Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

Petitions

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first calls upon Parliament to recognize the public threat of dangerous offenders and to amend the Criminal Code to have such offenders detained indefinitely at warrant expiry when it is believed that they may cause serious physical, psychological harm or death to another person.

This petition is signed by people from all across southern Ontario.

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the sanctity of life.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions, the first one on behalf of Dr. Eron Horton and Glen Reist of the Mississauga Gospel Temple in my riding. The second one was given to me by Dr. Lester Laird, also a constituent in my riding.

The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval for same sex relationships or homosexuality.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Prior to resuming debate I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the two ministerial statements Government Orders will be extended by 53 minutes.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today.

As a member of Parliament and Reform critic for the environment I am pleased to be able to serve as a check on government legislation to be assured that it is in the best interest of all Canadians and to ensure the continued protection of our environment.

As opposition critic it is not my intention to simply criticize for the sake of being critical. I will support legislation that is in the best interest of the environment and ensure this government is taking the proper steps toward protecting the environment with a fair balance between the economy and the environment. However if these factors are not taken into account I will oppose the initiative and offer constructive criticism.

During the first year of this 35th Parliament the government has been slow to move on many issues, including the environment. There has been of late a lot of talk and grandstanding but not a great deal of action.

I am pleased with the direction of this bill. It is a good start. However there is a great deal of work to be done in the area of environmental assessment. To summarize we need to be proactive and not reactive in our approach to the environment. Rather than cleaning up our mistakes after the fact we must take steps to prevent environmental damage before it occurs. We must get out of the wait and see what happens approach and begin to look into the future to make constructive and bold moves now.

As members of Parliament we must lead by example and do all that we can to protect what is vitally important to the future of Canadians, our own environment. We must ensure that the environment that we leave to our children is as good or in better condition than that which we inherited.

Many will recognize that this is the Brundtland definition of sustainable development and in my view this is the direction in which we should be heading. We must protect our land and our resources to ensure that our children have clean water, sustainable forests and unpolluted crop land. We need to ensure that when we build a bridge, a hydroelectric plant or a landfill that it does not harm the environment, that it does not affect our air, our waterways or our lands.

One way to ensure that projects are safe for the environment is to systematically identify potential environmental consequences of projects before they are started. Unwanted environmental impacts on people, their way of life and their livelihood must be minimized. Environmental assessment attempts to predict the effects of potential environmental proposals prior to their becoming a reality.

To give some historical perspective, I would like to give some background on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The federal government has used environmental assessment since 1974 to predict the potential effects of proposed projects under federal government jurisdiction. Previous federal guidelines under the environmental assessment and review process had been drafted originally as guidelines. These guidelines were only recently elevated to the status of federal regulation.

The federal role in environmental assessment has only recently expanded to assess projects that have been approved by provincial governments taking place on provincial lands. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, assessments are applied to all proposals involving federal money, land or responsibility, projects for which the federal government holds decision making authority. Federal Court of Appeal decisions on the Rafferty-Alameda dam in Saskatchewan and on the Oldman River in Alberta confirmed this point.

When a provincial assessment has been conducted, every project, decision or responsibility requires an environmental assessment where some federal concerns have not been dealt with or where the federal and provincial processes are not on an equal footing.

Recently we have seen a number of projects challenged on the grounds that they involve federal jurisdiction. There are currently four types of environmental assessment to address different projects and circumstances. These four types, as the minister stated earlier, include screening, comprehensive study, mediation and review by an independent panel.

The first two, screening and comprehensive study, are the most preliminary and account for approximately 30,000 assessments per year or 99 per cent of all federal projects assessed. Screening is usually applied to small scale projects that are quite straightforward. Comprehensive study is usually applied to larger scale, environmentally sensitive projects.

Mediation is the third type and is a voluntary approach to environmental assessment by which an impartial mediator is appointed by the environment minister to help parties resolve issues surrounding projects. It is only used when interested parties are few and consensus is possible.

Finally, when a project requires further evaluation it is referred to the Minister of the Environment for review by an independent public panel. This is the highest form of review. It is usually applied to contentious projects. It is the type we read about in the newspapers. It is important for us to note here that these contentious projects amount to less than 1 per cent of the total projects assessed.

These four different evaluation processes provide a range of assessments to meet different project needs. However, what is a cause for concern is the fact that it is up to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment whether he or she may call a public review. What about the other side? What if the minister does not call for a review when there is pressure to call for one? There appears to be a fair amount of discretion regarding the minister's option to simply ignore or postpone a review.

I have concerns regarding the amount of ministerial discretion allowed in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For example, the minister may or may not call for a review. The minister appoints the mediator or panel members. The minister may allow another federal process to be substituted for an environmental review and, finally, rather than hire an impartial person to fill the head position of the new agency created by the act, the minister fills this position through appointment, another potential source of patronage.

Another concern I have is how this bill will apply to First Nations. I trust the government will have the common sense to ensure that our environmental assessment laws are applicable to all in Canada, to all Canadians. Whether or not this will be the case is presently unclear.

