Debates of Nov. 21st, 1994

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Department Of Natural Resources Act

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I am prepared to make a ruling on Bill C-48.

There are six motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 2 proposes to delete certain lines from the bill, but since the committee's minutes of proceedings indicate that these lines were deleted at the committee stage, Motion No. 2 is therefore redundant and will not be selected.

Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 4 applies to Motion No. 6; (b) Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately.

I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-48, in new clause 6( a ), be amended by deleting the words ``integrated management and''.

Mr. Speaker, in setting the major goal for the new Department of Natural Resources, I would like to commend the minister for having made a change in committee following second reading debate in this House.

At that time the many goals of this bill included sustainable development but it came further down in a long list. Therefore it was almost interpreted as being an added on consideration of a low priority and prompted interventions to the effect that sustainable development ought to be the top priority of the newly established Department of Natural Resources.

Considering what has happened in the fisheries and considering the debates and the controversies in forestry, and considering the overall commitment by this government to the concept of sustainable development as announced and defined in 1987 by Madam Brundtland in the report entitled "Our Common Future", it would only stand to reason that sustainable development be given priority in the function and goals of the minister of this new department.

I am very pleased to congratulate the minister for having made this change in committee and having brought sustainable development into a place that corresponds to its importance for the future activity of this department.

I have to draw attention to the clause as presently drawn in the bill. It contains two concepts. It gives the natural resources minister responsibility with respect to integrated management of Canada's natural resources and sustainable development. In other words, it does two things in the manner that it is drafted now. It puts sustainable development in a secondary position to integrated management. Integrated management in the clause as it stands now, the goal as now defined, is first. It is followed by a subsequent secondary consideration in the way it could be interpreted in a court or by a judge or anyone who reads the bill, from the deputy minister to you name it, as a consideration that comes after integrated management.

I submit respectfully this sequence is to be examined and possibly reversed. I appeal to the minister to give this her closest positive consideration.

The second point that has to be made in this connection is that these two concepts, integrated management and sustainable development, could at times come in conflict and could not be neutrally supported.

Third, in the bill sustainable development, if it is not clearly defined, is clearly understood by way of the definition given in the Brundtland report and virtually universally accepted. Therefore we have as the major goal for the department a concept that is well defined, sustainable development. However, we cannot say the same for integrated management.

A situation could arise in forestry, in fisheries or in any other natural resource tomorrow, in 10 years or in 100 years whereby pursuing the principles of integrated management as it is proposed now would not be in the interest of sustainable development.

When there is such a conflict which of these two concepts will the minister of the day choose? Therefore to remove this ambivalence, to remove this dichotomy, to remove this uncertainty I am submitting by way of this motion an amendment to the particular portion of the bill whereby the Minister of Natural Resources has as a main responsibility the implementation of the principle of sustainable development and the clarification of other considerations related to management. I think it will make the task of the minister of the day clearer, politically saleable and also less in conflict with other considerations.

We have had too many experiences in recent years with natural resources where there was a visible conflict between a natural resource, concepts of management and sustainable development. It is time to cut this umbilical cord and give very clear direction to the department in charge of such an important natural resource for the long term.

We have sufficient examples that have already brought about the adoption of long term considerations on the part of this government, and I am glad to see the minister of fisheries in the Chamber who has done so already on a number of occasions, and very courageously so.

To support my argument I bring into the House the red book and the fact that one of the main chapters in the red book is devoted to the concept of sustainable development and not to integrated management. Sustainable development is one of the pillars of the policies of this government. It was our commitment during the election and today it is our commitment as well.

It would be a great pity if in launching the new Department of Natural Resources this commitment would be somehow derailed by considerations of integrated management of which we do not know the definition and of which there is no definition in the bill. It could be the detracting factor in the long term interest of natural resources which this department is expected to protect and enhance.

This is my argument and I rest my case.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating something which is a little more fundamental than semantic.

The basic premise expressed in this amendment is that sound management practices and sustainable development are mutually exclusive. This I cannot accept, nor can my party. If we remove the two offending words, integrated management, what we will be suggesting to the department is that the traditional and honourable concept of multiple use of resources is to be thrown out the window.

I maintain that all that will be left is the equally undefined concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development is in the eye of the beholder. Surely if it is to be sustainable it must be properly managed. On that basis and that basis alone the Reform Party will oppose this amendment.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest this morning to the discussion of my hon. friends and particularly to the comments made by the hon. member for Davenport.

