Bill Gilmour

[Patrick Kelly, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the justice minister to review the Patrick Kelly case and in particular to release the Ontario police file to Mr. Kelly's lawyer, but more fundamentally to order an independent review into the Kelly case.

Will the justice minister commit to this House that he is going to order an independent inquiry and if so, when and what form of inquiry?

[Toxic Substances, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this paper.

We are all environmentalists. I believe the environment committee is an excellent example. It is one of the committees on which we all get along because we have the same aims. The difference is degree, and that is what we are talking about here.

Toxic substances can be brought into the scene, for example in eastern Europe, in particular Romania where there were huge quantities of waste going into the air. The other end of the spectrum is something like Wood Buffalo National Park. We are in the middle. We clearly want to manage our affairs in the best way possible.

There are naturally occurring substances such as mercury, lead and asbestos but then there are the man made toxics which are the ones we are talking about today. Clearly something that is toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative should not be on our

shopping list. Those should not be there and I believe that is where we are going.

My concern, however, is that we take too hard a line. In some areas of B.C. we have done that. I would hope that there are good scientific data so that we are acting from a good broad base rather than a good feel, for example. As the onus is going to be on industry, it needs to be involved.

I would like to go back into my other life, when I first got to Port Alberni in 1970. This is not a criticism of the pulp mill industry; in fact it is the reverse. The first time I got to Port Alberni I parked in a hotel lot. The next morning I got up and I could not see out my windshield because of the fly ash from the pulp mill. That was 24 years ago.

It was the same for scuba divers I talked to who had gone out into the canal. The bottom of the canal 25 years ago was like a wasteland. Today Alberni is much different. One has to take a second look at the mill on a day during which there is low humidity so there will be no steam to actually see if that mill is running. There is just heat going out of the stacks. There is no fly ash.

When I talk to scuba divers now they say the marine life in the harbour has all come back. That is where we have come in 24 years.

The minister is to be complimented on the consultation process. I have concerns about the time frame because it is clearly pretty tight. I would hope that in the process the minister will listen to what comes out of that process. I hope it is not set down in stone now so that in the process it can evolve.

I am pleased to see all the groups, environmental groups, the industry, all levels, so they can have input into this process. There are some concerns with international agreements and the Great Lakes. How does it tie into CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

In short, I look forward to working with this document. I thank the minister for getting it to us so quickly.

[Justice, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that there is not an independent inquiry in this case as suggested by the Marshall commission and, more important, that the key witness who said that she lied has never been interviewed.

Where is the justice in this case?

[Justice, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on February 4 I asked the justice minister to take action to review the Patrick Kelly case.

Despite the fact the minister said he would act on this matter, seven months have passed and still Mr. Kelly's lawyer has not received the complete police files necessary to prepare for the review.

Will the minister commit to the House that he will release the complete set of police files immediately?

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-33, especially given the limited amount of time this government has allowed for the debate.

This process that has taken place in the last 24 hours in this House has left me and many Canadians disappointed and disheartened. The same democratic principles that this House violated last night are ironically and also shamefully violated in this bill.

I view with suspicion and concern the intentions of this government when the members of this House are denied the opportunity to debate this bill fully and completely. It appears that this government is trying to restrict debate and rush this bill through to hide the controversial contents of this bill from the Canadian public.

This is the same strategy that the last government used a year ago in the Nunavut deal. Obviously this government has no intention to conduct business any differently than the last Conservative government. Indeed it has learned too well from its predecessors but seems to have forgotten the plunge to oblivion that closed door politics caused its predecessors.

Bill C-33 sets a dangerous precedent and as such the contents of this bill cannot be viewed too lightly. I suspect that many members on the opposite side have not even read the terms of this agreement let alone given it constructive review. If they had I question how they could remain silent for so long on this issue. How can the members in good conscience agree to railroading this legislation through the way they are doing?

There are many areas in this bill that need to be addressed and given careful consideration. Not only has this government moved closure on this bill but it also rammed the legislation through committee. This process increases the likelihood of any oversights. There has been little opportunity for honest discussion and debate on this bill as the government has made every effort to railroad it through the House at every stage of its passage.

There are many flaws in this bill that must be addressed before they become law. This bill contains a clause which allows future changes to this legislation to be made, guess what, behind

closed doors. As it stands, Bill C-33 allows for future negotiations and amendments to be decided by cabinet alone. This is another dangerous precedent, not only with these negotiations but with future government negotiations.

