Debates of Feb. 11th, 1994

supply

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could say to my colleague that we agree on several points. We agree in particular when you say that we should try to save taxpayers money.

I would like to continue the debate on the motion on the Auditor General's report by reading two sentences to give it a bit of continuity.

On page 597 of the Auditor General's report it states:

We recommend that the department provide complete and accurate information to Parliament on the full cost of using government aircraft to transport users such as the Prime Minister, ministers, and other VIPs.

It goes on to say further:

-the Department, in co-operation with other appropriate departments, should conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of providing government aircraft to transport such users.

I would like to continue the discussion of this proposal on the part of the Auditor General in a pragmatic vein. This is brought forward not just because of the news media talking about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs spending $173,000 to make two speaking tours. I would like to go further into the background and say that this situation has been going on for years and years. The press always picks it up. It is as if it is a scandal to be flying around in jet aircraft.

Let us go back even further to my own experience in the city of Ottawa in another department, specifically national defence, some 15 or more years ago. I recall at the time feeling very upset when the government of the day offloaded part of its problems on to the Department of National Defence and said: "You fellows take over the running of these jet aircraft. You can take it out of your budget and you can run it and take the flack". I thought at the time it was dirty pool and I still think so today.

What this underlines is that far too often its own politics override common sense. Politics seems to have the effect of saying: "We don't care how much it costs or who carries the load; it will go on".

The whole issue of the use of government jet aircraft, whether it is housed in the Department of National Defence or wherever, illustrates what is bad about government and politics. It also illustrates precisely why the people in our ridings are angry, why they have displayed their anger over the last couple of years and why they say this has to stop.

DND now runs 16 Challenger jets. Why were they purchased in the first place? It is not because 16 jets are needed to run ministers and the Prime Minister around the country and to foreign lands. It is done as a political gesture, let us say, to Canadair, to Quebec, saying it is just money so let us give them a contract and buy these nice Canadian products. We cannot afford to do that given the state of our deficit spending and the state of the total debt.

I am really talking about the attitude of government, not the current government, but all governments one after the other. The attitude seems to be, why not buy a few more jet aircraft, it just costs a few more millions of dollars. That is not good enough.

The Department of National Defence today is absorbing more cuts. It is being cut to the extent that it no longer has the resources required to continue the peacekeeping operations that Canadians and this government continue to expect of it around the world.

I am going to do a bit of very simple arithmetic. If three soldiers for one year cost, let us say $100,000, how many soldiers could we get to reinforce the Department of National Defence where it needs reinforcing, in the front lines with private soldiers and not with general officers, by making a few cuts here or there? The Auditor General's report states that the maintenance of the 16 Challenger aircraft cost the government $54 million a year. I am willing to concede and I think most members are that the government needs several jet aircraft to carry around the Prime Minister, a few VIPs and royalty. Let us accept that.

But let us cut down on the number of these jets. If we could bring down the maintenance costs of this jet fleet to around $14 million we would save $40 million a year. That $40 million a year could be used for hiring soldiers at three per $100,000, to give us 1,200 extra soldiers. Let that sink in a bit. We could have 1,200 extra soldiers for the cost of eliminating the maintenance and overhead of some of this fleet of jet aircraft.

I take another view of this and say: "If I were in business, how would I look at it?" My answer would be: "I need several aircraft to do the things we have just discussed, such as squiring the Prime Minister around. That is legitimate". What are my resources for doing this? I would say: "As a businessman my resources are 16 aircraft, plus in an associated company, the Department of Transport, 101 aircraft".

That triggers me to say that if we have 16 aircraft, all of which we do not need, and 101 others of what sort I do not know in another department, there are probably all sorts of them to spread around. As a businessman I would rationalize all this, look at the inventory and cut down the numbers. We should keep in service only those that are absolutely needed.

The other factor I would consider, if I were a businessman or even if I were the government running this operation, would be the bad press. Every time a flight is taken-some are quite legitimate-one gets bad press. There is no sense in keeping up this nonsense. Get rid of them. Get rid of the bad press and get the people off our backs. The media caters to the people and tells all the nonsense. If I were a businessman or if I were the government of the day, I would look very seriously at this matter.

In conclusion, I recommend that the government look at this seriously, not just the Auditor General's report but the whole situation. It should pragmatically rationalize all of the aircraft being used by the government, sell some to get the cash the government needs for necessary programs, reduce the overhead of government and finally-and this is most important-change the attitude of the government, the members and the bureaucracy toward the use of public funds.

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

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made by the hon. member to the saving of money and the efficiencies that are required. I do not believe that anyone in government disagrees with the hon. member.

If the Minister of Finance finds places where money can be saved, finds inefficiency, fills loopholes that are in our taxation system and thus accumulates more moneys into the treasury, would the hon. member consider that an efficient measure on the part of government or would he consider it a tax grab?

