Bill Gilmour

[Global Climate Change, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the main justifications for the use of renewable over non-renewable sources of energy is the greenhouse effect. I believe this is the rationale for this motion from the member for Davenport.

The greenhouse effect is the concept that increased emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels will lead to increased temperatures in the global climate, hence the move toward renewable sources of energy as opposed to the burning of fossil fuels.

It is a fact that the earth's surface temperature and human emissions of greenhouse gases have both increased over past decades. However, to suggest that we must abandon traditional sources would be unwise to say the least.

It is important that any shift from non-renewable to renewable resources be based on the merits of that resource, not simply on an anticipation of what may or may not happen. Energy policies must be based on economic, environmental and industrial concerns. I agree that Canadians need to actively participate in energy conservation and efficiency. This does not mean the government should be issued a blank cheque to promote this concept.

The member for Davenport suggests that we should place greater reliance on renewable sources of energy over non-renewable resources. Many renewable energy technologies are available. They are already in use around the globe and can provide different alternatives.

There are several sources including solar power, wind, wave, tidal, and hydro or water power. I would like to go into this a bit to show there is really no easy fix in this huge equation.

Other less known sources include biomass, which is the conversion of plant and animal matter into energy, and geothermal energy which is from within the earth and is very popular in New Zealand.

Converting to renewable sources of energy is not an easy procedure. We need to look at the whole picture when we talk about non-renewable and renewable forms of energy because it is not as simplistic as it may appear at first glance. Renewable energy is not without its own problems. There are economic, environmental and practical considerations that must be taken into account.

California uses several forms of solar energy. There are huge energy collectors which provide electricity for hundreds of thousands of homes at competitive rates. Solar energy is also used for hot water heating in buildings and current solar energy research is looking into the concept of converting direct sunlight into electricity.

Although solar energy appears to be a sound environmental choice there are still considerations. The manufacture, installation and disposal of solar power systems involves environmental health and safety considerations. We need to question how much fossil fuel energy input is required for solar systems compared to fossil energy consumed by comparable conventional energy systems.

The manufacture of solar cells also uses hazardous material such as arsenic and cadmium. Some of these materials can be quite hazardous to the people who use them. What I am simply pointing out is that every area has its problems.

Another concern with solar power is the large amount of land required for the plants. Approximately one square kilometre is required for every 20 to 60 megawatts generated and this causes a problem.

Wind energy is another source of renewable energy. Windmills have been around for centuries and are still functioning in many areas such as California and Denmark. Presently wind turbines produce 1 per cent of the electricity for California and Hawaii and many nations are currently looking into this resource as a positive alternative.

What needs to be noted when we examine these various sources of energy is that almost every energy source has some kind of negative environmental impact. Renewable sources of energy are not without their problems and considerations.

For example, although wind power produces no air or water pollution and does not involve toxic or hazardous substances, it faces public opposition because of its visibility and the noise of the turbines.

Our traditional form of renewable energy is hydro power. Dams generate the electricity through the weight of water going

through the turbines. In Canada hydro electric power produces nearly two-thirds of all of our energy consumed.

Though hydro power is the main form of renewable energy, there are many problems or potential problems connected with it. For example, most of us are aware of the Kemano project in British Columbia. Because this project was exempted from a full environmental assessment by the previous government, resource and community concerns remain in debate with hostile stakeholders in many areas.

The Great Whale project near James Bay also illustrates the continuing environmental concerns of many of these energy megaprojects. As such, British Columbia has gone away from many of the larger projects into much smaller even to the point of small streams and rivers generating small areas that are more environmentally friendly than a huge megaproject.

The seas can also be utilized to create wave and tidal power. Temperature differences between deep cold water and warm surface waters are utilized as a power source called ocean thermal energy conversion.

By and large it is going to be in the end market forces and public demand that will direct the energy market whether it be in favour of renewable or non-renewable sources of energy.

To conclude, these are just some of the issues surrounding the use of renewable sources of energy which need to be considered when we consider whether we should be promoting this form of energy. I am mentioning these because it is easy to look at only one side of the issue without considering some of the associated concerns.

When we talk about shifting from one form of energy to another it is important that the contribution of energy development to the material welfare of Canadians be balanced against environmental sustainability.

