Randy White

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

Mr. Speaker, somebody over there said I have an opinion on everything; they are probably right.

The assessment of projects, if I have the question right, is applicable to virtually all projects, big or small. Kemano is a good example and that is being undertaken now of course. I do not think it is not the size of the project. I think it is the effect the project may have on our environment.

I think I have answered the question. I am not quite sure. I will leave it at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually it is Reform Party policy that we would go further than fines for polluters. I am not sure at this point how far in the Criminal Code we would take it. I am sure it is going to be a subject for debate within our own party.

The fact is that fines to major corporations make about as much sense at times as the fines given to drug pushers. Many drug pushers today get $2,000 fines. They turn around and go out and sell whatever they are selling, heroin or crack. They

make that in 20 minutes or less. If we look at that in the context of a corporation making multimillions of dollars, to fine them small $2,000 or $3,000 fines is a waste of time.

There has to be a better way, and I think the better way is through other kinds of penalties. It is not only part of our policy. We will be looking at it in depth as soon as we become government in three years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stop the government from undertaking timely and wasteful studies. I doubt very much whether it even looked at the Conservative studies that were undertaken on the matter before.

There is no question about how much money the government wastes. If I am stuck with a group coming in to talk, I am stuck with it. This is a majority government and we cannot stop it. However I can tell the member that when he comes to the town where I live there will be people asking questions. The government is going to get its dollars worth out of our town because we have a lot to say.

They spend a lot of money over there on studies, grants and whatnot, but this time they will earn their money when they come to our town.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is good news. I would suggest the committee has its hearings outside and breathe a little of the unfiltered air. Maybe that will move it on a bit. Perhaps the committee might even want to bring one of the Bloc members to see that other parts of Canada have similar problems to those in Quebec.

I have another point. The regulations by which we all live, the law or the legislation, are being changed. I trust members of the group that is coming to the Fraser Valley will enlist comments from ordinary residents and get a bit away from the lobby groups. I understand that is important, but they also need to talk to the people who own the houses that are dirty now. They need to talk to the people who are affected, such as farmers. They need to talk to the people who drink that rotten water out there with the nitrates in it.

They really should not surface scratch the issue. They have to go a little deeper and get down to where the problems really are. I hope this is not just another cursory discussion in a community. I will be there and I will be asking some questions along with a whole bunch of regular folk.

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

And post offices, yes.

We must support industrial research and development so that in the future emissions from industry will be subject to controls, such that water discharged from industrial plants will be equal or better quality than the water taken into the plant for its use and gaseous emissions will not be harmful.

Can you imagine having a standard, a principle that high, that the water going out of plants will be of just as high a quality as the water going into plants? That is amazing. Those are tough measures. Those are the standards that we have to set up here. These are the federal standards that my colleague from Davenport was talking about a little while ago.

If we set the federal standards this high and if those of a province are lower, I think most provinces would try to get up to the higher standard, notwithstanding the separatist agenda.

We must support the restoration of programs for those parts of our environment which have been damaged as a result of inadequate regulations or a lack of proper enforcement of the regulations.

This party supports the principle that polluters shall pay for its pollution controls. This should be stringently enforced and the penalties will be severe enough that polluters will not consider them as a licence fee to pollute.

A lot of what I just talked about are principles or guidelines to which the Reform Party adheres. They are not necessarily coming from me but I ascribe to all of them. A lot of these principles that we have fit into where the government is going. That is nice to see.

There are four types of environmental assessments which have been covered to some extent. I want to review them for the folks that are listening and watching and so everyone understands. We have a screening process to assess projects. Then we get a comprehensive study. These are incremental. The screening process is basically for smaller projects. Then we move to a comprehensive study, then to mediation if required and then to a review by an independent public panel.

I have negotiated many labour agreements in my day. I have been in many mediation exercises. I know that is probably the best solution when we run into problems rather than ending up with a black and white issue where the parties are win-lose. Both parties can win in mediation. I commend the government for coming up with mediation. Let us hope it works.

I want to speak for a few minutes about my concern of where the environment is going. That hits home for me as it affects the folks of Matsqui, Aldergrove and Abbotsford in my riding in the Fraser Valley in terms of air quality. The brown scourge that sits over the Fraser Valley today from emissions from Vancouver is not only concerning but downright scary.

If we walk out into the backyards of my home or any of the homes in Fraser Valley and run our fingers across a white table that has been outside for two or three days, there is black pitch coming from the skies. There are diseases. There are effects.

