Debates of Feb. 19th, 2001

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in some of the points the hon. member for Kings—Hants was making regarding the mindset shift that is necessary for industries to undertake in the way they do business.

He said that they need to internalize externalities. First, I would like him to explain that. Second, I would like him to expand somewhat on the issue he raised that we need to view things in the way of whole costing. In other words, if we are going to burn oil we need to recognize what the whole cost of burning that oil is.

I would also ask him to comment on the fact that the real price of a barrel of oil is probably not $27 or whatever it is on the open market. The real cost, the whole cost, can be as much as $150 a barrel when we factor in the price of the American military and keeping the Persian Gulf sea lanes open, and the environmental degradation and the clean up necessary when burning hydrocarbons.

Even if the technology is not quite there yet, would the Ballard fuel cell, wind energy or solar energy not render all other alternative sources of energy cheap by comparison? When we look at the whole cost of a barrel of oil all other sources of energy seem like a bargain, internalizing externalities first and then whole costing. Would the member like to comment on that?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we should make note that this is probably the first time in the history of Canadian parliament that a Conservative updated the lexicon of a New Democrat in terms of environmental phraseology, otherwise known as buzzwords.

Turning to the notion of internalizing the externalities, the externalities are those products that are produced unintentionally by any level of production. To internalize those externalities means to incorporate in the cost of production the unintended production costs. In this case, environmental costs are incorporated into the cost of products that the consumers pays at the time, also known as whole costing. I appreciate his update of my lexicon in areas of the environment in a more simple and holistic way.

The notion of whole costing and addressing the total cost of production is difficult to do. The methodologies for doing this are not easy to implement. However, I think it is very important that we start doing that.

Again, bad environmental policy is ultimately bad economic policy because both disciplines deal with the management of scarce resources. Any economic argument or any pricing arrangement that ignores the true cost, wihtout the whole costing as put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, is in fact bad economics. We have to become more rational in the way that we allocate both environmental and otherwise economic resources.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure we will all be much the wiser for that explanation and it will be on a test somewhere down the road.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote has been deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.

Species At Risk Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin debate I should like to congratulate the member for Fundy—Royal on his election as vice-chair of the finance committee. I think it is very generous of the official opposition to let the Conservative Party have that post and I wish him well as the vice-chair of that committee.

Canada is blessed with a rich biodiversity of over 70,000 known plants and animals, many of which are found nowhere else in the world. We have a moral obligation to protect this precious diversity so that it can be enjoyed by generations of Canadians to come.

Bill C-5, the proposed Species at Risk Act, will enable countless Canadians to continue to work to protect and recover species and ensure that the Government of Canada can act as well.

Despite efforts to protect wildlife and plants, we continue to lose species at an alarming rate around the world because of human activity.

In Canada today there are 364 species classified as being at risk nationally.

Canadians overwhelmingly support the protection of species at risk and their habitats. From ranchers to fishermen, trappers to farmers, biologists to conservationists, we have heard the call for effective legislation. Bill C-5 responds to that call with certainty and with conviction.

It is effective legislation that will help prevent wildlife in Canada from becoming extinct. It will also provide for recovery of species that are at risk of becoming extinct. This is legislation that will achieve results where it counts the most, on the land, in our streams, in the oceans, on the prairies, in the forests and in the air above.

Bill C-5 is effective legislation that will help prevent wildlife in Canada from becoming extinct. It will also provide for the recovery of species at risk.

This is legislation that will achieve results where it counts the most: on the land and in our streams, oceans, prairies and forests.

I would like to outline the key strengths of the bill before parliament today.

The proposed act will cover all birds, fish, mammals, plants or insects listed as being at risk nationally. These species and their critical habitats will be protected whether they are on federal, provincial, territorial or privately owned land, in the air or in the water. SARA will be the cornerstone in species protection and recovery.

SARA will ensure that science is the first consideration in the recovery of species. For the first time, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, will be given legal status under the Species at Risk Act.

COSEWIC will continue to operate as a scientific body independent of the government. It that will assess and classify the status of wildlife species in accordance with the best available scientific, community and aboriginal traditional knowledge.

