quite succinctly as to why that wording should be added.
I think we should take a look again for a moment at line 37 on page 24 because at the moment that subparagraph (ii) reads:
(ii) the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental
effects that can be justified in the circumstances,
That basically says to the proponent, whether it is the government, a Crown agency, an arm of government, the private sector, a provincial authority, a territorial authority, a First Nations project, or whatever, simply that "the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that can be justified in the circumstances".
Well, who is going to justify them? We get back to the whole question, a debate that lingers not only in Canada but in many countries around the world in these now five years since the Bruntland commission came down with its report Our Common Future and came down with a definition of sustainable development. There are man-y-not only in the private sector, who are developers, but many members of this House with whom I have had personal and lengthy discussions-who do not understand what sustainable development means. They truly do believe it means sustained development-business as usual, the status quo, and simply allowing judgments to be made politically and expediently on the basis of the determination of profitability.
What my friend from Davenport is attempting to reinject here is a sense of reality, because the planet faces a kind of stress and pressure that it has never faced before, whether it is loss of species, pollution of the oceans, pollution of freshwater systems, global warming, or a hole in the ozone. It is a very trying time for a young person to be growing up and thinking that governments, particularly governments of a country such as Canada, are incapable, either by design or by political purpose, not only of understanding what sustainable development truly is in terms of survivability and habitability of the planet, but of making what really should be a showpiece of legislation.
As I see in my documents here, external affairs hopes to travel around the world promoting Canada as the archdeacon of environmental prowess around the world. Frankly, Bill C-13, with a series of modifications and a much more strenuous application of parliamentary scrutiny to the regulatory provisions, could start approaching that level of value to Canada and to the world community. But I think it is appropriate-and like other speakers, I really do look forward to hearing from the government side about why it took so long to pound the reference to sustainable development into the preamble of this, why it took so long to pound the actual Brundtland definition into the purposes clause, and in two circumstances where it is clearly appropriate, clearly helpful and clearly sound, both at law and in principle, to include the goal of achieving sustainable development so that one would proceed with a project that had serious environmental consequences on its own only if that were leading to the goal of sustainable development.
Every project, as we know, large or small, has a measurable impact on the biosystems of earth. Anything we do, including speaking in this chamber, has an impact on the biosystems, however small. What we are suggesting here, and what the member for Davenport is suggesting, is that we have to keep the ultimate goal in mind, that this is an intergenerational process that we have to start recognizing. In a period of a very small number of generations, almost entirely those who have lived during the 20th century have brought about, in many areas of the world, problems that will take centuries and, in some cases, millennia to repair.
Let us go back for a moment to these secret FEARO documents I was referring to earlier. It is instructive from time to time to have a look at the road the government was planning to follow in terms of this legislation in the months and years leading up to today. I quote from page 8, section 11:
The Need for the Assessment of Policy Proposals: The World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) and the Canadian National Task Force on Environment and Economy have profoundly influenced the thinking of the informed community that is advocating the strengthening of the federal EARP. That community sees clearly, and has expressed very forcefully, that the assessment of proposed policies is an essential element in pursuing sustainable development. Environment considerations must be integrated with economic, technical, social and political factors in government decisions on new policies. Environmental assessment legislation will not be publicly acceptable without addressing this issue in a straightforward manner. If there is no legal obligation to assess policy proposals, the critics of the Process do not believe it will be done consistently or adequately. Moreover, exemption of policy proposals from the Process would be seen as a backward step, as the Order can be interpreted as applying to policy initiatives.
March 16, 1992

I think that is very germane. Let me again give an example. In the budget we have just had, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the greatest source of bleating and crying for government welfare, has just received $178 million new dollars. There has been no assessment of that policy despite the government's plaintive pleas and promises that there would be in the green plan. But if you add up everything of energy, mines and resources, everything from the green plan, everything from all the other government agencies for this whole coming fiscal year, there is $55 million for alternate energy and for conservation at the federal level for the whole of Canada.
What my friend from Davenport is arguing for is that in a situation where a project is going to have negative implications-and the nuclear industry is one. No one any longer argues vigorously, with scientific basis, that the mining of uranium, the processing of uranium, and the operation of nuclear plants are without environmental impact-severe, long-term, intergenerational environmental impact.
What I am saying here, and what my friend from Davenport is saying, is this. Let us say a project to store all the nuclear waste in Canada would go to Brandon- Souris, to the parliamentary secretary's constituency; it was all going to be trucked there and dumped in his backyard. We read then where it says: "the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that can be justified in the circumstances". It might create jobs in Brandon-Souris and it might lead to the re-election of the parliamentary secretary, and there might be other things. What my friend from Davenport is saying is that if it has to contribute to the goal of achieving sustainable development, it would fail. It would fail on those grounds.
What we are talking about here is trying to close up some of the more glaring loopholes that are visible now in the legislation. Later this afternoon I intend to come back many times to the holes that we know of in the regulations. There are 15 sets of them being developed that give loopholes for Atomic Energy of Canada, loopholes for the railroads, loopholes for mines, loopholes in fisheries, loopholes all the way through.
Government Orders
As I said earlier, the regulatory framework that comes with this legislation is like a box of Cheerios. It is a gigantic series of loopholes joined together to exempt almost all projects from mitigation and review. In the government's own documents it predicts that after all is said and done, after thousands and tens of thousands of projects are reviewed, it expects only a couple, with the new Bill C-13, to actually get to a full public review.
Many of us believe that the benefits to society generally, to the economy generally, and clearly to the ecology of Canada and the world are best served by having criteria out there that are well known and well understood-what compulsory projects, what ones it will be mandatory to review. My friend from Davenport, in his two amendments, simply proposes that we not leave it up to a political determination of justification and circumstances where there are negative environmental implications, that we proceed in those circumstances only if the longer-term benefit impact of that project is positive towards sustainable development.
I certainly think all members of the House should support and vote for such an objective.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, I shall talk about the amendments but also about the bill in general because I think that for us, especially Quebecers, this debate fits in with the whole constitutional debate as well.
What worries me is that this bill asserts total federal control over jurisdictions that occasionally or usually were Quebec's, especially over energy, for example.
The latest constitutional proposals would give the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over energy. If energy is an exclusively provincial domain but the federal government controls all discussion of environmental issues and all environmental requirements, what use is that power?
This bill again shows the contradiction that has long been evident in the constitutional debate on power sharing. Similarly, we saw a while ago the Minister of Communications announce that the government intented to do something that was opposed to the spirit of the discussions now under way.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
Whether we go for sovereignty or for renewed federalism, it is quite clear that the provinces' energy priorities will be up to the provinces under the Constitution. They should therefore have full jurisdiction over all environmental impact studies.
So the first problem with this bill is that it confirms this duplication of environmental authority, which I think would only weigh down the whole assessment process.
The very discretionary powers of the federal Minister of the Environment are unacceptable for Quebec and I presume for the other provinces that sometimes have their own provincial projects. The bill would give discretionary power over the justification for a project and over alternatives to it; that means total jurisdiction and total interference in any assessment that a Canadian province might do.
The most criticial point in the bill for me, however, is that the time frames are never specified; that is, a really precise deadline is never given for environmental studies. Imagine how we could ask investors to prepare a project and an investment plan if they had a project that respected the environmental spirit and principles, in other words, it did not harm migratory birds and was non-polluting? When they asked us when they could begin, we would say that an environmental review had to be done. That is normal, but they would ask how soon they would have an answer. No time limit is set. Is it two or three years? A minister could use this imprecision in a dangerous way to delay a project.
In this respect, I think the minister's role and the failure to set a time limit on the various stages in the assessment process are extremely negative factors, especially when we consider our experience in Quebec with the Great Whale project. In fact, we can expect to be faced with the same problems, the same lack of harmonization, the same duplication and the same lack of specific time limits.
I also think this bill is discriminatory with respect to the rights and duties of proponents. There would be two classes of proponents: federal proponents and provincial proponents, who would not have the same rights. This is discrimination, and it is utterly foreign to the spirit of the
present Constitution as regards jurisdiction over energy, and similarly, and above all, it is foreign to the current debate on renewing the Constitution or, if we consider the other option which I prefer, the debate on sovereignty-
In my opinion, this bill was tabled too quickly since after the current constitutional debate, entirely different jurisdictions may be proposed by the federal government in the offer it makes in May, which means that the entire bill would have to be revised. It would no longer be in line with the current division of powers and would have to restrict the minister's discretionary powers, especially with respect to project justification, as I said earlier.
As for non-federal proponents, throughout the debate they would be discriminated against because they would not have the same privileges as federal proponents. As I said earlier, duplication of procedures for the assessment of impact studies is also a real possibility, and this would lead to further arguments, as happened in the case of the Great Whale project. We had one study for one part of the environment by the federal government, another one by the provincial government, and the result was endless arguments and legal fights that merely held up the project. And we would not have had a two-or three-year delay if we had been able to proceed immediately. Without this jurisdictional fighting, we would have known today whether Great Whale is or is not environmentally safe, and if it is, work could proceed and Quebec's economy would be better off as a result.
In referring to the minister's powers, I would like to include certain commitments the minister has not made with respect to harmonization in the case of treaties like the free trade agreement and a similar agreement we might sign with Mexico. Commitments at the environmental level should include an obligation on the government when it negotiates a treaty with another countiy like Mexico or the United States to ensure that all parties observe the same environmental standards.
Unfortunately, that is not the case, so that a company that wants to invest in Canada but may only do so without polluting or disturbing the environment may wish to avoid waiting for the results of environmental studies and prefer to go to a country whose requirements are less stringent.
March 16, 1992

