Paul Forseth

[National Housing Act, December 12th, 1995]

Who pays?

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, December 8th, 1995]

They have no shame.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, December 8th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on my Bill C-323. Prior to the last election I served as a probation officer and family court counsellor in the British Columbia provincial attorney general's ministry. I served for over 20 years. I spent each day working with the Canadian Criminal Code and I learned firsthand the system's weaknesses and strengths. I also discovered the loopholes that aided offenders to walk when they should have been properly held to account. Far too often I saw justice not being served. The criminals were benefiting and the victims were not served. There was little neglected victims to do. Advancing the plight of victims of crime is one of the motivations for me to serve in the House.

When constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby elected me as their representative in 1993 I made a commitment to take a firm stand on behalf of the victims of crime. Whether changes to the Canadian Criminal Code or to some other statute, I promised something would be done to protect the public and to change the balance of the operation of the law to be more in favour of victims.

On May 1 of this year I had the distinct pleasure to introduce Bill C-323. Today there is even a greater satisfaction that the bill was deemed a votable item with a chance of becoming law. Small changes such as those in Bill C-323 may not sufficiently change the overall system to the way we would like but it certainly represents a good start.

Approximately a year and a half ago a Vancouver area lawyer approached me with a concern that a loophole in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was enabling offenders to be relieved of their commitment to pay civil court judgments. It was a loophole that was causing victims further suffering. It was clear that a simple amendment to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act would eliminate the possibility for a person to use personal bankruptcy to escape from any owed damages awarded in civil court. Thus I have been working to bring forward my private member's bill.

When a person commits an assault or battery, a wilful act that harms another, the victims can sue for damages through a civil lawsuit. However, under the current BIA if the offender claims bankruptcy after being found liable in court the damages awarded to the victim are cleared, causing the victim to once again suffer hardship.

Subsection 178(1) of the bankruptcy act lists various things an order of discharge does not release a bankrupt person from. The law has long recognized there are some things that cannot be forgiven and will remain. It takes into account alimony, maintenance and support of a spouse or child, debt arising out of fraud, embezzlement or a fine, penalty or restitution order imposed by a criminal court in respect of an offence.

Therefore according to the way the act currently reads a bankrupt person cannot be relieved of paying a traffic fine yet can be relieved of paying damages for something like sexual assault. I do not think any member of the House would disagree the statute must be changed as soon as possible. We must provide some appropriate balance.

In April I read an article in the Vancouver Province newspaper about Sherleen Hackett who was awarded $145,000 in damages for sexual abuse by her stepfather on June 28, 1991. Stepfather James Hackett was ordered to make payments of $500 a month. According to the article he made one full payment of $500, four payments of $100, and then filed for bankruptcy. It was as easy as that to turn the legal system on its head.

Allow me to cite several other examples so those following can fully comprehend the severity of the fundamental flaw in this statute. Tammy Carr of White Rock, B.C. sued her stepfather for sexually assaulting her for six years and was awarded $42,513. Her stepfather, David Graham, filed for bankruptcy six months after the judgment. Payment to date: none.

Cynthia Shefford of Alexis Creek, B.C. was awarded $357,743 by a supreme court jury for the sexual abuse committed by her father, Leonard Klassen. The father was ordered to pay his daughter $500 a month for 12 years. Three months after the trial Klassen filed for bankruptcy. Payment to date: none. The amount of Shefford's award is the largest awarded in the country to date, but what good is it to have such a record amount if not a penny is received by the one who needs it most, the victim?

My bill would make a simple amendment to subsection 178(1) of the act, as part (a) of the act currently says that an order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from any fine, penalty, restitution order or other in similar nature to a fine, penalty or

restitution order imposed by a court in respect of an offence or any debt arising out of a recognizance of bail.

Bill C-323 would make an addition to this part:

An order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from any damages in respect of an assault or battery awarded by a court pursuant to a judgment rendered in a civil proceeding and any interest on the damages before or after judgment ordered by the court or payable by law.

The amendment is a brief but fundamental change to the act. Not only would it strengthen the statute in legal terms, it would strengthen the public's view of the operation of Canada's justice system. Some of the imbalance and absurdity in law would be removed.

