Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Provincial standards are generally higher than federal standards. The highest standard would then apply.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, further to my colleague's question, I do not think it was answered.

I would like to pose that question once again, asking about specific standards particularly in federal-provincial agreements. Could the hon. member indicate whether or not a standard which is lower in Quebec is the standard that would apply, or if it would be the federal standard if it were higher?

The reason I am asking the question is that I think we have to differentiate what the issue is. A separatist is basically suggesting that we will accept a lower standard if it is for Quebec, rather than a higher standard if it was in the national interest. I would like to know.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer my two colleagues for the second time. I believe there are national standards, uniform standards for the whole country. Mr. Parizeau was saying during the election campaign that it would be very difficult to have uniform standards in Quebec, in forestry for example, so imagine what it would be like for the whole country.

First, as I said before, under the Constitution Act of 1867, forestry is strictly a provincial matter. Then, there is no problem. Second, a solution applicable in Vancouver might not work in Quebec, not to mention Prince Edward Island. If a standard applies to British Columbia-your area I believe-I do not think we can conclude that it would automatically apply to Quebec where the climate is different, the soil is different, many conditions are different. How would the standard apply?

If you were to ask me about fisheries, I would give you the same answer. I do not think that a national standard could apply to conditions in Quebec, or in Alberta, or in your riding, differences are too large.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of the Environment for introducing these amendments today which are in keeping with the promise made in the red book. I would like to make some brief comments on the interventions by the member for Laurentides when she spoke after the minister today.

The hon. member started her analysis by referring to the fact that the bill being introduced today which amends the existing legislation and the existing legislation have no resemblance with the original bill known as Bill C-78 that was introduced when the present leader of the Bloc Quebecois was Minister of the Environment. She added that some 150 amendments were made during the lifetime of that bill before it was proclaimed. That statement is quite accurate; I was here and she was not. I remember very well that a number of amendments were made having been proposed by representatives of the NDP, the Conservative Party and my party.

In that process of amending it we did what is done with any major legislation, namely we improved it. We improved it within the limits imposed by the bill itself. Therefore that bill, known as Bill C-78 and subsequently as Bill C-13, has the thrust, the scope and the four corners, to use the parliamentary language, that the original bill had. In that respect the member for Laurentides unfortunately is wrong.

The hon. member objected to the fact that the final legislation introduced the term and definition of sustainable development. In evolving time considering the progress that term has made in its interpretation it has become natural and almost obvious that sustainable development was introduced as one of the objectives

of that legislation. I am sure that if the then Minister of the Environment and now leader of the Bloc Quebecois had been in the position of the present Minister of the Environment, he would have proposed the definition to be inserted in the bill himself. It goes without saying.

The member for Laurentides went on to say that fellow citizens will not tolerate quibbling between federal and provincial politicians. Having made that statement with which we all agree she then devoted the rest of her speech to an analysis of the situation which revealed a profound desire to disagree with the federal jurisdiction as if she were a provincial politician. She even brought into the discussion a judgment of the Supreme Court in order to make her case.

She was repeatedly dissatisfied or annoyed at the fact that the present Minister of the Environment in her speech today was referring frequently to her leader, as if that were a sign of lack of respect for his present political role, having changed sides, so to say.

Of course, the hon. member indicated several times that her main concern in relation to the bill introduced today is one that she would interpret to perform a role that would be tantamount to an arrogant attempt to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. We are not aware of any other province interpreting this bill in that manner. Actually this bill is supported by and large by provinces. No one has seen this bill as an arrogant encroachment.

What the member for Laurentides failed to recognize in her speech is that if the federal government wanted to encroach on the jurisdiction of any province it could do so under the provision of peace, order and good government. It could intervene anytime but it does not. That is the point. It does not do so because there is an unwritten understanding that the peace, order and good government clause is to be used only in extreme cases when necessity makes it absolutely unavoidable but only in such cases.

Therefore to proclaim to the world that this bill is an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction is sheer nonsense. There is air, water and a variety of natural resources that all levels of government share in the name of the Canadian people. No province is exempt from that. Neither is the federal government exempt from that basic sense of accountability in relation to these natural resources.

The member for Laurentides went on to say that this bill is a demonstration of the centralizing vision of the federal government. I invite any member of the Bloc Quebecois to get up in this House and support this statement.

The member for Laurentides went on to say that national standards are being imposed. Tell us which national standards are being imposed. We are searching for national standards. The exchange of questions with the member for Fraser Valley West already showed how much of an openness of mind there is in the search for national standards. It is a very difficult exercise. It is much more complex than the wall to wall standardization to which the member for Terrebonne referred in his reply. It is a difficult exercise, no doubt.