We are looking at the assessment of new projects coming into the country. The government has to take some concrete action on some old things that are kicking around. Air quality is one of considerable importance to the Fraser Valley. It is not addressed here, that I am aware of.

I have a word for the wise. The government should not forget those things that exist and just think that Canadians will say: "You have a good bill here". It affects all things that might happen in the future. There are things in existence such as air quality and water quality in the Fraser Valley that are deteriorating substantially.

I am going to use my remaining three minutes on what is wrong in the Fraser Valley. I hope it will influence the Liberal government and maybe get it to move a little better than it has on other issues such as immigration, finances and the criminal justice system. I always have to remind government members of that because they forget so easily over there. Here are comments that have come out of some in depth studies: "environmental agencies are urging lower mainland residents to minimize the use of their cars until smog levels drop".

Can we imagine in Canada today that the lower mainland of British Columbia is getting like Los Angeles? It is hard to believe. When I moved there in 1981 Mount Baker could be seen as a pristine white mountain. It could be seen very clearly. Now on any day there is a brown scourge there. People are afraid.

"The unprecedented request, the first in B.C. since the regional, provincial and federal governments set up a warning system in June, came Thursday as another hot sunny day and a layer of warm air trapped air pollutants over the Fraser Valley".

It is ironic, is it not, that the federal and provincial governments set up a warning system about air quality? I am here to tell the government that we are not interested in warning systems. We are interested in repair, in fixing the problem. It is useless to warn residents that the air quality is poor. We want the problem fixed.

A new public health study suggests that lower mainland residents are getting sick and even dying from air pollution. The study is part of an unprecedented $10 million. It is yet another study, by the way. A multi-disciplinary research effort in the Fraser Valley last summer looked at what happened to the lungs of 58 farm workers from Matsqui and Abbotsford who worked long hours outdoors. That is when pollutants from tailpipes and smokestacks combine in sunlight to form a powerful lung irritant called ground level ozone pollution, the same smog that plagues car choked Los Angeles.

I could go on but I see my time is running out. It is important to emphasize to government that while the bill addresses the new projects, and that is great, there is a bigger responsibility. There are a lot of pollutants. There are a lot of things that must be addressed that exist today in Canada. I ask the government to look at those as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today.

I must compliment the chair of the environmental committee, the hon. member for Davenport, who has an outstanding reputation of being fair and quite articulate on this issue. He did make a comment about serving the agenda of the Bloc. I do not know how one can get away from that agenda. I guess they are just going to call it the way they want and regardless of whether the issue is in the national interest of Canadians, we are going to get it from them as far as the separatist agenda is concerned.

I suppose what we have today is a party of good intentions here with the Liberals and a party of "what's in it for me" from the separatists. That is truly unfortunate when it comes to the environment.

The member for Comox-Alberni, who is our critic for the environment, raised some very good questions-they were addressed by the member for Davenport-about some precautions that should be taken in a bill such as this. Precautions such as, how do the aboriginal peoples fit into this? Do they come under this umbrella? I certainly hope they do. What kind of costs will be involved in assessments? I realize we are cost conscious. I am sure the government will keep that in mind and the idea of a single track, the division of responsibility.

In my previous job, doing a lot of construction in the hundreds of millions of dollars, our biggest problem was duplicity of roles with federal fisheries, for instance. It was really a nightmare when you are trying to develop projects in the $20 million range, trying to deal with federal and provincial fisheries and every other bureaucrat who can get involved in these things. They tend to just look at the words that are written down in black and white and overlook the fact that there are some very good projects out there. They tend to be, I think, overly protective and in some cases overly pushy.

Rather than just push one way, the environment is a two-way street. It is something we have to keep in mind.

We support Bill C-56 and I am glad to speak to that support. I do not often get to say this to the Liberal government, but it has come a fair distance to the way our party thinks. It is quite easy to stand here and talk about the failures in the criminal justice system, immigration and finance. However, you have to give credit where credit is due and it is due here today.

Why should we not support such an environmental bill? Canada's identity should be rooted in a fresh appreciation for our land. We have gone too long without a renewal of our appreciation for our land. A lot of things that happen today, the garbage that is strewn throughout our countryside, shows that we need a fresh appreciation of things. That applies to young people as much as to business people today. More often than not

a project must be developed and built and environmental impacts are overlooked. Our vision for the future is inspired by the importance of our well-being, of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving our environment. We have to leave our young people with something. We have to leave them with a good, clean environment and that is where this bill comes in. We also have to leave them with a little of their pay cheque, which the government has not got into its mind set yet but we will get it there eventually. Meanwhile the government is coming along on the environment so we will applaud it for that.

