Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts a lot of stake in consultation. I applaud him for that because I believe that consulting is an important part of governing.

This bill contains just three provisions. One of those provisions is the opportunity for participation by Canadians through an intervener funding program or a participant funding program. That is a very important part of the consultation process inherent in environmental assessment.

The amendment in front of us provides a very vague approach to participant funding. Can the member give us any indication as to whether he would be supportive of a more specific intervener funding program to ensure that there are adequate resources available to those who wish to participate in the process and those who wish to be consulted during the process of environmental assessment?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of funding for people who want to proceed and be accepted in the consultation process, we should have a look at what we are doing. Actually the minister of human resources in his consultations on social reform decided that he will proceed with some funding for organizations across Canada.

I believe that on that specific point we have to respect the discretionary power of the minister. It depends on what process we are going ahead with. If it is a huge transformation in that field against it then the discretion of the minister will be used accordingly. I am very much in favour of the discretion that we kept in that bill.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I would first like to make a few comments on our environment in a general sense. First, environment has a special meaning in my constituency of Surrey North. Surrey is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada. It has grown and expanded in recent years because of both immigration and migration. The immigration is mainly Asian and the migration is mainly people from the Vancouver area.

The constituency of Surrey North is a mixture of urban and rural with the urban increasing at the expense of the rural. That alteration along with the population growth and business expansion has caused concerns and greater awareness of the environmental impacts. That desire is truly tested by an explosive population growth.

One characteristic of the people of Surrey North and indeed the people of the west coast is the desire to preserve the natural climate and the environment as best they can. Numerous environmentally oriented projects are apparent in the daily activities of west coast citizens. A heightened awareness of the importance of environmental concerns is demonstrated through more and more presentations and/or questions being asked by citizens on such things as air and water pollution, the long range effects of cutting our trees, right down to their participation in recycling programs.

Second, another environmental concern is that the wild animals are losing their homelands due to the human population explosion and the effects of meeting our own needs for survival. Only our parks are destined, probably within the next century, to become homes for our wild animals unless we change our ways.

The British Isles would be a prime example of this. A couple of centuries ago large animals such as moose and bear roamed on that land through great stands of trees. Somewhere along the line lumber gave way to bricks for building the human dwellings and the moose, the bear, the large cats and other animals that were there gradually became thought of as being indigenous to North America.

Another example of the abuse of our environment seemingly for our need for survival is in the early days of our explorers, Jacques Cartier's time for example. During that time it was recorded that the fish were so plentiful off our east coast that his crew had a tough time getting the oars in the water to move their dinghy forward.

Today we are all aware of the present situation on the east coast where the stocks have been so depleted that the economic foundation and livelihood of a region has been seriously changed, perhaps forever. Not only is there an economic impact, the fish themselves are possibly close to being an endangered species.

Another example would be Easter Island where thriving civilizations cut trees to build homes and move great stone statues. Soon there were no trees left. The homes are no longer, the statues are stationary, and the once thriving civilization is all but gone.

Balancing the wants of people with the capabilities of the environment is a challenge which all communities must face. It is a challenge which people from Surrey have met so far. The industrial expansion of the past few years has not as far as we know had a negative impact on our environment. Surrey is a community that disproves the notion that industry necessarily hurts environment.

We must realize as a nation that we can have a thriving economy and a healthy environment at the same time. That is the sensible approach of the Reform Party. Our blue book states support for the concept of "sustainable development" because "without economic development and the income generated therefrom the environment will not be protected or enjoyed".

What Reformers recognize is garnered from what most Canadians recognize: the importance of the environment to our livelihood as a nation; the importance of the natural resources it provides for our economy and well-being; the variables of the vast geography and sometimes harsh climate that we must encounter; and the preservation of the pure beauty of the natural environment which never ceases to amaze us and visitors to our great nation. This we must preserve.

At the end of the last sitting I drove from Ottawa to Surrey. I was taken aback and awestruck by the absolute beauty and astounding diversity of our country, from the hills, trees, and unique rock formations of northern Ontario to the wide open prairies of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, through the majestic Rockies and down to the scenic beauty of the west coast. If you are able to ignore the areas of clear cut and look past the smoke billowing from some factory or mill, the drive across our country is an experience all Canadians should share. Only after a drive like that does one realize the magnitude, greatness and potential of our country.

We must always strive to maintain that close link between people and their natural environment in this country and continually improve our understanding of the earth itself and our effects upon it. We are as individuals much more aware today of our environment and the effects our actions can have upon it. We are also very aware that the various levels of government are actively involved in the decision making process for many of these very actions involving our environment.