In 1992 the production of energy supplies was valued at over $35 billion or 7 per cent of our gross domestic product. It employed over 300,000 people. Energy accounts for 11 per cent of total exports, 17 per cent of all investments and is responsible for an annual trade surplus of over $10 billion. It is a big player.

In summary, I am not suggesting that we promote one form of energy over another or that we should not consider using more renewable sources of energy. However, I do suggest that the energy consumption habits of all Canadians are an area for scrutiny. Rather than generate more energy we need to learn to use less. Therein lies the solution.

[Petitions, November 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following petitions from my riding of Comox-Alberni which contain 506 signatures.

The petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no

changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from all across Canada and contains 2,340 signatures. It is quite a fat document.

The undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a 6-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.

The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of offenders.

[Forest Industry, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. During the past year both the federal government and the province of B.C. have been spending money in Europe to defend Canadian logging practices.

At the same time and completely opposite to the previously mentioned programs, the minister's department has been funding, through CIDA, Canadian environmental groups that actively discredit B.C. logging practices in North America and in Europe.

Why is the government funding groups whose main purpose is to deliberately undermine the Canadian forest industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his speech.

As we are both on the environment committee, I was curious about his research. I was unable to find the area that deals with ministerial discretion on whether or not to look at a project. I am referring specifically to the Kemano project in British Columbia where the former government basically said it did not need environmental assessment.

Was there anywhere the member looked when he was looking for material for his speech that would cover this in the new bill? I was unable to find any and it leaves me a bit uneasy that the minister still has the discretion to ignore or postpone an assessment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that she is working toward provincial harmonization. I would like to draw on the member's expertise as a former Quebec environment minister because we seem to have a number of opposing forces at work. I applaud the Liberal's initiative to work toward harmonization. However we have a government in Quebec that is saying that environment is its jurisdiction. In the member's experience, is harmonization going to happen, will it happen and can it happen with the forces that are opposing each other in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today.

As a member of Parliament and Reform critic for the environment I am pleased to be able to serve as a check on government legislation to be assured that it is in the best interest of all Canadians and to ensure the continued protection of our environment.

As opposition critic it is not my intention to simply criticize for the sake of being critical. I will support legislation that is in the best interest of the environment and ensure this government is taking the proper steps toward protecting the environment with a fair balance between the economy and the environment. However if these factors are not taken into account I will oppose the initiative and offer constructive criticism.

During the first year of this 35th Parliament the government has been slow to move on many issues, including the environment. There has been of late a lot of talk and grandstanding but not a great deal of action.

I am pleased with the direction of this bill. It is a good start. However there is a great deal of work to be done in the area of environmental assessment. To summarize we need to be proactive and not reactive in our approach to the environment. Rather than cleaning up our mistakes after the fact we must take steps to prevent environmental damage before it occurs. We must get out of the wait and see what happens approach and begin to look into the future to make constructive and bold moves now.

As members of Parliament we must lead by example and do all that we can to protect what is vitally important to the future of Canadians, our own environment. We must ensure that the environment that we leave to our children is as good or in better condition than that which we inherited.

Many will recognize that this is the Brundtland definition of sustainable development and in my view this is the direction in which we should be heading. We must protect our land and our resources to ensure that our children have clean water, sustainable forests and unpolluted crop land. We need to ensure that when we build a bridge, a hydroelectric plant or a landfill that it does not harm the environment, that it does not affect our air, our waterways or our lands.

One way to ensure that projects are safe for the environment is to systematically identify potential environmental consequences of projects before they are started. Unwanted environmental impacts on people, their way of life and their livelihood must be minimized. Environmental assessment attempts to predict the effects of potential environmental proposals prior to their becoming a reality.

To give some historical perspective, I would like to give some background on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The federal government has used environmental assessment since 1974 to predict the potential effects of proposed projects under federal government jurisdiction. Previous federal guidelines under the environmental assessment and review process had been drafted originally as guidelines. These guidelines were only recently elevated to the status of federal regulation.

