Benoît Sauvageau

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think that forestry is a provincial responsibility, like natural resources, education-

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, these statements attributed to my leader concern the environment in general and not the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To be able to analyze or answer a clear question, one must compare oranges and oranges. The member quotes statements made by the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois when he was environment minister and

spoke in general terms about ecology and the environment. I do agree with my leader, as I often if not always do, that environment is a national issue, an international issue, an issue for everyone of us to consider.

Liberal members say that they are very concerned about the environment. Obviously, they are and so are, I am convinced, the NDP members, and the Reform members. We are too. But that is not the question.

The question is this: When dealing with environmental assessment and standards, should Quebec's jurisdiction be respected as agreed after the Constitution, since there is nothing about it in either the 1867 Constitution or the patriated one? I believe that we should respect the areas of jurisdiction which were defined later on.

I also believe that environmental assessment, as Quebec has been proving for a long time, and as the Liberal government in Quebec voted unanimously, should be Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what is the question? This is certainly a nice speech. I congratulate the hon. member. I would like to know where the members for Outremont and Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine were when the time came to speak for Quebec regarding a debt of $34 million owed to the province by their government.

As I recall, they applauded when their Prime Minister and leader said: "We will not give you that money back". And they were disappointed when the debt was paid to Quebec. That was certainly not the issue.

If pollution knows no borders and if Quebec should not get involved, then why should Canada? Let the United States look after the pollution problem.

I do not really understand that argument which they keep repeating to us, namely that pollution knows no borders. They say Quebec should not get involved because pollution knows no borders. Canada should not look after that problem for the same reason. This argument is somewhat fallacious and it is not very solid. I invite the hon. member to attend the meetings of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He will learn a lot.

As regards the pulp and paper sector, an administrative agreement was indeed signed. Our committee met officials from pulp and paper companies. These people do not know all the details yet. The reports do not clearly define how harmonization will proceed. Some consultations have taken place, but no tax agreement was signed and that issue is also not clear. This is my answer to the hon. member. If he has any other questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague from Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis that I understood something from his speech. He is in favour of doing away with overlapping provided the issue is resolved in favour of the federal government. I think I understood that correctly. We are against overlaps, move over, we will take all the room, this way everybody will be happy. Except he was not quite that blunt.

It is with great interest that I rise to speak on Bill C-56 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That legislation was to create a new agency to assess all projects which could have an environmental impact. As you will notice, there is no way I can agree with that legislation. Indeed, as an elected representative from Quebec and a defender of Quebec's interest, I must express my dissatisfaction with the federal government's interference with provincial affairs.

As we all know-and the Minister of the Environment knows it as well-there is in Quebec, as in other Canadian provinces, an office of environmental assessment. We call it the BAPE. The mandate of this bureau is to assess projects that have an environmental impact, and it has acquired an international reputation. Quebec is a leader in the area of environmental assessment.

Moreover, the new Minister of the Environment in Quebec announced recently that they would legislate to include assessment of industrial projects into the existing assessment process, even though these projects were already assessed by his department. The Bureau d'audiences publiques pour l'environnement, or BAPE, is a complete, efficient, open and credible process, which answers very well the needs of the population.

The federal government, by promulgating this legislation and tabling regulations on a wide range of projects, imposes a standard system to all provinces regardless of the work already done by the bureau, in Quebec. The Quebec assessment process is operating smoothly and it has proven its worth. Therefore, the federal assessment process will only superimpose itself, adding to the many duplications we already have in our federal system. This bureau will make public administration more cumbersome and the debt will keep on growing.

There will be a Quebec bureau and a Canadian agency, both dedicated to the evaluation of projects which could have an impact on the environment. Not only will this situation make public administration more cumbersome and very costly, but it will also be the source of tremendous headaches for proponents who will never know to whom they should report. Moreover, there is no set timeframe, which could unduly prolong the federal evaluation process.