Bill C-56 including the three amendments is a small step forward at the federal level to enhance the process of achieving these decisions. It would be helpful first to take a look at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act itself.

The act requires the federal government to study the environmental impacts of a whole range of projects that until now have escaped public scrutiny. Environmental assessments have been done in the past and have not carried the weight they should in the making of the final decision. Economic considerations have had the tendency to rank higher in importance in the decision making process.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act creates the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. This agency replaces the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. This office was criticized for being costly because of overlap and duplication and for being inconsistently applied. Replacing one office with another may not in itself improve the situation

but the review and revisions and upgrading of the regulations governing the agency's role could very well be the key to an improved performance. The failure of the federal government to provide clear guidelines led to court challenges of high profile projects such as the Oldman River dam in Alberta and the Rafferty-Alameda dam in Saskatchewan.

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act four types of environmental assessments are available to meet different projects and circumstances. One would be screening, two would be comprehensive study, three would be mediation, and four would be a review by an independent panel.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was a bill proposed and passed by the former Conservative government. However the act once passed was never proclaimed, meaning that it never came into force.

In the red book the Liberals promised to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act "to shift the decision making powers to an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to appeal to the cabinet". That is on page 64 of the red book.

On October 6, 1994 the government issued a press release stating its intent to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The reasons for the Conservatives not proclaiming the act that they passed may not be known for certain, but a reasonable guess is because of the wrangling among the industry and environmental groups and among federal and provincial bureaucrats and politicians over the act in general and certain regulations in particular.

The former and present Quebec governments opposed this act. The former Liberal environmental minister for Quebec, Pierre Paradis, appeared before the Senate in an attempt to block the bill. And I understand that the present environmental minister for Quebec is publicly opposing the proclamation of this act.

On this issue one must sympathize with the federal government, for two reasons: first, that the citizens of the country want the federal government to be active in the protection of the environment; and second, because the environment is an area not outlined in the Constitution under federal and provincial jurisdiction. There are to date no clear guidelines for the federal government to follow in this area.

The federal government must play an active role in the protection of the environment and develop clear effective guidelines for environmental issues and concerns. The Reform Party recognizes the need for federal leadership in this area.

Also the new Liberal government has made changes in the regulations of the original act and has proposed amendments to try to satisfy the concerns of some groups. One change in the bill is the dropping of the controversial provision that would have forced environmental reviews of energy exports. This change was apparently welcomed by the oil and gas and hydroelectric industries but criticized by environmental groups.

With regard to the federal-provincial jurisdiction, the federal Minister of the Environment is able to develop co-ordinated environmental assessment procedures for conducting joint panel reviews, thus preventing overlap and jurisdictional conflict. The Reform Party supports the co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments on environment action. We support the reduction of duplication, confusion and unnecessary regulation by developing and applying environmental criteria through a joint federal-provincial process.

The present regulations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act divide the project into four categories: a comprehensive study list; a law list; an exclusion list; and an inclusion list.

The comprehensive study list describes those types of projects that must be assessed through a more detailed study. The law list is a list of licences, permits, certificates and other regulatory authorizations which are required for certain projects. An environmental assessment would be triggered in this case. The exclusion list describes those undertakings in relation to a physical work that do not require an environmental assessment. The inclusion list relates only to those projects that are a physical activity not related to physical work. It occurs when a federal agency issues a permit or a licence.

At the same time that the government announced its intention to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act it announced its intention to bring forward three amendments to the act. These amendments comprise Bill C-56.

One amendment is to legally entrench the participant funding program which is an amendment to section 58 of the CEAA. This allows for intervener funding for public participation in the review process. I agree that public participation should be encouraged as long as the funds come from within the current department allocations or budget.

Another amendment is to section 37 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It requires a cabinet decision to respond to the recommendations of independent environmental assessment panels. Previously this decision was made by the minister only. By making it a cabinet decision opens it up for more debate and scrutiny and makes the decision process much more democratic.

The last amendment amending section 24 of the CEAA confirms the principle of one project, one assessment in the act. This aspect of the bill is very encouraging. It addresses the possibility of numerous environmental assessments being done by the various federal departments involved and now groups all that into one assessment.

One project, one assessment makes for logical reasoning as well as indicating some fiscal responsibility and some consideration as to more efficient implementation of the project's timetable. Instead of each department involved, for example, industry, transport, environment, et cetera doing its own assessment over a period of time a panel or committee is struck with representation from all departments to participate in one assessment.