Now, I am all in favour of having standards. I think the principle of the bill is good. I want us to have very stringent requirements, but when we decide to sign a treaty with another country, we must ensure that country's requirements are just as stringent so that companies in this country will not be tempted to do what 16 Canadian companies did and set up shop in certain areas near the Mexican border where environmental standards are not as strict. We cannot afford to let this happen again.
In concluding, I would like to mention what was said by the Canadian Electrical Association. Generally speaking, the association felt that the above concerns would not be addressed if the bill were passed in its present form. Consequently, it recommended making certain changes, and stressed more specifically the need for putting an end to the risk and uncertainty for provincial proponents, as reflected in the way the courts had interpreted current guidelines so far.
Although their impact on the environment is very benign, electricity producers are uncomfortable with this legislation, and at the same time we have this uncertainty which is felt by all Canadians because until the debate on the Constitution has properly clarified jurisdictions, it is useless to vote on bills and plans that will have to be redone a few months from now. I would like to repeat that I support the principle of the bill, but it would need a lot of changes, and I would have some suggestions to make in this respect in my next speech.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on some of the remarks made by my friend, the member from the Bloc Quebe-cois. At the end of his speech he said that he is looking at an overlap of jurisdiction, and he says that delays due to environmental overlapping will stop investment. He was alluding to that. I gather the overlap could be the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction.
I wonder what the answer is to that. Is the answer to drop our environmental standards? I do not think so. I do not think the hon. member would advocate that and I do not think he did advocate that, but he came perilously close to saying that. Would the other answer be to have separate countries? Then, clearly, we would have not an overlap between Quebec and Canada. The problem with that, it seems to me, is that we will still need to have
Government Orders
standards unless an independent Quebec, as proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, proposes to drop environmental standards in order to attract investment.
I would hope not. Is that what the new Quebec is to be about? I heard the member from Montreal, another Bloc Quebecois member, in Question Period urge the government to censor Mordecai Richler's upcoming book.
While I may not agree with all the things Mr. Richler is saying in his book, I felt a chill on the back of my neck with the notion of censorship. If you do not like an idea you censor it. Is that the new Quebec? I would hope not because I do not think this is a very strong position from which to argue.
We are talking about the environment. Surely the problem with the environment is bigger and I say this to the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois; is the environment a federal matter? Is it a provincial matter? Is it a local matter? Is it an international matter? Fish swim, as one Quebecois once said. I think he was Prime Minister of this country and he was talking about who should control the jurisdiction. Fish swim from the waters near one province to another province in the maritimes. They swim to the international waters.
Winds blow. The winds blow from the United States, pollute Canada and vice versa. Therefore one could argue that the environment is an international matter.
The way to approach the environment as to what the constitutional position should be, should be who can best govern the environment. How would it work from a practical point of view. Sometimes it may be national. Sometimes it may be provincial or sometimes it may be local. Sometimes the jurisdictions may overlap. That may not be a bad thing. I will give you an example of culture, what is happening to culture now. You can make it similar to the environment.
In culture, a federal organization like the Canada Council is working very well for Quebec artists. They are getting the money. There is an arm's length relationship and so on. Quebec artists are saying: "We want to keep them". At the moment, I believe there are some problems in the Quebec cultural bureaucracy. The overlapping system that we have for an artist in Quebec, where the artist can get money and help from the federal government or the provincial government, is working. He can go to the federal government and get good

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
service. That was not always the case. Sometimes it was better in the province.
So it can work in the environment. Sometimes you can have a province where the government is quite frankly bad on the environment as was the previous Devine government in Saskatchewan over the Rafferty-Alameda. The federal government was being pressed to act. That is not a bad thing and can be a good thing.
The hon. member brought up another point from the Bloc Quebecois on which I want to comment. He said that perhaps we should be careful about the constitutional aspects of the environment because the debate is ongoing. There are constitutional negotiations going on and in the next few months the government may end up giving more power to the provinces, on the environment, specifically to Quebec. I think that is a good point. The House should think about that in this debate. We may be passing a bill under which, if we give a lot of power on environment to the provinces, as a result of the constitutional discussions, we could be acting rather uselessly. It is something to look for.
My impression of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee was that Canadians, including Quebecers, by and large wanted the federal government to control the environment. They saw a real role for the federal government in the environment. They saw shared power in certain areas. I say this to the hon. member while I have the floor on this subject. When speaking of the issue of the development of James Bay, I had a prominent member of the Parti Quebecois tell me: "Don't worry. After independence we won't have any problems with the Indians in northern Quebec. We will just buy it. We will give them $1 billion and we will make a deal". I thought: "Boy, are you ever mistaken. I think you are living in another world".
The point I make is that even after independence and I would say this if, God help us, if Quebec did become independent, exercise its rights of self-determination, as I believe it had, if it did that Quebec would still have the same problems. It would have the problem of a minority language and the minority language would be English, just like v/e have the "problem" in Canada of the minority language French. It would have the problem of
native people in northern Quebec who would, I am afraid, if Quebec were to go ahead against the wishes of the native people on the development of a new James Bay project, declare their independence and call upon Canada to send the Canadian army to help them.
Those are my worst fears. We have to be very careful of that situation. The member laughs but one could see the development of that situation down the road as the worst case scenario.
I say to the hon. member that I think the Quebec record on the environment is as good as any other province in this country and the Quebec record on native people, contrary to what other people say, is as good as or even better in some aspects as other provinces in this country.
The hon. member is correct in identifying the environment as important in the constitutional aspect. It is painfully obvious to all of us that the environment, if anything, is an international matter. While we Canadians play the potentially deadly game of whether we should have an independent Quebec or not, the environment problem is not going to go away and independence or sovereignty for Quebec is not going to solve for the environmental problems.
My suggestion is that really smart people would look upon the environment as an interrelated problem of international, national, provincial, and local governments and that we should focus on which jurisdiction in any one area could do the job the best, who could govern it the best so that we could have true sustainable development.
That is the secret. Sometimes it will be overlapping jurisdiction. When we deal with an environmental bill we should look upon it as very important that it is a federal system where we will have federal and provincial jurisdiction.
I will leave you with this thought. Perhaps the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois and his colleagues could ponder this. We have not done very badly in the environment in Canada, have we? Have we not a beautiful environment in this country? We have it through the co-operation of Quebecers and people from other provinces such as my province of British Columbia. Perhaps we should work to keep that.
March 16, 1992


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words at this time on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Davenport. In doing so I wish to add some comments to the debate that has sprung up here with the last two speakers concerning jurisdiction.
I do commend to all members of the House the report which was distributed last week by the Standing Committee on the Environment in which the jurisdictional issues have been dealt with. The member for Skeena is a member of that committee and participated very diligently and with dedication to the issue of the Constitution and jurisdiction for the environment.
As the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam indicated, the environment is an international matter. It is not one that breaks down into small parts easily. One of the topics at the Brazil conference, the UNCED conference, in June of this year is treating it as an international matter that requires the attention of all governments in all parts of the country. There is no doubt that we in Canada have a long way to go to deal with the pollution that exists and the potential for environmental damage that exists in other parts of the world.
That brings me to the subject of sustainable development. Like the member from Skeena earlier, it is really crucial that all members of the House know the definition and interpretation of sustainable development that we are using in the context of this bill and other matters. We have to be very careful that development is not recognized as an ongoing, forever type of a concept when we understand and know that the environment is made up of many finite pieces. Nothing could be more finite than the cod stocks off the Atlantic coast at the moment. We know there cannot be continued development when the resource has been or is in the process of being depleted.
The Minister of Forestry is in the House listening intently to this debate. The Minister of Forestry knows that the forest is a finite concept in Canada. There is only so much timber that can be grown at any one time in the world and at the moment more timber is being cut than is being replanted. Therefore, we do not have an infinite resource that we can continue to develop for our purposes.
Government Orders
It is the same with the atmosphere. The ozone problem is a very good one to examine because of the new hole that has opened over North America and Greenland. As the ozone hole opens, we realize that it is a finite resource that has been protecting us and if we are not careful, i.e., allow the development of CFC based refrigeration capacity in China, India and other parts of the world to meet the needs of growing and developing populations, that development will not be sustainable. As those refrigerators deteriorate the CFCs evacuate and the ozone holes become bigger.
As I said in another comment made at another time in this House, it is alarming to hear the Minister of the Environment talking about telling children they cannot go out into the sun at certain times of the day because the hole in the ozone has made working, living and playing in the sun a dangerous activity.
It is alarming in another sense as well. Children are not the only living things that are out in the sun. Plants and animals are part of our natural environment, our biosphere. Plants and animals cannot be told to put on hats and stay out of the sun between the hours of 11 in the morning and 2.30 in the afternoon. Plants and animals cannot read the ozone warnings that will be published in the newspaper, yet they will be affected by the ultraviolet light coming down through the hole in the ozone layer.
These are finite matters and sustainable development means that when we do anything that affects that environment, we are ensuring that we know we can continue to do that forever and ever and ever. It is our intention, since we know that we borrow this world from our children, to leave this world for them in better condition that we inherited from our ancestors.
When we think about that concept through the generations our environment can only improve with each new generation, as each new generation tries to ensure that they leave this planet a better place environmentally for those who will come after them.
Therefore, sustainable development is a very particular term to the environment. When business misconstrues it to mean that: "By golly, we can do just about anything we want as long as it does not adversely affect the environment", well adversely affecting the environment is something that this bill tries to deal with.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
The Minister of the Environment is very proud of the mitigation measures contained in this Bill C-13. The Minister of the Environment has talked about introducing a tighter definition of mitigation that requires a substantial reduction or effective control of environmental effects of a project.
The Minister of the Environment proudly says that these changes ensure minor reductions in the environmental effects of projects so that they cannot be trivialized in the process.
The member for Davenport has raised a matter here that indicates that we cannot trivialize this section of the bill if in fact we adopt his amendment. The Minister of the Environment does not want these matters trivialized. We have a way to ensure that that trivialization does not occur and we should support it.
At the same time we are recognizing that these pieces of the puzzle fall under the part of the bill dealing with decisions of responsible authorities and the way in which the decision of the responsible authority is applied.
I want to add one thing before I close in relation to this and that is relating to the Supreme Court decision on the Oldman dam and policy matters which the government is undertaking. The member for Skeena has talked about policy on a number of occasions here today. He talked about polity' of the nuclear industry in Canada.
Right now the government is proceeding with a policy decision on agriculture relating to the movement of grain, the changing of the way in which the railroads could possibly be paid on the moving of grain, the Crow rate.
Mr. Speaker, you have been in the House during debates on the Crow rate. Now the Crow rate has changed to the Crow benefit and the Crow benefit is in danger because the government wants to change that policy.
That is a significant adverse effect on our environment if we take the grain off the trains and put it on to trucks and move those trucks down highway miles all over the western prairies.
That is a policy decision that under this legislation cannot be dealt with in the appropriate manner that
projects can be dealt with. We have to find a way to ensure that that is dealt with.
I add that by changing the way in which we move grain, we are not doing sustainable development in this country. We are doing something that is very negative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, I wish that members would start to stay with the amendment, with the clause, with the motion. We are starting to develop a little more than just what we have here as far as the amendments are concerned. I would appreciate hon. members please to conform to the rules of the House.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, sometimes legislation is written so that it allows a considerable amount of latitude in the interpretation of a particular bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I appreciate that but ever since this morning I have considered a lot of latitude here. I wish that we could get right down to the nitty-gritty and close this thing off.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, on a point of order.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Just to comment, Mr. Speaker. I think you have been doing a great job today in allowing the flexibility to examine this bill in its fullest. I congratulate you on the fine work you are doing from the chair today.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The type of flexibility that we are talking about in this bill is sometimes not the kind of flexibility we want. For instance, in this particular case, the flexibility here would allow projects to go forward if this amendment is left the way it is.
The clause presently says: "the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that can be justified in the circumstances". That leaves any interpretation that anybody wants to put on the basis for the decision being made.
I am not sure that we want that kind of flexibility left in this bill or in the regulations of this bill. Can we afford to approach this environment with that kind of flexibility? We leave many things to the discretion of the minister in this bill.
March 16, 1992

