Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, November 1st, 1995]

My colleague from Beauséjour knows full well that when a fisherman is caught red-handed in violation of federal legislation, we do not negotiate on the size of the fish he caught on the sly, or on anything else. The individual guilty of fishing off his riding will be caught and prosecuted.

As I said, the judicial and legislative branches of government must not sleep in the same bed. Never. Yet, there are many lawyers in this party. They should be the first ones to denounce Bill C-61 because it is flawed.

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, November 1st, 1995]

Yes, questionable. This bill may hurt agriculture instead of helping it.

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, November 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was not present during last week's debate on Bill C-61. It is my friend and colleague, the member for the riding of Lotbinière next to mine, who participated in the debate in this House on the official opposition's amendments to Bill C-61.

As you know full well, I had to work hard in my riding of Frontenac to campaign against my colleague who sits on the opposition benches in the National Assembly in order to obtain a yes majority in that riding. I take this opportunity to thank my constituents for supporting the option of sovereignty with partnership.

I, however, read these proceedings carefully and I must say I am surprised by the government members' frivolous comments on our amendments. Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Bill C-61 will allow the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to meet several of its objectives, in particular relieving pressure on the courts and the resulting savings for taxpayers. In this regard, the

Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of administrative monetary penalties.

We, however, cannot support the bill as tabled by the government for a very simple reason, namely that the federal Department of Transport implemented a system of monetary penalties without allowing offenders to negotiate these penalties with the department. We in the official opposition see this opportunity to negotiate penalties as the Achilles heel of the bill. Yet, the federal department of agriculture did not consider the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and continues to support the principle of penalty negotiation.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois thinks that this bill could have a major impact on the way justice is served.

The judicial power differs from the legislative one. Here, in the House of Commons, we can discuss, improve, analyze and review bills, but when it comes to implementing them, the judicial system takes over. In a self-respecting society, the judicial system must never have a close and direct link with the legislative power. Otherwise, what kind of society would we be living in? Does the government seek to have a totalitarian society in which our fellow citizens would be accountable to their elected representatives, and in which the judicial system would lose its authority? I certainly hope that we will not live in a totalitarian regime.

Consequently, it is very unfortunate that the federal government flatly rejected the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. These amendments sought to eliminate the risk of arbitrary decisions in the administration of penalties.

The Minister of Agriculture should recognize that the compliance agreements and negotiations which he will allow to reduce the penalty imposed to an offender are not indispensable to reach his objective, which is to reduce the workload of the courts.

As his colleague, the Minister of Transport, knows from experience, it is much more beneficial for an offender to immediately pay a fine than to go to the courts, particularly if he knows that his is a lost cause. The monetary penalty system is, in itself, a good enough incentive to encourage the offender to settle the issue outside the courts. Any compliance agreement to reduce the penalty does not do anything more, except create a major risk of unfairness in the administration of penalties.

The amendments tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, through the hon. member for Lotbinière, sought to abolish any form of compliance agreement or negotiation between the department and the offender. The Minister of Agriculture has not convinced us, far from it, that there is no risk of arbitrary decision in this monetary penalty system. We still feel that the negotiation process allowing a departmental officer to reduce the penalty of an offender is unfair and, more importantly, dangerous for a democracy.

The member for Brandon-Souris justified the quick rejection of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois by saying, and I quote: "The important thing in these matters is that compliance is achieved. Whether or not there is a reduced or an increased penalty is secondary in most cases to bringing about the change by the perpetrator of the infraction".

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food fully agreed with that earlier when he said that compliance is more important than enforcement.

I was talking with the chief of police of a small community in my riding who had to go to Sherbrooke to testify. To show how ridiculous the fines and penalties have become, he told me that people indicted on seven or eight charges for offences at their summer cottages passed him on his way back to his community, such was the speed with which they had been able to settle the fines. Despite the jail sentences provided for in the case of such offences, they were dealt with so fast that they passed the chief of police at high speed, and made gestures I would not dare make in the House.

Our police forces are so dispirited that often they wonder whether they should do their job or close their eyes and pretend not to see, because our justice system is going downhill and bankrupt.

In other words, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris feels what matters is compliance, not whether the law is enforced fairly or not. He cannot answer that question. I am sorry, but in Quebec we do not buy that kind of justice.

Make no mistake, the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois were not to abolish the monetary penalty system. As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this principle which will help to reduce the caseload of the courts.