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty clever question. If the hon. member is expecting me to fully endorse the red book at this point, I am afraid I cannot. I do have some reservations.

To the extent the government of the day is moving to fill tax loopholes and bringing more revenue from sources now untapped, I totally agree. Let us have more of it.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's representation. He will acknowledge that many excellent measures have been taken by the government on issues that relate to government efficiencies and operations. I am surprised that in his comments he did not acknowledge the good things this government has done.

I want to ask the member a question. Would he be willing, at the next Reform caucus meeting, to stand and encourage his colleagues to vote, as they have said in the past, according to what their constituents have to say? Would the hon. member tell me how many times so far the members on the Reform side have voted against the will of their leader?

What I am trying to say here is that charity always begins at home. I want to ask the hon. member to list for me the number of times that people on the Reform side have voted individually.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre asks a very large question. I want to remind members that five-minute questions and comments can be rather brief. Keeping that in mind, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the relevance of the question to my presentation on the saving of funds specifically related to the Auditor General's report. However, to try and answer the member's question in a general vein, he would almost ask me to raise the curtain on the Reform caucus and tell him what is going on there.

Let me assure the hon. member that our leader has just as much say, no more and no less, than the rest of us. When he speaking to us it is with a totally equal voice.

As to representing our constituents, that is precisely what we are all about. We do not have any more than any other political party the specific means of doing that yet. That is something we must work toward and I will personally work toward representing the people directly. We have to keep working on it.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss the Auditor General's report, specifically chapter 11 of the report because of my responsibilities within my caucus and within the House of Commons. I will be speaking on chapter 11 which deals with the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy, but more generally with the Auditor General's report dealing with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development its and programs.

If one is to examine past reports of the Auditor General dealing with northern affairs and aboriginal affairs, going back some 20 years beyond the last government to include the Liberal government before that, the same criticisms come up repeatedly.

These criticisms are that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot assure the people of Canada that the examined program have a clear implementation strategy that is followed in the disbursement of funds or that funds dispersed actually go to the programs intended, that desired results of the programs are achieved and that Canadian tax dollars are spent with due regard for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Many of these criticisms are to arise from a confusion in the mandate of the department, it would appear. The dilemma appears to be one of reconciling accountability to Parliament with the transfer of responsibilities of managing funding to aboriginal programs to aboriginal bands through a number of funding arrangements.

As far back as 1986 the Auditor General expressed concern whether the department was accountable for ensuring social and economic gains to aboriginal people or was simply responsible for ensuring the equitable distribution of financial support as native groups pursued their own objectives.

This confusion is still evident today in the implementation of the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy. This one program was initiated by the Government of Canada in 1989 to address the economic disparities between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. The overall objective of the strategy is to help the aboriginal peoples to attain economic self-reliance.

The strategy from 1989 to 1993 spent at least $900 million of an appropriated budget of $1 billion. According to the Auditor General the three departments responsible for implementing the program are unable to demonstrate that they are meeting the strategy's objectives.

The auditors were unable to find any co-ordinated implementation strategy and instances were observed in which funds were disbursed for projects before the required business plan documentation was received. There was consistently no evaluation of the projects to see if objectives were being met.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development disbursed funding on a per capita basis regardless of the level of economic development within the bands, again demonstrating the conflict between the department's accountability and the devolution of responsibility to Indian bands.

The department could also not demonstrate any follow up assessment of the success of the projects funded with taxpayers' dollars. Upon examination of the projects by the Auditor General the projects examined had a success rate of 50 per cent or less in meeting their objectives and one has to ask if this is good value for the dollars invested.

With this particular program as with many other programs administered by the Department of Indian Affairs, if the Canadian taxpayers are to continue to fund it a number of very important questions need to be clearly answered.

These questions could regard the actual benefit that has resulted from these policy initiatives and whether these activities achieved value for money. Did these policy initiatives take into account aboriginal priorities or could these funds have been used differently to generate greater benefit per dollar spent? Is there a more cost effective way to achieve the same results? What is the definition or criteria to judge when a program is a success or failure?

It is clear we need a thorough review of the mandate and the responsibilities of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is particularly pertinent in view of the commitment by the Liberal government in its red book to implement native self-government beginning within six months despite the fact that Canadians and most aboriginal people do not agree specifically with what that term means.

I support, as does my party, the move toward aboriginal control of aboriginal affairs and the eventual dismantling of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, I will not accept that Canadian taxpayers, through a misappropriate sense of guilt, continue to throw huge amounts of money into aboriginal programs without accountability or assessment of the success of these programs.

While aboriginal leaders need only be responsible to aboriginal people for moneys and programs received through economic development established within the bands, these aboriginal leaders or the department or both must be totally accountable for

every taxpayer dollar spent, particularly in this time of scarce resources and enormous deficits and debt.