SARA will provide the authority to prohibit the killing of endangered or threatened species and the destruction of their critical habitats on all lands in Canada. We will have the authority to provide immediate protection to species and their critical habitats in imminent danger. The Government of Canada will also have the authority to act alone when and if necessary.

Under SARA, there will be a mandatory requirement for developing recovery strategies and action plans for endangered or threatened species, and management plans for species of special concern.

The Minister of Environment must report annually to parliament on actions taken to recover all listed species.

Possibly the strongest element of the bill is the extensive dialogue that has resulted in its evolution. The proposed legislation reflects more than seven years of consultation with Canadians in all walks of life, in all parts of the country, including specifically ranchers, farmers, land owners, fishermen, aboriginal peoples, business leaders, trappers, scientists, academics and many other stakeholders, including thousands of interested Canadians.

The Species at Risk Act or SARA is what it is today because of what we have heard over the last seven years.

We have heard that Canadians want legislation in place that empowers individuals to take action to protect habitat. This is the goal of Bill C-5.

We have also heard that Canadians want to know that there are strong legal protections in place so that, if necessary, the government will act alone to protect species and their habitat. This is another key component of Bill C-5.

We have heard loud and clear that the approach to species protection and recovery must be balanced and effective. The bill before us today meets these requirements.

Bill C-5 incorporates a number of useful suggestions made by individuals and groups in submissions to the standing committee during its pre-study of the former Bill C-33. These changes reflect the intent and spirit of the former bill, while improving its clarity.

I would like to outline some of the improvements that have been made in the bill we are debating today.

Of particular significance are the following, which will provide greater openness, transparency and accountability.

A new section was added, which would require that the minister convene, at least once every two years, a round table of persons interested in matters related to the protection of species at risk. The round table would advise the minister on these matters and its recommendations would be placed in the public registry. The minister would be required to respond within 180 days and his response would also be placed in the public registry.

The COSEWIC list will be published, unchanged, in the public registry. By doing this, it is given public recognition as the scientific list of species at risk in Canada.

Other documents to be placed in the public registry would now also include the annual reports of COSEWIC, general status reports, action plans and the minister's annual reports to parliament.

The registry, which will be available on the Internet, will be a comprehensive online source of relevant documents and information about efforts to protect species at risk in Canada. It will give Canadians the opportunity to follow the development of regulations and orders under the Act, from the consultation phase to final publication in the Canada Gazette .

In short, the registry will enable anyone to track government action on species which have been found to be at risk following scientific assessment.

These changes show that we have listened to Canadians. We intend to continue to take the advice of Canadians, and all reasonable suggestions to further improve Bill C-5 will be considered carefully as the bill progresses through parliament.

The bill that we are debating today is only one component of the Government of Canada's overall strategy to protect species at risk.

In fact, the strategy is already producing results through stewardship, recovery planning and partnerships with provinces, territories, non-government organizations, academics, and private citizens. This strategy includes this legislation, the accord for the protection of species at risk, and the habitat stewardship program.

Through stewardship and recovery efforts, we are taking action on species at risk where it matters most: on the land and in our streams, oceans, prairies and forests.

Our first line of defence will be to protect habitat by encouraging land owners to undertake voluntary conservation measures, often in co-operation with other governments.

The Government of Canada is providing incentives to promote habitat conservation, because we know this approach works on the ground to effectively protect species.

Through the new habitat stewardship program, the Government of Canada contributed, in the year 2000, approximately $5 million to over 60 partnership projects with local and regional organizations and committees. Species that have benefited already include the Vancouver Island marmot, the marbled murrelet and the critically endangered eastern loggerhead shrike, a bird that was once distributed from Manitoba to the maritimes.

Our approach to habitat stewardship also encompasses large areas of land such as the Missouri Coteau landscape of southern Saskatchewan. Located in the prairie pothole region of the province, the Missouri Coteau landscape is approximately 23,000 square kilometres in size and includes several species at risk, including the piping plover, the burrowing owl, the loggerhead shrike, the ferruginous hawk, the northern leopard frog and the monarch butterfly. The Coteau stewardship first step project seeks to maintain natural, restored and managed land capable of sustaining populations of these species at risk.

Funding for the habitat stewardship program is one of several initiatives to protect species at risk that were announced in budget 2000, which contained a commitment of some $90 million over three years and thereafter stabilized funding of $90 million every two years for the protection of species at risk.