The hon. member went on to say that Ottawa could force any Quebec project to come under assessment. This is stretching it a bit too far. As I said earlier, Ottawa could do that without this bill under peace, order and good government if it really wanted to but it does not do so. To claim that is a political expedient in this House to unnecessarily whip up feelings among constituents in Quebec.

The hon. member went on to quote a distinguished but unknown lawyer in Quebec commenting on this legislation. It is not difficult these days to find lawyers to comment one way or another on any piece of legislation. Then she went on to put on record an editorial by a writer well known for her objectivity, Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir . Apparently she has written that Ottawa is taking over Quebec's energy policy by means of this legislation. How absurd can one be? How can one make that statement seriously? We must bring this debate down to earth and analyse the legislation for what it is and what it attempts to do.

In a flight of desperation, the member for Laurentides announced to the world that the federal government is attempting to squash economic development in Quebec. At that point I had a moment of dismay because I thought it was a very unfortunate statement on the part of the critic for the environment for the Bloc Quebecois. At that point she revealed that she was not speaking as critic for the environment. She was speaking perhaps as a political person instructed to demonstrate that federal-provincial relations a priori cannot work in this country.

However, if she were critic for the environment she would have not let her guard down and allowed herself to be accused of seeing the economy as separate from the environment as she did with her statement. She should know better.

We have reached the conclusion in this Chamber, in all the parties represented in this House, in their contained literature, at the OECD in Paris and in Rio in 1992 that there is a strong link between the environment and the economy. In some quarters the economic thinking has gone even so far as to say that there is no economy without the environment, although that vision has not

yet become official in those institutions and agencies. However, we are moving in that direction inevitably so.

For the official critic for the environment for the Bloc Quebecois to make a statement in which she dissociates the economy from the environment I thought was very unfortunate. She talked like an old-fashioned economist, an economist of 100 years ago perhaps, not as a critic for the environment, not as a politician who understands the importance of integrating the economy with the environment, not as a politician who understands that in the end the environment is the first and major consideration if we want to have a healthy economy.

The speech by the member for Laurentides, I am afraid to say, reveals a profound and serious conceptual weakness.

To conclude on that intervention, I found in essence the speech really was activating the flames of confrontational federalism instead of searching for the answers through a form of co-operative federalism which was done I thought so effectively by many other speakers today and in particular by the member for Comox-Alberni whose intervention I found extremely helpful. We may perhaps have different political views but his intervention in outlining where he finds the bill weak and where he finds agreement with the bill is extremely helpful. I thank him for that.

He asked a very key question which was dealt with briefly but I would like to go over it for a moment. His question was what if-one of those famous what ifs-the minister does not call for a review and there is too much ministerial discretion? That is certainly a point that we have to examine and to which the parliamentary secretary gave an interesting answer. He said he believed that in such a case there would probably be profound public displeasure, profound public and media criticism and that would be the corrective action that would take place.

It is a very legitimate question to ask. It falls perfectly within the classic jurisdiction of the opposition to do so. I certainly find that question worth pursuing in search of a desirable satisfactory answer.

Another question by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was how the bill would apply to the First Nations. He wants clarification on that aspect and we will certainly seek it.

In essence it seems that this bill is serving the agenda of the Bloc Quebecois in terms of demonstrating that federalism does not work because of certain actions taken by Ottawa. That is a very regrettable political line to adopt. It is unfortunate and it is not in the interest of Canadians no matter where they live.

If we were to assume just for a moment that Quebec were sovereign, it would be the government of Quebec that would be seeking from its neighbours the type of environmental security and understanding and processes that this bill and the legislation which this bill intends to amend is offering right now. It would be one of the first steps of any new government. It is difficult to understand the logic of the Bloc Quebecois in criticizing a bill that is already in place, to which improvements are being made, to an unacceptable measure under federalism but which it would be pursuing and very actively so if it was sovereign in the sense it is pursuing it at the present time.

There is a contradiction here which does not make sense and which I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it seems that it goes to the root of the debate today on Bill C-56.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are giving me the signal that my time is up. I thank you for your consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport having just spoken I was very pleased to be here today to be able to hear his words. I have a great deal of respect for the member for Davenport with whom I shared a fair bit of time in committee looking at Bill C-13, the legislation which preceded that which we are amending today.

I have a couple of questions based on his comments just now. The member indicated quite correctly as I see it some of the questions which must be asked about the speech by the member for the Bloc Quebecois earlier today. In one of those comments on one of those points, the hon. member for Davenport talked about C-13 and the way in which it applies in the joint panels, the jurisdiction issue.