Neither my grandfather nor my father nor I am responsible for the atrocities endured by the aboriginal peoples perpetrated by the governments and churches of England or the governments of Sir John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King. I believe that present day Canadians and their governments are demonstrating a real willingness to address the problems within the aboriginal community and will continue to do so.

However, at a time when working Canadians are giving well over half their income earnings to governments in taxes while at the same time the very fabric of our social safety net programs are being threatened by high cost and enormous debt, we have every right to demand full accountability and value for every dollar governments spend.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member from the other side on his observation on what was in the Auditor General's report.

As part of what has transpired over the years, around 1970 if one were to find out how many students of native ancestry completed a university degree, the number was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12. We now have over 6,000 people of native ancestry who are proud to have completed university degrees.

The reason they did that was they wanted to move forward in this opportunity for self-government.

I had an opportunity to meet with some of the bands recently and I can assure the House that the bands in my riding do know what aboriginal self-government means. They are headed in the right direction.

I have some concerns, as the hon. member has mentioned, about the Auditor General's report. It is one thing to write out in a report what the concerns are and another thing to see what is actually happening and then put those into practice.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, with Mr. Ron Irwin as our new minister in charge of Indian Affairs we are going to see the direction change very drastically.

I would ask the member on behalf of the constituents I represent if he feels that the budgetary process that we have needs to be overhauled? What recommendations is he prepared to make that he would see put in place through his members on the standing committee that is going to be reviewing those budgets?

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions within the hon. member's response and I will try to remember them and answer them as I go.

Certainly there has been great progress made within aboriginal communities in the directions he points out. I applaud those gains that we have made. The point I was trying to make in my presentation was that with each and every one of these programs we have to be able to assure Canadians that the best value was gained for the dollar spent. Certainly while each program makes some progress toward its goal, was enough progress made to make the dollar spent worth while?

Some suggestions we might make to improve the accountability of those dollars are very much the same as what was pointed out in this particular chapter of the Auditor General's report, that the evaluation procedures the Auditor General spoke of be put in place to evaluate the success of the programs that have been implemented. In this way the minister, or the department through the minister, might come back and be able to assure this Parliament and all Canadians that they are getting value for the dollars spent and that we are achieving the results we are trying to achieve.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's statement somewhat interesting about aboriginal affairs and self-government. I wanted to ask him if he could clarify two details for me.

The first issue is the one in our red book that deals with the inherent right to self-government, which means we recognize as non-natives that there were treaties signed and those treaties suggested that these were self-governing people before Europeans came. I would like to know whether the Reform Party agreed with that.

My second point is if it agrees or disagrees, that not really being the issue, would he also be prepared to tell me, given a system that at present does not work for aboriginal people and for non-natives, and it has been agreed by both sides that that is the case, why he would not want to see a concept of self-government put in place? This is not easily defined because in each community and each region it represents different things to different people.

Would he also not agree that aboriginal people are not homogeneous people, that they are of different cultures and they have different traditions and because of that self-government cannot be that little catch phrase that he seems to be looking for?

I would be interested if he could give me his opinion on those particular issues because my sense of it is he is suggesting that because he does not have a definition of self-government across Canada, we should do nothing.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the member might have interpreted my presentation that because we cannot get one little definition of self-government we should do nothing. Our party and I have asked the minister and his government to define for us what in their opinion inherent right means. To this point at least we have not received an answer to that question. If we did then

we could make a better judgment on whether we support the concept of aboriginal inherent right to self-government.

I personally support and I think my party supports the devolution of responsibility for aboriginal affairs to the aboriginal people themselves. I am saying that we should not throw huge sums of money at the problem and have no accountability for those dollars and then say we are solving the problem and devolving that responsibility. When we spend taxpayers' dollars we have to account to the taxpayer for those dollars, whether it be the government or the aboriginals who are administering that program. That is what we and all Canadians are demanding, not that the devolution of power and responsibility does not take place.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today in particular because the motion put by the member for St. Albert does deal with specific initiatives of the Ministry of the Environment. Also, what we are seeing as a result of the analysis of this motion is that the Reform Party members are starting to understand after the first 100 days in Parliament that governing a country as diverse and as multilayered as Canada is not as easy as it looks from the outside.

I refer in particular to the motion which of course calls upon all ministries to justify the issue of overexpenditures and duplication. Indeed, with regard to the Auditor General's report to the Ministry of the Environment on pulp and paper regulations, we were not only cognizant of his criticism but we had already responded very specifically by working on harmonization agreements with various provinces.

One thing I learned very quickly. I spent a lot of years in opposition and not too many days in government, but I think the Canadian public wants to know that politicians are doing their level best keep costs down and to deliver a service that is going to make sense to all Canadians.