Budget 2000 also made it easier for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands and easements by reducing the capital gains from donations through the EcoGifts Program.

These partnerships and incentive programs will extend habitat protection in all parts of Canada.

Our preferred approach to protecting species at risk is through voluntary activities by Canadians. However, there may be times when these do not produce the desired results. At that point, government action will be required, either at the federal, provincial or territorial level.

We respect the authority of other governments, but we also expect them to bring in habitat protection measures when they are needed. This bill will complement existing or improved provincial and territorial legislation. It will not compete with it.

Make no mistake, where voluntary measures do not work, or other governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal safety net will be invoked. If a province does not have complementary legislation, the Government of Canada will act to protect Canada's heritage, to protect threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats on provincial and private lands.

Landowners, farmers, ranchers, trappers and others who live off the land or waters of Canada are among our most important partners, since in many areas, their land includes the habitats of species at risk.

The proposed SARA will enable compensation to be paid for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact when it is necessary to prohibit destruction of critical habitat.

One of the most difficult questions in the debate over how to protect species at risk is that issue of compensation. That is why I asked the distinguished Dr. Peter Pearse, a professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia and a well known expert on natural resource issues, to review the issues involved and to provide me with advice concerning compensation under the legislation.

Dr. Pearse has done an excellent job of reviewing the issues and his findings will be an important contribution to the debate on compensation. His recommendations are of great interest to the government and they will be considered very carefully as we develop compensation regulations in consultation with Canadians.

I want to assure hon. members that as our discussions on the issue of compensation progress, we will continue our discussions with interested Canadians. We will keep them informed on this important issue. Our regulatory proposals will be shared on the registry in the same spirit of openness that has marked the development of the proposed species at risk act.

Anecdotal evidence on severe economic losses by landowners in the United States because of the American endangered species act has generated concern and fears in some parts of Canada. Let me assure the House that the proposed Canadian species at risk act is fundamentally different from the American act and, I might add, dramatically better.

The species at risk act represents a Canadian approach based on our own strengths and values. While it does give the government the power to protect threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats on private land, we have gone a long way to meeting the concerns of landowners and other people who work on the land.

The bill recognizes the fact that in order to be effective, species at risk legislation must be accepted and used by the people on the land who make decisions affecting wildlife every day.

Species protection requires a co-operative approach on the front lines. This does not preclude the inclusion of strong measures for those who would break the law.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of partnerships in protecting wildlife in Canada. We are working with the provinces and territories, individual Canadians, conservation organizations, academics, industries every day to conserve and protect species at risk.

For this legislation to be effective, all affected stakeholders must be engaged. In order to get the job done, we need landowners, conservation groups, and other levels of government working together.

Aboriginal communities are especially important in efforts to protect species at risk since so many endangered or threatened species are found on aboriginal lands. Aboriginal peoples have been successfully involved in efforts to develop this legislation and they will be involved in the species at risk act recovery efforts at every appropriate step. The assessment and recovery processes will incorporate the wisdom of aboriginal traditional knowledge as well as local community knowledge.

We will work closely with and respect the role of wildlife management boards established under land claims agreements to ensure the protection of species at risk.

In fact, one of the improvements that has been made to the bill was to amend the definition of wildlife management board to ensure that any body authorized to perform functions in relation to wildlife species in a land claims agreement is covered.

We have a long history of co-operation with the provinces and territories on protecting species at risk in Canada. We have negotiated an accord to protect species at risk and have made significant progress on many issues under it. Because of the active involvement of many interested parties in this file, we have made remarkable progress.

Here are some examples. In 1941 there were about 16 whooping cranes in Canada and now there are about 200. The swift fox has been successfully reintroduced along the Saskatchewan-Alberta border and, in fact, its status has been upgraded by COSEWIC. The wood bison is returning to healthier and sustainable numbers. From a low of about 250 animals a century ago, there are now some 1,800 wood bison currently living in seven wild, free ranging herds. Again, COSEWIC has upgraded its status from endangered to threatened in recognition of this progress.

Clearly there has been progress. Now we must focus our efforts to save species still in danger, such as the right whale, the Oregon spotted frog and the Jefferson salamander, which was added by COSEWIC in November to the list of Canadian species at risk.