This amendment should alleviate the concerns of business to require permits from several federal departments. Under this amendment instead of businesses facing multiple reviews they would be subject to only one federal assessment. Also this principle of one assessment should lower the cost compared to having to do several assessments. Another benefit would be to speed up the process of implementation of the actual plan. Participants would not have to wait for several months or years for all the assessments to come in.

An improvement on this process would be to bring provincial representation in on the same assessment committee. This harmonizing would prevent the possibility of federal and provincial assessments contradicting each other. It also provides for one assessment, not one at the federal level and one or more at the provincial level.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate two of my previous statements. First, our environment is of major importance to us and concerns relating to it should rank high in our decision making process. Second, Bill C-56 is definitely a small, progressive step forward in achieving this end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear the hon. member's commitment to the environment. Anyone who lives in western Canada is well aware of the beauty that exists, but all of us know that the environment involves much more than beauty. It is home, it sustains us. Anyone who lives on this planet knows that without the land, the air and the water to sustain us we are nothing. I am very pleased to hear of the hon. member's commitment to matters of environmental concern.

My question deals with intervener funding which is one of the amendments to the act. The member expressed support for intervener funding and outlined her concerns about additional spending with regard to intervener funding. While I believe there are probably arguments to be made in this regard, I would like to ask if the member has given any thought to the process of intervener funding.

Who would she consider should examine the list of possible interveners? Who would suggest to the panel which interveners would be funded? Should a panel be struck to do this? Would the panel itself make this decision? Should the Minister of the Environment or perhaps the President of the Treasury Board be responsible for making this decision?

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I agree with what he is saying. I can sympathize with his concerns.

When I was researching it myself it became very obvious that particular section of the bill was very vague from the actual process point of view. There does not seem to be any direction as to how that will actually transpire. I assume the results will be debated and discussed in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated support for funding of interveners in the process. As the hon. member is well aware, her party is taking the position that it is opposed to the court challenges program.

Could the hon. member comment on what appears to be an apparent contradiction of supporting intervener funding but not supporting the court challenges program which in effect is an intervener process?

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. There are two possible approaches. First, when that program is actually put in place so that we can have that input in the panel from the community it becomes a component of the whole program and should be incorporated in the budget of the total program. It is not an additional program in itself. It is not an add on. It is part of the whole program and should be budgeted accordingly in the overall program.

Second, we are back to good old Reform policy and ideals, that is grassroots input. We firmly believe it is essential for the people in the community affected by the project to have access to express themselves to the committee. Again it should be formalized or structured access. That could come up in the process of how the input would come about. The whole program should be budgeted in total.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me considerable pride to take part in today's second reading debate on the act to amend the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, CEAA.

In coming years the decisions we take or the consequences of those we fail to take with respect to the environment will have a profound impact on the legacy we leave our children and our children's children. Will the Canada they inherit be the same Canada that for the past three years the United Nations has called the best place in the world to live? Or, will the Canada they inherit be one in which our natural environment, the source

of many of the comparative advantages we enjoy, be compromised in order to meet the short term needs of today?

Some might consider my characterization of these options as mere rhetorical excess, but I profoundly believe these are the real choices we face.

The previous government spent a lot of time and energy to develop the legislation we are now discussing. Eight years ago, the then minister was the first to try to integrate a more rigorous environmental evaluation process into the laws of the land.

Ironically, his successor, now Leader of the Official Opposition, was the architect of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I used the word "ironically" because I believe that all Canadians should be grateful to him for having developed a bill that is basically good but which the present Minister of Environment has improved and reinforced.

The Leader of the Opposition's successor actually tabled CEAA but was unable to galvanize the political support necessary within his own party to get it proclaimed. The current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party had his chance to move CEAA forward. He worked with both House and Senate committees to make several positive thoughtful changes to the original legislation but he too was unable to proclaim the act. Finally the last Minister of the Environment in the previous government was unable to get his government to focus on the urgent need for CEAA to be proclaimed.

The record is remarkable. Over a seven-year period no less than five ministers were unable to proclaim this important piece of legislation. The legislation represents reform which the overwhelming majority of Canadian environmental groups, industry associations, provincial governments and ordinary Canadians concerned about the environment agree is an absolute necessity.

There is an important lesson here to which I want to draw the attention of members. For various reasons certain misguided interests pulled out all the stops to try to prevent this forward looking piece of legislation from ever seeing the light of day. That is why the achievements of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment on this file are all the more remarkable.

Actually, in less than a year, she was able to obtain the collaboration of interested groups in order to review the four key regulations that give the law its real scope and make them more precise, more concrete and more rigorous. The minister has reinforced the act by bringing forward an amendment forcing the Minister of Environment to establish a funding program that will allow an enlightened participation of the public to reviews and mediation processes.