We strongly support ensuring that all Canadians and their descendants live in a clean and healthy environment. I suppose we all do that, notwithstanding political agendas, with the exception of this separatist body here from which I am hearing that there are almost two standards; a federal standard and a Quebec standard. If the federal standard is higher than the Quebec standard, this group seems to think that it is okay, we'll go to the lower standard, as long as it is in their best interests. That is not good enough today in Canada.

We must have the concept of public education programs, of environmentally conscious purchasing. The federal government should take a leadership role in environmentally conscious purchasing while encouraging the private sector to follow.

I do not know how easy this is going to be for the federal government. In the organization that I was in before I tried environmental purchasing. One of the biggest problems was getting suppliers to give you some environmentally sound products. They do not produce them in bulk. When the federal government goes-heaven only knows how much paper this place uses-to get environmentally conscious products it may be difficult. However the federal government has an obligation to push in that direction.

We must buy into the principle of sustainable development, which balances the need for a healthy environment with the continued growth and progress of Canada's economy.

Sustainable development can be defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet the needs of the future. "Environmental considerations must carry equal weight with the economic, social and technical considerations of a project". This is a big statement. The government should really look at this as one of the main principles of the environment. Because in most projects, regardless of whether they are a $30,000 project or a $10 million or $20 million project, what gets lost oftentimes because you are trying to cut costs is the environmental consideration. Somewhere along the line we have to look at it as having equal weight with the economic, social and technical considerations.

I would like the Liberal government to consider that very carefully.

We must see the integration of environmental and economic objectives in all areas of management in which the federal government has jurisdiction. We must support the integration of energy development and environmental conservation by ensuring that the cost of energy development includes the associated costs of environmental protection and by supporting conservation of energy and the development of alternative energy sources for the purposes of environmental protection.

We all know that we have to establish clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters to reduce duplication, confusion and unnecessary regulations. We also have to promote partnerships with provincial governments, private industry and educational institutions and the public to promote environmental protection.

Our greatest resource today is sitting in high schools and elementary schools. I have been in that business at one time or another and very little of a sustainable, consistent curriculum on the environment is put forward. A lot of schools go out on field trips and they talk about it, but it is not really a consistent issue with our young people. That is where we have to start. Our young people will be the developers of tomorrow and they will be the ones who will come under the umbrella of these assessments that will be made under this act.

We support the development of environmental regulations through consultation of industry and the public. We must support the multi-partite round table approach as a means of finding common ground when developing environmental measures.

Multi-party round table approaches will work if the issue is important enough to all parties. We do try. We have seen the attempt to get the health round table discussions going. It is not working. The provinces are opting out. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the federal government is not offering enough to the provinces in the partnership. In the environment we all have an equal role. A lot of it is not necessarily money. It is articulation. It is experience.

We should make government sponsored research available to the private sector. I emphasize the private sector. Once we get it into the public sector we are back again to all of these grants on which governments, Liberal and Conservative, year after year have made mistakes. They tend to become patronage pots.

If we can just let the private sector lead, they will come up with better, higher quality environmental impact assessments than will governments. We sometimes fall into the pit and think that only governments can do a good job. That really is not so.

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

Mr. Speaker, further to my colleague's question, I do not think it was answered.

I would like to pose that question once again, asking about specific standards particularly in federal-provincial agreements. Could the hon. member indicate whether or not a standard which is lower in Quebec is the standard that would apply, or if it would be the federal standard if it were higher?

The reason I am asking the question is that I think we have to differentiate what the issue is. A separatist is basically suggesting that we will accept a lower standard if it is for Quebec, rather than a higher standard if it was in the national interest. I would like to know.

[Social Security Programs, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is too bad. I just got warmed up. I have not even had an opportunity to tell the government what I think of it today. I only did that yesterday.

We have to work on old age security and CPP, make no mistake about it with this government, and RRSPs as well.

I am advising the government now to keep away from taxing RRSPs. It may be the one very good livelihood senior citizens have in this country. After 20 years of spending money carelessly by both Liberals and Conservatives there are very few dollars left in those pots to fund other pensions.

If that bank is broke, which it is, what has to happen here is that old age security and CPP must be the number one priority for funding. That means the government should attend to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, try to get these in trust and try to get them funded.

[Social Security Programs, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his introduction to Bill C-54.

I too rise in support of Bill C-54 and I want to start by talking a little about some of the problems with how government in the past has managed pension programs in general. There are a lot of pension programs that exist in this country today.