Let me say that I appreciate the interest and time he has taken in relation to Bill C-48 which creates the new Department of Natural Resources. I want to point out that I have listened very seriously and have taken very seriously his concerns in relation to this government's commitment to sustainable development. Because I take that commitment very seriously, I instructed my officials to reorder clause 6 of Bill C-48 in such a way that our commitment to sustainable development became clause 6(a).

This morning the hon. member for Davenport indicated he would like further amendments to clause 6(a) of Bill C-48. Again I think my hon. friend raises some very important considerations for all of us. If it is appropriate at this point I would like to proceed with moving an amendment. I move:

That Motion No. 1 be amended by adding:

; and

(b) by adding immediately after the word "resources" the following:

"and the integrated management thereof;".

Clause 6(a) would indicate that the minister shall have regard to sustainable development and to the integrated management thereof. Let me explain why I am proposing such an amendment. It is because I think the paramount consideration and concept is

obviously that of sustainable development and therefore sustainable development should have pride of place in clause 6(a).

My commitment as minister is to the sustainable development of Canada's natural resources, but integrated resource management is the means by which we deliver on that commitment. It is the how of the implementation of the concept of sustainable development.

My opinion is it is important not only to include the commitment to sustainable development, but also to indicate how in the resource sector we achieve and deliver on that commitment. We do it through integrated resource management, the integration of the values of economic, social and environmental considerations. Therefore I have proposed the amendment as outlined.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there any further debate on the amendment by the hon. minister? If not, I will just take a few moments to consult with the table and then we will proceed. Debate is on the amendment of the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Just a few short comments, Mr. Speaker. I rise in my place to support the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Natural Resources.

In the 15 years I have had the pleasure of knowing the hon. member for Davenport he has consistently displayed and exhibited in his participation in public life an absolutely unyielding and uncompromising commitment to the principle of sustainable development. To borrow a phrase from Jeffrey Archer it is no exaggeration to say if it can be said of anyone among us in this place he is the first among equals on the question of sustainable development. That is without question. It is also true for those of us who have been here for some time if there has been one who has enlightened and educated us and painfully and patiently explained the value of this principle over the years, it is indeed the member for Davenport.

I am not surprised to see that the member wants to give the Minister of Natural Resources, as the minister would want, the greatest possible obligation and commitment first and foremost to the principle of sustainable development. All else must flow from that. I said I have known the member for 15 years. I have known the Minister for Natural Resources for a year. In my judgment, after sitting with her in council for a year, the minister shares the great commitment of the member for Davenport to sustainable development.

In the amendment moved by the minister and which I was proud to second, the minister has reflected the kinds of standards and principles the hon. member for Davenport has always exhibited in this place. The hon. member is a fair-minded and principled man. I hope he will find the amendment acceptable. I hope we can proceed with this amendment with all reasonable and proper haste.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on the amendment to Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 1, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion as amended agreed to.)

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

moves:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-48, in clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 35, on page 3, with the following:

"7. The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next following the end of each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department of Natural Resources for that fiscal year."

Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois find it easy to speak to Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources, because we, as a sovereignist party, were elected by Quebecers to defend the interests of Quebec and to initiate dialogue with the rest of Canada.

The purpose of the amendment we are now proposing is to ensure that we will have all the information necessary at the right time, in order to better defend the interests of the Quebec taxpayers who elected us. Before we become autonomous, I must ask and ensure that this government respect Quebec's jurisdiction and that there be no reduction in our existing authority through unilateral action by the federal government.

The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate unjustifiable delays. We are bound to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to natural resources. However, in order to fulfil our mandate, we need all the information available. We would be remiss not to ask for this information, and we would not be serving those who elected us if we remained silent before this bill, which does not set out any specific date for the tabling of its annual report and which therefore leaves the administration with full latitude in this regard.

In Quebec, the electorate's choice in the last federal election could not have been clearer. For the first time in our history, a sovereignist party formed the official opposition in this House. In addition, we were elected with the mandate to monitor as

closely as possible the administration of the public interest. This means that Quebecers are calling for more autonomy, more sovereignty, more independence and, above all, greater transparency. They are demanding that our governments be increasingly transparent and that nothing be hidden from the taxpayers. This is the object of our amendment.

An end must be put to the proliferation of structures, to duplication and especially to cover-ups. Can it be held that the taxpayers or their representatives, which we are, have all the facts in hand before it is too late?