However, this is a new and intelligent approach, especially in times of financial crisis. Having said that, the caseload of the courts should not be reduced and a parallel justice system should not be created if it means the implementation of an arbitrary justice system. The possibility of negotiating the penalty with civil servants introduces an unacceptable bias in the penalty process.

More specifically, after noticing an offence, officials of the Production and Inspection Branch will recommend to their director the appropriate penalty to impose. We therefore have a centralized decision process and the department maintains that the regulations eliminate the risk of arbitrary decisions. But that is not true. It is not true and indeed the government has not even seen fit to introduce the regulations, even though they are very important in

this case, to assess the relevancy of a negotiation system to reduce the penalties.

A departmental official is authorized to reach an agreement with the offender to reduce the penalty by $1 for every $2 the company will invest to improve its procedures, buy new equipment or train its employees. We are against such a principle. In our justice system, penalties are not negotiable. I repeat: in our justice system, penalties are not negotiable.

I look at my colleague, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who once was the president of the bar in his district. He knows full well that someone who has been found guilty of an offence does not have the opportunity to negotiate his or her penalty or sentence, far from it.

Imagine, Madam Speaker, that you are on highway 401 going to Montreal and that an OPP officer stops you for speeding, for example. You start to negotiate with him. You are guilty, you were doing 140 kilometres an hour and you negotiate with the OPP officer: "Look, I was doing 140, I was going down a hill, the car started to go faster, so be indulgent with me. I am the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. Write down on the ticket that I was doing 121 kilometres or just let me go."

Would that kind of double-standard justice be acceptable? No. I do not think, Madam Speaker, that Quebecers would accept that you negotiate your speeding ticket with an OPP officer, let alone with an officer of the Sûreté du Québec, because it would not be appropriate for a member of Parliament, especially for the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, to do so. And it is possible with this legislation that agricultural producers and people in related industries could negotiate, by mutual agreement, an unprecedented reduction of their penalty.

This could have an adverse effect on the viability and also on the reliability of our agricultural products here, in Canada. I heard that it was possible to negotiate a speeding ticket, but you certainly understand as well as I do that it is not an ideal situation. In this case, an offender who is better off financially and who would be in a position to invest in order to correct a particular situation would be rewarded for that through a reduction of his or her penalty. For each $2 invested, the penalty would be reduced by $1. This way, the person who has enough money could have the penalty reduced to zero, whereas the person who does not have that much money could not settle the matter in the same way. Therefore, this proposal would put some inequity in our justice system.

People or businesses would not be treated equally; they would be treated according to their spending power. Moreover, who would assess the cost of the efforts made by a person or a business to correct a particular situation? For instance, training may cost more in a particular region, and the same applies to equipment, which means some individuals and companies will be penalized.

Will they be informed of all the approaches available to them to correct the situation? What happens in the case of padded invoices involving collusion by suppliers? If we are looking for incentives to step up training and investment in a company, we should improve on methods that already exist, such as fiscal or other incentives, but these should not be used to negotiate a penalty.

The bill also calls for a 50 per cent reduction in the penalty if the person who commits the violation pays the fine without challenging the decision or requesting a review by a tribunal. I repeat, we are opposed to this concept. Under our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to the example I mentioned earlier. You are clocked at 140 kilometres per hour, and your fine is $225. You get your ticket, you pay on the spot or within seven to ten days, but under this particular system, if you pay without challenging your ticket, the fine is halved.

So $225 divided by two is $112.50. To avoid clogging the courts, the fine will be reduced by 50 per cent. This is ridiculous. Unless of course the government has a brilliant idea and decides to double the fines while at the same time introducing incentives. In that case, it is misrepresenting the enforcement of this legislation.

Under our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. For instance, in a situation that could go either way, the company or individual is given to understand that they are better off paying the fine without further ado.

The individual is entitled to a review but is told: "Listen, you have a gun at your head". He will be told he has already been found guilty and that if he wants to reduce his penalty, the best thing is to pay up without a fuss. And what about the right to representation?

The Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to ensure that the president and members of the tribunal who are responsible for reviewing decisions made by departmental officials are able to do so. The person who committed a violation could, if he so desires, have a hearing before the tribunal in order to request a review of his penalty. However, the tribunal-listen to this, Madam Speaker, this is very important-is appointed by the minister and the mandate of its members is renewable. Members are to assess decisions made by departmental employees who obviously are answerable to the minister. Is there not a conflict of interest here?

