House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 53% of the vote.
Taxation October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I just told the whole House that I never released any such report.
If the member wants to be true to the people of Canada, why does he not tell the truth and admit in the House that the Minister of the Environment in no way released any such report. Stop setting up strawmen so you can try to burn them down.
Taxation October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I never released any such report.
Economic Policy October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I understand the absolute hypocrisy of the Reform Party that on the one hand tells Canadians that it wants to take $15 billion out of the pockets of senior citizens as well as health care, education and other programs and on the other hand wants to tie the hands of the Minister of Finance in advance of a budget that is going to have a number of difficult choices.
The Minister of Finance and this side of the House want a full public discussion on all aspects of a federal budget and we want the debate to begin.
Economic Policy October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing for certain. The Prime Minister laid down a target of 3 per cent of GDP to be achieved by this government and this cabinet in the 1996-97 fiscal year. We intend to deliver. Every single member of cabinet is committed to delivering on our red book promise.
Economic Policy October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is music to my ears to hear the leader of the third party stating that reports in the media are automatically true. I am glad to see the vote of confidence that he and his party have given to the media.
The Environment October 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the government is taking three important initiatives to fulfil our red book promises on environmental assessment.
First, the government will proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This means that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will be up and running in January.
Second, the government will publish in the next issue of the Canada Gazette a complete list of new, greener environmental regulations required to implement the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. These regulations follow one year of intensive consultation with the provinces, territories, business and environmentalists.
In parenthesis I might add that the legislation follows seven years of intensive consultation. I want to personally thank not only my parliamentary secretary who has done yeoman's service in moving a very complicated file forward but also and most particularly the team headed by Michel Dorais which worked very hard and very long for many years on this issue.
Third, I wish to advise the House that the government is proposing three amendments to the environmental assessment act. The first amendment will entrench in federal law the principle of one project-one assessment. The second amendment will guarantee the public the funding necessary to take part in major environmental assessments. The third amendment will require a decision by cabinet in response to any recommendations of independent review panels.
With the new agency, the new regulations and the new amendments, the government is moving to implement our election promises on environmental assessment.
The federal government intends to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which was conceived and developed by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition in the fall of 1989. When the bill was in preparation, my hon. colleague said and I quote: "This law will surely be the best law of its kind in the world".
I would like to take the opportunity on this memorable occasion to congratulate the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean for his role in the development of this Canadian law. I also want to commend the hon. member for his support, even during the recent election, when he said on Le Point , and I quote: ``There is also the federal government's jurisdiction which must be respected''.
I await the support of the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean, to whom the environment is more important than petty jurisdictional quarrels between different levels of government.
Members on all sides of the House understand that environmental issues go beyond partisan political bickering. Members on all sides of the House know that whatever is thrown into Hamilton harbour eventually finds its way to Sept-Iles, dans le fleuve Saint-Laurent.
Neither the fish in the St. Lawrence nor the migratory birds on the Prairies carry passports.
As every Canadian knows, the process of environmental assessment in Canada has, in the last decade, become mired in controversy.
Business is unhappy because the current process has become unbelievably complicated and unpredictable. Environmental groups are unhappy because the process is haphazard, arbitrary and incomplete. The public is unhappy with the current process because it drags on forever and the public interest is sometimes lost in squabbling among jurisdictions and various interest groups.
Today's announcement will change that. We are strengthening environmental assessment, and we are also making assessment of projects fairer, less complicated, less costly and more transparent. The new system will ensure that the environmental effects of projects are considered before these projects are approved, will encourage sustainable development and will require that transboundary issues be considered.
What we are putting in place are practical and effective rules that everyone can understand from the start. We are getting rid of a system where clarity and sometimes lack of clarity have resulted in many court actions.
We are going to have a straightforward, streamlined approach. Small scale routine matters will be dealt with through a simple screening process. Big projects or environmentally sensitive projects will undergo a comprehensive study.
The new regime introduces the concept of mediation to see if environmental issues surrounding a project can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction by consensus.