The federal role in environmental assessment has only recently expanded to assess projects that have been approved by provincial governments taking place on provincial lands. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, assessments are applied to all proposals involving federal money, land or responsibility, projects for which the federal government holds decision making authority. Federal Court of Appeal decisions on the Rafferty-Alameda dam in Saskatchewan and on the Oldman River in Alberta confirmed this point.

When a provincial assessment has been conducted, every project, decision or responsibility requires an environmental assessment where some federal concerns have not been dealt with or where the federal and provincial processes are not on an equal footing.

Recently we have seen a number of projects challenged on the grounds that they involve federal jurisdiction. There are currently four types of environmental assessment to address different projects and circumstances. These four types, as the minister stated earlier, include screening, comprehensive study, mediation and review by an independent panel.

The first two, screening and comprehensive study, are the most preliminary and account for approximately 30,000 assessments per year or 99 per cent of all federal projects assessed. Screening is usually applied to small scale projects that are quite straightforward. Comprehensive study is usually applied to larger scale, environmentally sensitive projects.

Mediation is the third type and is a voluntary approach to environmental assessment by which an impartial mediator is appointed by the environment minister to help parties resolve issues surrounding projects. It is only used when interested parties are few and consensus is possible.

Finally, when a project requires further evaluation it is referred to the Minister of the Environment for review by an independent public panel. This is the highest form of review. It is usually applied to contentious projects. It is the type we read about in the newspapers. It is important for us to note here that these contentious projects amount to less than 1 per cent of the total projects assessed.

These four different evaluation processes provide a range of assessments to meet different project needs. However, what is a cause for concern is the fact that it is up to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment whether he or she may call a public review. What about the other side? What if the minister does not call for a review when there is pressure to call for one? There appears to be a fair amount of discretion regarding the minister's option to simply ignore or postpone a review.

I have concerns regarding the amount of ministerial discretion allowed in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For example, the minister may or may not call for a review. The minister appoints the mediator or panel members. The minister may allow another federal process to be substituted for an environmental review and, finally, rather than hire an impartial person to fill the head position of the new agency created by the act, the minister fills this position through appointment, another potential source of patronage.

Another concern I have is how this bill will apply to First Nations. I trust the government will have the common sense to ensure that our environmental assessment laws are applicable to all in Canada, to all Canadians. Whether or not this will be the case is presently unclear.

It appears that First Nations may be exempt from this law as it is unclear where native self-government fits into this legislation. We cannot have one set of standards for most of the country and another set for the remainder. What occurs in one area of the country impacts all Canadians. The laws should protect all equally.

By removing First Nations from federal jurisdiction in environmental assessment we are doing not only a disservice to the natives but a disservice to all Canadians, present and future generations.

Up to this point I have been talking about Canadian environment assessment as a whole. Bill C-56 deals more specifically with three proposed amendments to the act. I would now like to deal with each in turn.

The first amendment proposed in this bill is to amend the act so that intervener funding for public participation in the review process is guaranteed. I support this amendment as it encourages increased public participation.

The Reform Party strongly encourages public involvement in government decision making as this allows the opportunity for the public to have direct input into environmental decisions affecting their lives. However this amendment must be more clearly defined as funding is not detailed in the bill. It is my view that funds should come from existing environmental department budgets and that the budget should not be expanded simply to satisfy the amendment.

This type of funding can easily be subject to abuse. Therefore it requires clear guidelines with minimum and maximum amounts established. Distribution of funds must be fair, equitable and reasonable.

In terms of accountability, recipients of funding must have clear guidelines to prevent misuse of funds and to ensure taxpayers' dollars realize maximum benefit. This is vitally important at a time when public funds are becoming much harder to come by and the public is demanding the best use of their ever decreasing tax dollar.

There are many stakeholders in the environment decision making process including federal and provincial governments, the private sector and, most important, the public at large. Ordinary Canadians are the most directly affected by the environmental impact of projects. For this reason intervener funding is an important tool and resource as it enables Canadians to participate in the process.

The second amendment to the act seeks to ensure that responses to public panel recommendations must be decided by cabinet. This means that decisions to act or to reject panel recommendations are not made solely by the Minister of the Environment but by cabinet as a whole. This allows for a more democratic system of accounting because rather than one person holding all the cards, all members of cabinet can debate and vote on the issue. It also reduces the likelihood that environmental decisions will be subject to the whims of any individual minister as government as a whole is given authority on whether or not to carry through on these panel recommendations.

