Sheila Copps

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the hon. member that when Jim Hart, MP for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt wrote to the minister-

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if you follow the rationale of the leader of the third party, basically you would tell the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, who wrote to the minister on behalf of a constituent who was concerned about the increase in the cost of cable television, that the minister cannot pass his concerns along. The minister has a responsibility in the discharge of his duties to make sure that the cable television system is working properly.

The Prime Minister has set in place is a system where all future correspondence must go through the ethics counsellor. We think that is an interim fair measure. We are looking for a very full and open debate in the House on guidelines that will permit ministers to do their jobs and at the same time will make sure that members of Parliament get the service they deserve from ministers of the government.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has promised a full and open debate of the new guidelines. I am sure in the context of those guidelines the commissioner for ethics is going to want to bring all the facts forward.

I hope there will be a full public debate because I know the guidelines will stand the test of time. However no guideline is the measure of a person's honesty.

The Prime Minister said that he was putting his integrity on the line because the hallmark of this government was not determined by what was written down in guidelines, but rather the fact that he and his ministers carried out their jobs with honesty and integrity. Nobody is challenging the honesty or the integrity of the Prime Minister.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at noon, the Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Prime Minister's statement said, and I quote: "We never doubted the Prime Minister's integrity". He said it himself yesterday, he was even consulted on the appointment of the person in question.

The Prime Minister stated yesterday that he takes full and entire responsibility for his ministers' decisions. If the member opposite wants to attack civil servants who are not allowed to defend themselves, let him make accusations.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have full confidence in the integrity and the ethics of the ethics counsellor.

If the member of the opposition has anything to prove otherwise, let him come forward and make a charge.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the letter in question. I would like to table it, along with the other letters that have been referred to, because I think they make the point very clearly that the minister was only carrying out his job, his responsibilities and his function as minister.

What he was responding to was a letter from the member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who wrote to the minister complaining on behalf of a constituent about cable television rates.

The minister in his capacity as minister for communications very appropriately referred this letter from the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to the CRTC. If he had ignored the letter or thrown it in the waste basket, which seems to be the reference of the hon. member, he would have been in breach of his duty.

We believe the minister should carry out his duties in the context of the very strict guidelines that have been established by the Prime Minister to avoid any conflict of interest.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was a minister.

In his capacity as a minister he was required from time to time to write to bodies that were under his authority. Not only did he have the right to contact those bodies he had the responsibility.

It seems to me that when the minister responsible for communications receives complaints from the public about the cost, for example, of cable increases he not only has the right to refer those letters to the CRTC he has the responsibility.

The Leader of the Opposition would be the first person to complain if the minister responsible for communications refused to communicate with the body that develops those kinds of regulations. That is his responsibility. He is doing his job and he will continue to do his job under the guidelines that the Prime Minister has now established.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was once a minister, and he knows that as such, one has certain responsibilities. For instance, when people write to complain about the content of television programs, a minister not only has the right but also a responsibility to refer such complaints to the CRTC, which was done in the case of the seven letters. It is, after all, the minister's responsibility to make appropriate references to the CRTC.

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

Mr. Speaker, the new law will ensure that the environmental impact of projects is taken into account before the projects go ahead. The new law nourishes and reinforces the link between environmental health, economic health and human health.

The act finally addresses the important issues which are so crucial to Canada. The new system is straightforward and streamlined. Small scale, routine matters will be dealt with through a simple screening process. We do not need to spend taxpayers' money to hold a grand inquisition for repairs to the roof of a building.

On the other hand, large projects or environmentally sensitive projects will receive the comprehensive public study they need. It is absolutely essential that projects in our national parks, nuclear power plants, dams, mines and new industrial developments undergo comprehensive environmental impact studies.

The act introduces the new principle of mediation. To the extent possible, we want environmental problems to be resolved by consensus to everyone's satisfaction.

Screening, comprehensive study and mediation will eliminate the waste and bureaucracy that unfortunately sometimes results in much time being spent on minor or easily resolved issues.