As a government, as citizens and as stewards, our goal must be to protect species on the ground. The proposed species at risk act is part of a comprehensive approach to accomplish this goal.

I invite all members to take an important step toward protecting wildlife species and their habitats across Canada by supporting Bill C-5. Canadians have told us in overwhelming numbers that they want a law to protect species at risk and their habitats. After seven years of debate, it is time to move on, and to focus our attention on protecting and recovering wildlife at risk.

In 1996 governments across Canada agreed, through the accord for the protection of species at risk, to bring in species protection legislation in their own jurisdictions. Many provinces and territories have already fulfilled this commitment. Now it is the time for the Parliament of Canada to live up to this commitment by approving Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 creates a framework for the protection of species at risk that will achieve results on the ground by using incentives as the preferred approach, backed up with strong legal protections that give the government of Canada the ability to act alone when necessary.

It is designed to work not merely in courtrooms, but where it counts: in the fields, forests, wetlands and open waters of Canada. Effective species protection, not costly litigation, must be our primary goal.

I look forward to committee hearings on Bill C-5, where we will discuss the bill in detail, and hear the views of Canadians on how effective this bill can be.

We have an opportunity to pass effective legislation, legislation that is needed and long overdue. I sincerely hope the members of the House will assist with this monumental responsibility.

This bill is important for Canada's biodiversity. I urge all members to give it speedy passage at second reading and I urge that it be voted with minimum delay for the committee stage and examination by the committee of the House.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on this bill on species at risk in Canada.

In principle the Bloc Quebecois should be satisfied, and it is, that there is an endangered species act in Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

My colleagues opposite just applauded. We do have an endangered species act in Quebec. Government members, including the Minister for International Trade, have just recognized by their applause that the matter is of vital importance.

Since our colleagues opposite are satisfied with the endangered species act, I will now talk about the bill on species at risk in Canada.

I must first remind the House that a number of international conventions inevitably led to Canada introducing this legislation. We wish this legislation had been quite different, but it inevitably had to be introduced in the House.

There are three or four reasons that justified the introduction of this bill in the House. First, on the international level, one has to remember the signing of the convention on wetlands, which is of international importance. This convention is quite important since at least 30% of species in Canada live in that kind of habitat and land.

A second important reason relating to commitments made by Canada at the international level is the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, which clearly required the introduction of this type of legislation in each country.

A third reason is, of course, the convention on conservation on migratory species of wild fauna, but the fundamental reason which also led to the introduction of the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in Quebec is the 1992 convention on biodiversity. That convention stated clearly that countries had to introduce and bring into force legislative provisions to protect species at risk.

Why introduce legislation on species at risk and why give so much importance to this type of legislation? I said this type of legislation, not necessarily this piece of legislation. Why? Because we have witnessed a significant reduction in biodiversity over the last few years.

Our methods of producing and consuming have significantly altered our ecosystems. This has resulted in a significant reduction in organisms living in these ecosystems, which means that it also has an impact on species at risk. Of course, all this has an impact on the food chain.

All the different changes we made in our production methods have had an effect on biodiversity, and this is why we had to take measures to protect our species.

Legislation to protect species at risk is essential. However, we would have liked legislation that respects certain frameworks, not only a legislative framework, but also a constitutional framework.

It must be remembered that four provinces already have endangered species legislation. They are Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick and, of course, Quebec.

These provinces have passed a number of measures to identify and legally designate endangered species, and to implement programs and plans, like recovery plans, to ensure the continuity of our ecosystems and aquatic and plant habitats, and to ensure these species are not put at risk or made vulnerable.

In 1989 Quebec passed its own endangered species legislation. This was ground breaking legislation in those days. As I said earlier, the convention on biodiversity was not signed until 1992.

Before the signing of the international convention on biodiversity, calling for changes to legislation to protect endangered species, Quebec had already passed its own legislation, which was welcome by environmentalists and interested parties.

This legislation was meant to be and was flexible, because it was respectful of property holders and landowners. Its purpose was to identify and legally designate endangered species, and to provide a number of recovery plans to protect their habitat.