I do not think many Canadians know debtors may currently avoid substantial payment on sexual assault judgments by making an assignment in bankruptcy. However, as more and more people file their cases in the courts, public awareness will increase. The more our legal system gives the offender a loophole, the more disregard will arise.

If is nothing is done to such a small section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act the justice system as a whole will be in danger of being viewed as completely in disrepute. The sad thing is Canadians already look at our justice system and think it is not reflective of them.

One need look only at the Young Offenders Act to see examples of ineffectiveness. The government continues to claim what it is doing will save lives and make Canadians feel more safe. In the last two years the Liberal government has made several changes to the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, and yet my constituents still complain to me they feel afraid to walk the streets.

The government says these changes need time to be implemented but I believe it knows that all the time in the world to discuss and defer will make absolutely no difference to the crime statistics. The criminal law changes made so far by the government are anaemic and do not sufficiently respond to the desires of mainstream Canadian values.

The situation is similar to that with intersections and street lights. Before a municipality will put up a street light at a busy intersection it waits for a certain number of serious accidents to occur. If no accidents occur, it is believed a street light is not needed. Usually someone has to die first.

Therefore a responsible government would address a problem before it gets out of control. The amendment in my bill should have been introduced years ago or at least near the time that such cases were coming before the courts.

This is the job of federal departments. There are legal experts who must know the bankruptcy act inside and out. They knew there were loopholes in subsection 178 for years but until now nobody has addressed them.

In 1992 British Columbia's legislature took a lead with this issue by amending its own limitation act. The amendment removed any limitation period for bringing action for damages for sexual assault. This is interesting in that the issue was addressed in a provincial legislature in 1992 and yet it takes the federal government another three years to address it at the federal level.

The government is not in the vicinity of the eight ball at all. It has not recognized as a matter of urgent priority those victims suffering because of legislative inadequacy.

In 1994 an ad hoc committee of women for reform of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act submitted a discussion paper on why subsection 178(1) needs to be amended. I will summarize some of the benefits it believes will result by amending the act.

It avoids a negative public perception regarding the impact of bankruptcy on sexual assault judgments and consequent disrepute of the act. It sends a clear message to sexual abusers that the act cannot be used to avoid payments as a result of judgments.

It deters abusers by eliminating a means of escaping the cost to be paid for sexual abuse. It provides greater certainty for victims, the courts, trustees in bankruptcy and the superintendent.

It provides a greater likelihood that victims who are able to realize civil judgments will be able to pay for their own treatment and will be less likely to be dependent on an already overburdened social services resources.

It provides consistency with current federal initiatives to lessen the burden on the social safety net. Abusers will be made to bear the costs of the victims' recovery process rather than society as a whole or the victims themselves.

A lawyer friend of mine who suggested the amendment has been pressing both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry to make such changes that I have included in my bill.

I will read a letter the Minister of Industry sent to my friend on April 6, 1995:

My colleague, the honourable Minister of Justice, recently sent me a copy of your letter of August 16, 1994 recommending that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to include awards of damages in serious assault cases among those not released by a discharge in bankruptcy. I regret the delay in replying to you.

Your letter is quite timely, as I am now considering a number of possible BIA amendments to be included in a bill targeted for introduction later in the spring or in the fall. Among the amendments under consideration is one along the lines you have proposed. Your letter argues strongly in favour of such an amendment, and it will be given due consideration.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the government's attention.

On November 24, 1995 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-109, which included amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including a change to subsection 178(1). I applaud the minister for his recent initiative. I wish the change could have come about sooner, but I understand the minister wanted to make many amendments to the act besides my proposal.

On page 61 of Bill C-109 and carrying over to page 62, there is a small section that reads:

Subsection 178(1) of the act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a): (a.1) any award of damages by a court in civil proceedings in respect of an assault;

The minister's bill finally attempts to fill in the loophole, but I am suggesting my wording is better. The government bill deals only with the word assault, which is from the Criminal Code. My bill deals with both assault and the purely civil tort created from the historical term battery.