The minister took steps so that the review commissions' recommendations receive due consideration by requiring that they be submitted to a cabinet decision. Following the wishes of the industry she induced an amendment so that decisions could be taken more rapidly and in a more co-ordinated way after environmental assessments, according to the principle of one evaluation per project. In less than a year, the minister did more than five Conservative ministers in eight years. Present and future generations of Canadians owe her a lot.

The 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development pointed out that the environment is where we live and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within the abode. The two are inseparable. The commission was right and remains so today.

Environment and economy are inseparable. An environmental assessment is the foundation upon which sustainable development can and must rest. Conducting environmental assessments makes both good economic and environmental sense. By integrating environmental concerns early in the planning stages before decisions are made, business and industry protect themselves from having to deal with environmental problems later on.

Several features of the new environmental assessment system are worthy of note. The first one is public participation, which is recognized as essential to any efficient environmental assessment. In fact, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act provides the public with many opportunities to become involved in the various stages of the assessment process.

It provides for the establishment of a public registry to ensure the accessibility of the documents relating to any ongoing federal environmental assessment, including those conducted in co-operation with a province. It sets into law a participant funding program ensuring that resources are made available to interested individuals and groups to participate efficiently in the process.

The second feature that I would like to mention reflects the federal government's commitment to changing decision-making practices throughout the federal administration. Recommendations from public review panels will be subject to a joint cabinet decision. Another amendment is designed to ensure that only one federal environmental assessment is conducted with respect to a project, which will permit better coordination of the decision-making process in projects where more than one federal department or agency is involved.

All these interrelated measures will have the effect of making federal departments and agencies, as well as cabinet, more responsible for the environmental impact of their decisions. These measures are an important step in the development of a government-wide environmental culture.

The third feature is the creation and maintenance of a public registry accessible to all stakeholders. This provision will have a positive impact on environmental assessment, as an art and science, a new and growing discipline. With each assessment, more knowledge is gained regarding the complex, symbiotic interrelations between people, development and the environment.

It is not a static process. It is a living, breathing, interactive one. The use of public registries does more than just provide a rich source of relevant and accessible information for both project proponents and those likely to be impacted by a proposed development.

What is often overlooked is that the public registries provide a means of ensuring the institutional memory acquired in the conduct of the environmental assessment is preserved. Indeed the CEAA reform package we are debating has been carefully crafted with the notion that environmental assessment is a dynamic process firmly in mind.

The fact that we have provided expanded opportunities for public involvement throughout the environmental assessment process speaks eloquently to this point. We have no intention of allowing CEAA to become brittle or irrelevant. Its coming into force constitutes the beginning and not the end of the process of change. All parliamentarians regardless of political stripe have a responsibility to make it work and contribute to its success.

The previous government used words like effective, efficient, fair, open and transparent to describe its intentions vis-à-vis environmental assessment. We on this side of the House have acted quickly and decisively to give effect to those words by improving and proclaiming CEAA.

We have acted because we view sound stewardship over the environment as extremely important. Our actions serve to give real definition to the words. That is why all members of the House can and should support CEAA. We have a responsibility to act for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his speech.

As we are both on the environment committee, I was curious about his research. I was unable to find the area that deals with ministerial discretion on whether or not to look at a project. I am referring specifically to the Kemano project in British Columbia where the former government basically said it did not need environmental assessment.

Was there anywhere the member looked when he was looking for material for his speech that would cover this in the new bill? I was unable to find any and it leaves me a bit uneasy that the minister still has the discretion to ignore or postpone an assessment.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As I understand the process the minister will be receiving advice from the environmental assessment agency that is being set up. I would hope that is how the system would work.

As the member well knows, the process provides for the bill to go to committee. These are issues and questions that we can raise at that level before final reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the involvement of the current Minister of the Environment and gave her a considerable amount of credit for moving the bill forward when other ministers had been unable to do so.

I agree that the current Minister of the Environment has done what few have been able to do in the past, but I recognize what some of the problems are. One problem is simply that the bill came before cabinet on numerous occasions, just as the regulations came before cabinet on numerous occasions. The minister and others had to argue with other cabinet ministers concerning the ability of the cabinet to move the bill forward. Ministers with economic portfolios have always had a stronger say in cabinet than ministers of the environment.

I wonder if members recognize that one of the amendments provides for the greater authority of cabinet to have the final say on projects; not the panel, not the Minister of the Environment, but cabinet. Is the member prepared at committee to have a look at the structure of cabinet where the economic ministers have a very strong say in the kind of environmental legislation or regulations we have in our country?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one consideration the member should take into account is that the proclamation and amendment of this bill was in the red book. It was part of the Liberal election platform. All cabinet ministers with economic portfolios or otherwise subscribe to the red book policy.