Quebec went even further in protecting endangered species. Later on, Quebec took two more measures: the fishery regulations and an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife. The goal of these three fundamental measures was to protect and preserve the species as well as the aquatic, plant and animal environments.

In no way, shape or form does the bill introduced in the House respect the forward looking approach taken by Quebec in 1989.

I cannot wait to see what decision some of the members opposite will come to. I cannot wait to see what the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who was a minister in 1989 under Robert Bourassa when the legislation was passed, will do. I cannot wait to see what the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who supported the legislation and urged the opposition to pass it, will do. They have introduced, supported and defended this kind of legislation.

These federal Liberal members from Quebec are about to vote for a federal bill that will duplicate the Quebec legislation and will infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction concerning the protection of critical habitat. We will see what the federal members from Quebec will decide. Chances are, they will show their true colours.

We will see what is going on when we will compare the two pieces of legislation, when we take the time to read through the bill the Minister of the Environment introduced a few weeks ago and compare it to the Quebec legislation. We will have to take into consideration not only the Quebec legislation on endangered species, but also the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife and the regulations. That is when we will realize all the overlap there is. The first example of overlap deals with the identification of the species.

The federal act formalizes the status of COSEWIC, that is the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. So far, the committee has legally identified over 340 endangered species.

If someone told me today that Quebec does not have a committee to identify these threatened plant species, I would say that this double net is justified. We need a double net and there is one in place. It is in the form of an advisory committee made up of scientists. It is not a phoney committee, but an advisory committee made up of scientists who work at identifying the animal and plant species that are vulnerable and threatened.

In Quebec the advisory committee on threatened species works in close co-operation with COSEWIC. It works in such close co-operation with COSEWIC that Quebec signed a harmonization agreement on threatened and endangered species. The Quebec government signed that harmonization agreement back in 1996. At the time, it said “Quebec has an act and we will co-operate”.

Where is that harmonization agreement? Where is the federal government's pledge to respect provincial jurisdictions, to respect Quebec's legislation, as stated in the 1996 harmonization agreement? Whatever happened to that spirit of co-operation? Today, what we have before us is a bill that interferes in provincial jurisdictions. This is totally unacceptable.

If I were told that Quebec does not have a recovery plan for threatened species, I would say that there is a reason for having a double net. I would say that Quebec is not doing its job and lacks legislation, but the fact of the matter is that Quebec has recovery plans. The argument for the double net does not hold water. Quebec has a recovery strategy for when a species that is endangered is identified and its habitat must be protected in order to ensure survival.

The second aspect is the recovery plans, as proposed by the federal government. Quebec has one in its legislation.

The third aspect is compensation. This is pure improvisation here. One wonders why the federal government did not fully accept the recommendations of the Peter Pearse report, including that for 50% compensation of farmers and land owners. There was none of this. At the briefings, we asked the departmental staff what the principle of compensation was. The answer was “We are not really sure”. This is total improvization.

There are two basic reasons we are strongly opposed to this bill. I can assure the House that we are going to work very hard in committee to ensure that it does not get through.

First of all, because we believe that the entire habitat issue is a provincial responsibility.

Second, because we want the federal government to keep its word to respect Quebec legislation, which it gave when the harmonization agreement on endangered species was signed in 1996.

We call upon it to respect its signature and to ensure that the Quebec legislation is respected. This bill is headed toward duplication and overlap and, dare I say, perhaps a court challenge as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie will have 25 minutes, if he wishes, when this bill next comes before the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity to shed some light on a very murky and dark issue, a dark chapter, perhaps, in the government's administration.

Today the RCMP announced that it will no longer be pursuing an investigation into the affairs surrounding the Auberge Grand-Mère. What it does not say is that very little took place in terms of an investigation.

We know that individuals we suggested it contact were not contacted. The prime individual in all of this, the Prime Minister, was certainly not contacted by the RCMP.

Let us take a quick walk through what has happened. The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have stated for a long time that they did nothing wrong when they lobbied the Business Development Bank to secure a loan for a questionable business practice.