If we look at environment, there was no such thing as environment when the original Constitution was written back in 1867. We took it for granted. In fact public attention and carriage of and concern for the environment has really been a phenomenon of the last two decades.

Ironically, later on today I am going to be meeting with a person from this particular Chamber who was at the forefront of environmental concerns. He is now the Canadian ambassador on sustainable development. As the Speaker of this place he introduced a list of measures for the House of Commons which made the House of Commons assess and analyse our environmental behaviour.

Mr. Fraser, the former member for Vancouver South, started before it was particularly fashionable to analyse how it is that our own behaviour is affecting our environment. He took styrofoam cups out of the House of Commons and replaced them with recyclable china. He made us look at how we were separating waste in this place. It is the wish of the Ministry of the Environment to take the signal that was put out by Mr. Fraser in this place, the House of Commons, and make it serve as a model for government.

The House of Commons is a very complex labyrinth which not only includes services to members but employs about 4,000 people. In the overall work of the government it is one small player. In fact, from my department I know that there are people across the country who are driving vehicles that are not environmentally friendly. If we are saying to the private sector "We want you to go green", then clearly the impetus and the direction for that has to start from within.

A legitimate question can be asked. Why is it that on the issue of pulp and paper we have more than one government dealing with regulations? In the evolution of business, federal and provincial governments have each taken responsibility in a number of areas. Water quality is not just a federal issue. In fact I think the member would be raising objections, one could say raising Cain, if we as a national government decided that there was no more role for provincial governments to play in terms of the purity of our waters.

Not only do we have a provincial role to play but we have an international role. Only two days ago I was speaking with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States on exactly what we were going to do in terms of bilateral decisions to clean up areas like the Great Lakes, to look at the whole question of what is dumped into the St. Lawrence River, and to examine the question of transborder movement of waste.

We have local initiatives, provincial initiatives, national initiatives and international initiatives. That is why to the taxpayer it may look like we are sometimes running around doing each other's jobs but I think everyone would recognize that no one government can bear the total responsibility for the environment.

Look at the question of air. Probably one of the most poignant moments that I have experienced as a member of Parliament was a trip I took several years ago to Broughton Island which is part of the vast Arctic. On that trip I had an opportunity to meet with aboriginal women who had been advised at that time by the federal department of health that tests had shown that their breast milk was tainted with PCBs. Members cannot imagine, flying into a more pristine virgin untouched area of the world and on arriving there have a meeting with town council to deal with the issue that the mothers' milk in that part of the country

was tainted with PCBs. You had to ask yourself the question: Was that a local issue?

Obviously it was not a local issue. The PCBs were being carried by air currents, not only from Canada but from parts of industrialized North America and because of wind vortexes with which I am not familiar they found themselves in a particular concentration in the Arctic. There were situations where in some cases these women were actually feeding their children Coffee-mate because the cost of milk at that time was $8 a litre. They did not have the money to buy a litre of milk and they were afraid to feed their babies with their own breast milk. That is why when one talks about environment issues it is not so easy to compartmentalize them as maybe one would like to think.

The world is a very complex place today. I think we have a responsibility as a national government to work internationally, provincially and locally to try to develop the cleanest environment possible.

A member of the Reform Party asked a question earlier today on the issue of the environmental assessment of a particular project on a ski hill. He asked about the business interests. That is a legitimate question. Obviously when we are talking about a virgin part of the country for which there is going to be significant development we have the interests of the business people who have invested in the project as well as the interests of the local residents who obviously have to balance the land use questions with larger questions of the whole question of biodiversity.

We have the provincial questions about how a province can maintain the integrity of the environment, deal with the issue of endangered species and provide significant terrain for wildlife. We also have the national and international issues.

If from time to time we trip over each other, as we will do, I think the message of the Auditor General has to be that it is not with malice or forethought and that we should be working as hard as we can to streamline the process to make it work for the taxpayer and also to underline our role as the guardian of the land, the sea and the air for future generations.

We are working very hard on this aspect, and based on negotiations that are taking place with my Quebec counterpart, Mr. Paradis, I expect we will soon be able to sign a one-stop agreement which could apply to pulp and paper regulations. This is very important, because I realize companies do not want two inspection teams on the same river at the same time. However, I think we should also realize that with our overriding responsibility to keep this earth for future generations, there will be differences of opinion from time to time.

Are megawatts better than negawatts? Are international issues involved?

Only a few days ago the premier of British Columbia was in Europe looking at our environmental record from the perspective of the European Community. There are international market forces which want to analyse whether we are doing our job in land use management. Do we have proper mechanisms for clear cutting? Are we in fact respecting the question of effluent discharge in pulp and paper mills? Do we have laws that are stringent enough and are we respecting those laws?