Could the member for Davenport explain a little bit further this whole aspect about the trigger mechanism that puts in place the joint panels. Could he give, as a member from Quebec, any examples at all of where those triggers would interfere with Quebec jurisdiction. It is my feeling that the triggers quite properly represent federal jurisdiction and perhaps there are no provincial jurisdiction issues to be dealt with here. I would like to know what the hon. member has to say about that.

Second, in his remarks he talked about the peace, order and good government matter. If I am not mistaken, the member for Davenport can correct me if I am, in the committee studying Bill C-13 we tried to amend the act to put in a peace, order and good government clause but failed to do so.

I believe the peace, order and good government clause he is referring to exists elsewhere. I wonder if under those circumstances he would be supportive of looking at the amendment in committee regarding peace, order and good government specific to this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Davenport I have a housekeeping matter here.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport-Nuclear testing.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his question. Regarding peace, order and good government I would not recommend that this amendment be put in the legislation at this particular point in time. I think it would become the object of incredibly acrimonious debates and could endanger the entire exercise. It is better that that provision remain where it is now and that it be invoked as sparingly as possible. It should be therefore considered as an item that would not be invoked in single legislation as in the case of Bill C-13.

Regarding the trigger mechanism, I have extreme difficulties in answering that question. I would also like to know where that mechanism ought to be placed and when it ought to be put into motion. It is more than a technical question; it is a very important political question. I would like to study that matter in more depth before trying to give an adequate answer.

I am sure the hon. member with his political and legal knowledge has one in his pocket. I would rather look at his before I make up my mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, not wishing to abuse the House time but wanting the full benefit of the member's experience, I thought I might also ask a question in relation to the specific amendments in front of us, particularly the amendment dealing with intervener funding.

When we sat together on committee in the previous Parliament, the hon. member for Davenport was quite supportive of intervener funding and in fact had some very specific comments about how to put intervener funding into place.

Given the vagueness of the intervener funding amendment in front of us today, would the member be willing to consider supporting a much broader and perhaps more detailed amendment specific to intervener funding?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a well-established rule that a chair of a committee should play as impartial a role as possible. Not only that, but the chair should not take a route or a position before an analysis and examination of a bill takes place in committee. The member for Davenport happens to be the chair of the committee on the environment and sustainable development. It really would not be appropriate to indicate what he would entertain or support, considering the fact that in most cases the decision is made by the members with the chair abstaining.

I am sure the government, having introduced this amendment, will be willing to look at any positive contributions made in order to make the legislation more effective.

I would like to give that assurance to the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today.

I must compliment the chair of the environmental committee, the hon. member for Davenport, who has an outstanding reputation of being fair and quite articulate on this issue. He did make a comment about serving the agenda of the Bloc. I do not know how one can get away from that agenda. I guess they are just going to call it the way they want and regardless of whether the issue is in the national interest of Canadians, we are going to get it from them as far as the separatist agenda is concerned.

I suppose what we have today is a party of good intentions here with the Liberals and a party of "what's in it for me" from the separatists. That is truly unfortunate when it comes to the environment.

The member for Comox-Alberni, who is our critic for the environment, raised some very good questions-they were addressed by the member for Davenport-about some precautions that should be taken in a bill such as this. Precautions such as, how do the aboriginal peoples fit into this? Do they come under this umbrella? I certainly hope they do. What kind of costs will be involved in assessments? I realize we are cost conscious. I am sure the government will keep that in mind and the idea of a single track, the division of responsibility.

In my previous job, doing a lot of construction in the hundreds of millions of dollars, our biggest problem was duplicity of roles with federal fisheries, for instance. It was really a nightmare when you are trying to develop projects in the $20 million range, trying to deal with federal and provincial fisheries and every other bureaucrat who can get involved in these things. They tend to just look at the words that are written down in black and white and overlook the fact that there are some very good projects out there. They tend to be, I think, overly protective and in some cases overly pushy.

Rather than just push one way, the environment is a two-way street. It is something we have to keep in mind.

We support Bill C-56 and I am glad to speak to that support. I do not often get to say this to the Liberal government, but it has come a fair distance to the way our party thinks. It is quite easy to stand here and talk about the failures in the criminal justice system, immigration and finance. However, you have to give credit where credit is due and it is due here today.

Why should we not support such an environmental bill? Canada's identity should be rooted in a fresh appreciation for our land. We have gone too long without a renewal of our appreciation for our land. A lot of things that happen today, the garbage that is strewn throughout our countryside, shows that we need a fresh appreciation of things. That applies to young people as much as to business people today. More often than not

a project must be developed and built and environmental impacts are overlooked. Our vision for the future is inspired by the importance of our well-being, of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving our environment. We have to leave our young people with something. We have to leave them with a good, clean environment and that is where this bill comes in. We also have to leave them with a little of their pay cheque, which the government has not got into its mind set yet but we will get it there eventually. Meanwhile the government is coming along on the environment so we will applaud it for that.