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

Yes, but it took a year.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

The member points out that it took a year. However, as I indicated in my comments, the former government had eight years and did not proclaim it. It has been passed.

To answer the question, would I be prepared to look at it at committee? It is my role in committee to look at all legitimate issues and to make appropriate recommendations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commenting on the remark by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who said this took a whole year.

This bill is not the only thing we have done in the last year. In fact, I was thinking as we went through this legislation today that I am absolutely amazed at how much of the red book agenda we have been able to get done in our first year. At the rate we are going we will have everything in the red book done within the first two years when the Prime Minister had said the red book agenda would happen over the term of the government.

I begin by complimenting the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister for moving forward on this very important legislation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I believe that the balance sheet of a nation will be judged by the way we take care of our environment.

The environmental assessment legislation is a systematic method of identifying potential environmental consequences of a proposed project and its impact on people, their livelihood and way of life. If these environmental consequences are identified early in the planning stages, then plans can be modified so potential risks are minimized or ideally eliminated.

Environmental assessment is a very logical tool for achieving sustainable development, that is ensuring that the needs of present generations can be met while allowing future generations to meet their needs.

I believe the legislation will lead to a whole new measurement of the economy. In the past the environment really has not been driving the economic agenda in our country. In fact, the environment always got a short shrift.

I actually should go back to when my colleague from Davenport was the Minister of the Environment in the previous Liberal government. He was probably the first Minister of the Environment to give the issue such a determined, sustained approach. His tenacity in making sure that this issue was always on the front burner gave all of us in the Liberal Party a real example. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Environment is following through today with that commitment from the red book.

I noticed in a book that I was reading earlier in preparing for this debate, written by Julia Moulden and Patrick Carson, Green Is Gold , that we now have industries that are starting to realize that if they commit to greening themselves or committing themselves to the environmental movement that their balance sheets can be much more profitable.

Even though the member stated that we were a year getting to this bill, ideally it should have been one we handled in the first quarter. However the fact is that we have now got the bill in the system. It will no doubt pass, we will be setting up a whole new structure and the environment will now take on a priority position.

I would like to say to members opposite that this is a bill on which we must all be united. It is a bill that regrettably once again the Bloc Quebecois will not support, not because its members are not committed to the environment, but because once again whenever you come forward with a bill that talks about national standards, a bill that can galvanize the spirit of the country, legislation that can pull us all together, the Bloc is consistent in walking away from it. They find some excuse that it impinges on the rights of Quebecers.

If there is one thing that everyone is committed to in every part of Canada it is saving the planet. I believe that Quebecers, once they understand the true meaning of the bill, will probably urge some of their Bloc Quebecois members to be a little less political and a little more concerned about what truly is important for everyone in our society, especially for future generations.

I stand here today in total support of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the hon. member. He has spoken on numerous occasions in the House on the environment, business and the economy. I always listen carefully to what he has to say.

I want to indicate that the matter that I was raising about it taking a year for the government to bring this bill in was in relation to the difficulties that ministers have sometimes in dealing with cabinet on environmental issues.

In the half minute available to me, I want to say that the minister probably could have brought in the bill in the first quarter. Consultation with environmental organizations and industry was concluded relatively early in the process. But the process of getting the new regulations through cabinet was a very difficult task. Again I commend the minister but it shows that cabinet is still a very powerful body when it comes to dealing with issues like this.

If the government has the will to see that the environment will be a first priority, then the system works. If this government or the next government chooses not to have the environment as its top priority, then the system does not work. We have to ensure

that parliamentarians and Canadians all have an opportunity to respond to power when there is abuse. I just wanted to clarify that matter.

The member also indicated the accounting that occurs in the country. He talked about green accounting. I wonder if the member could tell me if he supports the principle of green accounting when we look at the way our country is developing. It is not an efficient economy based on GNP, growth and development. An efficient economy is one that is based on preservation and conservation as much as growth and development. Is that important to the member?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member that I appreciate the question. I believe we are on a pathway and that this bill will move us along that pathway more quickly in changing our whole system of calculation.

Some members have talked about-I know we have talked in our own policy group in my riding-about this new notion of a human development index rather than a GNP. The GNP system is not really sensitive to sustainable development. At least to this point it has not been.

I personally love the idea of exploring a whole new way of calculating the balance sheet, not only of our nation but of the planet. The GNP system of old falls off and we convert to a new human development index where the environment and sustainable development are the core factor and the driving factor in the equation.