It also deals with interest on moneys on such civil awards, which the government bill overlooks. I am also now suggesting that in view of further advice, the term interest on moneys awarded should apply to the whole section 178, not just to the assault award section as suggested.

In addition, the bill should include the term wrongful death.

Currently the government bill envisions that an assaulter will not be cleared of civil liability damages and bankruptcy, but if the assault is serious enough to eventually cause death then the offender becomes free. The inherent message is for the perpetrator to do more harm and actually kill the victim. Then the civil liabilities will not survive the bankruptcy. That angle must also be covered.

I have discussed these provisions with the minister. I will be looking for some positive moves from him in the next week. He should publicly promise to approve the appropriate clauses of Bill C-109 so that perhaps I might find it acceptable to withdraw my bill and have the government fully take over my initiative.

So far the minister has appeared co-operative and open to discussions. I compliment him for bringing Bill C-109 forward. It is a technical clean-up of many outdated sections of the old statute which was based on reviews and consultations that were started by the Conservative government of the last Parliament. The minister has appropriately built on that beginning and we look forward to speedy passage. I hope I will be able to report to Parliament that as legislators we will get this thing done.

Victims of crime should wear no political label. I commemorated again for our party on December 6 the national tragedy of the murder of the 14 women from Montreal. The 14 roses on display in the Commons lobby on December 6 were a sober reminder of the obligation of Parliament and what it owes to victims of all kinds from every region of the country.

The platitudes have reached high levels in the House for years now about the remembrance of December 6. Yet little in actual legislation has been passed that directly uplifts the plight of victims. However, with my bill we have a practical and concrete chance to act positively. We will see if the Liberals social philosophy can measure up to the expectations of mainstream Canadian values and the hopes and aspirations of Canadians even from an ignored British Columbia.

I am being very direct in my comments, for the hopes of hurting children and grandparents were dashed by uncaring Liberals on the justice committee this week when a private member's bill from the member for Mission-Coquitlam granting grandparents legal standing in divorce courts was summarily dismissed. It was shot down by the government after many brave Liberal backbenchers dared defy cabinet signals on the bill and actually vote for change. They voted for the real people's agenda. They voted for the people. Then the top down Liberal mindset took over and the old style political games were played by the government against the hopes of ordinary people.

Here we have it again: Liberal members not supporting victims. They cannot deny it. Their jaws are quivering, but their votes are now forever part of the parliamentary record. The pattern runs deep with them. It has been allowed to run too long for our country's well-being.

Can one wonder when I reflect the cynicism about government from my constituents? They feel government is something done to them rather than for them. In mock amazement the justice minister said to me on national television that I was too cynical when I recounted to him a few of the missed justice system reforms that he as the minister had chosen not to pursue. I cannot be too hard on him. After all he has an educational handicap in that he is a lawyer.

Here is another initiative placed right in the lap of the Liberals, private member's Bill C-323. This measure is not supposed to be handled in a partisan manner. The country is watching. I hope the House will get it right this time and fully support the kind of initiative I have brought forward to help victims of crime and have perpetrators pay for and restore what they have done. Let us have offenders directly accountable to victims.

I am encouraged that uncharacteristically of Liberals the Minister of Industry might not be as misguided as the justice minister when it comes to being in touch with mainstream Canadian values. We all know how good people can become rather strange when they acquire an extensive legal education and then call themselves

lawyers. This minister seems reasonable enough to spread the credit around and advance the people's agenda rather than merely a Liberal agenda. In view of the early signals I have received from the Minister of Industry, I am hopeful that my bill, or more correctly the people's measures, will get to the next stage.

I urge members to dig deep, overcome themselves, be generous of spirit and support a good idea. I am also calling upon the Minister of Industry to give the proposals most serious consideration.

[World Pipe Band Championships, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, every August in Glasgow, Scotland, the World Pipe Band Championships are held. This year Burnaby's Simon Fraser University finished first in the elite competition.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating each of the band members for outstanding achievement and first class representation of Canada.