People sitting on this tribunal who would like to see their mandate renewed for a second term would be more inclined to do the department's bidding, while someone who refuses to do so would not see his mandate renewed.

In any case, I was looking at the procedure used to appoint the president of the UI Board of Referees in Thetford, in my riding. The person appointed to chair this board and rule on UI disputes was probably a good choice politically speaking, because she is connected with the Quebec Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, but she has never seen a worker or an unemployed worker up close. Why not take someone who knows about unemployment insurance, other than in books, someone who has had experience with it? This is patronage. In any case, it would appear to be a recommendation from the Frontenac riding Liberal association, which was accepted.

I hope that we are not going to go the same route here in appointing people, that the appointees will already have had a close look at the system they are being asked to work on-in short, competent individuals. Maybe competence will mean having campaigned in the Liberal Party at both levels, in Quebec City and in Ottawa-this is what make competent people.

To ensure greater transparency in the appointment of the chairperson and the members of the tribunal, we in the Bloc Quebecois have suggested that they be appointed by the minister with the approval of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. However, the members of this government represent the majority on the agriculture and agri-food committee, as elsewhere; they control it and always get their way.

We in the opposition, with our colleagues from the third party, simply ask questions. We propose resolutions, obviously, motions that are usually relegated to the shelves, because the government party makes use of its majority. They could have circulated their list of chairperson and tribunal members, and have the committee validate it at least. They refused. And they say their party is democratic.

You all know that the world of agriculture is a very small one. However, once again, our amendments have been quickly dismissed with a wave of the hand. The government also showed it paid little attention to the proposals put forward by the official opposition. As the Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic in this House, I note that the government has never taken amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois into account in this area. Although we support the basic principle of a system of administrative monetary penalties, we are well aware that there was no need for the government to add a penalty bargaining system.

In fact, this is what officials from the department confirmed during their appearance before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. On its own, the monetary penalty system is enough of an incentive to freeing the courts.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore vigorously opposes Bill C-61, because it establishes a system for penalty bargaining between officials and those who have committed violations. This new form of justice is not currently practiced in Quebec. It seems to me to be contrary to Quebec traditions and to our system of justice. I suspect that this sort of consideration was not taken into account when the bill was drafted. I would be curious to see whether the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food would be prepared to revise this legislation if, on implementation, it proves to be in conflict with the traditions and values of Quebec society.

In short, this bill on monetary penalties has an interesting purpose: to relieve pressure on the courts.

What we in the opposition disagree with is the opportunity to negotiate penalties. This will, I am sure, lead to abuse, to negotiations under the table, to questionable negotiations.

[Hydro-Quebec, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec has decided to withdraw from the Conseil du patronat du Québec because of this organization's militancy for the No side. The chairman of the board of Hydro-Quebec, Yvon Martineau, severely condemns the statements made by several business leaders who have come out in favour of the No side.

He said that some business leaders, who claimed to speak for businesspeople, made public comments that were unworthy of their responsibilities.

Responding to Laurent Beaudoin's remarks, Mr. Martineau said that speaking of Quebec as a shrunken state denotes a lack of respect for its people. He rightly ascribed our prosperity to the work done by successive generations and not to the country's size.

Despite the wishes of Mr. Garcia of Standard Life, Quebec will not be crushed.

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the word is out: Federal goodies are on their way to Western Canada. Cheques for a total amount of $1.6 billion are being or will be sent directly to grain producers in the Prairies. This compensation for the loss of western grain transportation subsidies gives and will give western producers an unfair edge over farmers in Eastern Canada, especially in Quebec.

Many grain producers are taking advantage of this windfall to diversify production and flood Quebec with their products. Since part of the compensation is paid for through taxes they pay to Ottawa, Quebecers may be doubly penalized. Here is an example. Quebec's subsidies for industrial milk are being cut by 30 per cent, with no compensation for dairy producers in that province: clearly a double standard.

Last Friday I was in Princeville at an auction of slaughter calves. I met a producer from my riding, Gérald Turcotte, who explained in his own words how Quebec was being used by the rest of Canada. I will repeat what he said. Canada is so anxious to keep us because we pay well and do not take much money out. Imagine, he said, a farmer with ten Holsteins. Three are very good milkers: Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. One of these cows eats little, is not a picky eater, requires little attention from its owner, is rarely sick, does not go outside the fence, is very docile, returns to the barn in time for morning and evening milking. In short, this cow is the best of the herd.