That is what politics are all about. It is the coming together of divergent views and the balance between the immediate needs of economic gain with the long-term needs of sustainable development. One of the great initiatives of the 1990s is going to be a recognition that environment and economy are not opposites, they are not enemies. In fact, they are inextricably linked.

Premier Harcourt is in Europe now, not because he is necessarily a great defender of the environment but because world forces are coming together to analyse the green record of every country. Premier Harcourt wants to make sure that the Europeans are apprised of all the facts before they make decisions which could have significant repercussions for the Canadian economy.

I think the same thing is happening in the case of the Quebec government's involvement in the Hydro-Québec contract with New York. It is not enough to work hard to have a clean environment. The international issues are there as well. Are we prepared to meet the immense challenges of the twenty-first century with sound and sustainable environmental technologies?

There is an economic consideration. In fact, as we speak we are following the advice of the Auditor General to meet, to consult, to get our act together and to ensure that business is not overburdened with overregulation but at the same time we meet our bottom line of being the stewards of the environment for future generations.

When I got into this job in my department I had no idea how on any given project, on any given decision, there is not only the question of seeking interdepartmental information but also the responsibility to ensure that you are not treading on somebody else's constitutional toes.

I think the members of the Reform Party and I know, having had the opportunity to meet and to dialogue with some of them in terms of our shared environmental objectives and hopefully being exposed to reality, that governing a country as vast as

Canada is not as simple as one would like to pretend. There are no hard and fast solutions. We will make mistakes. That is why we ask the Auditor General every year to review our record and to make recommendations.

The opposition motion by the member for St. Albert which calls upon the government to demonstrate its commitment to accountability is a process that is built into what we call the estimates. Every year in this Parliament every member of Parliament has the right to call the ministers of this government before their committees to call them into account on expenditures.

That is the function of the committee on estimates and that has to be done before June. That is part of the law of the land. Sure we screw up. Sure we make mistakes. I dare say I have made a few of them in my time and I will probably make a few more from time to time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, no.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

I think Canadians want to know that we are doing our level best to acquit ourselves of our responsibilities and at the same time meet the test the taxpayer is putting us through. An awful lot is said about public servants, that public servants waste money and do this and do that.

In my department I have had nothing but absolute co-operation from the people who are there to discharge the government's mandate. Public servants are not the people who create the policy. They are there to implement it. They work nights and weekends. They do not close the door at 4.30 p.m. because the public phone lines are not open. They are there working on everyone's behalf to try and move the process forward.

I spent a couple of days in Saskatoon at my very first meeting of Canadian ministers of the environment in November. I spent about an hour on the phone yesterday with the chairman of the CCME, Jane Barry, the new Minister of the Environment from New Brunswick, who is getting ready for the next meeting. I expect I will be meeting with my provincial counterparts in March to pave the way for further harmonization and further consultation on the process of making our regulatory system work.

While we are in this House there are bureaucrats who are dealing with air issues. There are public servants who are dealing with the very complicated issues of who controls the waterways. It seems very simple. One goes to Saguenay.

Look at the Saguenay, which is definitely part of the province of Quebec. I would like to digress at this stage and say I would have liked to see the environment critic here, because yesterday, Mr. Chrétien referred to the Irving Oil case, and said that if that had happened in Hamilton, the matter would have been settled. I can tell him it will be settled, and just because it was not settled before does not mean they were right.

If I throw something into the Bay in Hamilton, it goes through Lake Ontario and into the St. Lawrence, and then into the Atlantic and international waters. If we look at the cod shortage, we may have a good conservation program. We even went so far as to prohibit all cod fishing in Canada. But if the French, the Spanish and the Portuguese catch our cod, what is the use? So, although it would be very easy to say that the Saguenay is in Quebec and that is final, if we do not harmonize regulations at the federal, provincial and international levels, part of the river may be clean as a whistle, but toxic waste can still get in from other areas.

That is one of the reasons why I believe the environment unites us as a people.

Whatever language we speak, when it comes to the environment we are inextricably linked. What I throw into the water of Hamilton harbour ends up in the drinking water of the lower St. Lawrence. What happens to the belugas? It is not just a function of how they are dealt with at that particular point of the river, but it is a function of the cumulative effect of toxins which could start all the way up in Lake Superior and find their way through the system.

On the one hand it is very simple to say: "Get out of my jurisdiction. It is my ball of wax. You should not be in there". On the other hand when it comes to the environment, when it comes to the air we breathe, when it comes to the water we swim in and when it comes to the land we live on, we are our neighbour's keeper. As much as we try, we will continue to have irritants and areas of discussion and disagreement.

To follow the advice of the Auditor General, our objective must be to be as efficient and effective as possible, bearing in mind that in a world as complex as the one in which we live there really are no easy solutions. For every point there is a counterpoint.