Again, can we afford to leave that kind of flexibility in, or do we need to plug the loopholes that are in the bill? That is what these two particular amendments are attempting to do. They are attempting to plug the loopholes.
It is the responsibility of this House. If it works well, it will point out those loopholes. It will analyse them and it will try to make the bill work better in the future. Only by analysis of the legislation and by attempting to plug those loopholes will the legislation work well when we try to use it in the future.
We have spent a considerable amount of time in the last little while talking about the definition which is of the term which the member for Davenport has used. Can it be justified in the circumstances because the project contributes to the goal of achieving sustainable development?
The Brundtland commission established what it considered was worth while and was a good definition of "sustainable development". That terminology is being used all over the world and the definition of it is acceptable to most parts of the world. Madam Brundtland is presently in Brazil working toward the UNCED conference which comes later this year.
The process that we have to look at in this bill is to make sure that the loopholes which we recognized are plugged. I am sure that there are some that we have not recognized and will not recognize. That is all that the member for Davenport is trying to do with these amendments.
Consequently, I would suggest that we make Parliament work well in this particular case as far as environment is concerned and make sure that that loophole is plugged.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding us of the importance of speaking specifically to the amendments in question as, indeed, the hon. member for Davenport has once again done during his opening remarks.
This debate, particularly this last half hour or so, has been very far-ranging as you know. I would simply like to note in response to the hon. member for Richelieu and to reassure him that, indeed, the legislation including the
Government Orders
amendments before us are clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government. In fact, that point has already been established by the Supreme Court judgment on the Oldman dam.
There is no question about the legal jurisdiction of the federal government as proposed in this legislation. I would also note that there is a recognition of the importance of working in co-operation with the provinces in the legislation. I would make specific reference to the example of joint panels and to co-operation with the provinces in the area of the assessment process.
In addition, deadlines will be incorporated in the regulations and administrative arrangements with the provinces. Some of the hon. member's fears, I hope, will be put to rest by perhaps a more careful reading of the legislation and the proposed amendments.
Motions Nos. 19 and 29 which have been before us now for some time deal with an area to which the hon. member for Davenport has given careful consideration as indeed we did during the course of our committee hearings.
In fact, I would suggest that the results can be found in other amendments which have been incorporated into Bill C-13. They have already been ratified during the course of our deliberations and were in response to this type of concern that was raised during the course of our hearings by witnesses and by individual members.
One of the things that is important to stress is the fact that there is a clear responsibility given to the minister in this legislation to ensure that his decisions, and that of any responsible authority, indeed the very objective of the bill as a whole is designed to encourage sustainable development.
Perhaps for the interest of those who are watching I will read clause 4(b) under "Purposes".
The purposes of this Act are: 4.(b) to encourage responsible
authorities to take actions that will promote sustainable
development and thereby achieve or maintain a healthy environment
in a healthy economy.
That indeed, is part of the purpose of the bill. It follows, although I do not have the benefit of legal training, that that which follows in the bill as a direct result is governed by the purposes of the bill. So this in a very real sense then is part of the foundation on which the bill is addressed.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
In addition, there has been reference in the House to the question as to what we mean by the term "sustainable development". I would draw attention to page 6 of the bill where sustainable development is defined. It means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Now most members present will recognize that wording, of course, because it is borrowed in a sense from a greater authority than the members of the committee.
But we have, indeed, turned back to the Brundtland commission and there is a direct linkage between the purposes of the bill, the definition of sustainable development as contained in the bill, and the issue which is at hand.
One thing that is very clear as a result of some of the discussions which took place in committee is that the bill is more tightly drafted than it was initially.
As a consequence, the determination that significant adverse environmental effects are justifiable can now only be made after a panel review or mediation, and not after a screening or a comprehensive study. That is a tighter drafting than existed initially.
Furthermore, the minister has been given the power to set out criteria on what this terminology "justified in the circumstances" means. He has been provided with that within the context of Bill C-13.
Indeed, he is committed to ensuring that decisions under this clause are made within the principles of sustainable development. And in that I am simply repeating my earlier remarks.
How the term "sustainable development" is interpreted by the department will be set out in a guideline on "justifiable" to be prepared under clause 58. That too is a result of discussions which took place in committee.
In our minds, to go further than that at this particular time, to establish the direct legal connection as the hon. member would wish us to do, in our opinion would be to give the courts'more of a role in the definition of the term "sustainable development" than we would think is advisable.
The reason I say that is because we are very conscious of the fact, as others have said earlier in the day, that in a
very real sense the concept of environmental protection is still in a state of evolvement, as indeed is the technology by which we would seek to protect that environment.
So, while we have used in this bill the clearest and most commonly accepted definition of "sustainable development" available to us at this time, it is equally clear that at some point in the future-and in the area of environmental protection it is difficult to know whether the future be two years down the road or four years or ten years, as the case may be-it may well be that the definition that is in place and is accepted at that point in time perhaps would be different or could at least be a variation from that which exists today.
And so, I would prefer the legislators of the land-in this case the Parliament of Canada-be given the task of defining sustainable development, accepting as we do the fact that this is an evolving definition.
We have heard various suggestions today as to who is going to be the Government of Canada in two years or four years or six years. Some of the parties have indicated their aspirations to have that responsibility; others who are in the House have not yet indicated they see that as being part of their expectations. But it is clear that politicians, elected representatives, are in the best position to accept this responsibility today, rather than to pass the buck, the responsibility, on to the courts.
In doing so, we are accepting a system whereby we are giving that responsibility to those who are accountable.
Certainly one of the things I find frustrating, and certainly my constituents find frustrating, is the fact that very often important decisions are made by jurisdictions over which they have no control. Politicians are accountable and we are held accountable for this legislation. We are held accountable as a government for what we proposed and we will be held accountable if it is passed, as indeed I hope and expect it will be.
I am comfortable with that concept of accountability. I am also very, very conscious of the fact that, as I said earlier, in a sense the terms we have before us are not scientific; they are changing. It may very well be that when we revisit this bill, as indeed we understand will undoubtedly happen at some point in the future, we can
March 16, 1992

re-examine our definition of sustainable development at that point in time.
In the meantime, the combination of the stated purposes on which the minister has accepted a commitment to act, the definition of sustainable development as provided in the legislation, and the inclusion under clause 58 of an indication by which the department will define justifiable circumstances has provided a good foundation on which to act. We feel that although we do not address the precise wording of the hon. member, we have gone a significant step in that direction. I think that under the circumstances we have reached what we consider to be a logical and appropriate point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the next speaker for South West Nova, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River-Health; the hon. member for Don Valley East-The Economy; the hon. member for Calgary Northeast-Ukraine; the hon. member for St. Boniface-Post-Secondary Education; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Interest Rates.
The hon. member for South West Nova.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, having taken part in the earlier debate on this bill and having sat in committee while we went through clause by clause, and at other times replacing some of my colleagues in the clause by clause, I have to say that I do have concerns specifically related to this subclause. I do like the use of sustainable development as my colleague has proposed in the amendment.
I would like to give you an example of what I find weak in using "can be justified in the circumstances". If you look at "environmental effects" in the definition clause, it reads:
"environmental effect" means, in respect of a project,
(a)	any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health and socioeconomic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, or on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological or paleontological or architectural significance, and
(b)	any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change occurs within or outside of Canada;
Government Orders
There are words in which I have had a little experience, having been chairman of the environment committee when FEARO was discussed-and that is the former regulation, which this bill has improved on perhaps in terms of process-that come out in this clause:
(a)	where, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the responsible authority considers appropriate,
(ii) the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects
I just read to you the definition of environment effects. It can be "of any such change on health and socio-economic conditions". With those words alone-"the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that can be justified in the circumstances"-the minister can go ahead and allow approval. I say that because if you allow the sustainable development clause in there along with the purposes and the definition of environmental effects, I think you are providing Canadians a much safer way of finding out whether or not a federally funded project is going to affect the people in that area.
I will go back to two projects that I have seen in my own area. One was an ACOA grant of about a million dollars, and if FEARO had not been there, there would have been no study to justify that it was not going to cause-even if I disagreed with the result of the study and I could see that it did affect the people who lived around the site, the federal government had a responsibility to do some type of study. When that discretion is allowed, "justified in the circumstances", with no definition has to what circumstances, a very broad relationship is made so any government or any responsible authority can trod over the rights of people, I think, without having to do any study as to the cause and effect of a government project.
In this day and age, I think the local people have to be aware that governments do fund projects and do affect their environment without taking any consideration of it. By leaving it so broad that it can be "justified in the circumstances", it may be justifiable in Ottawa to give a grant or to fund something down on Digby Neck, and therefore in the circumstances it may be only a couple of million dollar project in Ottawa, but it may have very harmful socio-economic and health effects in a given area. Unless the people are aware that such funding is going to be given and if there is nothing in the process to make it mandatory-and this bill says that it is within the

Government Orders
responsible authority to justify-I think we have to have stronger teeth. Sustainable development does bring in a stronger element. Looking at the definition and purposes clauses, at the definition of sustainable development, we should be making it stronger to protect the individuals rather than making it broader to protect the responsible authorities in that large area of what is a justifiable circumstance.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary as to the accountability of elected people. Accountability after the fact means nothing once the funding and the project are under way. Any area that allows an escape without some justification-I think these are very weak terms, "justified in the circumstances"-I cannot support.
I have to support my colleague, the member for Davenport, on his motion to change that. Instead of "can be justified in the circumstances", it would read: "can be justified in the circumstances because the project contributes to the goal of achieving sustainable development". Why not have a positive goal for the responsible authority rather than again putting on the unsuspecting public who will find in their backyard a project they did not know enough about?


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 19 and 29 in the name of the hon. member for Davenport were grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 19 will apply to Motion No. 29.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. That means Motion No. 29 stands deferred also.
Motions Nos. 21,22 and 30 standing in the name of the Minister of the Environment will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 30 will apply to Motions Nos. 21 and 22.