This was a loan that would improve a hotel adjacent to a golf course that was owned by the Prime Minister, 25% at that time. The golf course is linked to the hotel. The hotel is linked to a bank loan. The bank loan is linked to a president and also the immigration investment deal that followed a meeting in Chrétien's office with people he cannot remember.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I perhaps was not paying as close attention as I should, but if we are making reference to someone by that name who also holds an office in this Chamber at this time we should refer to the office, please.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the Prime Minister. If nothing irregular happened, why did the Prime Minister's spokesperson, Mr. Peter Donolo, mislead the public in January 1999, saying that neither the government nor the Prime Minister were involved in the decisions made by the BDC? This was reported in the National Post on January 25, 1999.

On February 10, 1999, when asked if the Prime Minister or a member of his staff intervened with the Business Development Bank or any other department to obtain money for Mr. Duhaime, why did the Minister of Industry state that the loan decision was made by a vice-president and that it was not an order in council appointee who was appointed to determine the process? These statements were later found to be false.

The Prime Minister himself went to great lengths to write a letter that was sent to the National Post , and that date is November 16, 2000. The Prime Minister contradicted himself when he said in that letter:

I...had no direct or indirect personal connection with the hotel...or...with the adjacent golf course.

That was directly contradicted by himself in the Chamber when he indicated that he did speak to the Business Development Bank president twice and also spoke to him at 24 Sussex.

There are so many contradictions surrounding this entire issue. We do know some of the facts. We know that the Prime Minister sold his part ownership in the Auberge Grand-Mère, just north of his home in the town of Shawinigan, to a personal friend, Mr. Duhaime. We know that in 1993 he tried to unload those shares to the adjacent Grand-Mère golf course, but that was not completed. This is the important fact. The transaction did not occur. The shares came back to him, which he later admitted to the ethics counsellor in a letter to him.

At the important time in question when the lobbying was occurring, when the Prime Minister was in touch with the president of the bank to try to secure the loan, he was still in possession, still a potential beneficiary of those efforts.

After two rejections, two efforts to secure loans by Mr. Duhaime, he finally got his $615,000 and then went into arrears. During that time the decision was made to foreclose. The president of the Business Development Bank later lost his job over that decision, we maintain.

There was a conflict of interest in lobbying to aid this hotel, which would also directly aid the adjoining property.

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has repeatedly raised questions about this issue, also about Mr. Jean Carle, who went directly from the PMO to the board of directors of the Business Development Bank. That in and of itself, I would suggest, certainly creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, where a lot of information might be available to interested parties.

The former clerk of the Privy Council, Gordon Robertson, stated this “What happened in Shawinigan would never have met the standards set in Pearson's code of ethics. The Prime Minister has lowered the bar.”

The Prime Minister, who was subject to this code as a member of the Pearson and Trudeau governments, said which provisions of the Pearson code were not too stringent for him to follow. Why did he lower the bar? Why has he refused to answer direct questions about this topic? Why has he designated the Minister of Industry to come to his defence to help navigate these murky waters?

Canadians deserve better from a Prime Minister who campaigned on watchwords of transparency and ethics.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating there are statutory limits to what details can be provided concerning the member's question, since section 37 of the BDC act intended to protect commercial confidentiality must apply. Furthermore, when the member asked his question on January 31, 2001, the Minister of Industry informed the House that the subject matter raised is presently before the courts and we must thus act accordingly.

Nonetheless, this does not stop us from providing the House with the facts.

The first fact is the Auberge Grand-Mère loan was never part of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Beaudoin's resignation. Mr. François Beaudoin was not constructively dismissed. He chose to resign rather than account to the board of directors of the BDC. The office of the auditor general revealed that he had awarded himself an unjustified annual retirement income at the age of 50 from $169,000 and $468,000.

The second fact is following Mr. Beaudoin's resignation, KPMG began an investigation which revealed that the former president used bank property for personal enjoyment and made a number of expenditures outside officially appropriate activities, in violation of the BDC code of conduct and the code for public office holders.

The third fact is the Auberge Grand-Mère is open and expected to do well. The Auberge will benefit from increasing economic activity in the region.

The fourth fact is this project was financed in partnership with the Caisse Populaire and the FSTQ.

The fifth fact is members of parliament from all parties refer potential clients to the BDC. They approach the BDC on behalf of their constituents and seek information about the bank's products and services.

The sixth fact is the final decision as to whether or not a loan is made is the exclusive responsibility of the BDC. These decisions are based solely on the merits of the application and the project to be financed.