We strongly support ensuring that all Canadians and their descendants live in a clean and healthy environment. I suppose we all do that, notwithstanding political agendas, with the exception of this separatist body here from which I am hearing that there are almost two standards; a federal standard and a Quebec standard. If the federal standard is higher than the Quebec standard, this group seems to think that it is okay, we'll go to the lower standard, as long as it is in their best interests. That is not good enough today in Canada.

We must have the concept of public education programs, of environmentally conscious purchasing. The federal government should take a leadership role in environmentally conscious purchasing while encouraging the private sector to follow.

I do not know how easy this is going to be for the federal government. In the organization that I was in before I tried environmental purchasing. One of the biggest problems was getting suppliers to give you some environmentally sound products. They do not produce them in bulk. When the federal government goes-heaven only knows how much paper this place uses-to get environmentally conscious products it may be difficult. However the federal government has an obligation to push in that direction.

We must buy into the principle of sustainable development, which balances the need for a healthy environment with the continued growth and progress of Canada's economy.

Sustainable development can be defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet the needs of the future. "Environmental considerations must carry equal weight with the economic, social and technical considerations of a project". This is a big statement. The government should really look at this as one of the main principles of the environment. Because in most projects, regardless of whether they are a $30,000 project or a $10 million or $20 million project, what gets lost oftentimes because you are trying to cut costs is the environmental consideration. Somewhere along the line we have to look at it as having equal weight with the economic, social and technical considerations.

I would like the Liberal government to consider that very carefully.

We must see the integration of environmental and economic objectives in all areas of management in which the federal government has jurisdiction. We must support the integration of energy development and environmental conservation by ensuring that the cost of energy development includes the associated costs of environmental protection and by supporting conservation of energy and the development of alternative energy sources for the purposes of environmental protection.

We all know that we have to establish clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters to reduce duplication, confusion and unnecessary regulations. We also have to promote partnerships with provincial governments, private industry and educational institutions and the public to promote environmental protection.

Our greatest resource today is sitting in high schools and elementary schools. I have been in that business at one time or another and very little of a sustainable, consistent curriculum on the environment is put forward. A lot of schools go out on field trips and they talk about it, but it is not really a consistent issue with our young people. That is where we have to start. Our young people will be the developers of tomorrow and they will be the ones who will come under the umbrella of these assessments that will be made under this act.

We support the development of environmental regulations through consultation of industry and the public. We must support the multi-partite round table approach as a means of finding common ground when developing environmental measures.

Multi-party round table approaches will work if the issue is important enough to all parties. We do try. We have seen the attempt to get the health round table discussions going. It is not working. The provinces are opting out. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the federal government is not offering enough to the provinces in the partnership. In the environment we all have an equal role. A lot of it is not necessarily money. It is articulation. It is experience.

We should make government sponsored research available to the private sector. I emphasize the private sector. Once we get it into the public sector we are back again to all of these grants on which governments, Liberal and Conservative, year after year have made mistakes. They tend to become patronage pots.

If we can just let the private sector lead, they will come up with better, higher quality environmental impact assessments than will governments. We sometimes fall into the pit and think that only governments can do a good job. That really is not so.

[An hon. member]

And post offices.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

And post offices, yes.

We must support industrial research and development so that in the future emissions from industry will be subject to controls, such that water discharged from industrial plants will be equal or better quality than the water taken into the plant for its use and gaseous emissions will not be harmful.

Can you imagine having a standard, a principle that high, that the water going out of plants will be of just as high a quality as the water going into plants? That is amazing. Those are tough measures. Those are the standards that we have to set up here. These are the federal standards that my colleague from Davenport was talking about a little while ago.

If we set the federal standards this high and if those of a province are lower, I think most provinces would try to get up to the higher standard, notwithstanding the separatist agenda.

We must support the restoration of programs for those parts of our environment which have been damaged as a result of inadequate regulations or a lack of proper enforcement of the regulations.

This party supports the principle that polluters shall pay for its pollution controls. This should be stringently enforced and the penalties will be severe enough that polluters will not consider them as a licence fee to pollute.

A lot of what I just talked about are principles or guidelines to which the Reform Party adheres. They are not necessarily coming from me but I ascribe to all of them. A lot of these principles that we have fit into where the government is going. That is nice to see.

There are four types of environmental assessments which have been covered to some extent. I want to review them for the folks that are listening and watching and so everyone understands. We have a screening process to assess projects. Then we get a comprehensive study. These are incremental. The screening process is basically for smaller projects. Then we move to a comprehensive study, then to mediation if required and then to a review by an independent public panel.