I believe this cabinet and government is one of the first groups I have seen in a long time around here that has the courage to venture into those waters. The reason I say that is I see the reform we are going through in our social security system. I see the reform in so many other areas.

We are in a period of real reform on so many different issues. I am optimistic that in the not too distant future the whole notion of a human development index will be the new way we measure our whole economic system.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to the issue of the environment.

As we have heard today all of us are concerned about the environment. We are concerned about the air; we are concerned about the water; we are concerned about the soil around us.

Often we look at the environment and we see the radical end of things on the scale. Then we see the radical things on the industrial scale. As all of us recognize it is really the middle ground, the ground of compromise, co-operation and in many cases the ground of trade-offs. We have to understand these trade-offs.

Often someone says: "You're getting kind of hard on environmentalists". I answer: "Yes, but I don't want to live in a cave and go out and grow my own food. If I don't want to do that, then I have to make trade-offs in order to live the way I want to".

I have a long background in the area of environment. Professionally that was my training. I was involved 25 years ago in the Conserver Society. I went around the country talking about what we could do to conserve our society, recycling and so on. I must admit it was kind of an off topic back then. We were not very popular when we talked about it. A lot of people did not know what we were talking about.

I came from that age of Silent Spring , of the environmental impact studies. I worked for the Canadian Wildlife Service. From all that background I gained a real appreciation of preservation of the environment.

As well I have learned that the environment is not in the domain only of socialists and liberals but is of concern to everyone. I want to assure the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake that when we form the next government we will be concerned about the environment and will place it high on our list of priorities.

I want to also address the member on the reforms that are going on. We are part of that overall reform.

I want as well to quote from our blue book on the environment: "We want to establish clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters. We want to reduce duplication, confusion and all of the unnecessary things that so often go with government. We believe the government should provide federal leadership, encourage partnership, encourage private industry to get involved, encourage educational institutions and of course encourage the public to be part of these environmental protection studies".

The environment is related to all of us and interrelated. There are many things wrong and those have been identified here today.

We must of course be equal to everyone and we must go for equal enforcement. In looking at Bill C-56 I think we go at least some way to accomplishing what we want to. Certainly the one assessment will save time and money and will avoid some of the duplication of so many examples we could talk about.

Participatory funding. Having been involved in that grassroots level of trying to participate in environmental involvement, I can certainly appreciate having that as part of this bill. I think if that is properly administered and decisions are made properly that that can be a great plus for people wanting to get involved in projects and understanding them better.

The decision that the cabinet, not just one minister, will make the decisions regarding this of course becomes even more credible today. A lot of us are reading the recent book published about the last government and that would convince us even more that we want more than one minister deciding anything.

We have a lot of examples that we need to confirm the need for a bill like this. We have of course, and this has been mentioned many times, the Oldman River dam project. The environmental assessment that should have been triggered and was not would have saved so many dollars, so much confusion and so many problems that have now gone on with a project like that. It has demonstrated and caused a confrontation rather than co-operation.

We must avoid duplication. It emphasizes we must have provincial co-operation and third parties involved rather than just through the courts of law.

Federal-provincial duplication is enormous. This is one area this bill does not address adequately that I would like to see possible amendments to. We must resolve these federal-provincial problems. That is essential with getting on with the job.

I use an example of a company in my constituency. I have a letter from the Alberta environmental minister, Brian Evans, in which he says: "I can assure you that the issue of duplication overlap is at the top of the agenda for Canadian ministers of the environment". He goes on to say that the agreement that Alberta has signed will go a long way to help solve the problem.

An Alberta government document goes on to state: "This agreement will greatly reduce the burden placed on industry because of a dual regulatory framework. From now on the Alberta government will be the primary representative in dealing and contacts with the pulp and paper industry". He goes on to describe other industries. He continues: "The establishment of a single window at the provincial level does not relieve industry from the obligation to comply with federal regulations. Each level of government retains its respective legislative powers and can take legal action against defenders". While it has moved some way it has not moved all the way.

I will go on with some examples and look at some of the background where this harmonization just has not occurred. One thing I would like to stress here today is that we must get the harmonization of this environmental assessment program. I think all sides would agree. I am disappointed to hear some of the dissenters to that whom we have heard from today.

I would also list four items that have been identified for me in my constituency. There is a big problem with reports between provincial and federal governments. There is a great variation between what they are asking for and yet they end up getting to the same place.