The third and final amendment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act proposed in the bill amends subsection 24 by proposing to limit the number of assessments to one federal assessment per project. This amendment ensures that environmental assessments relating to the same project but involving more than one responsible authority, for example fisheries and industry, are co-ordinated to avoid duplication.

Normally when a project is proposed an assessment would be triggered immediately. For example, building a bridge normally triggers several assessments by different departments. In the past each department would conduct its own review, resulting in

costly overlap, confusion, duplication and a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

One federal assessment per project will reduce costly and time consuming situations such as the Oldman River dam project in Alberta. The overlapping and conflicting assessments of the Oldman River resulted in numerous court battles and many delays, all at great expense to the taxpayer. The federal government assessment was forced through the courts while the province refused to participate. It was simply an impossible situation.

Canadians cannot afford to have various departments within government conducting reviews over and over again. Such extravagant spending as displayed by former governments is clearly not acceptable today. Canadians are demanding one single comprehensive approach to environmental assessment. One federal assessment per project is clearly a step in the right direction. However it is not enough to have one federal environmental assessment. We need to have one environmental assessment, period; not one federal assessment followed by a similar provincial assessment.

While we may reduce the number of federal assessments we still need to address the fact that federal efforts are duplicated by the provinces. The federal government cannot legislate one assessment within Canada because it can only legislate where it has jurisdiction. The provinces also have environmental jurisdiction. The fact remains that with two levels of environmental assessment there is simply too much duplication, overlap, confusion and conflict.

We are still faced with the reality that federal assessments and provincial assessments may conflict. Even if the two assessments agree, a second one is clearly unproductive. The funds going to the second assessment would be better utilized elsewhere.

We need a common set of environmental standards and goals for both federal and provincial levels of government.

We require federal-provincial harmonization agreements worked out and signed by the provinces and the federal government. In this way we will have one set of rules and truly one joint assessment per project.

It is not enough for the government to say that it is working toward federal-provincial harmonization agreements. We have had enough talk. Now we need action. These agreements must be worked out and signed immediately.

At present there is only one federal-provincial harmonization agreement in place and that is with Alberta. There are nine other provinces that still need to sign on as well as the ambiguity with native self-government ironed out.

It is clearly the time for federal and provincial governments to begin to work together on environmental matters. It is important that we avoid turf wars between the two levels of government and aim toward common goals because the environment clearly has no borders. When it comes to the environment we must put our differences aside for the common good of all Canadians for this generation and generations to come.

Environmental protection should not be viewed, as with some members of the official opposition, as meddling in someone else's area of jurisdiction. Environmental degradation affects the country as a whole. When one area of the country is faced with severe depletion of fish stocks or another area prospers from its forest industry, the effects ripple throughout the country.

When it comes to environmental concerns, all Canadians are environmentalists as are all members within the House. We may differ on how to attain various environmental goals but protection of our environment is common to all of us.

The question is not whether we should base our legislation on federal or provincial regulation but how best the two parties can satisfy their concerns and come up with one comprehensive set of regulations.

Environmental assessment should be conducted jointly with the provinces where there is an overlap in jurisdiction. When a federal and provincial assessment has been triggered, both levels of government should work together to assess the project rather than each other doing their own study. Clearly this cannot and will not happen without one set of standards and a common goal should be shared by both parties.

It is my hope and expectation that the minister has taken the effort to consult with the provinces and that the legislation and the amendments being brought forward today have had the input of each of the provinces. It is vitally important that any new regulations meet their needs in order for harmonization agreements on the environmental assessment process to proceed as smoothly and as quickly as possible.

Given the nature of Canadian federal and provincial programs overlap is inevitable. Environment was not considered when the Canadian Constitution was drafted resulting in confusion for both levels of government. Even exclusive jurisdiction over any particular area fails to guarantee there will be no overlap. The division of responsibilities has often resulted in conflict between the two powers and has compromised our decision making abilities.

Environmental assessment has been one of the most contentious areas of conflict between federal and provincial powers. Both levels of government have legitimate roles to play in environment and resource management. However both parties must demonstrate a will to set aside their differences and work toward the common goal.