You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer would not let this famous and profitable cow go for all the gold in the world. Quebec too is very profitable for Ottawa and the rest of Canada. However, it is the victim of injustice: National Defence contracts, research and development funding, expenditures by the department of agriculture in Quebec that are lower than the economic activity generated by the sector. Quebec is therefore not getting its fair share of federal investment. Since 1984, its share has been only 15.9 per cent, despite the fact that the population of Quebec represents 25 per cent of Canada's population and that Quebec provides 23 per cent of federal revenues.

Quebec has never received more than 19.1 per cent of the federal government's expenditures on goods and services. In 1992, for example, the federal government spent a total of $31.2 billion with only $5.9 billion in Quebec, which represents 18.9 per cent. This figure is 6 per cent less than our demographic load. I have tonnes of such examples.

Yes, my friends, Quebec is very profitable for the rest of Canada. For the rest of Canada as it stands today. Quebec, as Gérald Turcotte put it so well, is a fine cash cow for Canada.

This is why we are not being allowed to have a tool box of our own so that one day we in Quebec can build our future as we ought, pass our own legislation, sign treaties and collect our own taxes.

[Auditor General Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is a tactic of the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis to try to distract the opposition. These days, it seems as though the government wants to gag the official opposition. It is afraid to hear what our fellow citizens are telling us in our ridings.

I was talking about the St. Lawrence action plan to clean the St. Lawrence River. Listen to this: out of a budget of $19.2 million, this government took $6 million to commission studies on the cleaning up of the river. However, these studies were conducted in Miramichi, New Brunswick, several thousand kilometres from the St. Lawrence River. Where is the logic in that decision?

I would like to hear the member for Ottawa West tell us about the effect that this will have, other than to suggest the appointment of a commissioner of the environment.

[Auditor General Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. colleague from Ottawa West, who just spoke on Bill C-83, did not have all the facts, when she was wondering what the position of the official opposition, that is to say the Bloc Quebecois, was regarding the establishment of a position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I would like to remind her that, yesterday, around 1:50 p.m., I rose in the House of Commons to say, and I will quote this slowly to make sure she hears me very clearly: "The official opposition does not intend, at least for the time being, to challenge the mandate that the minister wants to give to the commissioner of the environment. However, we deplore the fact that, ultimately, the commissioner will merely have the power to make suggestions".

If she had listened to me as carefully as I listened to her a moment ago, she would have found out that the Bloc Quebecois does not intend to oppose the establishment of a position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. On the contrary, we want the commissioner to have power to do more than just make recommendations like the auditor general at present.

After the Christmas holidays, the auditor general will once again present his annual report. We, the official opposition, will have a field day as the terrible things this government has done are revealed to Canadian taxpayers. There will be much talk about it the first week, hardly any the second week and, by the third week, it will be all but forgotten.

My hon. colleague from Ottawa West mentioned future generations. I would like to remind her that, as we speak, between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island, we have a barge that has been sitting in the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for over 25 years, as of last week. This barge contains bunker C oil and, as we learned at the end of June, large amounts of fuel contaminated with PCBs. In 1970, and for the next 14 years until 1984, the Liberals were in power in Ottawa. Within three weeks, your government will be celebrating its second year in office. Yet nothing has been done.

Your government is all talk and no action. It is all fine and well to talk about future generations and say that every Canadian is a billionaire. Those are fine words, but idle talk nonetheless. If my

colleague wants to get richer, I suggest that she buy shares from Quebecers or Canadians who may be prepared to sell their shares to her for a very reasonable price.

To conclude, I wish my colleague from Ottawa West would urge the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has not only the power to make recommendations but also effective power to force the government and its departments to respect the environment and sustainable development, favourite topics of certain government members these days.

I remember the St. Lawrence action plan, phase 1, phase 2, designed to depollute the river. Just last week, there was a report where they were catching fish to analyze their flesh. It is worse. Really.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Everything is hunky-dory, indeed. So we have an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. I ask you to do something, Mr. Speaker, and tell this Minister and this government to wake up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that your memory is excellent. Not only did you recognize me, but you were also able to tell me that I had 11 minutes remaining. I shall take up at the very word were I left off.