It appears that First Nations may be exempt from this law as it is unclear where native self-government fits into this legislation. We cannot have one set of standards for most of the country and another set for the remainder. What occurs in one area of the country impacts all Canadians. The laws should protect all equally.

By removing First Nations from federal jurisdiction in environmental assessment we are doing not only a disservice to the natives but a disservice to all Canadians, present and future generations.

Up to this point I have been talking about Canadian environment assessment as a whole. Bill C-56 deals more specifically with three proposed amendments to the act. I would now like to deal with each in turn.

The first amendment proposed in this bill is to amend the act so that intervener funding for public participation in the review process is guaranteed. I support this amendment as it encourages increased public participation.

The Reform Party strongly encourages public involvement in government decision making as this allows the opportunity for the public to have direct input into environmental decisions affecting their lives. However this amendment must be more clearly defined as funding is not detailed in the bill. It is my view that funds should come from existing environmental department budgets and that the budget should not be expanded simply to satisfy the amendment.

This type of funding can easily be subject to abuse. Therefore it requires clear guidelines with minimum and maximum amounts established. Distribution of funds must be fair, equitable and reasonable.

In terms of accountability, recipients of funding must have clear guidelines to prevent misuse of funds and to ensure taxpayers' dollars realize maximum benefit. This is vitally important at a time when public funds are becoming much harder to come by and the public is demanding the best use of their ever decreasing tax dollar.

There are many stakeholders in the environment decision making process including federal and provincial governments, the private sector and, most important, the public at large. Ordinary Canadians are the most directly affected by the environmental impact of projects. For this reason intervener funding is an important tool and resource as it enables Canadians to participate in the process.

The second amendment to the act seeks to ensure that responses to public panel recommendations must be decided by cabinet. This means that decisions to act or to reject panel recommendations are not made solely by the Minister of the Environment but by cabinet as a whole. This allows for a more democratic system of accounting because rather than one person holding all the cards, all members of cabinet can debate and vote on the issue. It also reduces the likelihood that environmental decisions will be subject to the whims of any individual minister as government as a whole is given authority on whether or not to carry through on these panel recommendations.

The third and final amendment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act proposed in the bill amends subsection 24 by proposing to limit the number of assessments to one federal assessment per project. This amendment ensures that environmental assessments relating to the same project but involving more than one responsible authority, for example fisheries and industry, are co-ordinated to avoid duplication.

Normally when a project is proposed an assessment would be triggered immediately. For example, building a bridge normally triggers several assessments by different departments. In the past each department would conduct its own review, resulting in

costly overlap, confusion, duplication and a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

One federal assessment per project will reduce costly and time consuming situations such as the Oldman River dam project in Alberta. The overlapping and conflicting assessments of the Oldman River resulted in numerous court battles and many delays, all at great expense to the taxpayer. The federal government assessment was forced through the courts while the province refused to participate. It was simply an impossible situation.

Canadians cannot afford to have various departments within government conducting reviews over and over again. Such extravagant spending as displayed by former governments is clearly not acceptable today. Canadians are demanding one single comprehensive approach to environmental assessment. One federal assessment per project is clearly a step in the right direction. However it is not enough to have one federal environmental assessment. We need to have one environmental assessment, period; not one federal assessment followed by a similar provincial assessment.

While we may reduce the number of federal assessments we still need to address the fact that federal efforts are duplicated by the provinces. The federal government cannot legislate one assessment within Canada because it can only legislate where it has jurisdiction. The provinces also have environmental jurisdiction. The fact remains that with two levels of environmental assessment there is simply too much duplication, overlap, confusion and conflict.

We are still faced with the reality that federal assessments and provincial assessments may conflict. Even if the two assessments agree, a second one is clearly unproductive. The funds going to the second assessment would be better utilized elsewhere.

We need a common set of environmental standards and goals for both federal and provincial levels of government.

We require federal-provincial harmonization agreements worked out and signed by the provinces and the federal government. In this way we will have one set of rules and truly one joint assessment per project.

It is not enough for the government to say that it is working toward federal-provincial harmonization agreements. We have had enough talk. Now we need action. These agreements must be worked out and signed immediately.

At present there is only one federal-provincial harmonization agreement in place and that is with Alberta. There are nine other provinces that still need to sign on as well as the ambiguity with native self-government ironed out.

It is clearly the time for federal and provincial governments to begin to work together on environmental matters. It is important that we avoid turf wars between the two levels of government and aim toward common goals because the environment clearly has no borders. When it comes to the environment we must put our differences aside for the common good of all Canadians for this generation and generations to come.

Environmental protection should not be viewed, as with some members of the official opposition, as meddling in someone else's area of jurisdiction. Environmental degradation affects the country as a whole. When one area of the country is faced with severe depletion of fish stocks or another area prospers from its forest industry, the effects ripple throughout the country.

When it comes to environmental concerns, all Canadians are environmentalists as are all members within the House. We may differ on how to attain various environmental goals but protection of our environment is common to all of us.

The question is not whether we should base our legislation on federal or provincial regulation but how best the two parties can satisfy their concerns and come up with one comprehensive set of regulations.