For the first time we are introducing the concept of mediation, in the hopes that some environmental differences might be resolved by the parties without the necessity of long and arduous procedures.
These first three steps-screening, comprehensive study and mediation-will eliminate the headaches and the waste and the bureaucracy that have resulted in so much time being wasted on minor or easily resolved issues.
That means that a project will reach the stage of review by an independent public panel if there are difficult environmental issues that cannot be resolved by any other means.
When the environmental impact is important enough to be subject to an independent public review, the new rules allow for the public to be fully involved and the new rules mean a more rigorous assessment of the projects. For all projects we want everything out in the open and we want to ensure that the public interest is paramount.
With one of the new amendments, when a review panel makes recommendations, no individual cabinet minister will have the power to accept, reject or change those recommendations. Only the government as a whole will have that authority.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act recognizes the importance of federal-provincial co-operation and promotes harmonization of regimes. I am working closely with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and with ministers in each and every province. Indeed over the course of the last few days I have been in touch with every provincial environment minister to assure him or her that it is our intention to work collaboratively. We need to continue a co-operative approach, a common sense approach to environmental assessment.
The government believes that the actions I am announcing are fair and forceful. To be absolutely certain, we shall have a one-year monitoring program. We want to make sure that the new law and the new policies do not place an unnecessary burden on industry. We also want to guarantee that no projects with significant environmental impact slip through the cracks.
The new rules recognize the unique and historic responsibilities of aboriginal people for the stewardship of their traditional lands. Today's actions give Canada what we believe is one of the world's best environmental assessment systems. The whole point is to make the best informed decisions and to make environmental thinking a fundamental part of the planning of any project.
The aim is to prevent environmental damage rather than clean up after the fact.
Sound environmental thinking is essential to international competitiveness and, even more so, it is central to the legacy we leave our children.
What we must do now is try to strengthen the environmental assessment of projects under federal jurisdiction. What we need to do next is find ways to improve how we assess all new policies and programs of the federal government. We must, and we will, clean up our own act. In the months ahead, we shall be announcing further policies for the ongoing greening of government.
It has been seven long years since the Leader of the Opposition first conceived of the idea of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. My hope is that future actions to create a healthier environment can come much more quickly.
We need to do everything we can as members of Parliament and as Canadians to honour our environmental heritage and to honour our responsibility to future generations. I believe that today's announcement is a step in that direction.
Doubled-Hulled Ships October 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that would have been the last question on double hulls. As I pointed out to the member, I not only sent him a copy of the bill but the bill in question which was passed in 1993 deemed that all newly constructed oil tankers must have a double hull. That was the law of the land adopted in 1993 and I sent the member a copy.
What was suggested in Vancouver and to which I objected was that unilaterally Canada should prevent any ship coming from any other country that was built before 1993 that did not have a double hull for oil tankers.
What I suggested very clearly in the port of Vancouver is that when we move on double hulling, and my colleague the Minister of Transport is very interested in this issue and understands that we need to have an international agreement, we have to make sure that the port of Vancouver has the same chance to compete as the port of Seattle. That is why I made the point.
The Environment October 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of the Environment received petitions from the people of the Magdalen Islands. He did not even bother to respond. Within three months of assuming the position of Minister of the Environment I got the process in motion to lift the Irving Whale .
At the request of the hon. member who was the previous critic, we had public hearings. Those public hearings he requested have been completed. We have endorsed the proposal for lifting the Irving Whale . The tenders have been let and the project will begin as soon as it is humanly possible. I think that is action as compared to what my predecessor did.
The Environment October 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for her question. She should know that the people from the Magdalen Islands and their elected member contacted me at the very beginning of my new mandate to ask me to do what had not been done by the Leader of the Opposition when he was environment minister.
The Irving Whale was already there. The Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible for three years, but he never had the wreck refloated. I will do it in less than a thousand days.
1-900 Numbers October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I understand from the implication of the member's question that employees of the Government of Canada have been wrongfully dialling 1-900 numbers that we are supposed to be paying for.
Obviously as a taxpayer and as a representative of the Government of Canada I do not want our employees dialling numbers for which the public is paying, quite clearly.