Mr. Speaker, I will pick up from where I left off.
This is what some people who were involved and interested in the issue said at the time. However, all these representations, warnings and concerns proved to be of little help, since the current Minister of the Environment announced that legislation on October 6.
The amendments which are proposed by the minister and included in Bill C-56 do no change anything to the centralizing objectives of the federal government. The regulations made under old Bill C-13 are nothing to reassure those who want to invest in Quebec. Except for the construction of houses for non-migratory birds or field shelters, an almost endless number of projects could trigger a federal environmental assessment. The Minister of the Environment knows full well that the current Leader of the Opposition is not the one who drafted these regulations.
It is her government that decided to take control over Quebec's economic development by subjecting to a federal assessment projects of vital importance for our province, including mining development as well as the expansion of power plants and hydroelectric projects. The strategy used by the minister to that end is both very simple and very predictable.
The minister makes arrangements with a number of provinces to take control of fields where those provinces have not exercised their jurisdiction. She then signs an agreement with those provinces and there you have it: that agreement becomes just as valid for Quebec as it is for the other provinces. This is the automatic response of this centralizing government.
And the Liberals behave that way in other sectors as well. Since they took office, they have constantly introduced projects aimed at giving the federal more control over the provinces. The big federal machine is systematically trying to gain more control in every sector, in spite of its own problems and its serious functional and political deficiencies.
Members sitting on the other side are pleased. They keep singing each other's praises, they keep chanting "Long live the federal government; long live our strong centralizing government; long live the big federal machine". However, the other side of the coin is very depressing and raises serious concerns among people. And people are right to be worried. The federal government is like a steamroller levelling everything and jeopardizing vital entitlements. People fought to gain these rights and now they have to fight again to preserve them.
In fact, with their big boss who speaks of dignity and pride, their bread and butter supplier, the Liberals are driving a huge steamroller over the less affluent and middle-income taxpayers.
The provinces are also getting crushed under this huge steamroller. Naturally, the rich, the large corporations, the financiers, all those who are for centralizing to excess find pleasure in watching the steamroller do its job. It is a real shame, Mr. Speaker.
Small is beautiful and people first are concepts unknown to the people opposite. Yet, on the evening of October 25, 1993, these same people had promised us the moon. But getting back to the subject, let me quote them.
When they were in opposition, the Liberals opposite used to speak against the bill on the federal environmental assessment legislation. This will illustrate the striking transformation elected members undergo when they move across the way. It is tragi-comic.
Bach in those days, the present Liberal member for Winnipeg North Centre was saying: "We must ensure that the powers put in place are explicit enough to make it possible to develop environmental standards that can withstand provincial pressure. The government is not protecting Canadians, with this bill at least, against the aims of the provincial and federal governments. The people have been let down in so many ways already that, if we do it again, Parliament will score more poorly than ever".
That is what he thought of this bill passed by his government. It was no good then, but now it is OK.
The Liberal member for Eglinton-Lawrence, who still sits in this House, said on October 22, 1990, and I quote: "It is, in fact, legislation without teeth". [-]The key word was "redraft" and not make amendments that are going to provide acceptable frills to this bill but to alter completely the whole dimension of this bill. [-]One of those items refers to the fact that the compliance component of the bill certainly is very lacking. There is absolute indifference to the concept of making various jurisdictions of government comply, particularly when they set up their own review mechanisms".
Our colleague from Egmont, Prince Edward Island, was saying: "Bill C-78 does not meet the legislative requirements relating to environmental protection. Considering how important and urgently required this legislation is, we cannot be satisfied with such an ill-defined and toothless bill. This bill does not meet the expectations of Canadians nor those of the government's own environment and economy committee". It is so seriously flawed that it should be withdrawn or redrafted. But I am sure he will vote for this bill.
The Liberal member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso said: "In addition, I have many concerns about the philosophy behind the bill and about the bill's effectiveness". As I listen to this debate, I am convinced the government should go back to the drawing board before it asks us to pass this bill. Many basic aspects of this measure should be rethought, and quite frankly, I must say the bill is far from perfect.
The Liberal member for Nepean went even further when she said: "Unfortunately, the weakness of the legislation before us makes for a sceptical public and questions the motives of us as legislators and the seriousness of the government's intent in enacting this resolution".
The current Secretary of State and Liberal member for Northumberland said, in referring to Bill C-78, and I quote: "Mr. Mulroney's government's latest environmental legislation is fundamentally flawed. Canada will return to the dark ages of environmental law if Bill C-78 passes in its present form".
The present Minister of Industry said in the House: "The heritage of Canadians is too important to be left only to the provinces. I do not see even a wish to acknowledge that it has the power to intervene in development projects which are going to be environmentally harmful. This bill is an inadequate response in the context of many events occurring in Canada".
One of his cabinet colleagues, the Minister of social program cuts, mentioned that his Liberal colleagues had been devastating in their criticism of the flaws of this bill. He said this measure would do no good at all. He hoped that someday, we would have a government that would be able to negotiate a new agreement, with responsibility shared by federal and provincial authorities. "I think that our own creative juices should be employed for finding out how we can share jurisdiction for environmental assessment", said the present minister. It is rather comical that at the time, this minister talked about sharing responsibility, when we consider the negative response from the provinces to his social security reform.
Finally, the first prize goes to our beloved Minister of Finance, and I will give you a few samples of what he said. "Bill C-78 is so flawed that it will weaken existing standards for environmental assessment. The bill is lacking in all respects."
"So we have a bill that died on the Order Paper and which the government, with its supreme arrogance and total lack of logic, now wants to resurrect, although the measure was unanimously rejected by Canadians. As unrealistic governments go, this one takes the cake. And if there is one government proving it, it surely is the present one with its attitude towards Bill C-78. First, this bill is based on a completely false assumption. But the government wants to hold fast to a vision developed in the 1850s and to continue to believe we can produce goods without worrying about waste and the frittering away of our resources, as if it had no importance whatsoever".
"Both the business representatives and the environmentalists heard in committee think this bill is unacceptable". "When we come to office in two years, I can assure you that no member will ask himself if the water he drinks is harmless. This bill will cause more problems than it will solve. It should go back to the drawing board."
We should not be astonished by the radical turnabouts of the Minister of Finance. He is the wind vane of the Liberals.
That is what some governement members were saying when they were on this side of the House. Should we believe they were all victims of the same phenomenon and all have to get a feeling of the wind, like the Minister of Finance, before making up their minds?
The most serious aspect of this sudden change of mind on the part of the Liberals is that the Minister of Environment now praises this bill and congratulates our leader for having initiated it in 1990. She says he is the father of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and pats him on the back every opportunity she gets whereas, at the time, the Liberals were certainly not patting him on the back, quite the contrary. They were strongly against this bill, as their statements on the subject show. That is typical of the Liberals. They are real weathercocks. No, worse than that, they are opportunists.
As far as this Bill C-56 is concerned, the federal minister wants to make sure that, as much as possible, only one environmental assessment will be made for each project. Of course, and again this is easy to anticipate, she will fall back on our leader to justify her bill, but we all know that the bill tabled by our leader in 1990 has been extensively amended and that-