Every position has its opposite, and it is up to the government to try to find a reasonable solution that is fair to everyone. I think that so far, even if there have been problems, we have done a pretty good job. We want to go on doing that, but I think all members of this House must realize that living in a country like Canada is not always easy.

We live in a country that is very large and diffuse.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is not easy, but it is worth it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is not easy, but it is worth it, and do you know why it is worth it? Because when I see my brother living in French, in Montreal, with his wife and their daughter, who speaks French, the daughter of a man born in Hamilton, I think to myself our country works.

It is worth it because for someone like myself, who never heard a word of French before the age of 13, to be able to come here and voice the wishes of the Saguenay people, is fantastic. Likewise for my colleague opposite, the leader of the New Democratic Party. When we get to know each other, as we are in this House, then we realize how great this country is. It is really worth it.

We do have a problem though, and that is that our country is so big that people do not know each other. But should you come to Hamilton, I can guarantee that you will be greeted by friendly and welcoming people.

It is the same thing for people from the west. One of the biggest problems in understanding government and in understanding Canada is that we do not know each other. Maybe one of the benefits of this rather unusual configuration in the House of Commons is going to be that as Canadians we will start to understand the things that bring us together.

I can say that the people who work in the steel mill in Hamilton who are concerned about their jobs, who are concerned about their children's future share the same hopes and dreams and the same concerns about a balanced economic and environmental approach as the people in the riding of the Minister of Finance or those in the riding of Lévis.

They are waiting for jobs at MIL Davie.

We share the same wishes, the same hopes, but at the same time we recognize that governing a country is not an easy job. I think that all we can do is our very best to try and harmonize our efforts, when we can, and when we cannot, to try to be honest with each other. That is all people are expecting of us. I think that the Auditor General's report leads us in the right direction.

It is good that you are here to keep us on the right track.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the minister for some fine words. It is very obvious her heart is with Canada. I would like the minister to know that is where my heart is also. I am sure we could agree all day on that.

I heard her mention something about the economic factors and the environmental factors, how they tie together and how they are so important. I could not agree more.

Having lived in the Rocky Mountains all my life I love the Rocky Mountains probably more than most. Looking at a development such as was talked about earlier today in question period and thinking about the financial difficulties the country is in, I realize the Liberal government of the 1970s and early 1980s struck a FEARO panel and arrived at a decision. The Conservative Party came along and struck another FEARO panel. It did a very thorough study and came to the same agreement that the project was good. The provincial government intervened and did its thing. The municipal government intervened and did its thing. All this went on for a very long period of time. I see the importance of working together for this kind of project and really appreciate it.

Having been a member for only 100 days and getting word that there is going to be another FEARO panel struck, my immediate reaction is that we are wasting dollars on something which has already been accomplished. I have heard over and over again how it is so necessary to work together to arrive at these decisions.

For the last two weeks I have sought meetings with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to no avail. I have sought meetings with the Minister of the Environment in her office to no avail. I am wondering how we are going to be able to work together if as a member representing my riding of Wild Rose I cannot get a hearing with the ministers responsible for these things.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I was not at the same meeting but I did have a meeting with the member in the anteroom which is as good a meeting room as any. In that particular room I said the panel was struck.

The fact is that if the EARP guidelines had been met in the past there is no forum to strike a second panel. A proper panel was not struck in the past and it has not been subject to environmental review. The review panel has now been struck. In very short order the membership will be published and the hearings will begin.

I think the member for Wild Rose will also admit that in talking about the issue in question which is a major ski development, the developer not being able to receive proper environmental approvals for the whole project, basically cut the project in half and tried to get approval for the parking lot separate from the lifts. We think it has to be looked upon as an integrated package.

We have called for a panel to be struck and the panel will have to do its job. Obviously it has to be done in the context of the environmental implications. We would be remiss if we basically said that this particular person has invested a significant amount

of money and therefore it has to go ahead without any consideration of the environmental implications.

The hon. member will recognize that if the environmental concerns had been met obviously we would have no authority to strike an EARP panel. The fact one is being struck is because there has not been a proper environmental assessment.

We are doing what we have done in the past. We did it most recently with the federal-Saskatchewan panel on uranium mining. We are doing it with BAPE wherever possible. We are trying to facilitate the process where federal and provincial interests intersect. We are trying to run joint panels to make sure we do not put the developer and interested parties through the same process twice.

That has certainly been the practice I have established and want to continue. From that perspective we only want one stop shopping for environmental hearings. We do not want to put a project through a provincial hearing and then a federal hearing and have a number of hearings.