Let us now ask ourselves the question: does the Office of the Auditor General have the tools required to take on these new tasks? It is well known that producing the auditor general's report every year requires a lot of work. It is therefore reasonable to wonder whether the auditor general will have enough time, and enough resources particularly, to prepare, on top of it all, a specific report on the impact of the many contradictions contained in the remarks made by the Minister of the Environment.

The answer to this question however was provided by the auditor general himself in his testimony before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. At that time, Mr. Desautels told the committee that, depending on the scope of the mandate given to the function contemplated, his office could carry out the related responsibilities.

He also indicated that his office was already spending $4.5 million per year, or 7.5 percent of its total budget, on auditing programs that have a direct impact on the environment. He figures that his office could fulfil its parliamentary obligations with an additional $4.5 million, which would bring to $9 million the total budget allocated to the environment alone.

Officially, no amount has yet been set aside for this purpose. Unofficially, however, the auditor general has received the amounts he had requested in order to assume these new responsibilities. This fact and the comments made by the minister during an interview she gave last October suggest that she had to do some arm-twisting.

In fact, the minister's comments suggest that she understands the validity of the Bloc's argument that this mandate should be given to the Office of the Auditor General since, in a press release dated April 25, she describes this office as independent, influential and highly respected.

The bill provides not only that the Commissioner of the Environment will report directly to the auditor general but also that his first duty will be to help him fulfil his mandate with regard to the environment and sustainable development. For example, the commissioner will examine how effective departmental action plans are in meeting the objectives set out in the departments' sustainable development strategies.

Second, he will have to follow up on all petitions received from Canadian residents and dealing with the environment and sustainable development in accordance with the bill's provisions.

Third, the commissioner will make any examinations and inquiries that he considers necessary in order to monitor the extent to which departments have met the objectives set out in their sustainable development strategies.

Fourth, the commissioner will, on behalf of the auditor general, report annually to the House of Commons, including on the extent to which departments have implemented the plans set out in their sustainable development strategies, as well as on anything that he considers should be brought to the attention of that House in relation to other environmental issues.

The official opposition does not intend, at least for the time being, to challenge the mandate that the minister wants to give to the commissioner of the environment. However, we deplore the fact that, ultimately, the commissioner will merely have the power to make suggestions.

He will of course review environmental issues, look at citizens' concerns and follow up on these with the concerned departments, as well as conduct various studies and inquiries for the purpose of his report, as Mr. Desautels already does. But given the way this government has always treated the auditor general's recommendations, it can be assumed that the commissioner of the environment's report will be treated exactly the same way and will be left to gather dust on a shelf like so many other such documents.

A few minutes ago, I listened with great interest to the tribute paid to the late Jean-Luc Pepin, who represented the riding of Drummond, just a few kilometres from my riding. Jean-Luc Pepin, who strongly believed in the duality of Canada's nations, prepared a famous report, the Pepin-Robarts report. As you know, Mr.

Speaker, that report is still sitting on a shelf, buried under six inches of dust. The report tabled each year by the auditor general, Mr. Desautels, tells us about a few administrative horrors from this government, which triggers a big show lasting two or three weeks. It was the same when the Conservatives were in office. We talk about a lot about the report during the first week, a little less in the second week, and a great deal less in the third week. Then the report is tossed onto a shelf.

Therefore, if we are going to spend nine million dollars a year to produce yet another report which will just collect dust, the official opposition will be quick to withdraw its support for this amendment to the Auditor General Act.

A report should shake us up, stir us to action. I remember that, as the agriculture critic, I noticed in the last report that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on sunflower seeds to feed small birds.

We spent almost a million dollars on a totally unwarranted expenditure, that was a waste, pure and simple. While some people in our society go hungry, we spend several hundred thousand dollars to buy sunflower seeds to feed birds.

Worse, my political assistant in my riding told me this morning that he had received two calls about some headline in today's newspapers which stated that Canada is the second richest country in the world and that each of its citizens is worth a billion dollars. That is right: one billion, not one million. My riding office got a phone call from one of my constituents who says he is ready to sell his share at a reduced price. It is a bargain, at a thousand to one or even a million to one. If you want to make a good deal with my constituent, he is willing to sell for a good price. If you ran an ad in the Courrier Frontenac , in my riding, I am sure quite a few would be ready to sell.

In a more serious mode, reports by the new commissioner of the environment and sustainable development should not be left to gather dust on a shelf, with no action taken, because it would be simply wasting $9 million annually.