Second, there is a real perception that business is doing something wrong and that they are always doing something wrong. The lack of co-operation where one government does not trust the other one has to be alleviated. We must get away from the idea that in fact industry cannot pay for and be involved in some of this analysis. We also must look at the regulations to be sure they are realistic. Again, I have many examples of where unrealistic legislation is in place in terms of environment.

The duplication of regulations has played havoc with particularly smaller oil companies. I can summarize some of this by listing four major areas. The purpose of most regulations is reasonable. However they become ridiculous when the administration of the regulations and the people involved begin to protect their own turf and refuse to be reasonable or co-operate with the other branches of government for fear of losing their power. Again we have many examples of that.

We must also be concerned about their competitiveness within Canada. The number of reports keeps increasing which greatly handicaps smaller companies. Having one extra person to complete reports in a plant involving 10 people is quite a bit different than adding one person in a company of 500. We must consider that. We must keep these companies competitive.

I quote an example from one of my constituents: "In the early 1980s I was closely involved with the major grassroots complex being built close to Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta. Over a period of two and a half years the company had to make a total of 4,200 submissions, permits and other formal requests from every conceivable government branch in three layers of government. Many of the pieces of information was repeated many times over because a given permit could only be issued for 30 days. If we informed one level that the same information was sent two months ago to, say, the federal environmental group we were told that confidentiality prevented moving information between departments and the same information would have to be submitted in the new format requested".

At the end of the project a complete listing of the total number was sent to the Alberta economic development department for review because no one could believe the number and they were dismayed and shocked by the number of reports. We must address that. We must do something about that. We are literally putting small business out of business because of environmental regulations and no co-operation between levels of government. It is reasonable then. We must deal with this. We must address this problem.

Going on, the lack of co-operation seems to go on and on. I will not get into all of this because I intend to deal with another subject. What we must do is end the duplication, the lack of co-operation, the protecting of different departments' turf that goes on in this whole area of environmental testing.

I finish this section off by saying I have an example of the bureaucratic growth that has gone on. In terms of water testing for a number of oil projects in Alberta the company does a complete set of independent lab studies. These go on, and I have copies of them, for some 30 to 40 pages. Then the province comes along and does the same testing and sampling and it goes through all of the expense and duplication of 30 or 40 pages. Then the federal government comes along and does all the same testing and it does 30 or 40 pages of reports on the same material. Neither side will talk to each other because each side is afraid of losing its jobs.

That kind of environmental holding back of companies has to end. An example of the growth of bureaucracy in licensing is where reports used to be four pages, today they are 34 pages. Whether it is air emissions, sulphur emissions, or whatever, the reports go on and government grows.

If I had to encourage anything I would encourage the harmonization of this environmental conflict and the co-operation between all of these levels of government and all of these bureaucrats.

I would now like to get into another area which I have been involved with some 30 years now and that is in the environmental area that I feel involves all of us. A lot of people sort of laugh when I say I am really interested in this subject and that is the subject of landfills, the subject of garbage. The problem that all of us have is universal. It is a problem where everybody says: "Don't put them in my backyard, put them over there".

It is a universal problem across this country. There is a problem whether one is a landowner or whether one lives in a city or town. There are some basic problems that make this a federal issue. When we phone the Department of the Environment here, we are told: "That is not our area, that is a provincial area". This is a good example of where there are roles for the three levels of government.

Let me propose what I have in mind. First, the biggest problem is from the seepage going on underneath the ground. We are contaminating groundwater. We are contaminating lakes. We are contaminating rivers. We are doing things to our environment that will only come forward 50 or 100 years from now.

It is fine to build deficits and say: "Well, we know we are going to have those to deal with". Now we are going to tell them they are not going to have water to use. We must address that. What is the solution? There are solutions. One problem is they cost money. I think if people understood the problem and the potential time bomb they were creating, they would deal with this.

Recycling, composting and incineration are all areas that somebody in Canada needs to look at. We could be world leaders. How can we work this through the provinces and through the cities? What happens now is the feds say: "Well, it is not our area. We cannot touch that because it is provincial".

I see the federal government providing the umbrella. I see the federal government providing the research and development, the technology, the gathering together of information, putting together the seminars it takes, getting the experts involved. I see it being the resource for all other levels of government. I see the provinces providing a unified delivery of the service and then I see the municipalities as the operators of whatever that facility is now.

What happens today? Today we have the municipality doing the research, trying to decide what it should have. Meanwhile, it does not have the money, the technology or the people. It is not in a position to try to deal with that subject.

I would like to see in a bill like this the ability and the encouragement of the federal government to get involved in this issue. It is an issue for everyone. All of us have garbage problems. It is one where I think we are putting our head in the sand in trying to deal with it.