That being said we certainly are not about to give up our right to require an environmental assessment on an issue as significant as a major ski development in our national Rockies. The member points out that this is on the parking lot but the parking lot is going to be there for something. If the parking lot is being built to park cars, obviously there has to be a ski hill to go along with it.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Madam Minister, let me congratulate you on the lovely clothes you are wearing today. We were used to seeing you always in scarlet red and today you are wearing blue, which suits you very well. For the members around you, we hope that next week you will not change your red book for a blue book.

Outside of the debate on the resolution related to your observations, you said that it was difficult to live in this country. We applauded and you added, "It is worth it". We in the Bloc have rather concluded that there were two countries in this country and that it was worth building the one which does not yet exist as a separate country.

The fact remains that these are two points of view which we do not share, but they are basically honestly held on either side of the House.

You said that it was not easy and you also referred to consultations, but with reference to the resolution, you even spoke of possible agreements to reduce overlap, and I congratulate you if such agreements can come about-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! I would simply remind the hon. member for Richelieu and the House to address your remarks to the Chair and not directly to the person to whom a question is put.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

For a young Acting Speaker like you to warn an old member like me, Mr. Speaker, I see that you have already learned your job well and I will make a point of complying with your directives.

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke about a possible agreement with the pulp and paper industry and I commend her for that, because we denounce this continual duplication and overlap, we denounced it during the election campaign and we still denounce it continually here in the House. Our resolution for the opposition day yesterday talked about precisely that. Today, I think the Reform Party's resolution may be more specific and less broad but it also talks about eliminating this wasteful spending due to overlap.

In my riding, I saw overlap during the big debate about the closure of Dioxide Canada. The provincial government had environmental standards, the federal government had environmental standards, one said something was white, the other that it was black, so much so that the company did not know just what to do. Furthermore, Fisheries and Oceans Canada also came on the scene, with the result that the company that had planned to close in Tracy and open in Bécancour decided to suspend the work in Bécancour, temporarily, I hope. This is a fine example of wasted energy, time and money, to the detriment of the 400 Dioxide workers.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not mention it in her speech this morning and we were surprised by a statement from the member for Ottawa-Vanier, former chairman of the public accounts committee. All day yesterday, the Liberal members said, "Why do you call for a special committee of all members of the House to study the spending of every department item by item?" They told us, "No, the public accounts committee will look after that. That is its role". This morning, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, a former opposition member who chaired the public accounts committee for three years, as my colleague reminds me, and I conclude with that, Mr. Speaker, told us, "We made a report, but the House never acted on it in three years". So the public accounts committee has become something of a habit-it tables a report and no one acts on it. That is why we are demanding-and I think it is along the lines of the Reformers' resolution-a special committee of members from the government and all parties, including independents, to carry out an exhaustive item-by-item study of all spending by the departments. I think that the government's commitment would be greater, out of respect for the conclusions this committee would have reached. It would elicit a greater commitment than the usual annual report of the public accounts committee, which was denounced this morning by the man who chaired it for three years, the member for Ottawa-Vanier.

I would like to have the minister's comments.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, without commenting on what the gentlemen opposite are wearing, I would like to point out that the hon. member was himself a Tory and that, since Tory blue has gone out of style in this House, I now feel more comfortable wearing blue.

That being said, if the government he was a member of did not take good care of public accounts, why did he not do something about it when he was a government member? When we are preparing estimates-not just public accounts, because there is a process that includes public accounts-of course, the opposition can chair the Public Accounts Committee, but there is also the budgetary process where you can call any minister on any expenditure on any committee. I for one have just signed our estimates for the year to come and we must be held publicly accountable for these expenditures. So, there are not only public accounts but also estimates and I am sure that in this new era of liberalism in government much closer attention will be paid to constructive criticism from the opposition regarding government spending.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the supply motion of the Reform Party:

That this House call on the government to demonstrate its commitment to accountability and to the efficient and effective use of public funds by reporting to the House, no later than the first week of June each year, what measures have been taken by the government to address unresolved problems identified by the Auditor General in his report such as-

I go to our subclause (f):

that the Minister of the Environment address the duplication of regulations between the federal government and the provincial governments regarding the pulp and paper industry-

I believe many observers of the House of Commons agree that Reform Party members have brought a constructive approach to all matters before the House. We have led the way in the establishment of a very direct formula. We look at the good and compliment; we review areas of concern and define them; and finally we work to create a positive response with an attitude to making the process work.

First let me commend the Minister of the Environment for her exhibition of an attitude of co-operation and her expression of a desire that all members of the House of Commons have access to relevant information and the ability to dialogue with officials in her department.

I also wish to compliment the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister on their recent interview with the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. As one of the two Reform MPs on the standing committee I was very impressed with their very forthright and business-like attitude and look forward to working with both the minister and her officials.