The pipers are Pipe Major Terry Lee, Pipe Sergeant Jack Lee, Andrew Bonar, Dani Brin, Richard Brown, Alan Campbell, Colin Clansey, Dave Hicks, David Hilder, Shaunna Hilder, Anthony Kerr, Robert MacLeod, Tamara MacLeod, Robert MacNeil, Bruce McIntosh, Bonnie McKain, Lachlan McWilliams, Derek Milloy, Pat Napper and Bruce Woodley.

The drummers are Lead Drummer J. Reid Maxwell, Blair Brown, Keith Clark, Callum Hannah, Karen Hinchey, Kathy MacPherson, Scott MacNeil, John Nichol, Colin Nicol, Roland Reid, Christine Rickson and Dan Weeks.

These are true world champions.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate December 6 which remains in our national conscience for the death of the women students in Montreal. Last year on this day, in response to hyperbole on the government side, I questioned the sincerity of some Liberal members. A year has now passed and it is time to examine the government's record of how little has been accomplished to really change things on behalf of victims.

We now have more gun regulation that will not make the Montreal murders less likely to occur again. Victims still have no comprehensive special standing in the courts and the Criminal Code. We still have section 745 which releases murderers early and my private member's bill for victims is still to be dealt with by the House.

I call on the government, in view of the well-meaning sentiments that are always heard on this day, that by this time next year may we have substantive changes to the law which will bring meaning to the remembrance of this day. May it be said of the House that while being right, we could also do what is right.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, certainly stalling has been basically our position all along because of the appeal situation in the United States. Our position, which was purported to support the MMT bill, has been well pointed out in the House and at committee.

When I began to cross-examine some of the evidence at committee, for instance the sparkplug evidence, it turned out to be fake. I demolished the testimony of the person who had the nerve to come to the table and put forward evidence that turned out to be completely erroneous.

That is why the government has been very reluctant to agree to independent third party testing. It has rejected that down the line. However I understand some groups are getting together in the United States to have independent third party testing to be able to remove the pressure of lobby groups.

Certainly our party has not been siding with any particular lobby group. Right from the beginning we have been asking for independent third party tests. My colleague asks who stands up for science. We wonder about the government and what lobby groups it is supporting.

The delay is to see what will happen in the United States and certainly this is an ill advised bill that should die.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if the minister is lucky, her Bill C-94 banning gas additives will stall before it backfires.

An innocuous-sounding piece of federal legislation supposedly aimed at reducing auto emissions has left critics wondering whether the Liberal government hasn't inhaled one noxious substance too many.

The bill we are debating, the manganese based fuel additive bill, would ban a gasoline additive called MMT.

Environment Minister Sheila Copps has made the rather dramatic claims that the move will make auto emissions 600 percent cleaner, while saving car buyers an average of $3,000 on the next family clunker. Unfortunately for all, there is considerable evidence that the issue is made up of equal parts of clean air and the hot variety.

A growing number of critics of the legislation-including provincial environment ministers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-fear a ban on MMT may actually cause a dramatic increase in choking tailpipe filth, while causing higher gas prices.

MMT has been added to Canadian gasoline since 1977, primarily to increase octane levels.

It was mentioned that it was banned in the United States. That is not particularly the case. It was never really approved because of some early concerns and then it got involved in extensive court battles. Specifically, it was never banned because it was seen as a dangerous substance; it just never received approval.

The alternative is enhanced oil-refining, at greater cost to the petroleum companies and, inevitably, consumers.

Of course that would involve other additives, which may also prove eventually much more harmful than MMT was ever contemplated to be. There is also evidence that MMT may significantly cut smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, or what we commonly call NOx.

But the automobile companies claim MMT gums up their emission-control warning systems, possibly causing the malfunction indicator lights on the dashboard to malfunction. If drivers don't know they have a problem with

emission control, the industry argues, they will unwittingly be poisoning the air even more than usual.

The alternative of fixing the cars instead of the fuel, according to the federal environment minister, would increase the average car price by $3,000.

One official spokesman for the minister said that "On this particular issue, the evidence she has seen-has provided her with enough to get this bill through cabinet and the House". The cabinet dealt with this in a far too cursory manner.

That so-called "evidence" is contained in four separate reports-three written by various automobile lobby organizations, the fourth at the request of General Motors. No surprise; all concluded MMT was pretty terrible stuff.