I have negotiated many labour agreements in my day. I have been in many mediation exercises. I know that is probably the best solution when we run into problems rather than ending up with a black and white issue where the parties are win-lose. Both parties can win in mediation. I commend the government for coming up with mediation. Let us hope it works.

I want to speak for a few minutes about my concern of where the environment is going. That hits home for me as it affects the folks of Matsqui, Aldergrove and Abbotsford in my riding in the Fraser Valley in terms of air quality. The brown scourge that sits over the Fraser Valley today from emissions from Vancouver is not only concerning but downright scary.

If we walk out into the backyards of my home or any of the homes in Fraser Valley and run our fingers across a white table that has been outside for two or three days, there is black pitch coming from the skies. There are diseases. There are effects.

We are looking at the assessment of new projects coming into the country. The government has to take some concrete action on some old things that are kicking around. Air quality is one of considerable importance to the Fraser Valley. It is not addressed here, that I am aware of.

I have a word for the wise. The government should not forget those things that exist and just think that Canadians will say: "You have a good bill here". It affects all things that might happen in the future. There are things in existence such as air quality and water quality in the Fraser Valley that are deteriorating substantially.

I am going to use my remaining three minutes on what is wrong in the Fraser Valley. I hope it will influence the Liberal government and maybe get it to move a little better than it has on other issues such as immigration, finances and the criminal justice system. I always have to remind government members of that because they forget so easily over there. Here are comments that have come out of some in depth studies: "environmental agencies are urging lower mainland residents to minimize the use of their cars until smog levels drop".

Can we imagine in Canada today that the lower mainland of British Columbia is getting like Los Angeles? It is hard to believe. When I moved there in 1981 Mount Baker could be seen as a pristine white mountain. It could be seen very clearly. Now on any day there is a brown scourge there. People are afraid.

"The unprecedented request, the first in B.C. since the regional, provincial and federal governments set up a warning system in June, came Thursday as another hot sunny day and a layer of warm air trapped air pollutants over the Fraser Valley".

It is ironic, is it not, that the federal and provincial governments set up a warning system about air quality? I am here to tell the government that we are not interested in warning systems. We are interested in repair, in fixing the problem. It is useless to warn residents that the air quality is poor. We want the problem fixed.

A new public health study suggests that lower mainland residents are getting sick and even dying from air pollution. The study is part of an unprecedented $10 million. It is yet another study, by the way. A multi-disciplinary research effort in the Fraser Valley last summer looked at what happened to the lungs of 58 farm workers from Matsqui and Abbotsford who worked long hours outdoors. That is when pollutants from tailpipes and smokestacks combine in sunlight to form a powerful lung irritant called ground level ozone pollution, the same smog that plagues car choked Los Angeles.

I could go on but I see my time is running out. It is important to emphasize to government that while the bill addresses the new projects, and that is great, there is a bigger responsibility. There are a lot of pollutants. There are a lot of things that must be addressed that exist today in Canada. I ask the government to look at those as well.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for his support for the bill before us today. I would like to inform him that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development will be in his part of the world one month from now. We will be holding public hearings in Vancouver on December 1, 2 and 3. At the urging of his hon. colleague, the member for Comox-Alberni, we will be examining some of the issues that he raised in the House this afternoon, particularly the condition of water in the Fraser Valley River estuary. If there is a link between the condition of air quality, the smog that he referred to and the chemicals that are emitted into the atmosphere by various activities in his region, we will have an opportunity to look at that as well.

The Liberal administration in Parliament is certainly moving swiftly along the track that he is recommending this afternoon.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is good news. I would suggest the committee has its hearings outside and breathe a little of the unfiltered air. Maybe that will move it on a bit. Perhaps the committee might even want to bring one of the Bloc members to see that other parts of Canada have similar problems to those in Quebec.

I have another point. The regulations by which we all live, the law or the legislation, are being changed. I trust members of the group that is coming to the Fraser Valley will enlist comments from ordinary residents and get a bit away from the lobby groups. I understand that is important, but they also need to talk to the people who own the houses that are dirty now. They need to talk to the people who are affected, such as farmers. They need to talk to the people who drink that rotten water out there with the nitrates in it.

They really should not surface scratch the issue. They have to go a little deeper and get down to where the problems really are. I hope this is not just another cursory discussion in a community. I will be there and I will be asking some questions along with a whole bunch of regular folk.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member concerns his comments about yet another study. It is a refrain that we frequently hear from members of his party. Yet when he is advised a committee would be going to his riding he seems to be quite supportive. I wonder if he could explain the inconsistency in that approach for us.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stop the government from undertaking timely and wasteful studies. I doubt very much whether it even looked at the Conservative studies that were undertaken on the matter before.