Environmental assessment should be conducted jointly with the provinces where there is an overlap in jurisdiction. When a federal and provincial assessment has been triggered, both levels of government should work together to assess the project rather than each other doing their own study. Clearly this cannot and will not happen without one set of standards and a common goal should be shared by both parties.

It is my hope and expectation that the minister has taken the effort to consult with the provinces and that the legislation and the amendments being brought forward today have had the input of each of the provinces. It is vitally important that any new regulations meet their needs in order for harmonization agreements on the environmental assessment process to proceed as smoothly and as quickly as possible.

Given the nature of Canadian federal and provincial programs overlap is inevitable. Environment was not considered when the Canadian Constitution was drafted resulting in confusion for both levels of government. Even exclusive jurisdiction over any particular area fails to guarantee there will be no overlap. The division of responsibilities has often resulted in conflict between the two powers and has compromised our decision making abilities.

Environmental assessment has been one of the most contentious areas of conflict between federal and provincial powers. Both levels of government have legitimate roles to play in environment and resource management. However both parties must demonstrate a will to set aside their differences and work toward the common goal.

One of the government's first priorities should be the elimination of overlap because duplication wastes public funds at a time when our dollars are in short supply. A single unified approach to the environment and environmental assessment in particular would result in greater effectiveness with less confusion.

Intergovernmental harmonization agreements co-ordinate activities and clarify roles while at the same time ensuring that common objectives and goals are attained. Clearly smooth and efficient federal-provincial relations depend upon good working relationships and shared policy objectives. For this to occur, federal-provincial relations must take a co-operative rather than a competitive approach.

To illustrate the horrendous cost of duplication, according to a Treasury Board study 45 per cent of federal programs resulting in expenditures of over $40 billion overlap and compete to varying degrees with provincial programs. We simply cannot afford this duplication of services.

In conclusion, as much as I support the initiative to reduce environmental assessments to one project and one federal assessment, I support it only as a step in the right direction, a step toward one joint federal-provincial assessment. Until the final step of harmonization is achieved with all 10 provinces we will not have reached the ultimate goal of truly one environmental assessment per project.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

During the next five hours of debate members' interventions will be limited to 20 minutes maximum subject to 10 minutes of questions and comments.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This bill will improve some components of the federal environmental assessment process.

I will take a few minutes to describe briefly the object and scope of the amendments before the House and to try and explain the principles behind this reform.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that these amendments reflect the commitments made in the red book, which is the agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada. Our government is determined to keep these commitments which were made during the last election campaign.

In our view the three amendments are not only essential to the effective implementation of the federal environmental assessment process but are also in keeping with the expectations of the main stakeholders.

We introduced a whole chapter in the red book on sustainable development. We committed ourselves to installing an auditor general of the environment and sustainable development. The minister has already introduced reforms in that regard. We committed ourselves to installing a task force on the economic instruments that would favour the environment and sustainable development. The task force is now at work and will present a report to the ministers of finance and of the environment for eventual inclusion of their recommendations into the February budget.

We committed ourselves to an environmental industry strategy. The strategy has now been introduced to try to help environmental technologies develop themselves and improve their strength and efficiency in Canada for the betterment of our sustainable development strategy overall. We committed ourselves to a review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which by the way is a statutory requirement. This is now in process.

Perhaps the key element of our sustainable development reforms and resolve is contained in the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to which we committed ourselves. We truly believe and are convinced that environmental assessment is the key element to pollution prevention, to a better environmental standard which leads to quality of life and a sustainable society.

Two of the amendments presented in Bill C-56 are aimed at meeting repeated requests by environmental protection groups from across Canada in recent years. The third amendment is designed to reduce uncertainty and delays in the application of the federal environmental assessment process, a concern which is shared by all stakeholders and certainly by the provinces.

If I could speak to the first amendment which has to do with participant funding, it provides for the legal guarantee of a participant funding program designed to encourage Canadians to take part in public hearings held by environmental assessment review panels.

Participant funding is a major concern of environmental groups and is quite understandable. I should explain that the environmental assessment of major projects that are subject to public hearings is an extremely complex exercise. Generally speaking the environmental assessment of major projects results in several volumes of technical information. For example, in the case of Great Whale several thousands pages of information had to be produced and studied. We cannot expect informed public

participation unless the groups representing the citizens at large who are directly affected by a project have access to funding to state their case.

Participation in the environmental assessment process requires staff, it requires technical resources for analysing reports, drafting a response, preparing briefs and presenting views at public hearings let alone the travel to various points in the land. It is a simple matter of equity.

Some environmental groups and public community groups are faced with tremendous odds when up against huge institutions and corporations which have unlimited funding to present their case. The need for participant funding is not new. It was identified many years ago. The 1987 white paper on the reform of the federal environment review process entitled "Reforming Federal Environmental Assessment" addressed this need and proposed the establishment of a participant funding program.

Following national public consultation carried out as part of the reform, some funding was made available by the previous government. The funds were administered by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO, and were provided to participants in the activities of federal or joint panels reviewing such projects as, for example, Soligaz in Quebec, the St. Marguerite hydroelectric project in Quebec and the Vancouver airport project.