A project will only reach the stage of review by an independent public panel if there are difficult environmental issues which cannot be resolved in any other way. When the environmental impact is important enough to be subject to an independent review, the act allows for full public involvement and requires a more stringent assessment of the project.

For all projects we want everything out in the open and we want to ensure that the public interest is paramount.

It comes as no surprise that, referring to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said, back in December 1989: "This will probably be the best legislation of the kind in the world". No wonder that, last month, the Leader of the Opposition described this act as his baby, adding that he had fought very hard for it in cabinet.

Maybe we should not be talking about babies.

No wonder that the Leader of the Opposition said: "I am not against this legislation. I never said a thing against it". And the present Leader of the Opposition suggested last month: "We must find a way to harmonize provincial and federal jurisdictions. These two levels of government have to work together, otherwise it will be chaos".

To opponents of the act, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said in 1990: "We have jurisdiction. We take our responsibilities. If work is carried out in James Bay that can affect the nature and composition of Hudson's Bay's water, the federal government has the right, indeed the duty, to stop work, otherwise the courts will step in".

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act emphasizes the importance of federal-provincial co-operation and the harmonization of our respective systems. I am committed to working with each of the provinces to that end.

We are willing to work with the provinces; the federal government did in fact sign a harmonization agreement with Alberta, and next week I will sign a second agreement with Manitoba. We are also negotiating with Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces.

I know that everyone in this country is concerned about the environment. Whatever our political differences, we all want a livable world for our children. We may not always agree on the approach, but we want the same results. It was clearly stated in the red book that we would reinforce the power of review panels by letting Cabinet deal with federal projects, and I am going to go even further.

If I may, I would like to quote from the red book: "Individual Canadians have expertise and a valued perspective to contribute to environmental policy-making. These assets are often not tapped because of financial or legal restrictions. A Liberal government will amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to legally recognize intervenor funding as an integral component of the assessment process".

These were public commitments. Today, we are delivering the goods.

To those who are still questioning the act, I will quote the Leader of the Opposition, when he was talking about the old offer: "Current guidelines are not clear regarding federal-provincial co-operation on joint assessments". We are aware of the need for clarification and we are working on it. The result can be seen today. That is why we have this bill today.

I urge the Opposition to listen carefully to what Lucien Bouchard said about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: "This bill does not encroach on provincial jurisdiction". It was not the current Minister of the Environment but the former Minister of the Environment-when he was a federal Cabinet minister-who said that we must ensure that there is no encroachment and step up harmonization efforts in order to avoid overlap.

For the last year the federal government has met with and listened to Canadians, environmentalists, communities, businesses and individuals. They have asked us to act further to improve the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and we have listened in good faith. The amendments we are introducing today are proof of that good faith.

The bill we are debating today proposes to entrench in federal law the principle of one project one assessment. It is wrong that responsible businesses may be subjected to more than one federal assessment for their project.

We need a strong, open public environmental assessment process but we do not need it repeated and repeated and repeated. Today's legislation commits us to ending confusion and overlap and to reducing cost and complexity.

The second amendment guarantees that communities will receive the support they need to take part in major environmental assessments. Local communities with a direct stake in the outcome of an environmental assessment must have the resources to participate if their rights are to have any real meaning. I use the example under the past process of Elliot Lake which obviously had a very direct interest in how the operations of Denison were decommissioned.

The last amendment requires the federal cabinet to respond to any recommendations of independent review panels. This means that no individual cabinet minister can overrule the environmental assessment made by an independent panel. This means that no Kemano projects can be signed behind closed doors. This means that as a government we are willing to be fair, to open up the process, to simplify the process, to listen to concerns and ultimately to take a full cabinet decision. Once again we have built it into the law in black and white.

We are not only talking about our belief in the principle of one project one assessment.

This is not only about the right of people from Chicoutimi, the Abitibi region, Quebec City or Montreal to have their say on environmental assessments. The bill establishes a participant funding program to help people who do not have the necessary financial resources exercise this right. How can anyone accuse the federal government of undermining the environmental rights of the people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region, when we give them the funds they need to participate in the environmental assessments of the projects affecting them?