There is no question about how much money the government wastes. If I am stuck with a group coming in to talk, I am stuck with it. This is a majority government and we cannot stop it. However I can tell the member that when he comes to the town where I live there will be people asking questions. The government is going to get its dollars worth out of our town because we have a lot to say.

They spend a lot of money over there on studies, grants and whatnot, but this time they will earn their money when they come to our town.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple questions which I will put individually to the hon. member.

I was quite pleased to hear that he and his party support the principle of polluter pay. It is something that I have supported for quite some time. It was refreshing to hear that the hon. member supports the concept as well.

I am wondering, given his respect for the Criminal Code, if he is prepared to take the issue of polluter pay one step further. There has been talk over the years of adding crimes against the environment as a new section of the Criminal Code and applying Criminal Code type penalties and approaches to crimes against the environment. I am wondering if the member would also support that principle.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually it is Reform Party policy that we would go further than fines for polluters. I am not sure at this point how far in the Criminal Code we would take it. I am sure it is going to be a subject for debate within our own party.

The fact is that fines to major corporations make about as much sense at times as the fines given to drug pushers. Many drug pushers today get $2,000 fines. They turn around and go out and sell whatever they are selling, heroin or crack. They

make that in 20 minutes or less. If we look at that in the context of a corporation making multimillions of dollars, to fine them small $2,000 or $3,000 fines is a waste of time.

There has to be a better way, and I think the better way is through other kinds of penalties. It is not only part of our policy. We will be looking at it in depth as soon as we become government in three years.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's earlier comments about the Fraser Valley and air quality, I am wondering if he has opinions about other issues, that perhaps a federal environmental assessment could be done in relation to the Alcan project in British Columbia or the Clayoquot Sound issue in British Columbia. Are these also issues on which the member believes a federal environmental assessment process could be entertained?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, somebody over there said I have an opinion on everything; they are probably right.

The assessment of projects, if I have the question right, is applicable to virtually all projects, big or small. Kemano is a good example and that is being undertaken now of course. I do not think it is not the size of the project. I think it is the effect the project may have on our environment.

I think I have answered the question. I am not quite sure. I will leave it at that.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially happy today to join the Minister of the Environment in speaking to Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I think that in analyzing this bill, we must pay close attention to the actions of Opposition members, particularly members of the Official Opposition. In addressing environmental assessments, the Bloc Quebecois clearly showed that its mandate has nothing to do with protecting Quebecers' interests. In fact, the Bloc stubbornly criticizes the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was designed by its own leader. These actions confirm that the only goal of the Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, is to look after the interests of Quebec's separatist government.

As the leader of the Bloc has often said, the environment has no borders. In an interview published in the October 13 edition of The Gazette , the hon. member who is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said this in English:

The problem is that the word environment never appears in the Constitution so the provinces and the federal government are condemned to work jointly. They have to work together. If they do not it is chaos.

All levels of government share a great and noble responsibility with regard to the environment. All levels of government in Canada have a responsibility to ensure that development is carried out in a rational way while at the same time respecting the natural balance.

It is clear that Canadians want jobs, but not at the expense of their children or the environment. Of all the tools available to protect the environment, the environmental assessment is undoubtedly the most effective. In fact, environmental assessment is inexpensive preventive medicine. It gives us advance warning of the possible environmental impact of a project and it promotes informed public participation in the decision-making process.

If members of this House agree that environmental jurisdiction is shared and that environmental assessment is a good way to prevent pollution, how can we explain that some members opposite stubbornly insist on condemning the proclamation of this bill? Let us briefly look together at the so-called problems raised by the Bloc's environment critic.

When the Minister of the Environment on October 6 announced the government's decision to proclaim the law, the Bloc critic condemned this as a federal attempt to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. Of course, such reaction from the Bloc Quebecois is quite natural. I must say that I was stupefied when I heard those remarks about Bill C-56.

In fact, what Bill C-56 does is exactly the opposite of what the Bloc is again trying to have all Quebecers believe. If the federal government wanted to meddle in provincial affairs or make things difficult for Quebec by interfering with its economic development, it would not propose the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It would keep the famous 1984 EARP Guidelines Order and it would use it systematically.

Why? Because that order allows the federal government to examine the environmental impact of any proposal over which it has a decision-making power. Do you know how the term "proposal" is defined in the order? It is described as any undertaking or activity over which the government has a say in the decision process.

In concrete terms, this means every project, activity and initiative in which the federal government is involved. It also includes all direct and indirect subsidies to provinces, including equalization payments, as well as every Canada-Quebec agreement on regional development, and all federal subsidies to businesses. That definition also includes hundreds of licences, permits and authorizations delivered every day by the federal government.