On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact, as I said earlier, that the previous Liberal government in Quebec was strongly opposed to this bill. Mr. Pierre Paradis, the then environment minister, who was a strong supporter of Canadian federalism, denounced this bill, going as far as saying, appearing before the Senate, that this piece of legislation was a reflection of a domineering and authoritarian federalism. It is Mr. Paradis, a strong supporter of federalism, and not separatists, who shed this light on this bill.

Needless to say, at the time, the National Assembly had unanimously supported the environment and wildlife minister in his fight. What we are talking about here has nothing to do with political affiliation or petty squabbles; it is simply a matter of plain common sense. Quebecers are outraged by the ludicrousness of this bill and of the situation it is creating and will create. The total lack of flexibility on the part of this government which refuses to take the Quebec process into account while amending the act, should not come as a surprise.

Moreover, the government seems to forget that the issue of environmental assessment is part of the federal-provincial harmonization process, as the parliamentary secretary to the environment minister mentioned earlier. The process is part of the agenda of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, but while discussions are still ongoing, the federal government decides to interfere. What is the point then of having any discussion? We can easily predict what the famous four-year, $12 million health forum will result in. The report must already be written and just waiting to be published. The government forgot that the federal-provincial environment harmonization process was on the agenda. To what extent should we trust this exercise if, at the very first opportunity, the government overlooks Quebec's demands and recommendations?

The government is lending a deaf ear to Quebecers, in spite of the fact that they have unanimously expressed their displeasure loud and clear.

I would like to quote a member from the other party, the Liberal member for Ottawa Centre. "The time has come for the different levels of government to agree on a somewhat clearer definition of jurisdictions". That is a Liberal speaking. "It seems to me that the two levels of government should get together on matters of environment". We agree with that. "The minister should take a deep breath, go back a ways and consider this goal, that is the co-operation of all parties concerned with environmental protection". Quebec is one of them. "The gov-

ernment must make sure everybody follows suit because if another level of government does not approve of federal measures, this bill is doomed to failure". These are his own words.

By its attitude the federal government is mocking the intelligence and common sense of Quebecers. After having flouted their legitimate claims, how can the government come back to the table in order to integrate federal and provincial assessment processes? In any case, after such an insult, there will be one player missing at the table, the Quebec Minister of Environment having recalled his players to Quebec.

As a result, there will be another unavoidable confrontation, this time on environmental matters. Considering the government's attitude about this question, the future of these negotiations is not promising. Moreover, with Bill C-56, the government is charging blindly in an area where jurisdictions are very vaguely defined.

As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision regarding Friends of the Old Man Society , ``in the context of a federal constitution, environmental management should not be considered as a constitutional unit coming under only one level of government''.

It is obvious in this case that the government is ignoring the recommendations it has received from all sides on the issue of the environment.

Moreover, the minister is trying to minimize the controversy about Bill C-56 by mentioning that this bill was first introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was himself environment minister.

As Mr. Yergeau, a lawyer specialized in environmental law, explained so clearly in an article published in a 1992 issue of the daily newspaper Le Devoir , many words are being put in Mr. Bouchard's mouth after the fact. In addition, must we remind our friends opposite, who can have a short memory at times, that Mr. Bouchard has since found out that the federal system does not work and never will? He has had the courage of his convictions and left the party. That too should be pointed out.

In a speech given on November 3, 1989, the Leader of the Opposition said that the governments should take note of the three realities dictated by the very nature of environmental problems to be resolved. About the second reality, he said-and I am repeating the quote from my colleague from Laurentides because it is very important to understand this-that in grey areas, where the roles were not clearly defined in the Constitution, co-operation was essential. He added that, at a time when we were realizing that fighting for the environment is fighting for life itself and that this fight must be taken up worldwide and not be limited to our individual jurisdictions, our fellow citizens would not understand and even less tolerate a wrestling match between federal and provincial politicians.

This certainly puts matters in perspective, I would say. Clearly, the federal government approach was not in keeping with the spirit of the bill. In addition, the legislation introduced today incorporates major amendments which are in line with the bill the Leader of the Opposition introduced five years ago, in 1989. The legislative committee to which the bill was referred made some very substantial changes to it in December 1991, and several technical changes were made to the legislation between December 1991 and June 1992. It is therefore inappropriate to present this bill as coming from the Leader of the Opposition. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then.