Unless complete information is provided by a given date, how do you expect us, elected representatives, to serve the people adequately? Our proposal has no other purpose but to serve the people adequately. We cannot allow this department not to be accountable to the people of Quebec and Canada. Quebecers and Canadians alike have had it; they are fed up with paying twice for the exact same services, services that cost $3 billion in Quebec alone. Imagine what this amounts to Canada-wide.

The requirement to table an annual report by a certain day will ensure that the effects of duplication cannot be concealed from the taxpayers and enable us to react much more quickly. We, Quebecers, would be much better off financially if we gained independence and had only one level of government. In the meantime, it is our duty to make sure that we get our money's worth. Rest assured that we will carry out our duty and demand that this government be as transparent as can be.

If public funds were managed better, we could do more for rural regions where unemployment has taken on nearly catastrophic proportions as well as develop our natural resources better. We could take care of our own business much more efficiently. Never will this government accept any real decentralization of its powers. It is therefore imperative that it be forced to report on scheduled dates.

I would just like to remind this House that the Department of Natural Resources has, in actual fact, been in operation since the summer of 1993. The provinces were not consulted beforehand.

I will also remind you that, under the existing Constitution, natural resources are an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Could at least the Constitution that governs this country be abide by, so that we can serve our taxpayers better? No, this government would rather continue its flag fight. It will do its best to conceal as much of the facts as possible. So, the requirement for tabling an annual report by a certain day will give us a better chance of getting at least a minimum of information. This is an absolute necessity in a democracy to account to those who have elected you.

This government prefers to make its presence felt wherever it can, at any cost, while we are unable to react because more often than not, we do not have the information required to react at the right time.

As the Auditor General of Canada pointed out in his 1992 report on page 342 about the Department of Natural Resources: "Prudence in administration requires that outcomes and results be scrutinized in the context of their costs to determine whether Parliament and taxpayers are receiving what was paid for".

Once it is passed, Bill C-48 would invest the minister responsible with the powers, duties and functions now assigned to the Minister of Forestry and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The structure being established is therefore quite significant.

Our amendment, which is aimed at creating more openness and requiring this new or modified structure to table regularly scheduled reports, is totally justified in our opinion. The current government is hiding behind the principle of good government management established by the former government in 1993 as it sets out to create an independent Department of Natural Resources. The federal government is hiding behind the principle of good government management as it is about to interfere in another area of provincial jurisdiction.

The requirement to table the annual report by a certain date will probably bring our worst fears to light. It will become impossible to hide reality. This requirement will confirm that there is indeed encroachment and duplication and that taxpayers do not really receive what they pay for.

This government is hiding behind the principle of good government management to create another area of dual jurisdiction. The first amendment we want to see adopted-and I hope we will have the full and total support of this House and the government-reads as follows:

The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next following the end of each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department of Natural Resources for that fiscal year.

Knowing how slow government administration usually is, we cannot leave it up to the minister to table this report before each House of Parliament as he or she sees fit, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared.

What does "as soon as practicable" mean? What does it mean to the government machinery? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. It means absolutely nothing. I will give you an example: I asked the Minister of Natural Resources for a report she had asked experts to write about the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which should have been renewed months ago. The minister has

had this report for a long time. Although I have asked for it nearly every day, I still have not received it. That is government machinery for you.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would just like to remind hon. members that those who speak on these motions have 10 minutes. For this reason, I would ask the member for Matapédia-Matane to kindly conclude in a minute or two, because he has already gone beyond the 10 minutes allowed. The hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude. When there is no precise date, we notice that it takes a very long time to get information.

By setting a precise date, our amendment would enable us to have more information and thus report back to our constituents and to taxpayers, who are entitled to this information. We want that information and that is the purpose of our amendment.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable impatience while the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane weakened the case for his eminently sensible amendment with a lot of separatist cant and whining provincialism. Surely we can debate matters of this nature without constantly getting off track and riding that horse into the sunset.

With respect to the merits of his amendment and without any special reference to Quebec, I agree it is not good enough that information be provided piecemeal by the departments to members of Parliament. There should be an annual report.

The suggestion in the hon. member's amendment that this be in a fixed timeframe is also excellent and the Reform Party supports this. We are aware that there will be costs involved but it is important that the principle of accountability to Parliament be maintained.

However, I hope that future Parliaments will not be satisfied with reports of the nature that I have seen from previous years where we are given a bunch of pretty pictures and platitudes. I would like to see some meat in these reports.

However, with that caveat, the hon. member's amendment is a good one and we will support it.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to the speech made by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. The hon. member referred to a quantitative report, that is a document which would contain sufficient data to inform every Canadian.