Like my colleague from Charlevoix just said, we are now closing down employment centres that are 85 per cent paid for by the UI fund, that is by the workers themselves. Considering that the fund is supposed to have a $6 billion surplus, not a deficit, this year, it is a disgrace that we should eliminate services that pay for themselves.

It is really frustrating that workers should have to fight to keep their local employment centres that are functional and responsive.

In the last minute remaining, I would like to remind you about an oil barge that is still sitting on the bottom of the sea, halfway between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island. Last week was the 25th anniversary of the sinking of that barge, obviously an accident. Need I ask which party was the ruling party in Canada in 1970? I remember which party replaced in 1984 the one that was in power in 1970, and the one that has now been in power for two years already under the Right Hon. Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice.

However, this situation has been going on for 25 years. We do not need an auditor for the environment and sustainable development to know that this barge is down there, that it has rusted out and is now leaking hundreds of gallons of bunker C oil and oil contaminated with PCBs.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the legislation we are discussing this morning, that is Bill C-83, is to amend the Auditor General Act so as, first, to ensure that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor general's reports to the House of Commons. Second, it provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Third, it imposes requirements for responding to petitions received by the auditor general about federal environmental matters in the context of sustainable development.

So that it be clear for all constituents, a petition does not necessarily have to be signed by hundreds of people. A complaint made by only one person will be processed normally as if it were endorsed by one or two thousand people.

Four, it requires monitoring and reporting to the House of Commons on petitions and the extent to which departments have met the objectives, and implemented the plans set out in their sustainable development strategies. Fifth and finally, to require each department to establish and table in the House a strategy for sustainable development.

By tabling the bill in this House, the Liberal government across the way will be able to claim that it is respecting one of its campaign commitments as set out in the red book. In this connection, the red book stated-if I may, I shall repeat the exact quote that the Minister of the Environment gave a few minutes ago-that a Liberal government will "appoint an Environmental Auditor General, reporting directly to Parliament, with powers of investigations similar to the powers of the Auditor General. This office would report annually to the public on how successfully federal programs and spending are supporting the shift to sustainable development. The report would also evaluate the implementation and enforcement of federal environmental laws. Individuals could petition the Environmental Auditor General to conduct special investigations when they see environmental policies or laws being ignored or violated". End of quote from the famous red book which, incidentally, has become very rare and therefore worth its weight in gold.

The red book is now being kept hidden away under the counter, and it is very difficult for anyone outside the Liberal Party to get a copy.

It was, however, at the suggestion of members of the opposition that the government decided to modify the Auditor General Act to integrate the position of Environmental Auditor General. Let us indicate right at the outset that the Deputy Prime Minister would have liked this position of Environmental Auditor General to report to her department, no doubt out of a desire to build up her influence within her government or her party, or maybe both. But that is another story we can get to later in more detail.

Here I would like to make a parenthetical remark. A few minutes, a few seconds ago, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment stated in his response to one of my colleagues that the environmentalists and ecologists wanted things to work out.

He says he is convinced that there is some overlap and duplication in terms of public servants, services and money, but what people, and particularly ecologists, really want is for the operation

to work. I am almost tempted to tell the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment that we too hope it will work. I remind him that it was 25 years just a few days ago that the Irving Whale , a barge full of oil, sank off the Magdalen Islands and PEI. At the end of June, we learned that there was not only bunker crude oil but also PCB-contaminated oil in the wreck.

That oil is leaking, slowly but surely, in the Atlantic ocean. If the hon. member is so intent on making it work, then he should take action. He awarded a contract in the spring and the operation was supposed to go smoothly. Yet, the barge is still at the bottom of the ocean and hundreds of litres of bunker crude oil are leaking from it. Again, if the hon. member really wants the operation to work, he should take measures not only to pump the bunker crude oil out, but also to get the Irving Whale out of there.

With leave, I will carry on after question period, but for now I will conclude by reminding the hon. member of the St. Lawrence action plan, phases I and II. The government took $6.5 million allocated to phase II and invested that money in Miramichi, several hundreds of kilometres away from the St. Lawrence River. This is the vision of the federal environment department.

Indeed, a good part of the money allocated to clean the St. Lawrence River, that is $6.5 million out of $20 million, was spent in Miramichi, New Brunswick.

Such examples must be brought to light daily in the House of Commons. I will get back to the green plan after question period.