Hon. Frank Oberle (for Minister of the Environment) moved:: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 46
(a)	by striking out line 46 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"end of the assessment;";
(b)	by striking out line 2 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"is to be published; and
(e) meets any criteria established pursuant to paragraph 58(1)(A)." Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 47
(a)	by striking out lines 2 to 12 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"lands.";
(b)	by striking out line 21 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada and outside federal lands that
(a)	includes a consideration of the factors required to be considered under subsections 16(1) and (2);
(b)	includes an opportunity for the public to participate in the
assessment;
(c)	includes a requirement that the report is to be submitted to the Minister at the end of the assessment;
(d)	includes a requriement that the report is to be published; and
(e)	meets any criteria established pursuant to paragraph
58(1)(A)."
Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 58
(a) by striking out lines 27 and 28 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
March 16, 1992

"poses of coordination, consultation, exchange of information and the determination of factors to be considered in relation to the";
(b) by striking out line 41 at page 42 and substituting the following
therefor;
"substitution pursuant to section 43;
(h) establish criteria for the purposes of an alternative manner of conducting an assessment of the environmental effects of a project referred to in subsection 46(2) or 47(2); and".


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order or a question.
The note I have in front of me states that Motion No. 21 would apply to Motions Nos. 22 and 30.1 am not sure whether that is what I heard you read or not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is that a vote on Motion No. 30 will apply to Motions Nos. 21 and 22, which is the Speaker's ruling. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: In any contest of will, Mr. Speaker, you clearly would win over anyone else in the House. I understand that and recognize that.
I would like to make a number of brief comments with respect to Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 30, which are amendments to clauses 46,47 and 58 and are designed to establish criteria to the ministerial power for transboundary clauses.
Clauses 46(2) and 47(2) outline the circumstances under which, in the case of a project that may cause significant transboundary environmental effects, the Minister of the Environment may exercise the discretion not to establish a review panel where it can be left to other jurisdictions if all parties are in agreement as to the alternative means. I want to stress the qualification there.
During our clause by clause, which was very extensive-and as members will recall, the minister himself was present for a significant portion of that, which indeed was a generous commitment on his part that we appreciated-the committee amended the above provisions to require the criterion already required for the substitution of other federal processes to be met before the minister could exercise his discretion not to establish a review panel.
That criterion I would like to bring to the attention of the House. It is found on page 31 in the bill, and it is identified in four different instances. Clause 47(l)(a):
Government Orders
(a)	includes a consideration of the factors required to be considered under subsections 16(1) and (2);
(b)	includes an opportunity for the public to participate in the assessment;
(c)	includes a requirement that the report is to be submitted to the Minister at the end of the assessment; and
(d)	includes a requirement that the report is to be published.
What we are doing is adding to the requirement for public participation in the process.
In addition, in subclause 58(1) under "Minister's Powers" we provide for the development of additional criteria which may be required to guide the minister's decision. We did that simply in recognition, as I said earlier, of the fact that this is an evolving science and if other criteria are to be identified they can indeed be added there with little difficulty. This same type of provision was added to the federal substitution clauses in clause-by-clause consideration.
The government has agreed to consider such an amendment for the transboundary provisions and has therefore proposed this change. As a consequence of the proposed change cross-references would have to be made in 45(2) and 47(2).
As a further technical matter, the amendments to subclauses 47(1) and (2) are required because the criteria were erroneously placed at an earlier time under subclause 47(1). This motion will result in paragraphs (a) through (d) being placed under subclause 47(2) where they properly belong.
Earlier in the day I referred to amendments which I perceived to be technical amendments, in some cases simply being a clarification of the French language translation. This led to extremely extensive debate on a variety of issues, the extent of which was somewhat of a surprise to me. I would simply suggest to the House that this is a tightly framed series of amendments being proposed by the government. I would hope that it would meet with both approval and speedy concurrence.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as an admonition from the parliamentary secretary and presume to ignore it. I will extend an admonition toward him. This is the most important environmental legislation this House has seen in many a long year. Although he may think that we do not need to debate it any further, I do and I think most Canadians do.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
We want these clauses debated. We want a public process. That is why we have the parliamentary channel, so that the aspects of this legislation can be fully detailed for the Canadian public. I know there are people from the Canadian Environmental Law Association who are watching us and wondering what is going on. I know the parliamentary secretary is wanting to push this through. We want stronger environmental legislation too, but we are not prepared to give the parliamentary secretary a blank cheque.
These particular motions have important implications for Canada's relations in the world. The international aspects of environmental assessment are crucial. We are coming up to the world summit in Brazil. Canada in my view deserves some the strong international reputation it has on caring for the rest of the planet. However we have to ensure that the relations Canada has with the rest of the world are not diminished by this legislation.
My colleague for Skeena has given me a copy of his bank of secret documents and I would like to read from that. An issue in December 1989 puts this whole debate in context, because it is the kind of mindset that those of us who are concerned about strong environmental legislation have to struggle against. We are talking about corporations supporting exports, and I cite: "Provision of federal commercial credit to support international trade on the part of Canadian companies through the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian Commercial Corporation is a special case requiring unusual departure from normal assessment procedures. The corporations rarely see an application for a loan early in the planning of a project and in any case have little or no opportunity to influence the project design". We know what is coming. What they are saying is: "Therefore we should have it exempt". They go on to say: "Granting of commercial credit is highly competitive internationally". We can just see the whole mindset behind it: "It is so competitive, therefore, give us a break; don't make us have the same environmental standards".
The corporations note that should they require the usual environmental assessment to be conducted by the
proponent Canadian enterprise or by the client countries before agreeing to grant the loan, Canadian companies would be placed at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
We are not talking about competitiveness here. We are talking about the world's environment. They are whining and bleeding about competitiveness. This is why it is important that this legislation is debated fully and that this kind of loophole is filled.
Of course I am not in favour of Canadian loss of exports. I am a strong Canadian. I want Canada to be strong economically, but I do not want that to occur at the expense of the world environment. That kind of rationale is just not acceptable.
I note further on in this document-and this is why I want to say that there is balance within the bureaucracy and this is where we should be giving them some credit-that it says: "The government in pursuing environmentally sustainable development domestically and internationally seeks to build a framework of appropriate understanding, arrangements and obligations with others".
The application of Canadian environmental assessment procedures and activities outside Canada should avoid creating unfortunate precedents of extra-territoriality, be sensitive to local conditions and policies and to agreed international institutions and procedures.
It should not detract from Canada's environmental stature internationally in co-operation with the other countries. That is what these motions are trying to achieve. I think that oftentimes the search for perfection is the enemy of the good, and I learned that phrase from the Constitution committee. We cannot achieve perfection, even on environmental legislation, but we have to make sure that all loopholes acquired by this bill are filled to the best of our ability. We are not seeking perfection. We are not being obstructionists. We are trying to make this bill the best possible so that we can support it.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is intended to be helpful. On page X of the Order Paper, the description of the amendment presently under debate does not seem to respond with the text of the bill being amended.
March 16, 1992

Therefore there is a necessity to ensure that by passing Motion No. 21 on page X we do pass a motion that fits into the text of the bill. Since this is not possible at the present time, it may be desirable on your part, Mr. Speaker, to suspend for a moment the discussion on Motion No. 21 and proceed perhaps with Motion No. 22 until this matter is clarified.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to remind the House Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 30 have been grouped. I note the hon. member for Davenport has not yet taken an opportunity to speak on the combination of Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 30. If he were to choose to do that now, while he is addressing Motions Nos. 22 and 30 I would seek to get clarification on the point he has raised and, with the co-operation of the House, permit him to continue his remarks after I have achieved that explanation if that would be in concurrence.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is agreed that I will recognize the hon. member for Davenport on debate on Motions Nos. 22 and 30?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to overburden the parliamentary secretary, but I would prefer it if he were to introduce Motions Nos. 22 and 30 and give us a brief outline of the reasons of the government. Then perhaps we may not even have to comment or people may want to comment, but a presentation on his part would facilitate the task.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I could ask him to
do that. I notice that the hon. member for Skeena was rising to speak.
I will recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary on debate.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I rise on a matter of clarification. If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, you have grouped the three motions together. Indeed the three motions are very much interrelated and I have present an introduction of the three of them together.
That is why I was suggesting the hon. member might want to speak on Motions Nos. 22 and 30. We are indeed debating all three motions simultaneously.
Government Orders
I know my hon. friend for Skeena is quite prepared to speak to the motions themselves. Perhaps, when he has done that, I would have the clarification which the hon. member for Davenport is seeking and he then may wish to speak or not.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so
ordered.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to keep my remarks to transboundary matters in relation to Motions Nos. 22 and 30.
The issue of environmental assessment in terms of transboundary issues and how we handle them is obviously extremely important. We have a few historic instruments to guide us. We have the International Joint Commission which has dealt principally with transboundary water and some air issues with the United States.
We face a growing body of issues. For example, when one looks at the Canadian Arctic in terms of airborne toxics, in terms of the ozone difficulties, global warming, pollution of the oceans, and the transmission of all kinds of toxics into that environment, it becomes quite clear that we require a very clear series of sections to deal with transboundary environmental effects. We also require some fairly strong and precise legislation to allow us to deal with projects taking place in other countries that might involve Canadian technology or funds or expertise, or projects that might consequentially have an impact back on to Canada.
The legislation, as we are just learning now, has some technical flaws in it which may or may not be capable of being remedied this afternoon. However, as I was noting in some correspondence I just had from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, there continue to be some chronic problems that really do need to be addressed. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary or the minister can find an opportunity to deal with these questions. Even in relation to Motions Nos. 21,22 and 30 with which we are dealing, we come back once again whether we are talking about the mediation process or the review panel process to the whole question of enforceability.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
Albeit as we have been dealing with the 1984 cabinet guidelines order in relation as I have said before to the Kemano project, the Oldman dam in Alberta, the Rafferty-Alameda, Point Aconi in Nova Scotia, or the Great Whale project in Quebec, the development of administrative law has required enormous amounts of fund raising by public interest groups that have been forced to take the proponents-sometimes the government itself-before the courts to try to get rulings as to the interpretation of the 1984 cabinet guidelines order which were not written in a legislative sense. They were written as an Order in Council which is clear to anyone who has taken the time to read them. One of the things that we are faced with in Bill C-13 is that it is a giant step forward. There is no doubt that in terms of clarity it is much more clear. But, regrettably, with the clarity has come shrinkage in terms of its applicability and its enforceability. It likely will take another Parliament to address these issues because it seems that this government has gone about as far as it is prepared to go within the body of Bill C-13. It has balked at over a hundred amendments proposed by my colleague from The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake in an attempt to make it more directly enforceable and more directly applicable.
Here we are talking about the mediation section, but in any section you are talking about, it is quite clear that the definition of environment should have been at least as broadly expanded as that found by all of the Supreme Court justices in the Oldman decision of just over a month ago, which goes well beyond the definition that we find here in Bill C-13, and should make reference to social, economic, cultural or built environments.
One of the things that we do know, as I said earlier today, is that there are many existing structures, buildings, dump sites, impediments, river systems, and so on, that are on a daily basis causing more negative consequential environmental impact than many "new proposals" or "new projects" or "new constructions". Clearly, a piece of legislation such as this should have what might be described as some hindsight, a capacity to look at existing or historic human developments that might be having a negative impact on the environment.
Similarly, the definition of "environmental effect" should be amended to expressly include any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental impacts. Regrettably that does not seem to have sunk in yet on the government side.
The definition of "project" focuses almost entirely on physical works rather than government plans, programs or policies driving individual projects. This has been an ongoing debate. Although clause 46 on transboundary and related environmental effects might not be driven that often by projects that have a transboundary nature to them, I think increasingly as we get to understand things like acid rain that is transboundary, marine pollution that is transboundary, problems in the Great Lakes which are transboundary, the movement of diseases among plants and animals which is transboundary, airborne toxics, we come to realize that we need to look at the whole range of impacts, whether they are public or private sector.
Certainly in this House we can be particularly interested in and capable of catching up the environmental significance and environmental impacts of things far beyond simple structures, which is what this legislation and its consequential regulations seem to be driving at.
On meaningful public participation, one of the sections that the Minister of the Environment is attempting to amend at the moment is in relation to something that should have been meticulously included, which is the funding for interveners. There is a separate fund under the green plan but, as most people know, it is very much inadequate and relatively inaccessible. Even the Ontario legislation on participant funding is more clearly dealt with than this legislation. It might well be something that the minister would wish to have been here to speak about, why there was the split in the bill rather than having it carefully included now rather than waiting until some future date beyond the next election.
On the environmental assessment part, the legislation as it is presently being dealt with includes "the consideration of, the purpose of and the need for an undertaking; the alternatives to the undertaking; the alternative means of carrying out the undertaking; the environmental effects, advantages and disadvantages of the undertaking and alternatives; the mitigation measures necessary to address adverse environmental effects; the monitoring and other follow-up programs necessary to address environmental effects; and the public comments concerning each of the above noted factors". The assurance of those things that I have just delineated are not precisely enough dealt with in the bill. We know now that there will be some evaluation of alternatives to but not in
March 16, 1992