However, the previous government refused to make a firm commitment or to guarantee participant funding for all the environmental assessments. In this respect the current wording of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is unsatisfactory for it simply allows a minister to create a participant funding program.

The wording of Bill C-56 goes much further. It creates the obligation to establish a participant funding program in keeping with the Liberal Party's red book commitment which reads:

A Liberal government will amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to legally recognize intervener funding as an integral component of the assessment process.

This is what we are doing by this very important amendment.

The second amendment provides for only one federal assessment per project. It results from the more general commitment made by the government to improve the efficiency of federal government services and to significantly reduce duplication. This amendment will ensure that, to the extent possible, only one federal environmental assessment will be conducted with respect to a project.

In fact, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act already contains many provisions to avoid duplicating similar provincial processes. It provides for delegation of authority where pre-assessments, comprehensive studies and follow-up programs are concerned. It also provides for signing harmonization agreements and creating "single windows" in each of the provinces. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act also includes provisions to facilitate the work of joint panels.

Several years ago I happened to be minister of the environment for Quebec. At that time I negotiated long and hard with the federal minister of the time, Mr. McMillan, to try and get to the very position we are in today in the act, which is to have some sort of a process whereby the federal government and the provinces would be able to install joint panels. In the case of provincial jurisdictions there would be provincial panels with the federal government sending observers if it had an interest in the project, or vice versa, or sometimes mixed panels.

I remember a case that was under discussion, the airport in Saint-Jean, where unfortunately we were not able to arrive at a conclusion of this process. Now we will be able to.

This amendment has two goals. First, it seeks to co-ordinate information requirements throughout the federal civil service, should a project be subject to more than one study under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

For example, when a project funded by the federal government also requires a permit under the regulation, it is theoretically possible that two different assessments will be necessary. In such cases, we want to give the developer the assurance that the assessment will meet the requirements of all the federal authorities involved.

Time is the other aspect of this amendment. Whenever possible, we want the environmental assessment to meet the information needs of federal authorities for the duration of the project. We want to avoid asking the developer to conduct an assessment at the planning stage, another one at the implementation stage, another one when work is temporarily interrupted and another one when equipment is no longer used and activities are permanently shut down.

It is true that the legislation in its present form contains some provisions requiring co-operation among federal authorities. For example, section 12 stipulates that where there are more than one responsible authority in relation to a project, they shall together determine the manner in which to perform their respective duties and functions. Nothing in the existing legislation forces them to require only one assessment for each project. This is totally unacceptable if our goal is to have a coordinated, effective and consistent process, and I am sure it is the goal we are all pursuing.

With this amendment, the federal government is doing its share. The amendment is designed to meet the legitimate expectations of those who are justifiably opposed to conducting more than one environmental assessment for the federal government. Combined with the current harmonization initiative undertaken by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, I am hopeful that this amendment will help us reach our ultimate goal, which is to conduct only one environmental assessment with respect to a project, no matter how many authorities are involved.

I am sure the third amendment will contribute to curbing Canadians growing dissatisfaction with government and to restoring parliamentary integrity.

Again I would like to quote the Liberal Party's red book which addresses this particular problem. On page 87 it states:

The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors.

The manner in which the previous government dealt with panel recommendations certainly fueled the public's dissatisfaction with Canada's democratic institutions. Indeed, when a major project raised public concerns, the scenario was always the same. A review panel was established. It studied the possible impacts of the project for months and sometimes even for years. It consulted the public affected by the project. It then drafted a detailed report containing specific recommendations.

However, as soon as one of these reports reached a federal minister's desk, unexplainable things would happen. In some cases the minister responsible would examine the report and make a decision without consulting his or her colleagues. In other cases the cabinet would meet to study the recommendations of the panel and would decide, for its own reasons which it did not have to divulge, to ignore the most important ones. In most cases the previous government's decisions were completely out of line with the key recommendations set out in the panel's reports.

Under certain circumstances I agree that this may be perfectly justified. Unlike panel members, who are appointed and who are not accountable to the public, the members of government are elected to make decisions.

This said, it is in our view unacceptable for a government to entrust a panel of experts with a task of examining an issue and with consulting the public and then to turn around and reject their recommendations with no explanation for its decision. Environmental protection groups and the media were very often critical of previous governments' decisions.

In most cases they felt that short term economic and political gains would take precedence over the long term environmental benefits that form the basis of most recommendations made in the panel reports.

If the government systematically ignores the panel's recommendations, it will be difficult to restore the public's confidence in our institutions, be it in regard to the environment or otherwise. In fact the principle of public consultation itself is thus called into question.

It will also be very difficult to convince proponents to comply with the process and to find qualified individuals to serve on the panels. Besides, it will not be easy to convince affected Canadians to take part in the hearings. How can we hope to encourage public participation if the government is completely free to ignore all recommendations and if it is not required to provide the reasons behind its decisions? Under these circumstances, how will the government be able to convince Canadians that it made the right decision in the first place?

The point is not to tie the hands of decision makers and to give non-elected panel members decision making powers, but rather to restore a proper and judicious balance. If the government decides to accept the recommendations of an environmental assessment panel, everyone wins. However, should it decide to accept certain recommendations and to reject others, it will be required to provide explanations. If its explanations are clear, the integrity of the environmental review process will remain intact.