Finally, the fact is that there is no smoking gun here. There is just smoke and mirrors on the part of the opposition, or, to use the words of the member's leader, perhaps this is just a fishing expedition.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a matter in which the Minister of Transport has dragged his feet. For the past three and a half years that I have been here, he has been dragging his feet, even though we raised the matter repeatedly.

I would first like to mention two newspaper articles in order to show just how long ago the Minister of Transport was asked to settle this matter.

On Thursday, December 14, 2000, not exactly yesterday, in the daily Le Soleil , a woman wrote “We are back in the age of Le temps d'une paix or worse, in the 1900s, because we have to use a lot of imagination every day in order to wash and cook without putting ourselves at risk”.

On February 5, the minister told me during Oral Question Period that he had assumed his responsibilities and had decided to deal with the matter and find solutions.

Just recently, on February 14, an article stated “Public health department recommends avoiding drinking the water”. I will quote one little paragraph from the article “The director of public health for the North Shore, Dr. Raynald Cloutier, recommends that the residents of the beaches area in Sept-Îles not drink their water. The public is clearly at risk”. Dr. Cloutier added “In short, it is becoming very distressing. I see no solution but to connect people to the municipal water and sewer system”.

The city of Sept-Îles assumed its responsibilities. For those not familiar with the area, there are four beaches. If a person heads east, toward the airport, toward Havre-Saint-Pierre, the first beach is the Monaghan beach. Then there is the Ferguson beach, and it is followed by the Routhier and the Lévesque beaches.

The one most affected was the Monaghan beach. The water was red like tomato juice. The city of Sept-Îles invested nearly $10 million. A figure of $5 million was negotiated in subsidies. I was the municipal councillor for that area at the time. Five million dollars was also invested on sewage treatment. At the time, this fixed the problem.

The further east one went, the more drinkable the water was. Then the Department of Transport contaminated the water table with nitrate from the airport. Since then, the minister has been giving us the same answer.

On September 28, 1998, the Sept-Îles municipal council passed a resolution—that is what municipal councils do—calling on Transport Canada to assume its responsibilities in the whole contaminated area by providing drinkable sources of water.

The minister's answer was the same one he gave me in the House on February 5. He said that the solutions proposed by Transport Canada to the water table contamination in the beaches area consisting of “an ion exchange treatment device, a reverse osmosis treatment device, bottled water delivery and the payment of a sum for the purchase of bottled water” were considered acceptable.

Can the House imagine the minister's reaction if he were to be given a bottle of water and a washcloth in his home or in one of the luxury hotel rooms he stays in and told that that was the water he was to wash with and to drink. Would he sit still for that? On April 26, 1999, the same municipal council passed another resolution calling for a meeting with the Minister of Transport.

This meeting took place, and the Minister of Transport told the House on February 5 that the permanent solutions, those in the second “whereas” of the municipal council's resolution, would be implemented.

What residents therefore want and what the municipal council called for at its February 12 meeting, is a meeting with the Minister of Transport to resolve the problem once and for all. This is ridiculous. The health of the public in the Sept-Îles Des Plages area is at stake.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada is committed to implementing a permanent solution for Sept-Îles beaches area residents whose water is affected by abnormal concentrations of nitrates. Twenty-three residents are affected. Although it amounts to only 13% of the area in question, we do take the matter seriously.

It should be noted that all of the other problems recently identified in the affected area are in no way connected with Transport Canada's activities. Transport Canada met recently with the residents concerned to outline the four options examined by the department. Only three of those residents agreed to the installation of an ion exchanger.

Transport Canada is monitoring the groundwater nitrate levels very closely. Recent tests show a significant decrease already in these levels in the beaches area. According to experts, the nitrate concentrations in the groundwater can be expected to return to normal between 2002 and 2007.

We are now in 2001, and the pocket of contamination can already been seen to be steadily receding. Based on this finding, Transport Canada maintains that the proposed solutions adequately meet and are in proportion to the nitrate problem. The installation of a piped water system is out of all proportion to the problem observed.

Transport Canada is committed to act like a good corporate citizen and maintain a healthy environment for the Canadian public. The department is being proactive on the matter and has taken all appropriate corrective measures.