as precise a manner as we would like at the initial screening process.
I look forward to dealing with more on these sections in a few moments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that we have cleared up the difficulty in the point of order by the hon. member for Davenport. It was with regard to a reprinted copy that he did not have at his disposal. I think that has been cleared up.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the legislation always assumes that the minister is omnipotent, that when the minister is faced with a problem, the minister will know exactly what the solution to that problem is. Consequently, in this particular section under the administration of the powers of the minister, the tendency has been to assume that the minister does not need the kind of instruction which will give the kind of guidance which will allow him to answer the question in the best possible way for the control of the environment. In Motion No. 29 which we just passed, we attempted to add to that the definition that is given to the minister, the guidance that is given to the minister so the minister can then best possibly use the legislation to protect the environment.
These three amendments that we are discussing now are intended to do more of the same. I commend the minister and the parliamentary secretary in their approach in attempting to do this. The very method used in these particular amendments has had the effect of broadening the responsibility of the minister without defining more particularly the goals that must be reached.
I suppose we could say that the effect has been to leave the minister with more discretion than he had before. Consequently, maybe we should judge these particular amendments by what they have left out rather than what they put into this particular clause.
Although I see no reason why we would not support the particular changes that are being suggested, they do not add to the ability of the minister to make sure that the environment is protected. In other words, they do
Government Orders
not give him any more guidance as to how he or she should act in a particular case with a problem.
On that basis, as has been indicated before, this bill could stand a considerable amount of tinkering which might be necessary even before it becomes an effective bill in this House and in the country.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motion No. 30 agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That applies to Motions Nos. 21 and 22.
Motion No. 31, standing in the name of the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake will be debated and voted on separately.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding immediately after line 26 at
page 46 the following new clause:
"59.1 (1) Every regulation that is proposed to be made under section 59 shall be laid before each House of Parliament at least twenty sitting days before the proposed effective date thereof.
(2)	Where, within fifteen sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of that House to the effect that the proposed regulation not be approved, signed by no fewer than fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, is filed with the Speaker of the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, the Speaker shall, within five sitting days after the filing of the motion, without debate or amendment put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(3)	Where a motion referred to in subsection (2) is adopted by both Houses of Parliament, the proposed regulation to which the motion relates may not be made.

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
(4)	Where parliament dissolves or prorogues earlier than fifteen sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before both Houses of Parliament under subsection (1) and a motion has not been disposed of under subsection (2) in relation to the proposed regulation in both Houses of Parliament, the proposed regulation may not be made.
(5)	For purposes of this section, "sitting day" means, in respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which that House sits".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that support for this amendment standing in my name today is crucial to the functioning of Bill C-13. Although the provisions of the bill outline the framework for environmental assessment, the bill will only have meaning in content in the context of the proposed regulations.
Far more than most legislation, the teeth to federal environmental assessment lies in regulations yet to be approved or drafted. We have been told there are 12 to 15 sets of regulations, eventually to give substance and procedure to federal environmental assessment.
Exclusion lists outlining what projects and what types of projects will not be required to be subjected to review will be in the regulations. Procedures governing how public participation will occur will be left to regulation.
The comprehensive study lists will be left to regulation. Procedures for examining written evidence will be left to regulation. Public registries will be dealt with in the regulations. The workings of the follow-up programs will be left to regulations.
Let me give the House a sample of the crucial role regulations will play in determining the strengths and weaknesses of federal environmental assessment.
During the extensive committee work on this bill the Minister of the Environment had the following words to say, and I want to quote five paragraphs that have been recorded by Hansard in the minister's remarks. I quote:
"A year ago the committee studying the predecessor of Bill C-13 suspended its proceedings. One of the reasons was the committee's desire to better understand the bill by seeing some of the regulations that will be developed. There are some 15 sets of regulations which will accompany the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. These regulations define the scope of application, assessment procedures and separate procedures for special cases. Regulations will be established to cover areas as diverse as international developmental assistance to the
procedures which will govern environmental assessment on Indian lands which is in itself an important matter.
To fulfil my commitment to this committee, I choose to distribute copies of the two key draft regulations to you and to all who have participated in the process. When I say all, Mr. Chairman, I think it also includes the witnesses. This is unusual because the government usually reserves the prerogative to develop regulations outside the sphere of Parliament.
In this case we have legislation that is complex. It is one of the most important projects to be introduced, I think, in this Parliament. The regulations I have distributed, the comprehensive study list and the list of statutory and regulatory provisions are essential to making Bill C-13 operational. They are annotated to make them easier to understand. They are, as members will see, fairly complex".
I will just continue quoting the Minister:
"These draft regulations will provide the basis for a major consultative process outside the committee and they will provide us with a better understanding of how the bill will work. I should add that the consultations we are embarking upon are above and beyond the normal process of public notification that is included in the gazetting of regulations". One last quote from the minister: "Some committee members have asked to see other regulations that affect Bill C-13. I will not diminish the importance of the other regulations, but I ask you to understand that these regulations in many cases cannot be properly developed and constructed until we have finished our work on clause by clause. I can assure committee members that the development of all regulations will be the subject of consultations. I am sure the openness that has evolved in this committee will be reflected in the development of all regulations."
Mr. Bruchet from the Canadian Petroleum Association, speaking to the committee, added: "It is not necessarily the legislation, but the regulations that have the greatest impact on us.
Mr. Bill Andrews from the West Coast Environmental Law Association said to the committee: "The regulations themselves are important, if not the most important part of the bill.
March 16, 1992

Professor Morse from the Canadian Bar Association told the 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."
Ms. Brown from the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office stated: "The regulations will define the comprehensive study list and the exclusion list."
The parliamentary secretary, the member for Brandon-Souris, stated in clause-by-clause discussion: "It might be more advisable to discuss the question of the timeframe in the regulations."
Throughout the committee's work on this bill, time and time again, important issues relating to environmental assessment were left to the regulations. There is absolutely no question that the extent to which environmental assessment will be able to protect the environment, to safeguard the right of Canadians to a safe and healthy environment rests squarely on the regulations.
The Canadian people, through their representatives in the House of Commons, deserve to have the ability to review these regulations seriously.
This motion seeks the support of the members of this House to have all regulations laid before the House before the regulations come into effect. We are not asking a lot, but any 20 members, or 15 members of the other place, may call for the regulations to be put before the House as a motion.
A clause similar to this one exists in the gun control legislation, formerly Bill C-17, a regulatory clause that is very supportable.
Adoption of this amendment, therefore, is quite essential to safeguarding our environment. I ask for the support of the members of this House, as well as yourself, Mr. Speaker, on this very important amendment to Bill C-13.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for the key and vital role that he has played in committee in developing motions and in helping the entire process to come along and improving the quality of the final bill.
Government Orders
We in the Liberal Party do support in principle any attempt to open up the regulatory process. It is a very important one.
In this particular case, the member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake puts forward a rather cumbersome methodology so to speak. Nevertheless, it is an attempt to open up the process and this is why I commend him for having done so.
It seems to me though that a better procedure would have been to put forward an amendment that would have made mandatory the reference of the regulations to the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. This is a committee of Parliament that has the knowledge and experience needed to examine the regulations and to ensure that the regulations flow from the intent and powers that are contained in the act itself.
That committee has performed a very valuable role in the history of Parliament. It could perform a valuable role again in ensuring that the regulations that will be produced are in line with the intent of the law. It may be that when the revision of this bill takes place some time from now, that a measure of this nature will be recommended by the government.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to very strongly support the amendment proposed by my colleague from The Battlefords- Meadow Lake.
The member for Davenport and the parliamentary secretary have noted the work done by the member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake. It has been extraordinary and certainly our caucus has been very pleased with the progress he has been able to make with the government.
One of the most serious problems that we have with this legislation can at least in part be remedied by this amendment. The Trojan horse of regulations has been recognized many times in this Chamber by members of all parties where we pass legislation which is relatively understandable by everyone in the country who wants to take the time to read it.
Regrettably, the regulatory structures that are going to come with Bill C-13 are massive. There will be at least 15 sections of regulatory powers, some of them extreme-