The problem that arises from the desire to strike a balance between ministerial prerogative and the recommendations of environmental assessment panels was addressed in the 1987 white paper to which I have referred before on the reform of the federal assessment process.

The proposed amendment will require the responsible minister to draft a response to the recommendations of an environmental assessment panel. This response will have to be examined and approved by the governor in council, in other words by the cabinet.

This bill meets real needs, and it improves the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The government's goal is to have only one federal assessment on any given project. The creation of a participant funding program will encourage Canadians to participate in the hearings conducted by review panels.

Finally, the principle of openness in government will apply, because the government will have to respond officially to the recommendations made by review panels. Those amendments will contribute to restore public trust in federal democratic

institutions. The government intends to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in January 1995.

The four required regulations have been published in Part II of the Canada Gazette on October 19. The amendments before us should be passed as soon as possible, because all Canadians stand to gain from their early implementation after the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has been proclaimed.

The environment knows no boundaries. It is a matter of equity. It is a matter of common sense. It is a matter of a sustainable society for all of us besides the coming generations.

I could not help but find it strange when the critic for the Bloc Quebecois referred to-

-a guardianship being forced on the province of Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois also claims that profound changes have been made since the present Leader of the Opposition introduced the bill a few years ago. The amazing thing is that, since the environment minister made her statement on the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, there has not been a single question asked about that so-called jurisdictional calamity. There have been questions on all sorts of things, and countless questions on tobacco. But the environment does not seem to be such an important issue.

In fact, not a single question was asked about such a supposedly important decision as putting the province under guardianship. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition himself and his party's critic had every opportunity to make any statement they liked on the subject. There were only two, one just before the 1993 election and another on October 13, 1994, to the Gazette , in which he said that he was satisfied with the law and that there was no petty squabble between Mr. Parizeau and him on this subject, because he approved of the law and thought that it was a good one.

We must set our petty squabbles aside and realize that the environment is much larger than all of us, that we must co-operate and have the will to work together. That is what we want to do, on this side of the House, by presenting these amendments. We want to be co-operative, positive and build things for ourselves and future generations.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a short question of the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. I will not take all of the ten minutes and I will leave ample time for him to answer. As he said before in his speech, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis was Minister of the Environment in the Quebec government at one point.

I would like him to explain in clear and simple terms how he can justify his support for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act when his former government, through the former Minister for the Environment, Mr. Paradis-if we can mention his name in this House-succeeded in obtaining unanimity in the provincial legislature, not only a sovereignist vote, not only a partisan vote, but unanimity, on the position of the then Liberal government of Quebec, his former government, being against any intrusion on the part of the federal government in the area of environmental assessment.

I think the former Minister of the Environment could easily explain the change of opinion he experienced while going from the Quebec to the Ottawa government.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for Mr. Paradis, but all I can say is that when I was environment minister in Quebec, I had appointed an associate deputy minister, Mr. Divay, who worked actively with the federal government to seek the kind of administrative agreement which was signed today between Alberta and the federal government.

In fact, I could quote several cases of joint work which was done as actively as possible, for example, in the case of Sainte-Marguerite, in the case of the Lachine canal, which is a current case where joint panels have been established between the federal and provincial governments. In fact, I would like to refer the hon. member for Terrebonne to a statement which was made just recently to the Montreal Gazette by the Leader of the Opposition-unfortunately, I cannot find my quote, but in any case, it is official, it is widely known and I would be very pleased to send it to the hon. member for Terrebonne-where the Leader of the Opposition is criticizing Mr. Paradis for getting angry.

He says in the Gazette : I do not know why Mr. Paradis got so excited, because that legislation is a very good piece of legislation''. So, perhaps the hon. member for Terrebonne should speak to his leader and ask him why he thought that Mr. Paradis got too angry when he intervened on Bill C-13. There were several quotes from the Leader of the Opposition. I will quote his statement to Mr. Jean-François Lisée on October 21, 1993. Mr. Jean-François Lisée asked him:What is going to happen? Are you going to oppose Jacques Parizeau if he comes to power in a few months?'', speaking about Bill C-13, the same legislation we are talking about today. This was just before the election, a few days before the election, and he answered: ``Oh no, Mr. Parizeau will also abide by the law. The P.Q. has accepted the position''.

But later, just recently, a few days ago, he said repeatedly that the bill is well-founded, that he does not see in it any federal and provincial jurisdictional quarrel and that there is a way to find a common ground if we arrive at some agreements. That is what we want to do, that is what I tried to do as environment minister

in Quebec. For me, the environment has always been much more important than jurisdictional quarrels and petty squabbles.

I believe that every one must respect each other's jurisdictions, but we must do it in a constructive way, by trying to find solutions instead of confrontational elements. That has always been my position.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that she is working toward provincial harmonization. I would like to draw on the member's expertise as a former Quebec environment minister because we seem to have a number of opposing forces at work. I applaud the Liberal's initiative to work toward harmonization. However we have a government in Quebec that is saying that environment is its jurisdiction. In the member's experience, is harmonization going to happen, will it happen and can it happen with the forces that are opposing each other in Quebec?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague who is a fellow member of the committee on environment and sustainable development, as is the member for Terrebonne. We show in committee that we can work in great harmony and in a very positive climate regardless of party stripes. It has always been my view that this is the way to do it.