In conclusion, the only consequence of this bill will be, once again, to foster duplication under our federal system. Quebecers rose up and unanimously expressed their dissatisfaction through all the means at their disposal, but the federal government, again, did not listen to them.

Even federalists recognized the absurdity of putting in place a second review panel, but no one listened to them. Even during negotiations to harmonize federal and provincial efforts in this area, the federal government seized the first opportunity to reject Quebec's demands. It is bad faith, pure and simple.

We are constantly being reminded that it is a red book promise. The government failed to deliver on many of the environmental commitments in the red book. Fortunately, the Liberal Party recognized the foolishness of appointing an auditor for sustainable development and the environment as promised in the red book and was smart enough to put forward the recommendations included in the Bloc Quebecois's minority report.

As for the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2000, it was disavowed by the minister herself. She could not or would not understand that an environmental goal placed under the responsibility of another department-in this case, Energy Canada-was totally inconsistent.

As far as the environment is concerned, the Liberals would undoubtedly like to see some pages of the red book disappear, probably through recycling.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a short question of the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. I will not take all of the ten minutes and I will leave ample time for him to answer. As he said before in his speech, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis was Minister of the Environment in the Quebec government at one point.

I would like him to explain in clear and simple terms how he can justify his support for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act when his former government, through the former Minister for the Environment, Mr. Paradis-if we can mention his name in this House-succeeded in obtaining unanimity in the provincial legislature, not only a sovereignist vote, not only a partisan vote, but unanimity, on the position of the then Liberal government of Quebec, his former government, being against any intrusion on the part of the federal government in the area of environmental assessment.

I think the former Minister of the Environment could easily explain the change of opinion he experienced while going from the Quebec to the Ottawa government.

[Greenhouse Gases, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent conference of leaders in the natural gas industry, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy revealed the government's new strategy for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Instead of reducing Canadian emissions of greenhouse gases at the source, Canada is offering financial aid to reduce emissions in various developing countries.

Such a strategy sends a clear message to the industrialized countries that they do not have to act themselves to reduce their own emissions of polluting gases. This new strategy is nothing more or less than an admission of failure by this government, which refuses to put on the table and analyse all concrete measures to reduce the greenhouse effect in Canada, as it promised to do in 1992.

[Doubled-Hulled Ships, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to questions put to her in this House as to whether Canada had passed legislation on double hulling, the Minister of the Environment asserted in a sarcastic tone of voice that such legislation existed and had in fact been passed in 1993, did she not? How can the minister reconcile this statement made in this House on four separate occasions and the one made in Vancouver yesterday, when she said that there was no act on double-hulled ships and that, if such an act did exist, it would have the effect of shutting down the port of Vancouver?

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies. I want to tell him that I feel less secure, especially when we hear the number one officer of CSIS say to the committee which is supposed to solve all the problems: "I have learned never to say yes or no."

That is what the number one officer of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says. He says to the subcommittee which is supposed to solve all the problems: "We do not need any royal commission because we have a subcommittee. I have learned never to say yes or no." The other witnesses appearing before the subcommittee never want to answer the questions.

Therefore, do I feel secure? No. Do we need a royal inquiry commission that would be independent instead of a subcommittee with a majority of Liberals? My answer is yes.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think that, as elected representatives, we are entitled to know the main organizations who manage this country and Quebec.

The hon. member opposite said: "We monitor conversations that can be detrimental to national unity". Given what we hear in this House, does that mean they can eavesdrop on conversations in Quebec? Surely not, but one has to wonder.

Concerning the translation of his book, he could have done like one of his former colleagues, Senator Hébert, and have it translated in the Senate. Our only question is: Why should we have a security intelligence service without any supervision scanning the airwaves and recording conversations around us?