As it happens, there are a few other studies floating around. Health Canada, for instance, concluded MMT poses no particular health risk.

I recall looking at my vitamin bottle, and manganese is on the vitamin pill list. It is a matter of trace amounts or whatever. The studies that were quoted by the parliamentary secretary talk about giving rats an unusual amount of the concentrated substance. I would think that any vitamin given in a disproportionate amount is going to cause some deleterious effects to a living organism.

Another mega-study was conducted over a five-year period for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which, until recently, had placed a total ban on MMT additives in gasoline. It was not permitted. The results of the study, in part, last month led the U.S. Court of Appeals to order the environmental agency to approve the use of MMT in unleaded gas.

We are waiting for December 5, which is the cut-off date for any filing of appeals. Certainly the motion before the House today would accommodate that wait and see approach to see how the world is generally going to move on this item.

The U.S. court ruling also blew the engine on the minister's argument that, as a trade issue, it was vital to harmonize Canadian and U.S. standards on MMT.

One effect of the U.S. court ruling is that it compelled the American automakers and petroleum industry to launch a new joint study into MMT and the whacky warning lights.

Given the amount of conflicting evidence presented by both sides, the five provincial environment ministers have suggested Copps put the brakes on her pet legislation, at least until the U.S. joint study has been completed.

Even within the Liberal cabinet, we are told, some ministers seem concerned that Copps' determination to ram the MMT legislation through has more to do with her personal political agenda (e.g., saving face) than practical environmental considerations.

Copps's rhetoric on this issue has been so forceful, retreating from the legislation now would produce more political egg than she has face to wear.

Fortunately for her, there is a graceful way out. The Commons is expected to prorogue some time next month, meaning this session of Parliament will be officially declared dead, along with all unpassed bills. In the meantime, the bill still has to go to the Senate, which, if Copps is really lucky, will tie up the bill till prorogation do it part.

This anti free trade bill should die. I think MMT is about to be used around the world. Many countries are not using it now because it is not being used in the United States. They are watching what will happen in the United States. If the American industry begins to use it, many countries are ready to follow suit.

The EPA will be completely out of the picture on December 5. The government should be embarrassed about this bill. It knows it and we know it. Let common sense prevail.

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-83, which will amend the Auditor General Act.

Should this bill go on from this House to the other place and be given royal assent, Canada will be the proud owner of a brand new environmental commissioner, so it is said. The commissioner will have all the bells and whistles of the limousine, yet little gas to drive the wheels. The hands of the commissioner will be tied to the auditor general, who will ultimately have the final say on everything the commissioner does.

I want to read a promise from the Liberals' red book on page 64:

Our second task will be to appoint an Environmental Auditor General, reporting directly to Parliament, with powers of investigation similar to the powers of the Auditor General.

I want to briefly compare this promise to what is proposed in Bill C-83. The red book promises that the environmental auditor general would report directly to Parliament. Bill C-83 has the commissioner reporting to Parliament through the auditor general under his office, which is hardly what one would call direct.

Reformers believe that the environment should be protected. We believe there is a place for critical review of what the government is doing with respect to the protection of the environment. It is our wish that this person be objective and independent as well as critical. It is also our wish that this person fit within fiscal reality.

Some Liberal members across the floor may think I am referring to exactly what is in Bill C-83, but I suggest that they read the bill a little more closely.

The commissioner cannot be an independent figure. In fact the commissioner might as well be a clerk of the auditor general. In other words, the commissioner is simply a staff member of the auditor general's office and subject to the larger pressures and priorities of that office.

I want to reassure members of the House that Reform is not opposed to the internal structure of the bill. We are simply opposed to the fact that money is being spent on a lot of status building trappings for a person whose job is already performed by the auditor general.

During the environment committee's clause by clause consideration of the bill, the Reform Party proposed that any reference to the word "commissioner" be dropped and replaced by the term "auditor general". I was not surprised to see that our amendment was voted down. It would be a cardinal sin, would it not, for any government member to vote in favour of an opposition amendment. We know how the petulant Prime Minister likes to punish his members.