One of the government's first priorities should be the elimination of overlap because duplication wastes public funds at a time when our dollars are in short supply. A single unified approach to the environment and environmental assessment in particular would result in greater effectiveness with less confusion.

Intergovernmental harmonization agreements co-ordinate activities and clarify roles while at the same time ensuring that common objectives and goals are attained. Clearly smooth and efficient federal-provincial relations depend upon good working relationships and shared policy objectives. For this to occur, federal-provincial relations must take a co-operative rather than a competitive approach.

To illustrate the horrendous cost of duplication, according to a Treasury Board study 45 per cent of federal programs resulting in expenditures of over $40 billion overlap and compete to varying degrees with provincial programs. We simply cannot afford this duplication of services.

In conclusion, as much as I support the initiative to reduce environmental assessments to one project and one federal assessment, I support it only as a step in the right direction, a step toward one joint federal-provincial assessment. Until the final step of harmonization is achieved with all 10 provinces we will not have reached the ultimate goal of truly one environmental assessment per project.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill today. To begin, I would like to address the issue of federal multicultural policy. We will hear several Reformers speak against this policy and the former government's policy of multiculturalism but we will not hear the discontented backbenchers of the government side speaking their views.

There are many on the other side now who share the Reform position on multicultural policy. Multiculturalism is currently under debate at all levels of our society. Recently CBC aired two special episodes highlighting this very debate. The thrust of its broadcast was whether multiculturalism policy brings us together as Canadians or does exactly the opposite, pulls us apart.

Even a member of the Liberal Party, the party that first put forward its multicultural agenda and proposes to entrench it into the legislation, came forward to oppose multiculturalism. It is a fact that there is a great deal of support for the Reform position on multiculturalism everywhere within the House.

During this televised debate the Liberal member for York South-Weston referred to multiculturalism policy as a fraud that continues to be perpetuated on Canadians.

The member referred to multicultural policy as a policy that separates Canadians. He pressed that it is time for change. Remember this is a Liberal. The member opposite proposed that Canada dump its multicultural policy and begin to promote what Canadians have in common, not their differences.

I am pleased to see such progressive and logical thinking coming from the opposite side, as the member has come up with some very valid points.

It is my hope that the government will consult with all elected members in the House before it passes the legislation because Canada's multicultural policy is a fraud. Rather than take a different approach to Canada's multicultural landscape as the member has suggested, I believe the federal government should get out of the social landscaping business altogether. The government should not be funding or promoting one ethnic group over another. This is not the role of government.

A true liberal democracy simply does not try to legislate culture. Twenty-three years ago, the architect of multiculturalism, Pierre Trudeau, implemented the policy in a misguided attempt to assure the cultural freedoms of Canadians.

These freedoms were already there. Canadians were already free to nourish their own culture, speak their own language, sing their own songs, play their own music and wear their traditional clothes.

Canadians do not need government multicultural grants to practice their cultural freedoms. Canadian culture is not created or sustained, nor is it maintained through government grants. Canada is a multicultural nation not because of government policy but as a result of each individual who comprises this great country.

Multiculturalism exists regardless and in spite of government policy. Canadians do not need a song and dance fund to maintain their individual cultures. Canadians do not maintain or develop their culture through conferences or workshops or through dances or craft shows.

Culture is not something that we buy at the corner store. It is something that we learn at home mainly from our parents and our grandparents. It is an acquired attribute. It is not something that we buy.

In addition, the multiculturalism program is nothing more than a funding program for special interest groups. Last year grants to special interest groups for dances, conferences, film making, books and other miscellaneous projects totalled $25.5 million. Grants from the previous three years totalled $27 million annually.

The government may argue that $25 million or $27 million is not much in the larger scheme of things but when we are spending $100 million a day more than we are taking in, it does put it into perspective. It is a program that one, we do not need and two, we cannot afford.

We desperately require fiscal restraint. If we are going to save our social programs this government must be prepared to trim its funding. Canada cannot sustain the spending binges of this and previous Liberal governments.