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
ly vast. I quoted a moment ago from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and its concerns.
I would like now to take a moment to quote from a letter from the national environmental law section of the Canadian Bar Association that it sent to the FEARO office three weeks ago regarding its concerns with the regulatory structures as they are now being developed and why the approach proposed by my colleague for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake would allow members of this House back into that process.
The process is vitally important in terms of projects in our constituencies and a project or events which are environmental but give us concern in the country as a whole.
It points out that environmental assessment under Bill C-13 will be triggered in various ways, but for the present purposes in terms of this section of the correspondence, it points as follows to clause 5(1):
5.(1) An environmental assessment of a project is required before a federal authority
And under subclause (d):
(d) under a provision prescribed pursuant to paragraph 59(f), issues a permit or licence, grants an approval or takes any other action for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part.
The point that I want to make here is that these two provisions when read together give the Governor in Council considerable discretion. It goes on to say:
However, certain observations may be made as to the intent of Parliament to structure that discretion.
One of the things that my friend from The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake is doing here is he is attempting to bring us back into the process.
It was the government side not so many weeks ago in the firearms legislation that allowed parliamentarians back into the process to scrutinize regulations and to bring a new way of bringing those regulations back before the House if we felt necessary in substantial numbers. It would require 20 members of the House to trigger it. That is something we would all agree is quite reasonable.
It means about one member in 15 in the House has to feel so strongly about the proposed regulatory authority as to have it brought back before the House.
Let me give you some examples of why this is so important. These are things that very few members of
this House are aware of. I am quite confident that almost no one in the country is aware of the Trojan horse nature of the regulations that are coming now with Bill C-13. This involves the whole reason that we have to have public disclosure and parliamentary scrutiny.
I quote again: "The national environmental law section appreciates the relative openness of the regulatory process employed to date under Bill C-13. Nonetheless, we are concerned about the process by which the statutory and regulatory provisions regulation is being developed.
Specifically, it is extremely difficult for even persons well versed in federal law and environmental assessment to make an intelligent evaluation of the discussion draft for this regulation.
We can comment on the legislative provisions which are referred to but can only guess at what has been left out. The only truly appropriate way to approach the development of this regulation would be to begin with a consolidated list of all federal powers, duties or functions which may be relevant and then proceed by a process of elimination. At a minimum the process of public consultations can only be effective and legitimate if the inclusions and exclusions from the list suggested by various federal authorities are made public".
It seems to me what my colleague is proposing here then brings us back in, which is absolutely mandatory. Let is look at what it is now proposing to dump out the side door.
Provisions under the Migratory Birds Convention Act are now proposed to be set aside. At the moment, a permit is required for any person who would disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird pursuant to section 6 of the migratory birds regulations.
A large window of opportunity for projects to be assessed in the whole of the country was under that. Now we find under the regulatory authority the government wants to dispose of that. It similarly makes the point in relation to the Sparrow case how important constitutionally it is that that provision be in there for First Nations, but that has also been dumped out.
Subsection 9(1) of the atomic energy control regulations are proposed to be deleted. There is another trigger. Migratory birds, trigger, pull, boom. Under the atomic energy control regulations, one of the most
March 16, 1992

important subsections is pulled. The National Energy Board Act, some subsections are proposed to be deleted. In relation to water and fish, one of the most important ones in relation to the Oldman dam, Kemano II, Raffer-ty-Alameda, the Great Whale project, the Fisheries Act, sections 35, 36 and 37.
Again, this is the Canadian Bar Association: "It is our strongly held view that the power under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act referred to at page 68 of the Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Regulations Work Book should be included in this regulation. The discussions of sections 35 and 37 of the Fisheries Act which appears at page 43 of the majority reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Oldman River case is specific to the inclusive and not exhaustive definition of proposal in the EARP order".
I just have a couple of more examples that are critically important. It goes on to say: "However, leaving section 37 to one side for a moment, if section 36 of the Fisheries Act is omitted altogether from the statutory and regulatory provisions regulation, the effect may be to unduly restrict the application of impact assessment to the protection of fisheries. Specifically, we would be left with the rather unprincipled position that authorization, pursuant to section 35(2) of works or undertakings that alter, disrupt or destroy fish habitat, is subject to impact assessment while works or undertakings that result in the deposit of deleterious substances in water frequented by fish, or in any place where such substance may enter such waters, would not attract impact assessment. The federal government would thus be left with the rather blunt regulatory tool of prosecution".
Surely, that is not what we are after. It is that kind of regulatory nonsense that should be allowed for the scrutiny of this House, as my friend from The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake has asked.
There are more examples that are critically important to the public understanding of why this particular amendment should be carried by all members of the House.
On the comprehensive study list as it is now proposed, whole categories of projects have simply been dumped out the side. That is quite inappropriate and it is
Government Orders
members, such as members of this House, who would want to be involved.
For example, with modifications of national park boundaries, it is suggested that if it is more than 10 per cent of a national park that is going to be taken away, then there is an environmental assessment. But if it is less than 10 per cent, then that is fine. As the Canadian Bar points out, a 10 per cent limit may encourage project segmentation and the piecemeal erosion of national park areas or park areas.
On water management, similarly it is suggested that there has to be a 40 per cent target level. If only 40 per cent of a river is going to be taken away for a dam or a diversion, then there is no environmental assessment. So, as long as it is less than 40 there is no environmental assessment. Is it going to be measured at the headwaters, is it going to be measured at the estuary, is it going to be measured at high water, low water? These are Mack truck regulatory loopholes that are being brought in through the back door. It is why corporations in the country are quiet about this legislation; this is why the private sector are saying "well, we've been told-". For example, another Mack truck loophole is the criterion of 100 cubic metres per second of annual flow. Unless you are taking more than that, you do not need an environmental assessment.
Two more very quick examples, Mr. Speaker. I know that you, as an Albertan and Alberta bom, will want to hear about these. These are critical in the west.
There is a limitation of 10,000 tonnes a day on minerals and mineral processing. Unless you are higher than that there is no environmental assessment required.
I mean, what kind of regulatory jiggery-pokery is that? You know about acid generating minerals, Mr. Speaker. What about the high arsenic levels in gold mines? What about uranium mines, what if they mine 9,999 tonnes a day? No assessments.
Similarly, this morning I raised a matter concerning the nuclear industry. Unless a nuclear site is going to produce more than 30 thermal megawatts, no environmental assessment is necessary. So, if a Slowpoke is going into the Edmonton General Hospital, there would

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
be no environmental assessment. I think the patients would want to know that there had at least been an initial screening and an assessment of something like that.
So the regulatory mouse holes now appear to me to be somewhat larger, more like rat holes. What we are suggesting through my friend from The Battlefords- Meadow Lake is that we let a few mongooses loose in the regulatory process to chase the mice and the rats out of those holes, and that the House have a bit of an eyeball, and a hairy one from time to time, on what these guys are up to.
Let us look at rail transportation. Unless you are building a rail line more than a hundred kilometres in length, or tearing one up of more than a hundred kilometres in length, you do not need an assessment.
What kind of a bill of goods are we being sold here? Who is plucking these figures out of a hat? A hundred cubic feet per second; a hundred kilometres long.
I know what has gone on. The cabinet has said, very hush-hush to the draftees: "Look, we are going to make this look tough and bold, this Bill C-13, but behind the scenes, under the skirt so to speak-no ill intent intended, Mr. Speaker-there is something going on". Under the kilt, my friend says. These are literary terms, Mr. Speaker. Robes was what I meant all along. You never know what could be going on.
Just a couple of final examples in terms of other kinds of projects that have been omitted. The comprehensive study list. How could we have gone through this whole process, identifying what kinds of projects, how they would be assessed, how we appoint people, mediation, interveners, scientists. We do all of this. Here I found the secret. I wondered all along. This is the final regulatory quote that you will need, this will fix you right up, this will let you know how to vote, this is the one.
In relation to the regulations, they point out "exclusions mandatory assessment". They expect to do about
10,000	screens per year, about 100 or more will get detailed study, then I slide down through the Latin a priori and all that kind of stuff and it says, and I quote from the minister's own secret little handbook here: "A few projects annually might warrant a public review".
I rest my case, Mr. Speaker. They are trying to exclude everything through regulation instead of saying right up
front exactly what kind of law we needs. My friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake saw the rat holes, he saw the mouse holes, he invented a mongoose and he wants to let it loose. Let us let him do it.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake in drafting this motion because it is crucial that anyone who has had any opportunity to look at environmental legislation knows that the regulations are the teeth of the legislation.
This is not an unprecedented approach to dealing with those kinds of loopholes, or rat holes or mouse holes, as was previously discussed by the member for Skeena. It is a responsible approach by my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake because what he has done in his approach is not the reinvention of the wheel. He is adopting the same approach that has been used with Bill C-17, the gun control legislation, that the regulations come back to the House.
I know from having listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast over the past year on constitutional affairs that people do want to be consulted. They want their members of Parliament to have an active role in the drafting of regulations and legislation so that the backroom approach to doing things is no longer acceptable.
We need a transparent process whereby people feel that they are being listened to and that their concerns are being addressed.
This is a way of not only achieving better environmental legislation and better reaction to environmental concerns, it is also a way of improving the status of members of Parliament who are actually going to be doing something. We are not going to be sitting behind closed doors like bureaucrats, we are going to be debating very important regulations.
I commend the examples my colleague from Skeena has put forward. This is not empty rhetoric. We are not trying to be obstructionist. We are not trying to make life more difficult for the government here, not in this instance. There will be other instances where we will try to make it more difficult for the government, but not in this instance. We are doing it in the most sincere way with the intent of trying to make sure that although Bill C-13, 54 pages of bill, is complex legislation, it is not everything. Behind those 54 pages are the regulations that have to go to make certain that the intent of the bill is adhered to.
March 16, 1992