For one year I was president of the Council of Environment Ministers of Canada. I found there was a tremendous amount of goodwill. Sure there were quarrels and disputes as regards jurisdiction. There always will be in a federal system. There always will be in any system. That is the way the world works. At the same time, if we put our differences aside, we can find ways to harmonize our views and our objectives.

For example, the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers has been actively working. Civil servants from the federal government and every province have been working together for a particular harmonization protocol on this very question of environmental assessment. It has worked very actively.

During the term of Minister Paradis who unfortunately is no longer minister because the government was defeated, Mr. Paradis insisted and made sure that a senior civil servant from Quebec was present and took an active part in the deliberations. Unfortunately that is no longer the case because since proclamation of the act Quebec has withdrawn its representative. All the other provinces are working actively. The minister has written to Quebec's minister praying that he rejoin the ranks.

I am certain that agreements can be put into place that respect fully the provincial jurisdictions. The federal government does not want to encroach. All it wants to do is to ensure that when federal prerogatives such as the Fisheries Act are involved that it complies with the dictates of the Supreme Court, it complies with the wishes of Canadians and that among us and between us instead of duplicating our efforts we make them complementary, integrate them for the benefit of all of us.

I am convinced we can do that. We have to have the resolve and that resolve starts among us here. If it is transmitted along and the provincial governments realize that we want to co-operate, to act together rather than confront, it is going to happen. I hope it is going to happen too with the Government of Quebec.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question in the interests of time for the parliamentary secretary who I know has done a tremendous amount of work on the proclamation of the act.

Talking about provincial jurisdiction and joint panels, joint panels are something I am very supportive of. I believe the act has gone a long way to ensuring that joint panels will be able to do the job.

However, can the parliamentary secretary explain how the government will attempt to prevent certain confrontations that will exist with the provinces? The public examples which have brought us to the act we have today are the Rafferty-Alameda dam in Saskatchewan and the Oldman dam in Alberta. Both are examples where the provinces, the proponents of the projects were adamant about no federal involvement in environmental assessment. At the same time these projects point out the incredible need for adequate environmental assessment. The proclaimed act which was Bill C-13 has gone a long way to deal with that.

Can the parliamentary secretary give us some idea of how he thinks the government will deal with conflicts with provinces which are for the most part proponents of projects that are problems?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, much has changed since the cases referred to by my hon. colleague. First there is a Supreme Court decision which makes it quite clear that when the federal government has a jurisdiction it not only should get involved, it has the duty and obligation to get involved. It does not have any chance or opportunity to escape. It must get involved.

There was a timidity before on the part of the federal government to intervene where it had a clear case of jurisdiction, for example on Canadian waters, on fisheries. Now this case is clear. There has been pressure from the Canadian public

to say to their federal government that it has to get involved because it represents a big part of the total jurisdiction.

What will happen now in the case of the provinces and the federal government is that there will be a sensitization that they have to work together, that we cannot confront each other any more. I think this will happen.

There was a recent case in my own province. The Lachine Canal has been an example of a problem which could have led to confrontation but a joint panel was extremely effective and under the provincial system works extremely well. That is going to become the practical way of doing things in the future.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague from Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis that I understood something from his speech. He is in favour of doing away with overlapping provided the issue is resolved in favour of the federal government. I think I understood that correctly. We are against overlaps, move over, we will take all the room, this way everybody will be happy. Except he was not quite that blunt.

It is with great interest that I rise to speak on Bill C-56 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That legislation was to create a new agency to assess all projects which could have an environmental impact. As you will notice, there is no way I can agree with that legislation. Indeed, as an elected representative from Quebec and a defender of Quebec's interest, I must express my dissatisfaction with the federal government's interference with provincial affairs.

As we all know-and the Minister of the Environment knows it as well-there is in Quebec, as in other Canadian provinces, an office of environmental assessment. We call it the BAPE. The mandate of this bureau is to assess projects that have an environmental impact, and it has acquired an international reputation. Quebec is a leader in the area of environmental assessment.

Moreover, the new Minister of the Environment in Quebec announced recently that they would legislate to include assessment of industrial projects into the existing assessment process, even though these projects were already assessed by his department. The Bureau d'audiences publiques pour l'environnement, or BAPE, is a complete, efficient, open and credible process, which answers very well the needs of the population.

The federal government, by promulgating this legislation and tabling regulations on a wide range of projects, imposes a standard system to all provinces regardless of the work already done by the bureau, in Quebec. The Quebec assessment process is operating smoothly and it has proven its worth. Therefore, the federal assessment process will only superimpose itself, adding to the many duplications we already have in our federal system. This bureau will make public administration more cumbersome and the debt will keep on growing.