Canadians are facing severe fiscal restraint with our health system and social systems deeply in trouble. The government cannot argue to maintain transfers for health care at the same levels and yet it seems determined to wander back to the Liberal spending days of the 1970s with wasteful multicultural spending.

The time has come to get with the times and show some responsibility and leadership. Canadians do not want a song and dance fund. They want jobs. They want health care. They want pensions, higher education and a clean environment.

Spending priority is not the only issue here but regardless of fiscal constraints, government should not be in the cultural policy business. It is not the business of government to ensure that Canadians maintain their cultures and traditions. That is the responsibility of the groups themselves and should not be financed with taxpayer's money.

Federal government activities should enhance the citizenship of all Canadians regardless of race, language or culture. It should be up to the provinces to choose whether they wish to promote language and culture within their individual jurisdictions.

I have another major concern. The program does not work. Even the chairman of the human rights commission admits that the program is not working. All the grants for miscellaneous conferences, workshops and dances are not achieving the intended goal. According to the human rights chair, racism is growing.

Multiculturalism policy actively categorizes people on the basis of race and countries of origin. This is wrong because it is active discrimination. Multiculturalism policy separates people on the basis of their origin instead of treating all Canadians equally regardless of race.

The Reform Party is the only party that actively promotes equality of all Canadians. It is the only party that officially recognizes that all Canadians are equal and should be treated equally.

We support programs that involve the elimination of discrimination and the right of individuals to participate in Confederation without discrimination. Such programs would be more logically transferred to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as the CHRC's mandate clearly states that the commission has statutory responsibility to develop and conduct programs to foster public understanding of the principles enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In conclusion, we oppose the current concept of multiculturalism pursued by the government and would end all funding for multiculturalism programs. Whether an ethnic group preserves its cultural background is the group's choice, not the government's.

In short, Canadians do not need nor do they want a song and dance fund enshrined in legislation.

[Great Lakes, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a divided opinion on the minister's statement. While I support action that will lead to the clean up of the Great Lakes, I question the manner in which the minister is planning to attain this goal.

During the last few weeks we have seen a flurry of activity coming out of the minister's office. Some of the announcements I have agreed with, such as the submission on environmental assessment regulations and the commissioner for the environment. Others I have disagreed with, such as the $57 million subsidy to the already booming environmental services industry.

Despite the minister's recent activity I still have some concerns regarding this government's approach to the environment. Considerable obstacles remain before Canada can claim, in the words of the minister, to be a world leader on environmental issues.

Most important among them is the question of federal-provincial jurisdiction. Herein lies the Achilles heel of all environmental laws and regulations in Canada, this tug of war, this fight between the federal government and the provincial governments on environment, or who is going to have control.

The minister will recall earlier this year she fought hard to have the NAFTA environmental office placed in Montreal. We have heard nothing further from this commission for environmental co-operation. Why? I would suggest in all probability it is because the commission is ineffective without provincial co-operation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act still requires federal-provincial agreements to avoid confusion and duplication with provincial laws.

These are some of the critical issues that must be addressed before we can claim to be a leader in the environmental sector.

This announcement on the Great Lakes is one which I support in principle. However I cannot agree with the minister on its content for it is heavy on studies but light on substance. For example phrases like detailed assessment, improved access to information, seeking global action, and improved scientific understanding are all nice rhetoric and make great headlines but they result in little action.

As my colleague has said, the Great Lakes provide one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply. I will repeat that: one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply is in the Great Lakes. Protection of this resource is clearly of critical importance and there is no one who disputes this.

Numerous agreements and reports have been produced since the first Great Lakes water quality agreement was signed in 1972. Protection of this resource clearly remains critical. Response to this problem to date has been a Canada-Ontario agreement and a proposal to manage chlorinated substances. The Canada-Ontario agreement is a jointly funded $250 million program to clean up the Great Lakes. This is a good first step, but we must take our southern neighbour into consideration when dealing with the Great Lakes.

Environment Canada released a report last year estimating that dump sites along the U.S. side of the St. Lawrence River were responsible for about 60 per cent of the most hazardous substances polluting Lake Ontario. With facts like these obviously a Canada-U.S. agreement is critical, but there is no joint agreement with the U.S. to date. The minister says she is working with the U.S. toward an agreement, however I would like to see some concrete actions toward this goal.