We have to have a complete understanding. There really is not anything any more important than looking after our seniors today, for they cannot and will not get jobs as we are trying to get for our young people. They generally would not be retrained into our society. They are not going for extra education and these are the people really who deserve a secure retirement.

One of the members opposite is referring to himself. I think we will look after him too and I will talk a little about the MPs pension plan in a few minutes and we will see how well we will look after him in the future.

These are the people who really deserve a secure retirement because they have earned it through paying taxes and through paying into the CPP and so on. I guess we have to ask here whether the government and that other party from Jurassic Park have really looked after the welfare of senior citizens of the past. When we talk about changes to old age security, CPP and so on in the future we are going to have to get into looking at some new, constructive ideas because as most people in this country know money is becoming of short supply for those kinds of programs and they are going to have to be dealt with.

I have some difficulty in getting some confidence that this government will deal with these programs in a new, modern, constructive way. This is after all a traditional party of which we have one left in the House. Traditional ideas we thought were going to be gone in years past and for the future are ideas like the Senate. The better part of this country today is asking that we have elected senators, that they be effective and that we have equal representation in provinces. Yet this government still provides the patronage appointments to which most Canadians are opposed.

We talk time and time again about the MP pension plan. Virtually not a month goes by in this House when we do not complain about it. Yet no changes have been made. We are talking about tradition and how we get a government like this, a traditional party, to move ahead and make some constructive changes in CPP and old age security. We are running out of time on some of these programs and they really have to move ahead; laws and legislation like in the Young Offenders Act where the whole country really wants this traditional party here to move ahead with them and make tougher constructive changes. It has failed to do it time and time again.

What we have here I fear is another traditional party that is dealing with non-traditional problems like old age security and CPP which have to be changed.

Why would we expect this government to come up with new ideas? I guess maybe we do not and that is what we are here for. That is why we have come to this House, to try to infiltrate some changes throughout the system.

Old age security is what is called a non-contributory program. Individuals do not contribute to it. It comes from tax revenue. On one hand one might assume that we could cut that out because people had not contributed to it. That is not the fact. Over the years all the taxes paid into the government have been used in part to fund old age security which is good in measure. That will have to change somehow unless the government finds some revenue either by raising taxes, and we hope it does not do that, or cutting expenses and we know it is not doing that.

The Canada pension plan is the contributory portion of pension for Canadians where the employer and the employee contribute.

To address old age security and CPP and future changes we must look at how the government manages its current pension plans. We know what they are. They are the MP pension plan, the military pension plan, the civil service pension plan and the RCMP pension plan. There are a number of them. Those plans should be covered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. This act sets standards for pension plans in this country on the financing and the fund management. It was introduced in 1967 and amended by the Conservatives in 1987. The plan has four very good standards which actually should apply to all pension plans.

The first one is that the employers must ensure that dollars are held in trust. This is very basic and necessary for any pension plan. A pension fund administrator shall be put in place managed by a board, an organization that is charge of the fund. The administrator must be responsible for appointing somebody for accountability and then the fund must be prudently invested. It

stands to reason that is the only way a good pension plan could be managed.

However, these standards that were in the standards act were intended to protect the interests of the plan members. Not surprising, however, Parliament exempted the federal government from these rules. Here we go with this kind of sanctimony. We will look after everybody else but ourselves. When this act came in and was modified in 1987, Parliament said that is okay for everybody else but we will not get involved in that portion, we will exempt ourselves from it. It did, with the military, civil service, RCMP and MP pension plans.

Consequently, there are problems with those plans. I am going to illustrate from these four plans what is wrong with the management and the ability to fund old age security and CPP.

The problem with that particular exemption is that total pension payments exceed the contributions. When you exempt yourself from these rules you start to go into the hole. You start into deficits. That we know is where we stand today. Today we have total liabilities for RCMP, military and civil service pension plans of $94 billion, unfunded. It is carried in an account on the books of the government as an SPA, I believe, a special purpose account. It is a liability. It is not funded in trust as the Pension Benefits Standards Act so directs everybody else to do.

We pay out about $6 billion to these three organizations, the military, civil service and RCMP. That comes directly from general revenues paid by the taxpayer.

[Crtc, October 28th, 1994]

Make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker. We do have some information but we are trying to get a little more.

One wonders how much Canadian people are being duped in this exercise, because staff at the CRTC assured us that this information is all public. The file is at the CRTC, if the minister would like to know. Now we find the very information Canadians require has been removed at the last minute.

What I would like to know is who removed the letters, at whose direction, when they were removed and why.