When he was Canada's Minister of the Environment, the Bloc Quebecois leader did read the EARP Guidelines Order. He also read the Supreme Court decisions and he quickly realized that if the order were to be applied like an act, as instructed by the courts, the federal government would find itself in an impossible situation. This is why he demanded that a reform be implemented as quickly as possible. I must admit that the Bloc critic did a nice song and dance. She said that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was unacceptable because it differs from Bill C-78 which, as you remember, had been submitted to Cabinet by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean just a few days before his sudden resignation from the Conservative government.

For once, the Bloc critic is partially right when she talks about differences. Dozens of amendments were proposed by the House of Commons committee and by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which represents the interests of all the provinces regarding environmental issues.

Let us examine the main amendments together briefly. First of all, approximately ten changes to the Bouchard bill were meant to facilitate the alignment of the federal and the provincial processes. Thus, the Minister of the Environment is now required to consult the provinces and to co-operate with them before any review panel is formed. Other amendments give the federal authorities the power to delegate to the provinces the preliminary reviews, the in-depth studies, the mitigation measures and even the follow-up programs.

Therefore, what we have here is a possible delegation of most of the environmental assessments done by the federal government. Some other changes promote public participation. Several clauses were added to restrain the discretion formerly afforded the federal authorities.

The Bouchard bill was amended so that the uncertainties about the implementation of the legislation would be reduced, including in the area of federal activities. But the preamble of that bill was changed to include the concept of sustainable development.

Therefore, the Bloc critic is right. The Bouchard bill was amended in several important ways. I would like her to say, for the benefit of the House, what amendments are rejected by her party. In fact, all of the amendments to this famous bill we just saw and reviewed are consistent with the vision of this government, a vision where the objective is to make sure we can act according to the present policy, based first and foremost on a progressive federalism.

This bill means that we are going to work together with all the provinces and also with the general public, and that is what irks the Official Opposition. This bill is a prime example of how federalism can work when you believe in it. That is the problem with the Official Opposition. When they talk about federalism, they certainly do not want this system, which is probably the best system in the world, to operate properly. That is why they say every time that if the Leader of the Bloc left the Conservative government at the time, it was because he believed and knew that the system no longer worked.

I think it is too early to throw in the towel on a system that is evolving and responding to the needs of the people. Not just in Quebec but in Canada as well, people say that federalism has problems. My answer to that is thank God federalism has problems, because this means people have changed, people have evolved, and our duty as parliamentarians at the federal level, as members of this House, is to reflect on these changes and get together to ensure that the political system under which we live, that the federal system under which we are evolving also evolves in line with the expectations of the public.

This was just a brief digression. I will get back to the bill.

And if the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were an attempt by the federal government to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction, as I said earlier, let the Bloc critic explain why four successive federal Ministers of the Environment came from the Conservative Quebec caucus and were so closely involved in this reform? They designed it, tabled it in the House, made amendments, passed it and defended it during the last federal election. According to the philosophy of the Bloc Quebecois, we would have to say that probably all the Quebecers who were committed to this bill were on the wrong track.

In fact, the question is: Does the Bloc have a monopoly on brains? Were these people who spoke out in favour of the bill all wrong? The answer is simple. As I said earlier, the bill is such an eloquent example of viable federalism that obviously they would be ill-advised to react positively to the bill, since these people, and I am probably repeating myself, are intent on only one thing, and that is the separation of Quebec.

Unfortunately, in the process they have lost the ability to think objectively, thereby jeopardizing the interests of all Quebecers. Well, the people who supported this bill were not all wrong. The comments of the critic for the Bloc Quebecois seem to point to the presence of a transmission belt linking her office with the Quebec government's Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. The problem of the Bloc Quebecois right now is that it is only a mouthpiece. We could say that it is the secretariat of the Parti Quebecois. Members of the Bloc no longer have their own identity, their own way of thinking. They do not have a specific way of being, a specific philosophy. They are like puppets controlled by the government of Quebec which is following a separation agenda.

Since I am informed that time is flying, I will simply say that this bill, like many an initiative from this government, is a highly symbolic expression of dialogue. We proved in the past that when there is a will to co-operate we can progress. Let us remember, for example, the St. Lawrence-Vision 2000 project.

This is a vibrant example of federal, provincial and municipal co-operation. Let us remember the agreements under the infrastructure program which helped renew our social infrastructure and put a number of people back to work. Recently, last June in fact, there was an agreement between the provinces to do away with economic barriers. Is it not proof that federalism works?

Clearly, this legislation is in the same vein and shows the same kind of vision. This is why members of the Official Opposition have every reason to make the people of Quebec believe that this legislation is useless and even harmful to the whole of Quebec.