In summary my party and I would support this bill. It could go much further in the area of environmental leadership. I could see it taking on, as I say, things like landfills. It should speed up the process. It should save money. It must get involved in co-ordinating federal-provincial areas. It allows third party input and it does protect the individual from government force.

Finally, the environment is a world issue. Being a member of the foreign affairs committee I can relate to the fact that this is a global problem. If China builds 18 huge coal generated power plants, that air will be over Canada in a couple of days. That air is going to affect us. That is air that we will have to breathe. We cannot be just a province or Canada. We must be the world when it comes to environment.

I encourage all politicians to be concerned about China, the South American rain forest, and sustainable development. We can all play a role in that. We cannot put our heads in the sand any longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his remarks. I want to deal with that part of his speech where he dealt with the ideas of composting and recycling.

I agree with the member. This is an area where we could be world leaders.

We are world leaders right now. The problem as I see it is that we do not have the political will to implement some of the technologies we have in the area of taking care of our garbage in a proper way. I believe this is so important that taxpayers would probably support us spending their money to make sure an aggressive campaign such as the one the member described was implemented.

I had difficulty in that often we have been conditioned by the Reform Party that spending is something that its members are very shy about. Is this an area where the Reform Party would shift its traditional attitude?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are areas in which we would not cut. We would be selective in our cutting and our balancing of costs. One area certainly would be environment where we would see no cutting. Our blue sheet said that possibly we might see in the area of criminal justice and environment an increase in spending.

I would like to think the entire House could get behind a project like this one and show environmental leadership. The provinces need it and we could get them onside because it is a universal problem. If somebody can provide a solution for a universal problem, we could very easily get them onside. We have to get out there. We can call it a crusade but we have to handle the problem.

We can have people pay for it. I believe that user pay will work in this area. Instead of paying $3 for handling their garbage people would in fact pay $6. I really believe they would if they knew what they were getting for their money. The big problem of people and of us not wanting to spend money is that we see waste and we cannot see value for our dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member for Red Deer whom I compliment on his speech. He certainly brought some interesting ideas to the Chamber. I was very happy to listen to him today.

In particular I was very pleased with the words that he used in his opening remarks. He talked about this being the ground of co-operation, the ground of compromise. Those are the grounds on which I believe the country was built. We live in a very diverse nation. Different people from coast to coast have relied on co-operation and compromise to see them through from day to day and year to year.

The country was built on those grounds. I am very pleased to see the hon. member recognize those grounds at this time. I can only hope the same rules will apply to other issues in the Chamber when we are dealing with issues of great concern to the diverse peoples who live within our borders.

My question deals with the issue of the Oldman dam that the member for Red Deer raised. Bill C-13 now provides some triggers that automatically gets the federal government involved in a project assessment. When I asked a similar question of the parliamentary secretary earlier today, he talked about the federal government being timid in the past in its approach to some of the issues guarded by the provinces.

Could the member for Red Deer indicate whether he believes the federal government has a right to intervene when some of these triggers are in place and provincial governments hesitate and resist federal government involvement in the projects they are promoting?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the real answer to that question is to get involved early enough. What so often has happened in the past, whether they have been political deals or lobby groups or special interest groups or whatever, is that there has been a real slow response by the federal government.

The provinces have been slow but the federal government has been slower. The real answer to the problem that the hon. member raises is the speed of response. We hear about these projects. That is when the federal government should get in, provide the leadership role and start negotiations and compromising with the provincial governments. That is where it has to happen early rather than late as in the Oldman dam.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question. In his speech the member also talked about water testing, in particular water testing for oil companies in Alberta.

The member may be aware of a project near my constituency where Esso Resources has been withdrawing water with the approval of the provincial government from an aquifer that runs under the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Communities in my constituency have seen reduced water flow as a result of the work in Alberta. There has been a tremendous amount of wrangling between the Saskatchewan and the Alberta interests. There has been no room for federal government assessment or work to date.

With the member's experience would he consider the support of a national water act that would help to bridge some of the gaps between provincial government interests and others to ensure that water is available to all Canadians?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we should realize that water will be the most important resource we have in the 21st century. I believe that puts us head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the world. We have something like 9 per cent of world's fresh water supplies. We have to keep it fresh and pure.

Not knowing the exact details the member puts forward, I would think legislation to protect and preserve the water supply is essential and vital to the survival of the country. I firmly believe it is the most important resource we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just noticed the clock. It is my understanding that we have only 10 minutes remaining in the day. I do have at least the full 20 minutes allocated to me. I wonder if the House would not like to see the clock and allow me the full 20 minutes when the House next convenes.