I believe our amendment would have strengthened the bill in efficiency as well as cost effectiveness. Allow me to explain that point.

We all know that the auditor general makes reports on how the government is undertaking certain environmental initiatives. Most recently, in his 1994 report, the auditor general reported on the environmental partners fund and the ice services branch of the Atmospheric Environmental Service. In the 1995 report Mr. Desautels reported on environmental management systems and environmental hazardous wastes. Allow me to briefly go through the report on hazardous wastes from the May 1995 report. The auditor general cites background information, audit objectives, observations and recommendations on the storage and destruction of PCBs.

It is no secret to Canadians that as a country we have a tremendous problem with PCB waste. We have been stockpiling the contaminated wastes for years. Now we are trying to get rid of it at the lowest possible cost. I read recently that Canadian companies hold a total of 127,025 tonnes of PCBs at 3,216 storage sites across the country. This number includes 495 federal sites containing 5,206 tonnes.

This is outrageous. What is even more scandalous is the fact that the government continues to do little about it. The minister may talk of studies that are being done, but studies are not going to help the people of Sydney, Nova Scotia, home of one of Canada's most polluted industrial wastelands. The Sydney tar ponds are presently contaminated by over 700,000 tonnes of toxic chemicals, including PCBs, coal tar, volatile aromatics, acid drainage and raw sewage. The minister says that progress is being made. Yet to date less than 90 tonnes of waste have been incinerated, not even 1 per cent.

We are not talking about storage sites holding newspapers or pop cans waiting to be recycled. These are sites holding a substance banned in Canada in the late 1970s. It is a dangerous toxic site and it is harmful to health.

In many communities laden with a PCB problem, a steady rise in the cancer rate is not uncommon. In fact Sydney is now known as Canada's cancer capital, with a rate almost three times the national average.

The auditor general's report on managing hazardous waste outlines the role Environment Canada should play in the management of PCBs. It states the following:

The Department provides the federal voice at CCME and federal leadership in the development and implementation of federal-provincial initiatives to regulate the use of PCBs and the storage and destruction of PCB wastes. The Department also spearheads the federal part of the national initiative by co-ordinating the activities of federal owners of PCBs and providing advice to both headquarters and regional levels on the storage, transportation and treatment of PCB waste.

In May 1994 the auditor general put forward his report on the management of hazardous waste. Now, one year and six months later, what has the federal government done to improve the PCB problem? Nothing. What is the government going to do? I am open to hear all the answers; however, I believe they will perhaps maintain the status quo. Again, the status quo really is nothing. I doubt that a commissioner will make much difference.

The auditor general clearly spelled out for the government that PCB sites need to be cleaned up. How much more can I stress the point the auditor general made? He did not say it would be simply a good idea to clean up the sites. Rather, he stated that it was essential in order that the health of Canadians would not be put in jeopardy.

The government did not respond to the report. Therefore, if the government is clearly not acting on the auditor general's reports, I want to know what will be so special about the reports that will be written by the commissioner that will make the government act. Perhaps when we have time for questions and comments some hon. members from the government benches will be able to enlighten me on how they would be more apt to follow the warnings of the commissioner when they do not now follow those of the auditor general.

Bill C-83 will give us an environmental commissioner, which we are told will whip the government into shape with respect to environmental issues. That is something the auditor general has apparently been trying to do.

The bill outlines that the commissioner will have several tasks to undertake. One of those tasks is the handling of petitions. A resident of Canada will now be able to file a petition concerning an environmental matter in the context of sustainable development. The commissioner would then forward it to the appropriate minister for whom the petition was intended. The recipient minister would then be required to acknowledge receipt of the petition within 15 days. In addition, that same minister would be required to respond to the petition within four months. In the bill it notes that the four-month period might be extended by the minister if the petitioner and the auditor general were both notified that it would not be possible to respond within the allotted four months.

What the bill is really saying is that we need legislated permission for someone to write a complaint letter. Maybe with this new wrinkle the minister might even answer the mail.