This amendment has nothing to do with Ottawa politicians trying to impose their views. Rather, it is aimed, as the Leader of the Opposition realized, at giving the people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region the power to tell the federal government what they think about a federal project. It is aimed at giving the people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region the ability to influence federal decisions affecting them directly in their daily lives.

We are not just talking about ending backroom pressures to overturn environmental assessment. We have introduced legislation to take away the ability of any individual cabinet minister to overturn those decisions. We have introduced legislation to make sure that the recommendations of independent panels cannot be shoved on to the back burner.

The new law puts the onus on cabinet to respond to those recommendations. In the name of fairness and openness and in order to make sure that everything is completely transparent, we are acting to make sure that the whole government by virtue of cabinet is responsible for environmental assessment decisions.

Yes, this bill recognizes the essential federal role in environmental assessment. As the Leader of the Opposition said so well: "The federal government certainly has some powers which no one contests". For example, the bed of Hudson Bay belongs to the federal government. This would not change. So as I said and I repeat, if work goes on in James Bay which affects the nature and composition of the water emptying into Hudson Bay so that marine or other life in Hudson Bay could be affected, the federal government has the right and even the duty to act; otherwise, the courts will stop the work.

The Leader of the Opposition understands the law well and he was right when he described some federal responsibilities. It is not only legal; it is a matter of environmental reality. When you throw something into Hudson Bay, it affects northern Quebec. When you throw something into Hamilton Bay, it affects Montreal. Consider the International Joint Commission for the Great Lakes; what we do in these Great Lakes obviously affects the St. Lawrence River.

If a project on the north shore of Lake Superior is an environmental disaster, the problems end up not only in the Great Lakes but also in the St. Lawrence and the people of Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City and Rimouski suffer as a result. Environmental blunders in the Great Lakes affect Magdalen Islanders. Environmental problems do not respect borders. We have no choice but to face up to our shared environmental responsibilities. We must all come to an understanding here in Canada. The federal and provincial governments must work together, despite our political differences, to solve these problems, for the greater well-being of our people.

It is for the good of the people that we have to set aside our political differences, set aside our political agendas, and understand the point made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government and said the time had come to end the duplication and confusion that surrounded the EARP guidelines.

We must present a common front internationally to solve global environmental problems. We must work together to solve our common problems with the United States. We must work together to solve our problems in the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Arctic.

We have acted, we are acting and we will act to put in place what the Leader of the Opposition has rightly called absolutely major legislation. We must go further. We must overcome our differences and find a way to reach agreement. I am counting on my colleagues in the Official Opposition to support the bill initiated by their own leader, which will benefit all the people of Quebec and Canada.

Sound environmental practices are essential if we are to move to the day when pollution prevention becomes a central part of our thinking. Sound practices are essential in planning projects which are environmentally and economically sound. Sound practices are essential to planning and creating a better future.

The legislation does not solve every environmental problem in the country. We will need to fine tune the legislation. That is why we have a one-year monitoring program in place. If there are real problems, let us move to solve them. If we can make more improvements, let us move ahead. If we can find new ways of eliminating overlap, of saving taxpayers' money, and of co-operating and harmonizing our efforts, let us do it.

The bill moves forward the federal government's commitment in meeting our obligation to the environment which all of us share and which all of us cherish. Not only does the act move in that direction, but certainly the amendments we are discussing today speak very specifically to making the law workable for all Canadians in the interests of a sustainable environment.

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

moved that Bill C-56 to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating today how to make good legislation even better. This bill sets out to improve one of the most outstanding environment acts in the world. With the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its important amendments, Canada will be a world leader in environmental thinking and practice. We are also making this country a better place to be.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was first planned by the current Leader of the Opposition in 1989 when he was Minister of the Environment. We were in opposition at the time. I was the Liberal critic for the environment.

Our party supported the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean in his efforts and voted in favour of the act. We put aside our partisan differences and voted for legislation which was good for the environment and good for Canada.

We supported the hon. member and wanted the law proclaimed. Indeed it was a red book promise because the law, as it previously existed, was complicated, arbitrary, unpredictable and incomplete.

We needed new legislation to simplify the process and strengthen it.