Government Orders
That is why it is more than important, it is crucial to our support for this bill that this amendment be supported.
This is a way of not only ensuring better environmental legislation, it is also a way of ensuring that members of Parliament are included in the process and therefore Canadians are included in the process. That is what I have heard from people. They want in, Mr. Speaker. They want to be listened to. They want the Canadian environment, the international environment, to be assured. They do not want any more backroom deals. They do not want any more little smirks and chuckles. They want to make sure that the Canadian and international environment is looked at realistically, not in an obstructionist way, but the best environment possible for the world. They want the regulations to support that.
That is what we are asking. We want the members of the House to review the regulations. It is a simple request. I ask for your support.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to support what the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has just said and what the hon. member for Skeena said, and the motion of my friend and colleague, the member from Saskatchewan.
I was on the committee that studied Bill C-80 which was the first gun control bill and then Bill C-17 which became the real gun control bill and which has become law.
I want to talk about how we came to get this particular section. Before I do I want to say how important, to reiterate again what the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands said, the regulations are. They are the teeth of the bill.
When you get these bills you really get a law. The drafters cannot put everything in the law so they put the general principles in the law and then they allow the government, the bureaucrats really, the ministry, to enact by regulation the parts of the law. You really get most of the legislation by regulation.
That is the problem we were faced with in the gun control bill. As I said we got a bill to control guns. We pre-studied the bill. Really it was Bill C-80 that went for pre-study. We held hearings. Then the bill was revised and became Bill C-17.
We studied that bill and we gradually began to work through amendments, very much like this bill. We began to reach a broader consensus. We still had a problem. It was safe to say that a large majority of people in the country wanted, as the polls showed, stronger gun control.
There was a minority in the country, mainly gun owners, who were afraid that gun control would go too far and would penalize them. There were a lot of crazy people and wild groups that had their views. They did not want any sort of gun control. But there were legitimate users of guns. I changed my view on this. I see some of my colleagues who helped persuade me that there were legitimate users of guns for hunting, fishing and for their farms. They had to have regulations which were reasonable regulations.
Originally, these people had a lot of false information about the bill. Once they got more information-and I am speaking of the gun control bill, I am drawing a parallel here- they were a little more open to the bill. They still had some concerns. They were concerned about the regulations. For example, how many clips could they put in their gun and so on. That was going to be done by regulations.
We also set up an advisory council so that people who were opposed to guns, those who wanted gun control, those who had concerns, guns clubs, wildlife people and so on, were mixed together in this group and we made sure there was a balance. They would advise the minister and the department. Then the department would bring down regulations. As a further protection, we wanted to have, as the member for Skeena said, public disclosure and parliamentary scrutiny. We wanted those regulations out in the open. We wanted people to see them before they came into effect. We did not want a process that would just delay the bill. You delay the regulation so that you never have any legislation at all. We had to walk on our tip-toes on this.
What the government came up with was a section exactly like this. It said a regulation passed under the bill, in that case the gun control bill, in this case the environment bill, must be laid before Parliament 20 days before the regulation would come into effect. It is not hard on the bureaucracy to do that. That could be done. Fifteen sitting days after the regulation is laid before

March 16, 1992
Government Orders
either the House or the Senate, 20 members can get up and ask that it be debated. Normally, most of the regulations would go right through but if a bad or a weak regulation was presented, then 20 members could get together and have a debate in the House or in a committee of the House. Within five sitting days after the filing of the motion without debate or amendment the House would have to put the question.
The regulation could not be delayed forever. You could not use it as a measure of delay. We are hopefully going to use it as a measure of public scrutiny.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is, if it was good enough for the gun control bill, is it good enough for the environment bill? I am waiting for the answer.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, regulations have always been a controversial issue. The most benign of bills can quickly become obnoxious and offensive by the establishment of regulations which do not please the population. I am sure that every member of this House has supported a bill as it passed through the House only to find that the regulations had made the bill impossible to support or, if they had known what the regulations were going to be when the bill went through the House, would never have supported the bill in the first place.
The process being suggested by the member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake was unique until the bill on gun control came before this House. It is no longer a unique process, but it is still unique as far as the people of Canada are concerned. It is the first time that there has been the possibility of them being given input into regulations as they were being drafted or immediately after being drafted.
In the past, the regulations have often been laid before the parliamentary committee for scrutiny and a certain amount of debate. In some cases, I suppose, there was a certain amount of change, but there has not been in the past any machinery which has allowed the House of Commons to take a look at those regulations and make sure that they are acceptable by the-


An hon. member:: And sometimes the regulations would not be legal.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is right. As my colleague has suggested, sometimes regulations have been found to be illegal. Those kinds of things can be brought before the House, debated and then voted on by this House.
This makes this House rather than the bureaucracy responsible for the regulations. I think the gun control legislation is probably a good example of the kind of information that needs to be fed into a committee or into the bureaucracy to establish the kind of regulations which are acceptable to the population of the country.
Should this be passed or put into this act, it would mean that no one can put into regulations the kind of policy which negates the act that was passed in the first place. That is the case if it is taken up by the courts which have often found that the regulations are illegal. No one knows at the moment what is going to be in the regulations, although we are often told when the bill goes through committee what is intended to be in the regulations, but we are often told things which either do not turn up at all, are changed considerably before they come before the committee or are put into effect as far as Canada is concerned.
Should members of Parliament in this House not be responsible for the effects of their actions? We pass legislation daily, or quite often. That legislation then becomes law and the bureaucrats or somebody establish a series of regulations. Maybe the method that is suggested here is a little cumbersome, but it is the best we have. We hope it is going to work well in the gun control legislation. Consequently, if it is accepted by this Parliament now, we hope it will work well in this particular act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Can I put the
question on Motion No. 31?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will call it six o'clock.
March 16, 1992



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the Etouse under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and raise again the issues which I brought up in this House on November 19, 1991, and that had to do with the outbreak of tuberculosis in the communities along Lake Athabaska and Wallis-ton Lake in Saskatchewan, particularly the community of Black Lake.
At that time, in November, there was a massive public outcry including programs on national television and in the national media drawing the attention of the nation to what was happening in Black Lake and the totally unacceptable rates of tuberculosis that existed there. In late January I had the opportunity to tour those communities personally and see for myself again what was happening with respect to health.
I saw that the control program was working. It was quite obvious that the Health and Welfare officials assigned to the task were doing more that yeoman service. They were being very creative in working with the resources they had.
As well, the people in those communities who were contracted by Health and Welfare to help with the control program have also done an excellent job in making sure that people take their medicine, go to the doctor and make sure that health education is taking place around this disease.
Just this last Friday I had the opportunity to hear the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs address the constitutional convention banquet. As a member of Parliament, I was proud to associate myself with the remarks of the minister at that banquet.
At that banquet he said: "Look what the policies of governments past have brought this country and its aboriginal peoples". He said and I quote: "Infant mortality that is double the national average, suicide that is twice as common and a rate of tuberculosis that is 10 times higher". We have recognition here by the minister
Adjournment Debate
and the Government of Canada before the aboriginal people that this rate of tuberculosis is unacceptable, especially in the context of the nation-building we are trying to engage in at the present time.
I would like to point out that the problem is not with the control program or the professionals. Besides TB in those communities there is hepatitis A and dysentery, all problems that indicate very clearly that we have a public health program that goes far beyond tuberculosis.
The basics are clear. There has to be clean water, workable sewer systems to keep those communities sanitary. There has to be a housing program that contributes to adequate housing. The minister challenged my statements at that time on housing. It is true that there are up to 15 people living in a 900 square foot house in those communities on Lake Athabaska. That is not a healthy situation.
I am calling on the government to take action, to build a road into the Athabaska so that those houses and sewer and water materials and healthy food can get in there and that the government put its money where its mouth is in this regard.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the housing conditions that exist on Indian reserves across the country. In recent years, the Department of Indian Affairs has provided over $120 million annually in capital subsidies to assist with house construction and renovations in First Nations' communities. Last year, for example, the department provided $130 million toward the construction of over 3,500 new houses and the renovation of 4,600 existing units; indeed, the average rate of construction and renovation over the past eight years has been in the area of 3,200 new houses and 4,000 renovations per year.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has also provided additional operating subsidies to bands that have borrowed from approved lenders to build their houses. Because reserve lands cannot be mortgaged, Indian Affairs provided guarantees for housing loans. Since 1984, the First Nations have made much greater use of CMHC funding, and Indian Affairs now approves between $75 million and $100 million in loan guarantees annually.

Adjournment Debate
The over-all result of these efforts, in partnership with the First Nations, has been to reduce the average number of persons per house, nationally, from 5.9 to 4.8.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is up. I would have many more good things to say, but it will have to wait till next time.



Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that we have a problem in Canada. It is a massive problem and it is called unemployment.
Last month unemployment reached some 10.6 per cent, the highest it has been in this country for almost six years. That is up from 10.4 per cent in January. In Toronto it is up to 10.8 per cent, up from 8.3 per cent a year ago and less than two years ago it was only 4.6 per cent in Toronto.
Sure, 10.6 per cent is still less than the 12.8 per cent that we hit during the 1982 recession, but that is really cold comfort to those who are unemployed.
What are we going to do about it? It will be recalled in my letter to the Prime Minister in January I suggested five initiatives.
In early February, the government acted on one of those, the 5 per cent down payment. I was pleased to see that some 6,000 people or more have taken advantage of that in less than one month.
In the budget on February 25 the government acted on two more of my suggestions, one the RRSP proposal, the other one cutting personal income taxes, very modestly I will admit.
The question of course is: Is that going to be enough to do the job to get the economy moving again? There are other things we can do.
One of those things is the lowering of the value of the Canadian dollar. That could make an enormous difference as far as unemployment is concerned and job creation.
A 1 per cent increase in the value of the Canadian dollar results in a $14 million sales decrease for Inco, the International Nickel Company of Canada, and it puts the jobs of some 10,000 employees of Inco in jeopardy. That is the same problem that all Canadian exporters have. They have problems with productivity, problems with labour costs but those cannot be solved in the short run.
The problem of the value of the Canadian dollar can be solved in the short run by reducing the spread between the interest rates in Canada and the U.S.A. That way we can help our manufacturers, our exporters and increase jobs.
It will be recalled that the Minister of Finance said that neither the Bank of Canada nor the government sets the value of the Canadian dollar. Back in November the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that it takes direction from the Department of Finance on exchange rates. Who are Canadians to believe? The Minister of Finance or the Governor of the Bank of Canada?
Fortunately, the value of the Canadian dollar has fallen somewhat. But tonight I want to ask the minister again to lean on the Governor of the Bank of Canada, give the direction that the Governor of the Bank of Canada says will be taken from the Department of Finance, lower the value of the Canadian dollar, create some jobs in Canada and get our economy moving again.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the exchange rate is determined by market forces, not by the government. Interest rate spreads are an important determinant of the exchange rate, but several other factors impact on the market evaluation of the Canadian dollar. These factors include foreign borrowings by Canadian entities, our relative inflation performance, international uncertainty, and investor confidence in the policies of the government. This is illustrated by the continued appreciation of the Canadian dollar through the second half of 1990 and the first
March 16, 1992

10 months of 1991, which took place despite substantial declines in domestic short-term interest rates and in the differential with U.S. rates. Since its peak in November, however, the dollar has lost more than 5 cents, or 5.5 per cent, vis-a vis the U.S. dollar.
While the government does not have a target for the exchange rate-indeed, it cannot have one if we are to have an independent monetary policy-the value of our curency is clearly important and is monitored closely. Large swings in the exchange rate on a daily basis are not desirable because they create uncertainty and hamper our economic and trade performance. As a result, the government has instructed the Bank of Canada to intervene in foreign exchange markets in order to avoid large and abrupt swings in the value of the currency. Official exchange market intervention is designed to provide this very short-term stabilizing influence in exchange markets. It operates both when the dollar is subject to upward pressure as downward pressure.
Mr. Speaker, I would still have plenty to say, but I understand that my time has expired.