My hon. colleague wrote a book on secret services. I would like to know why the 117 recommendations made by the committee have never been implemented. If there is no secret, why do we read things like this: "The CSE headquarters is located in the south end of Ottawa in a building surrounded by a high fence topped by barbed wire. The roof is covered with a myriad of antennas, but the name of the occupant is nowhere to be seen. If you try to take a picture-and let this be a warning to Canadians-you will most probably be challenged within minutes". But there is nothing secret.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my speech by pointing out that a review committee was set up in 1990 precisely to reform the CSIS Act. The committee members were astonished to find out about another organization called the Communications Security Establishment, commonly known as CSE, and the extent of its powers.

CSE comes directly under the Department of National Defence. It is a collateral organization similar to CSIS. According to the sub-committee's estimates, CSE has a supposedly secret budget of about $200 million, even though the House of Commons or any of its committees or sub-committees has no say in CSE's activities.

As I said, CSE's budget is buried away in the overall budget of the Department of National Defence so that we cannot come up with an exact figure. Using estimates, the sub-committee reckoned at the time that CSE had a budget of about $200 million over which we have no control.

Even worse, the members of this 1990 review committee reported that even SIRC had no say in CSE's intelligence activities. In 1990, this committee made 117 specific recommendations.

Since then, only two or three of these recommendations have been adopted, and by the previous government at that. Why? Because the committee recommended that the Communications Security Establishment be formally set up by a piece of legislation that we could oversee, examine and review.

The committee also wanted SIRC to ensure that CSE's activities were carried out in accordance with the law and to report to Parliament.

Why were the members of the 1990 review committee so concerned, and what exactly is CSE? In an article published last May, the daily newspaper Le Droit explained a little bit what could be learned about CSE and I quote: ``The Communications Security Establishment carries out its activities in total secrecy, resorting to electronic surveillance to pick up messages from many areas of the world. This high-tech equipment, which is worth tens of millions of dollars-and is apparently among the most sophisticated in the world-can pick up messages to

troops stationed in Siberia or even listen to your own private telephone conversations with friends overseas." All that in the name of security.

CSE provides intelligence services akin to those of CSIS, but without reporting to Parliament. Both agencies also signed a memorandum of understanding on cooperation. The activities that are carried out in the Chomley Building, in Ottawa, where hundreds of CSE employees work on nine floors full of top secret electronic surveillance equipment, are very similar to those of the CSIS.

The same year, the Ottawa Citizen reported that a device supposedly allowed CSE to listen to 10,000 telephone conversations all at the same time and to tape specific ones on Iran'' orsovereignty'', for example, just by entering these words in a computer. But it seems we are safe.

Does CSE communicate its intelligence to CSIS? We do not know. Does CSE violate Canadian laws? We do not know. No citizen, no member of Parliament and no member of SIRC knows. Nobody knows. Yet, according to the Solicitor General and his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, SIRC is supposed to review intelligence services on behalf of the members of Parliament who are democratically elected by the people.

How many untold Bristow cases are still to be unveiled inside CSE? It is difficult to say. One has to wonder if ministers across the aisle know more about this than Opposition members. We do not believe they do.

CSE has a staff of 900 civilians and about 1,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It has facilities everywhere in Canada: in Ottawa, in the North and in large cities.

I would like to read another excerpt from the article published in Le Droit which says: ``The work of the CSE is so secret that its 1,000 or so employees are asked never to travel on commercial flights in case the plane is hijacked or they are taken hostage''. But there is nothing to worry about, right?

Does the CSE gather information on legitimate political parties such as the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois? We do not know. Can a citizen make a formal complaint to a monitoring agency? The answer is no. Why do we have a charter of rights and freedoms if CSE employees can, whenever they wish, listen to our phone conversations without prior judicial authorization and without ever having to report to a parliamentary body or an intelligence agency?

In short, the CSE is not monitored by Parliament nor by any other body. The government does not want to ask SIRC to review the activities of the CSE. Nobody knows why. And the Sub-Committee on National Security that everybody on the government side is raving about cannot get any answers from members of SIRC and, I will say it again, has no authority over the CSE.

But there is nothing to worry about. Or so we are told.

That is why we need a royal commission of inquiry to explain to all Canadians and Quebecers as well as to members of this House how intelligence agencies and secret services are constantly keeping track of what we say and do.