This plan does not hold much water-no pun intended-without an American agreement. We are sharing the same water trough. Our actions are being undermined by the fact that we do not have a joint agreement to ensure U.S. participation and compliance.

The minister was correct when she stated that progress can only be made in co-operation with other governments and federal spending will be useful only if it levers participation by other parties. Without American and provincial co-operation these plans are futile.

The minister talks about discussions, but when will the minister get beyond talk and take some concrete action? We need an agreement, not just rhetoric.

The seventh biennial report which the minister refers to suggested that the degradation of the Great Lakes has potentially catastrophic implications for human health. The IJC report noted, as the minister has pointed out, that chlorinated substances are an integral part of the problem and link chlorines with low sperm counts in men and increased breast cancer in women. Although the IJC report suggested a ban on all chlorinated substances, these conclusions lack scientific backing. It is impractical to ban all chlorinated substances, however we do need to manage them more effectively.

To reduce the release of chlorinated substances the minister talks about working with two industry sectors. She mentions the dry cleaning and metal degreasing industries. What about Canada's number one industry, forestry? Pulp and paper mills are major users of chlorine in the bleaching process. The minister fails to mention this industry in her speech and I question why. I suspect it has a lot to do with the older mills and the precarious balance they have between the economy and the environment. However it is a major sector in Canadian industry and I believe it needs to be addressed here.

In conclusion, I am encouraged that the minister is taking action on the Great Lakes. However it is not enough just to say that Canadians want to be a world leader on environmental issues, we must take the necessary steps to attain this goal. We need an agreement with the Americans and all of the provinces to reduce chlorinated toxins. We must work closely with all the industries involved.

[The Environment, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for those who are a little bit vague about what the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act really is, it is an information gathering process. That is really what we are talking about. It is used to predict potential environmental impacts on future projects.

The old act was passed by the previous government. However, it was somewhat like a eunuch; it was there in body but it was not very productive because the regulations were not there. I am pleased to see that we are finally getting to the point where we have the regulations coming down.

The problem with the old bill was that there were a number of exemptions. Hopefully these exemptions, for example radioactive waste and exports of oil and gas and hydroelectric projects, will be covered in the regulations.

It has taken us seven years to get where we are today and I am really pleased that we are here. I do have some concerns but they are hard to address because we do not have the regulations in hand as yet. There have to be clearly spelled out rules on what is and what is not subject to these rules.

One major problem is the federal-provincial overlap which the minister has addressed. Until we get rid of this turf war about whose ground it is, federal or provincial, we will be forever fighting about what goes on. The Kemano project is a good example. In some areas people said: "It is clearly provincial" and other people said: "No, it is federal because fisheries are involved". This has to be clarified. For example right now Alberta has an agreement in place but it is really agreeing to agree. We have a long way to go.

In terms of the process, I understand from the minister that on minor or fairly simple projects, it will go along quite easily. It is when we get into the contentious ones that we really get into the glue.

My riding of Comox-Alberni includes Clayoquot Sound. I have been part of the process over the last 10 years. It was sitting on the back burner and then heat started to rise to the point where it was really boiling a couple of years ago. I was able to watch the different processes, the round tables, the square tables, the oval tables. It was open and transparent. However, it became very clear to some people at the table that the process was not going to solve their problem, so they walked away from the process.

We need to have open, clear dialogue. We have to realize that if the agenda of particular people is not going to be solved and they walk away from the table that the government is going to have to step in. That is a double-edged sword because the previous government ruled that in Kemano no environmental assessment was required. We have paid dearly for that in B.C. because we have been fighting for the last number of years. Business is mad, the environmental community is mad, the fishermen are wild and the public is confused.

That is what happened by going the wrong way. In the Clayoquot Sound decision basically the full spectrum of ideas were there. The provincial government stepped in and said: "This is where it is". I believe that was a good ruling.

The government is on tender ground on this one. If it goes to cabinet after the review that is fine. It would be highly dangerous if the government then ignored that review and went off on another track.

In summary, we have to wait until we see the regulations and really have a chance to look at them because that is really what is going to make it work. I look forward to having a look at them and moving ahead.