UKRAINE
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the liabilities and assets of the former U.S.S.R. It is a very important question for those former nations that are now the independent states.
The answer was that this question was being discussed on an ongoing basis within the aegis of the G-7 countries.
On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared its independence. On December 1, 1991, the people of Ukraine voted to ratify that declaration.
Canada acted very quickly in recognizing Ukraine as an independent state. However, since that time the government has been dragging its feet. As yet we have no ambassador, our mission is temporary, and Ukrainians wishing to visit Canada are still facing bureaucratic road-blocks.
This lack of will is even more obvious when compared to the United States and Germany. They have established full diplomatic relations with Ukraine.
The Department of External Affairs is still advising Canadians wishing to travel to Ukraine to obtain visas
Adjournment Debate
from the office of the former U.S.S.R. when it is well known that Ukraine has indicated that it will issue visas at the port of entry.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to address as well the issue of Canada's position on the liabilities and assets of the former U.S.S.R.
The Prime Minister of Ukraine, Mr. Fokin, had invited the creditor nations of the former U.S.S.R., the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank to a conference which was held in Kiev on February 18 to discuss the problem of the partition of the liabilities and assets of the former U.S.S.R.
Canada did not have a delegate there. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank decided to boycott this conference.
Is this decision made in support of Mr. Bush's new world order, or is Canada no longer master of her own decisions due to the fact that 30 per cent of her national debt is owed to the international financiers?
As you know the liabilities of the former U.S.S.R. are $68 billion. Ukraine has accepted its share of 16.8 per cent and demands as well its pro rata share of assets that the former U.S.S.R. is holding abroad, including Canada.
It is my understanding that when Mr. Yeltsin was in Canada and met with our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister gave him a letter stating that Canada considers the assets of the former U.S.S.R. in Canada as belonging to Russia.
On what basis has he come to this conclusion? On what legal grounds did he do so, or was it an arbitrary decision of the Prime Minister?
Would the parliamentary secretary table this letter in the House, or would he prefer to deny the existence of this letter?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by noting the strong support that the Government of Canada has given to Ukraine since its emergence as an independent state. Canada led in granting diplomatic recognition, we have upgraded our representation in Kiev to an embassy, and we have been in the forefront among Western countries in providing programs of assistance to Ukraine as it converts to a market economy.

Adjournment Debate
This transformation, which requires difficult but necessary adjustments in economic and institutional structures, is a critical ingredient in the adoption of democratic values. A key element will be the formulation of comprehensive economic reform programs in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund.
Ukrainian membership in the IMF and the World Bank, which Canada has been working to achieve as quickly as possible, will enhance its ability to implement such reforms as effectively as possible and with as little disruption as possible.
The conference to which the member referred did not take place. However, Ukraine has met with other republics as well as with representatives of western governments on a number of occasions to discuss the issue of the treatment of the external debts of the former Soviet Union. This is a matter of some importance to Canada as one of the major creditors of the U.S.S.R. The loans extended in good faith to the U.S.S.R. will continue to be serviced despite the changes in political structures. This is important not just for the creditors involved but for the former republics as well, since they have an interest in maintaining their creditworthiness in order to ensure continued access to financing from private as well as public sources in the west. After extensive consultations and discussions with representatives of the seven major industrial countries last autumn, most of the republics of the former U.S.S.R. did agree to acknowledge formally in a memorandum of understanding their responsibility for the debts which the Soviet Union had incurred. They also agreed to designate an agent to work with western creditors to service those debts. Ukraine has recently agreed to sign the memorandum and we welcome this as an important step to promote Ukraine's full participation in international commercial and financial markets.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, on November 29, I rose in this House and actually addressed two questions to two separate ministers.
The first one dealt with information or data the Secretary of State through the student loans programs still uses which I believe disenfranchises the number of students who have wanted to take up post-secondary education. I think this is a serious matter.
In response the minister promised that there would be a thorough review of the student loan system and felt that it was necessary in that the program had been started 27 years ago and had not been changed since then. He also added he was close to tabling the completely revised version of the student loan system that would meet the primary objective of the program, which was to help students in need to finish their education and become full-fledged Canadian citizens.
What has happened since then, almost four months ago? The government decided to privatize student loans. The 3 per cent fee or tax on student loans is perhaps going to be cancelled. Unfortunately the students have been subjected to six months more of interest payments.
The second question dealt with a report that is entitled Tradition in Education Toward a Vision of our Future which includes a declaration of First Nations jurisdiction over education.
I wanted to know whether the minister had seen this report and what he thought of it. He had indicated that he was not familiar with it, but that when he and his officials had had an opportunity to complete an analysis he would be happy to review it and bring it forward at the appropriate time.
That was almost four months ago, and I ask: Where is the report? I should point out that this is not the first time that there has been a problem with this minister. For example, on February 13, certain chiefs of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs met with the minister to look at the question of social services for status Indian people off reserve. These people are suffering because of squabbling between the federal and provincial government. They indicated:
We rightly expected to be received with due respect and a responsible and caring attitude from the Minister.
What happened? They referred to the minister and said:
Instead, we were appalled and offended to receive from you an unwarranted, unsubstantiated and hysterical outburst of allegations and insinuations.
These particular chiefs went on and asked:
I and my fellow Chiefs have been profoundly offended by the irresponsible generalized allegations and unprofessional conduct to which we were subjected by you. We feel that, at the very least, your personal apology is called for, along with an early opportunity to productively address with you the serious policy issues we have raised.
March 16, 1992

My point in bringing this latter matter up is to point out that the first item I have mentioned is not an isolated issue.
I would appreciate responses to the question of student aid and to those other matters I have raised with respect to the aboriginal peoples.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about the system of student loans and we know that it guarantees loans through chartered banks or other designated lenders for all eligible students in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, $630 million in loans a year are guaranteed for nearly 215,000 students. Since the program began, $7 billion of loans have been made to almost two million Canadian students. This program has thus proven itself. The latest budget announced changes to reflect the economic and social realities of 1992.1 think that the hon. member is drawing a hasty conclusion in saying that absolutely nothing is happening, when student loans are being reviewed as part of the normal review of the different programs in the various departments.
As for my colleague's second point, I must tell him that the Department of Indian Affairs has regular contacts with the Assembly of First Nations to try to improve and clarify the points being discussed at that level. I think that if the hon. member is patient, as I know him to be, he will have positive results quite soon.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerning a question I asked of the Minister of Finance on November 21, 1991, on one of my least favourite subjects but one that I unfortunately had to raise many times in the House. It deals with credit card interest rates that the major financial institutions have been getting away with over the last number of months.
This is not a new issue. There are over 30 million bank cards in circulation across this country. According to the
Adjournment Debate
banks' own admissions, out of the 30 million cards roughly 50 per cent of those cards carry a monthly balance of $1,000 or a little more per month. It does not take a mathematical wizard to sit down and figure out that what you are dealing with is not just a few thousand dollars. Fifteen million cards times $1,000 balance per month adds up in the course of things to billions of dollars over the run of the fiscal year.
The problem we have is that as the prime rate or the T-bill rate plunged through the fall months of last year, we did not see a corresponding adjustment in the credit card interest rate market. Indeed, what we saw was that the big banks that offer Visa and MasterCard were charging the same rate of interest when the prime rate dropped as when the prime rate was four points higher.
We have constantly gone after the minister and the government to take some action. It has been the subject of much debate and much public scrutiny through the Consumer and Corporate Affairs committee. But the committee cannot take action. The committee can simply sit down and listen to interested groups of consumers and grill the banks as to why it is they think that interest rates, the spread of which was 12 points higher than the T-bill rate back in November, were not usurious rates of interest.
I want to put it in perspective. For every 1 per cent that the big banks charge in excessive interest on credit card balances, in the course of the year it amounts to nearly $150 million in additional interest charged to consumers. If this isn't gouging, I don't know what is.
We have called on the government time and time again to have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs call the banks, and in the absence of his persuasive abilities, to get them to drop these usurious rates of interest and to come in with legislated caps.
I want to make it very clear that I have never been a fan of legislated caps, but I am a fan of fairness in the marketplace, and fairness in the marketplace does not mean that the big banks can get away with a 10, 11 or 12 point spread over what they borrow their money at and what they lend it out to consumers at through the credit card interests rates that they charge.

March 16, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I want to put this thing fully in perspective. We are in the middle of the worst recession we have had since the dirty thirties, and everybody knows that, everybody knows it. We have seen bankruptcies unlike anything we have ever seen before in our lives. The bankruptcy stats that came out for the month of January showed that bankruptcies are galloping out of control. There are over a million and a half Canadians out of work. Businesses are going belly-up a dime a dozen in this country. So there are not a lot of corporate profits around. Stats Canada reported for the fourth quarter of 1991. Listen to this. I do not know if the government was counting on getting a lot of tax revenue from profits. Do you know what the total non-financial corporate profits were in the last quarter of this year? They were a negative $2,007,000,000. That tells you that businesses in Canada are not making any money. They are going out of business.
At the same point in time as business in this country- and mostly small businesses, the generators of employment in this country-was not making any money, the big banks were making huge profits. The Royal Bank alone last year, in the middle of the worst recession we have ever had, recorded profits of $987 million. That is almost a billion dollars.
We have called on this government to take some action, either through the Bureau of Competitions policy, through whatever means possible, and if everything else fails to come in and force the banks to have a smaller and a lower rate of spread on interest between the prime rate and that which they charge to consumers.
We are now months later, Mr. Speaker, and we still have not heard any solutions. I look for some answers today from the parliamentary secretary.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I must say I found it frustrating, when the hon. member said that in 1991 or 1992, the bankruptcy rate was higher than it ever had been. In fact, there were more bankruptcies in 1981-82, when the hon. member's party was in power.
That being said, I understand the hon. member's position on credit card interest rates. I can't say I particularly approve of those interest rate levels. However, I am a firm believer in market forces, and I would not want to underestimate the intelligence of my fellow Canadians. If the interest they have to pay on credit cards is too high, compared with the interest on a loan from a financial institution, I think people will have the good sense to go and borrow from a financial institution, to pay back what they owe on a credit card on which the interest is twice what they would be charged anywhere else. I think we have to let market forces prevail in this country. The hon. member said as much. He said he was not in favour of fixed rates nor of urging or obliging companies to have a fixed rate. I agree. Let the market decide, and let Canadians realize that if the interest they pay on credit cards is too high, they can refinance their debts at a better rate. I would urge all Canadians, especially the people in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, to look at the options and choose the option that suits them best.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
T\iesday, March 17,1992