I also want to say that this report should also be more qualitative, or more specific. In the past, as the Reform Party member just pointed out, a very thick document would often be released but would not include truly relevant information on the appropriateness and the efficiency of the department's operations.

Through clause 7 of this bill, the government indicates that it might be sufficient for a minister to table Part III of the Estimates, to demonstrate the good work of the department for which he or she is responsible. This is not good enough and that is why, through its motion, the Bloc Quebecois is asking that that clause 7 be amended to require that an annual report showing the department's operations be laid before the House.

That department must have a specific mandate as well as defined objectives; it must demonstrate its usefulness and show that the budget allocated to it was well spent. Many Quebecers and Canadians question the role of various departments.

Indeed, the role of too many departments is being questioned and, at a time when the Minister of Finance wants to cut $9 billion from the federal budget to make ends meet, one cannot help but think that other departments, not the Department of Human Resources Development but others like the Department of Natural Resources, should do their part and at the very least justify their expenditures.

Quebecers and Canadians have a right to ask if the budget of that department was really spent on valuable projects, and they have a right to demand that the minister make sure the money goes to the right place; after all, it is his duty to do so.

The public also has the right to know if the programs which the Department of Natural Resources wants to develop, and which are the very reason for such spending, are useful and efficient. Consequently, we could obtain from that department, every year, a report on its programs and objectives, on the way it has tried to achieve these objectives, as well as on the money spent on each project. It will be possible to determine whether the department provides a worthwhile service to the people of Canada and Quebec.

At the present time, the advisability of cutting certain social programs is a frequent topic of debate, and such discussions are entirely appropriate, considering what we want government to do. In the end, however, perhaps a cost-benefit analysis of each program, and not only of the Department of Natural Resources, should be done for the benefit of the public.

I think it is appropriate to require that in Section 7 of the bill, to minister produce, in future, an annual report to inform both Houses whether his department did what it set out to achieve and whether its budget takes into account the interests of all Quebecers and Canadians.

There are people, including other members, who may see this as an additional expense. I do not agree. I think that a report on operations fills a need. In most cases, this kind of report is already produced for departmental use, in other words, senior executives review their programs and make recommendations for improvements. The same report could be made available to us, which means we would no longer have to wait for months to get information on a particular subject or project, as the hon. member just said.

Releasing this departmental review to Parliament would enhance the quality of management in the department and increase much needed transparency in government. I realize that such action may take some political courage on the part of the minister, but citizens have a right to demand this kind of forthrightness of their minister, especially considering the national debt and our annual deficit.

In concluding, I want all members of this House to realize that we do not necessarily want a detailed and wide-ranging report, because the departmental reports we get at our offices are often terribly discouraging for the person who has to read them. All we want is a report that gives us some insight into the government's activities and a chance to evaluate its performance. I think that any department that has done a good job of identifying its objectives and managing its current programs has no reason to be ashamed of publishing this information and should even be proud to do so.

It is therefore entirely appropriate to amend this clause, and I hope that the majority in this House will agree.

[Peter Thalheimer, Liberal, Timmins—Chapleau, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion of the hon. member. He seeks to make it mandatory that the minister provide the reports.

I submit that the answer is clearly there. In conjunction with the budget speech normally delivered in February each year, the President of the Treasury Board tables on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources part III of the estimates which reports on the operations of the preceding fiscal year and the current fiscal year and as well includes proposals for the upcoming fiscal year. Therefore the intent of this amendment is already being met by those provisions. However, flexibility is needed as to when the report is delivered to Parliament so as to conform to the budget process.

We may ask why the obligation to table an annual report is not contained in this bill. Section 153 of the Financial Administration Act was amended on May 1, 1991 to permit statutory reports to be discontinued by order in council when they contained the same or less information as the estimates frompublic accounts. This provides a streamlined reporting to Parliament while ensuring no less information.

The cost savings as a result of this continuation of 23 statutory reports is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $500,000 annually. Is the tabling of an annual state of forests no longer obligatory? The obligation to table this report in Parliament has been removed. This does not preclude the minister from tabling a report in Parliament. In addition the report could be required by regulation of the governor in council. The clause as written provides greater flexibility for parliamentarians to request changes to reports and timing of these reports.

The CFS has indicated that it may be more useful to see and measure progress on forest management and other forest related issues if such reports are every two or three years. If circumstances require, shorter time frames for reporting to Parliament on specific aspects of natural resources could be identified.

Changing a regulation is less cumbersome and consuming than changing the act.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The vote is on Motion No. 3, standing in the name of Mr. Canuel. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.