As the member for Kootenay East I am acutely aware of the environment. I have in my constituency Glacier National Park, Yoho National Park and Kootenay National Park. My home on Wasa Lake is only five miles from Crestbrook Forest Industries pulp mill at Skookumchuk and as a consequence I have a great sensitivity to sharing a pristine wilderness with a large industrial production facility.

I am pleased to report that in total Crestbrook Forest Industries has exhibited a very responsible attitude toward its potential liability to the environment. In fact it has just completed a $200 million project which responds directly to concerns about pollution.

Crestbrook, along with other members of the pulp and paper industry, come under regulations put forward by both the federal and provincial governments. I know from casual conversations with various people in the industry that the duplication of regulations between the two levels of government regarding the pulp and paper industry has been frustrating at times. I refer specifically to the Auditor General's report on the duplication of regulations.

We are concerned about attracting international investment and creating a climate of confidence for the domestic investor. There is nothing that scares capital more than the unknown. Investors must have the security of knowing what the rules of the game are going to be.

Learning from history I note in paragraph 26.37 of the Auditor General's report that:

The January 1993 report of the Sub-committee on Regulations and Competitiveness of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance criticized the Department for not assessing the benefits of regulations.

It continues:

-a commitment of $4.1 billion in resources, with no apparent sense of the magnitude of the benefits, was not reasonable.

That is a commitment of $4.1 billion in resources being thrown into the unknown.

The Auditor General continues:

The data to assess the effectiveness of the regulations, including long-term impacts, are expected to come eventually from the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program.

I ask that members to note the words: "are expected to come eventually". In the next paragraph the Auditor General states:

The Environmental Effects Monitoring guidelines and program continued to be developed after the regulations were passed.

I draw to the attention of members the words: "continued to be developed". He continues:

In early 1993, the industry expressed concern that the program was still evolving and that its final scope and costs to all were not yet fully defined.

I note there again the word evolving. From this instructive lesson we can see why the investor in Canadian business has some serious concerns about the application and impact our laws and regulations bring to our desired direction.

The Reform Party believes there must be a balance in which environmental considerations carry equal weight, that they do not overpower economic, social and technical considerations in the development of any project. We believe that without any economic development and the income generated therefrom the environment will not be protected nor enjoyed.

Overlap of enforcement is an additional problem. For example, I am aware of two recent cases in British Columbia, one involving Weyerhaeuser's Pulp Mill at Kamloops and the other at Howe Sound Pulp and Paper on the coast. As a result of effluent spills, both federal and provincial agencies felt obliged to take legal samples. A couple of days after the provincial government regulators turned up, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans felt obliged to use a search warrant to obtain information and repeated the process already completed by the provincial government.

There are also redundant regulations. As an example, at the federal level there are two regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act affecting the pulp industry which deal with the use of defoaming agents and pentachlorophenol contaminated wood chips. Both these regulations were introduced to control potential sources of dioxins and furans in the pulping process. Pentachlorophenol is no longer used by the sawmilling industry and therefore this regulation is redundant. The petrochemical agency has cleaned up the oil based defoaming agents, making the second regulation also redundant.

New initiatives under federal fishery regulations require pulp mills to do environmental effects monitoring at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000 a year per mill and there is little or no confidence that the results will be scientifically meaningful. It is a case of collecting information for the sake of having the information, with no apparent value but at very high cost to the industry.

In the spirit of co-operation, I know the environment minister is aware there are federal-provincial environmental agreements that have been drafted and reviewed by senior level bureaucrats at the federal level in co-operation with the provincial ministries of environment in B.C. and Quebec. I understand early drafts have also been developed for Ontario and Nova Scotia. They are very close to conclusion.

In light of the government's much quoted red book position on the elimination of duplication and overlap of federal-provincial services, I ask the minister to push the various buttons required to get the agreements completed. The minister today acknowledged these agreements are pending. I am asking for priority to expedite completion.

I will be sending a copy of this speech to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to indicate that I will be raising this issue with a view to having the committee encourage the early completion of these agreements. This is a no cost way of enhancing efficiencies in the application and enforcement of regulations, thereby reducing the cost to industry.

In addition, I will be circulating copies of my speech to all interested parties in a spirit of co-operation to assist in the creation of a positive working relationship with an attitude of making the process work. I invite constructive criticism and input, especially from industry, to the suggestions I have made today.

As stated, Reform Party members are striving to bring a constructive approach to all matters before the House. However, as indicated in our supply motion, it is imperative that the Minister of the Environment, not later than the first week of June each year, deliver to the House a report outlining what measures have been taken to address the unresolved problems identified by the Auditor General. As he chose to focus on the issue of pulp and paper regulations, identifying specific deficiencies, we anticipate that the minister will respond positively to this most reasonable position put forward by the Reform Party.

That kind of response will clearly demonstrate the government's commitment to accountability to the House and, through it, to the people of Canada.