Another duty of the new commissioner will be to monitor whether or not federal departments have met the objectives set out in their sustainable development strategies. The bill's amendment to section 24 would require that each federal department prepare a sustainable development strategy and table it in the House of Commons. Departments will have to table their strategies within

two years of the bill coming into force. After that, strategies would have to be updated every three years.

In a nutshell, this will be the job description of the new environmental commissioner within the auditor general's office. In my opinion, the tasks themselves are reasonable. The monitoring of departments in terms of sustainable development makes sense, especially when the Ministry of the Environment has failed to do its job on this score. The accepting and passing on of petitions is good as well. It is essential that constituents know that the petitions they file are being reviewed and acted on. However, there is a fundamental flaw in the bill. While the bill creates this high profile commissioner, it gives the person no independent power. That option was rejected by the government.

I mentioned that the job description in the bill was reasonable, and I believe that monitoring may make a difference. However, there is no need to create a commissioner to follow through on these objects when the auditor general still has the final say, and his officials have been doing the job for some time.

I believe that all of the above mentioned responsibilities could be taken on by the auditor general and be performed effectively and efficiently on a regular basis if he were given the resources. However, I can clearly see why the Minister of the Environment chose to go the route she did. It makes it look as if the government is moving ahead with its environmental responsibilities and fulfilling this longstanding promise. I believe we call this window dressing.

We are in a time of fiscal crisis. The deficit is out of control and things appear to be getting worse instead of better. We need to be tightening our belts instead of loosening them. Government departments need to be amalgamated and consolidated to streamline services. We need to save money at every turn.

The same applies to the issue we are discussing today in the bill. While the ideas are reasonable, the process is not. The duties of the environmental commissioner should be part of the auditor general's regular duties. The auditor general could easily expand and juggle his staff to help in the monitoring of government departments and the transferring of petitions from constituent to minister.

Such a small ordinary solution would not make the minister look environmentally green among her international cohorts. The Liberals overreaching undeliverable promises are now revealed. This is exactly the fundamental problem with the thinking of the government. Image seems to be everything.

Let me inform the Minister of the Environment of what I am hearing from my constituents about how governments should run. They want government to function without the flare and the Cadillac style. They want a government that is fiscally responsible and accountable. They also want an environment minister who puts environmental results at the top of the agenda within a fiscally responsible framework.

The bill creates redundancy. I have never heard where redundancy was a synonym for responsibility.

In May 1994 the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report entitled "The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development". This was the result of many long hours of hearing witnesses and reviewing documentation. I have highlighted some very interesting observations, primarily some from the comments made by the auditor general, Mr. Desautels. He told the committee that his office has for many years "been carrying out much of what would be the main audit responsibilities of an environmental auditor general".

The auditor general also stated that the office, referring to the current auditor general's office, will ensure that in carrying out its responsibilities it makes a positive contribution through audit to the protection and improvement of the national and global environment.

In my reading of the standing committee's report my conclusion was that the auditor general also thinks that his office could handle the increased responsibility and assume the role of monitoring the sustainable development strategies of federal departments.

I want the House to hear the six points the auditor general made when he appeared before the committee on why his office could continue to audit environmental sustainable development issues without any commissioner.

First, there would be no need for a new bureaucracy as an audit infrastructure already exists in the office of the auditor general. It would be less costly to the taxpayer as the office already has the structure in place to provide appropriate training, carry out research, develop methodology and carry out audit work.

Second, the independence, objectivity and credibility of the office of the auditor general are already established.

Third, there would be no confusion or duplication of roles as there might be with a new office of the environmental auditor general.

Fourth, the principles of sustainable development would be reinforced in that the environmental issues are audited together with economic and social ones.

Fifth, one auditor would create less disruption in the organization being audited if an additional external audit were also at work.

Sixth, the auditor general's office through its existing relationships with provincial legislative auditors can promote concurrent and/or joint federal-provincial audits of multi-jurisdictional environmental issues. This could help to overcome some of the

problems related to the division of federal and provincial powers concerning environmental matters.

There is no question that the auditor general could undertake a more expansive role. He has said it to members of the standing committee. More important, if we were to ask the average person on the street we would discover that the vast majority is totally opposed to new levels of bureaucracy.

My constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby feel there is already far too much bureaucracy in government. When they find out that the government is passing legislation to add another level, my office phone might ring off the hook.

I refer to another important statement in the committee's report which reflects exactly what the Reform proposed in clause by clause consideration in committee:

-it would appear that the Auditor General Act does not need to be amended in order for the auditor general, on his own volition, to expand his audit activities in the areas of environmental and sustainable development auditing.

On the other hand, the act will have to be amended if the government wishes to make environmental and sustainability auditing a mandatory activity. The committee members were of the opinion that the Auditor General Act should be amended to this effect.

The Reform Party believes in sustainable development. We believe that through responsible economic development and the economic capacity that results, the environment will be sustained for all Canadians to enjoy.

Let me also say that the Reform Party supports the federal government taking leadership in developing a new discipline of integrating economics and the environment. However, while we support the truest definition of sustainable development we also support going about change in the most economical and pragmatic way possible.

Bill C-83 is definitely not cost effective. The installation of the environmental commissioner could cost upwards of $5 million in the next few years. We should consider the amount that was spent by the auditor general's office in 1993. In this year $4.5 million or 7.5 per cent of the entire auditor general's budget was spent on audits of programs and activities of the federal government.

I do not believe that the activities of the commissioner will need $5 million to operate. If the auditor general's office were to get just a portion of that amount, I am sure it would be able to hire the appropriate staff and perform the functions of the commissioner very admirably. However, we know it is about prestige and status. Prestige will be bought with a huge no cut contract for some so-called superstar and his or her appropriate entourage.

I cannot support a bill that does not take economic matters into consideration. If the government were serious about doing the right thing, it would have accepted Reform's proposal to get rid of the aspect of commissioner and hand over the responsibilities to the auditor general. Unfortunately such was not the case.

The environmental community and the Liberals when in opposition wanted a completely independent watchdog of the government concerning environmental matters. They saw the policy need and the need related to control, lines of accountability and the reporting structure. The independent commissioner was to have meaningful investigative powers and was intended to embarrass and expose laxity, rule breaking and poor administration on environmental matters. Now that the Liberals are in government the red book's high sounding phrases are only phrases. The bill it has now brought forward as a government is much less than what it promised.

The decision has been made: no independent commissioner or environmental auditor general. If we are not to have one, why not facilitate the auditor general's office with a little more resources and some enhanced legislative mandate and encourage him to get on with it? Not the Liberals; they want it both ways.

There will be business as usual but the bill also creates a new title under auditor general who has a position identified and set out with legislative status. With a magic wand we have an environmental commissioner. There are great press release opportunities, a high profile appointment and international advertising for the position. I wonder if the superstar contract will be larger than the boss to whom he reports, the auditor general.

If we have to spend more on environmental auditing, it should give the auditor general some resources and an enhanced mandate. It should not try to fool the public into thinking that it has something that was promised. The government should do one or the other. I can imagine the morale problems these new favoured environmental kids will cause in the regular office of the auditor general.

The bill does not make sense from a public administration point of view. The whole exercise as constituted is not likely to be good dollar value. The bill tries to take things both ways, but no one is fooled. Either we have a real auditor general for the environment or we do not.

If it is to be a subset and a listed function of the current auditor general, let us be forthright about it. The expensive optics game of the bill is out of sync with what the country wants and needs. Whom are we trying to impress? Is it the public or maybe the senior deputy ministers of various ministries of the crown who have failed so far to fulfil their environmental duty under the law?

I am not buying it and I do not think the public will either. When Reformers are the ministers, the auditor general report will be regarded and acted on quickly and there will not be any overpaid superstar commissioner.

[Irving Whale, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister needs to accept ministerial responsibility for the actions of her own department.

On March 18, 1994 the minister tabled the 1992 report to which I referred. I would think if the minister tabled the material she is responsible for its contents. She has known since the tabling that PCBs were on board the Irving Whale barge.

It is amazing that the environment minister calls for a police investigation when the fault lies with her. Will the minister accept the responsibility for the report which she tabled and take the blame for the mishaps of her department, an open ended cost so far of $12 million with still no results?

[Irving Whale, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. I was not imputing motive.