There will be a Quebec bureau and a Canadian agency, both dedicated to the evaluation of projects which could have an impact on the environment. Not only will this situation make public administration more cumbersome and very costly, but it will also be the source of tremendous headaches for proponents who will never know to whom they should report. Moreover, there is no set timeframe, which could unduly prolong the federal evaluation process.

On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact, as I said earlier, that the previous Liberal government in Quebec was strongly opposed to this bill. Mr. Pierre Paradis, the then environment minister, who was a strong supporter of Canadian federalism, denounced this bill, going as far as saying, appearing before the Senate, that this piece of legislation was a reflection of a domineering and authoritarian federalism. It is Mr. Paradis, a strong supporter of federalism, and not separatists, who shed this light on this bill.

Needless to say, at the time, the National Assembly had unanimously supported the environment and wildlife minister in his fight. What we are talking about here has nothing to do with political affiliation or petty squabbles; it is simply a matter of plain common sense. Quebecers are outraged by the ludicrousness of this bill and of the situation it is creating and will create. The total lack of flexibility on the part of this government which refuses to take the Quebec process into account while amending the act, should not come as a surprise.

Moreover, the government seems to forget that the issue of environmental assessment is part of the federal-provincial harmonization process, as the parliamentary secretary to the environment minister mentioned earlier. The process is part of the agenda of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, but while discussions are still ongoing, the federal government decides to interfere. What is the point then of having any discussion? We can easily predict what the famous four-year, $12 million health forum will result in. The report must already be written and just waiting to be published. The government forgot that the federal-provincial environment harmonization process was on the agenda. To what extent should we trust this exercise if, at the very first opportunity, the government overlooks Quebec's demands and recommendations?

The government is lending a deaf ear to Quebecers, in spite of the fact that they have unanimously expressed their displeasure loud and clear.

I would like to quote a member from the other party, the Liberal member for Ottawa Centre. "The time has come for the different levels of government to agree on a somewhat clearer definition of jurisdictions". That is a Liberal speaking. "It seems to me that the two levels of government should get together on matters of environment". We agree with that. "The minister should take a deep breath, go back a ways and consider this goal, that is the co-operation of all parties concerned with environmental protection". Quebec is one of them. "The gov-

ernment must make sure everybody follows suit because if another level of government does not approve of federal measures, this bill is doomed to failure". These are his own words.

By its attitude the federal government is mocking the intelligence and common sense of Quebecers. After having flouted their legitimate claims, how can the government come back to the table in order to integrate federal and provincial assessment processes? In any case, after such an insult, there will be one player missing at the table, the Quebec Minister of Environment having recalled his players to Quebec.

As a result, there will be another unavoidable confrontation, this time on environmental matters. Considering the government's attitude about this question, the future of these negotiations is not promising. Moreover, with Bill C-56, the government is charging blindly in an area where jurisdictions are very vaguely defined.

As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision regarding Friends of the Old Man Society , ``in the context of a federal constitution, environmental management should not be considered as a constitutional unit coming under only one level of government''.

It is obvious in this case that the government is ignoring the recommendations it has received from all sides on the issue of the environment.

Moreover, the minister is trying to minimize the controversy about Bill C-56 by mentioning that this bill was first introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was himself environment minister.

As Mr. Yergeau, a lawyer specialized in environmental law, explained so clearly in an article published in a 1992 issue of the daily newspaper Le Devoir , many words are being put in Mr. Bouchard's mouth after the fact. In addition, must we remind our friends opposite, who can have a short memory at times, that Mr. Bouchard has since found out that the federal system does not work and never will? He has had the courage of his convictions and left the party. That too should be pointed out.

In a speech given on November 3, 1989, the Leader of the Opposition said that the governments should take note of the three realities dictated by the very nature of environmental problems to be resolved. About the second reality, he said-and I am repeating the quote from my colleague from Laurentides because it is very important to understand this-that in grey areas, where the roles were not clearly defined in the Constitution, co-operation was essential. He added that, at a time when we were realizing that fighting for the environment is fighting for life itself and that this fight must be taken up worldwide and not be limited to our individual jurisdictions, our fellow citizens would not understand and even less tolerate a wrestling match between federal and provincial politicians.

This certainly puts matters in perspective, I would say. Clearly, the federal government approach was not in keeping with the spirit of the bill. In addition, the legislation introduced today incorporates major amendments which are in line with the bill the Leader of the Opposition introduced five years ago, in 1989. The legislative committee to which the bill was referred made some very substantial changes to it in December 1991, and several technical changes were made to the legislation between December 1991 and June 1992. It is therefore inappropriate to present this bill as coming from the Leader of the Opposition. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then.

In conclusion, the only consequence of this bill will be, once again, to foster duplication under our federal system. Quebecers rose up and unanimously expressed their dissatisfaction through all the means at their disposal, but the federal government, again, did not listen to them.

Even federalists recognized the absurdity of putting in place a second review panel, but no one listened to them. Even during negotiations to harmonize federal and provincial efforts in this area, the federal government seized the first opportunity to reject Quebec's demands. It is bad faith, pure and simple.

We are constantly being reminded that it is a red book promise. The government failed to deliver on many of the environmental commitments in the red book. Fortunately, the Liberal Party recognized the foolishness of appointing an auditor for sustainable development and the environment as promised in the red book and was smart enough to put forward the recommendations included in the Bloc Quebecois's minority report.