In 1981, 13 years ago, the government of the Parti Quebecois passed the Environment Quality Act. At the same time, it adopted regulations listing the kind of projects which would be subject to hearings by the Quebec Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

Unfortunately, the Quebec government forgot to proclaim certain key sections of the regulations and today, 13 years later, the Parti Quebecois government's process only deals with dams, roads and marinas. There is no public assessment of industrial projects, no public assessment of mining projects and no public assessment of aluminum plants.

I would like to conclude, if I may, Mr. Speaker, on a very important point, namely the harmonization of the federal and provincial processes. For the past several months, the members of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment have been looking for ways to facilitate harmonization. Their objective is to agree on the implementation of the principle of one environmental assessment for each project, regardless of the number of decision-makers. It is an arduous task requiring the participation of all provinces.

Nevertheless, the Quebec environment minister recently announced that he was withdrawing his officials from the federal-provincial consultations on environmental assessment. This decision could hurt Quebec businesses as well as Quebecers looking for a job. The president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec recently condemned this hasty decision on the part of the Quebec environment minister. Other organizations are to follow suit.

To conclude, if the Bloc members want to show that they are more concerned about the interests of Quebecers that they are about their obsession to separate, they should do two things in this House. First, they should support the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the amendments proposed by the environment minister.

Second, if these people were acting reasonably and for the sake of all Quebecers, they would recognize the appropriateness of this bill for the future of Quebec, the future of Canada and the well-being of federalism. They would also have the courage to demand that the Quebec environment minister change his mind and take part again in the work of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on the harmonization of the environmental assessment process. This is what they would do if only they had enough courage.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we proceed with questions and comments, the government whip has the floor on a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I wish to inform you that the next speakers from the government will be sharing their time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to the member for Outremont who I think spoke quite well on the bill and other matters. It is partly the other matters that I want to address in my opening comments before I place my question.

The debate through most of today centred around issues within the province of Quebec. With the exception of comments earlier in the day the government speakers have all represented Quebec ridings this afternoon so far, including the parliamentary secretary, the member for Davenport-I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I just realize the member for Davenport is from Ontario. I have to rephrase my question.

The comments today have centred around the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. The member for Outremont rightly speaks for his constituents and the people of his province. I believe the question of jurisdiction while it is an important one is not the only question that we have to deal with in this House.

I had expected members of the Bloc Quebecois at least in one of their speeches today as members representing the Official Opposition to raise some of the issues which are important to the rest of Canada, issues that are over and above the questions of jurisdiction.

The member for Outremont must be aware that the province of Quebec would have to participate in joint panels if this bill came into force with the amendments put forward today.

How would the member for Outremont advise the members of his government to deal with the province of Quebec in matters where confrontation might exist over the issues of not only jurisdiction but of the joint panels that must be created under the auspices of the act?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is an interesting question, one that was partially answered in my speech.

As I said, there is already a joint committee sitting at the level of all the environment ministers of all the provinces. They are all sitting in order to discuss what we are going to do about the environment in this country.

They are trying to set national standards so that we can have legislation or at least an environmental policy that will be consistent from coast to coast.

As I mentioned in my speech-

Unfortunately the Minister of the Environment of the province of Quebec declared weeks ago that it does not want to participate any more in that process. According to the minister it is a question of jurisdiction; the environment belongs to the provinces.

So, as I mentioned in my speech, that question has already been answered. The problem is that the Quebec Minister of the Environment refuses to participate in this process and, as I explained earlier, that is where there is a lack of objectivity. Every time we try to sit down with the government of Quebec or the Official Opposition to discuss national standards or other issues for the benefit of Quebecers and all Canadians, they refuse to take part in such discussions.

I think it is time we start telling Quebecers that the federal government is not as bad as some people would like them to believe and that the present federal government is actually very open.

This brings me to say a few words about the issue of social reform. You will understand that we cannot give these people any credibility when we have just undertaken a social reform process in which we want to consult Canadians so that they can participate in the development of a new government policy.

We are just through the first stage, which was the tabling of a discussion paper. The consultation process will follow-actually, it has already started. So we are still in the early stages of this reform and the ministers responsible in Quebec are already complaining that the federal government wants to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, that the federal government is again picking on Quebec. I do not understand anything any more. If the government presents a discussion paper and wants to consult people, if this is interpreted as wanting to invade Quebec, I will have to take Politics 101 over again.

I do not understand anything any more, but it is obvious. Since the federal government wants to act openly and present a bill to reform part of our federal system, namely our social programs, they absolutely do not want to see this process succeed.

I must say that it is the same with the question of the environment. When we are discussing that subject, they do not want to enter into discussion with our government. They want to separate. They want to move apart so they will not be with us any more. As such it is going to be very difficult to deal with them over the next few years.