As for the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2000, it was disavowed by the minister herself. She could not or would not understand that an environmental goal placed under the responsibility of another department-in this case, Energy Canada-was totally inconsistent.

As far as the environment is concerned, the Liberals would undoubtedly like to see some pages of the red book disappear, probably through recycling.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the Opposition said, including that member and the critic, or the one who has the critic's role-she criticizes the Department of the Environment very badly for its efforts to serve all Canadians so that they can live in a healthier environment.

Again, all I heard was ideological ranting about the arrogance of wanting to take Quebec's place in the environmental field.

They talk about provocation, contempt and arrogance towards Quebec. They even talk about a kind of domineering, totalitarian federalism. You know, those are not solutions, that is not a constructive approach for finding environmental solutions. As we know very well, Quebecers are perfectly aware that pollution knows no boundaries. Everything that happens in the Great Lakes, in the St. Lawrence River and even in the Gulf concerns Quebec, although some of these places are outside the province.

I believe that Quebec and Quebecers recognize the importance of finding a common position with the provinces and countries that occupy North America, namely Mexico, Canada and the United States. It is false for the member to claim that he is defending Quebec's interests and that he speaks for Quebec. Some people on this side of the House represent Quebec ridings, including myself and many Liberal members, and I can tell you that we care a great deal for the environment.

I can prove that we Liberals were the ones who dealt with the Irving Whale and thanks to the close co-operation of my colleagues from the Maritimes, the Department of the Environment and the minister, who is from Ontario, we were able to solve this problem once and for all.

I still find it strange for them to say that the federal government does not consider the legitimate demands of Quebec, or of its governments. I find it curious that they refer to the people to make a distinction: They talk about the people, the governments and the Bloc Quebecois' headquarters in Quebec City, but they do not necessarily discuss the issues which really concern the population. And I find it particularly strange that no mention is made of existing administrative agreements between the federal government and the province of Quebec in the pulp and paper sector.

Such an agreement was signed in August, to ensure that pulp and paper companies comply with environmental standards not only in Quebec but also across the country. I believe that success will largely depend on our way of doing things, on a co-operative approach between the provinces and with the United States and Mexico, to ensure standards which will be beneficial to Quebecers but also to every Canadian. In fact, Quebec relies on a Canadian policy to ensure a sound environment for the benefit of its current population as well as its future generations.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is the question? This is certainly a nice speech. I congratulate the hon. member. I would like to know where the members for Outremont and Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine were when the time came to speak for Quebec regarding a debt of $34 million owed to the province by their government.

As I recall, they applauded when their Prime Minister and leader said: "We will not give you that money back". And they were disappointed when the debt was paid to Quebec. That was certainly not the issue.

If pollution knows no borders and if Quebec should not get involved, then why should Canada? Let the United States look after the pollution problem.

I do not really understand that argument which they keep repeating to us, namely that pollution knows no borders. They say Quebec should not get involved because pollution knows no borders. Canada should not look after that problem for the same reason. This argument is somewhat fallacious and it is not very solid. I invite the hon. member to attend the meetings of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He will learn a lot.

As regards the pulp and paper sector, an administrative agreement was indeed signed. Our committee met officials from pulp and paper companies. These people do not know all the details yet. The reports do not clearly define how harmonization will proceed. Some consultations have taken place, but no tax agreement was signed and that issue is also not clear. This is my answer to the hon. member. If he has any other questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has indicated how horrible the legislation seems to be.

I am wondering if the hon. member can indicate why his leader said on May 11, 1990 in the Calgary Herald : People must not expect the government to get out of the assessment of federal projects''. Then he went on in May 1990 in the Calgary <em>Sun</em> to say:We have jurisdiction, we have responsibilities''. Most important, the hon. member's leader said on May 11, 1990 in the Edmonton Sun : ``I think it is a very profound responsibility of this government and any federal government to fulfil national responsibility, and environment is very much a national responsibility''.

I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments in light of these statements.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these statements attributed to my leader concern the environment in general and not the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To be able to analyze or answer a clear question, one must compare oranges and oranges. The member quotes statements made by the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois when he was environment minister and

spoke in general terms about ecology and the environment. I do agree with my leader, as I often if not always do, that environment is a national issue, an international issue, an issue for everyone of us to consider.

Liberal members say that they are very concerned about the environment. Obviously, they are and so are, I am convinced, the NDP members, and the Reform members. We are too. But that is not the question.

The question is this: When dealing with environmental assessment and standards, should Quebec's jurisdiction be respected as agreed after the Constitution, since there is nothing about it in either the 1867 Constitution or the patriated one? I believe that we should respect the areas of jurisdiction which were defined later on.

I also believe that environmental assessment, as Quebec has been proving for a long time, and as the Liberal government in Quebec voted unanimously, should be Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question. Imagine that the Government of Canada has a national standard on the environment, say for forestry, but the provincial standard is not as high as the national standard. Which one would the member suggest be followed?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that forestry is a provincial responsibility, like natural resources, education-

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Standards.