Is this how the government intends to conduct its business? Is this the new direction of the Liberal government? This makes a very sad joke of the red book commitments of more and open democratic government.

Let me remind the government once again of its red book commitments and ask it to consider very carefully in light of this legislation. The red book says open government will be the watch word of the Liberal program. It is a shame that in reality these words are nothing but false promises.

Why is this government in this bill planning to do business behind closed doors at the cabinet level? It clearly conflicts with the red book commitment of open government.

Legislation should not be amended by a cabinet order. Legislation should be brought forward to this House, openly debated by each member elected here today.

The laws of Canada must be created through democratic procedures to reflect the democratic system of every Parliamentarian in this House. The creation of new laws must be carried out in a fair and, I remind the House, open manner. Each elected parliamentarian represents his constituents in every vote to create or amend laws.

In all fairness to the people of Canada who put us here today, every parliamentarian must be allowed to participate in this democratic process. This government has often lauded the principle that members are elected to represent their constituents' wishes in this House. However, cabinet on its own is not a democratic representation of the people and should not make legislative commitments.

If we are to allow cabinet to change and revise law without the consent of Parliament then why have we elected 295 members of Parliament when we only need 15 cabinet members to run the country? Is this the kind of red book democracy that we have been hearing about? Canadians deserve fair representation and this means bringing legislation before this House for all members to consider and debate in this House before it is passed.

The scope of orders in council regarding future agreements is too large because this is little more than government by cabinet decree.

Additionally, there are several other areas of concern in this bill. For example, section 14 states that there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund the sums that are required to meet the monetary obligations of Canada under chapter 19. This is in the bill.

According to the revision of this section more than $242 million will be allocated to the 14 native bands which have agreed to the umbrella settlement with the federal government. Yet this government has not yet determined what its financial obligations toward these bands are. This bill gives money to native government without any obligation, requirement or mechanism to ensure that the money is distributed fairly. Where is the financial responsibility?

When Canadians give their hard earned tax dollars to the government there is a measure of trust involved in the exchange. Canadians expect their government to be fiscally responsible and this section of the act clearly does not show that responsibility.

I am sure that the government is aware of the need for financial responsibility and financial accountability to the Canadian people. I believe that is another red book commitment. Yet in this agreement the government arbitrarily provides a settlement that will amount to some $242 million and does not expect any financial accountability in return.

Every individual is financially accountable to this government at the end of each year. Each of us here is expected to fill out our income tax forms and account for our earnings. Government departments, federally and provincially, are all accountable to the people. Why then are native groups exempt from this? There must be a system of financial accountability entrenched within this bill.

Another area of concern is the section that gives the provisions of land claims or transboundary agreements still to be negotiated paramountcy over all federal and territorial laws. This means that these agreements and amendments to these agreements can supersede all laws of Canada. Federal and territorial laws must be paramount over all agreements in Canada. This should not even have to be a question. It should not even have to be discussed at this point.

There can only be one set of laws to govern the people of Canada. We cannot have one set of laws to apply to one group and another set of laws to apply to another. This is clearly a dangerous precedent. It sets up two nations. It sets one group of Canadians apart from the laws that govern Canada and another group of Canadians.

In summary, Canada is one nation. We must treat all Canadians equally under one law, not two or three sets of laws.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to respond because the Reform Party does indeed believe in national standards.

Part of the problem with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been the overlap between provincial and federal government regulations. There is one party in this House which would choose to have it all in the provinces, but we do not take that position. We feel strongly that the role of the federal government is to provide the umbrella for overseeing documents.

I look forward to looking at this area of overlap in the standing committee. Clearly over the last six years it has been an area of disagreement in CEPA. The overlap has not in my view been to the benefit of the implementation of the act because it is grinding things down rather than helping to get the work done.

I hope I have answered the member's question. If not, we can deal with it further in the lobby.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this motion before the House. I was particularly pleased to see the minister respond personally to this bill.

Canada's environment and natural heritage give Canadians a sense of pride and ownership. With that comes the responsibility to protect our environment for future generations as well as the obligation to clean up the ills that we have done in the past.

Protection of the environment in human life and health is clearly the top priority of any government. The relationship between the environment and the quality of Canadian life and the economy is integral and inseparable. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is Canada's act respecting the protection of the environment and human life and health. It was proclaimed in 1988.

CEPA replaces and incorporates several previously existing acts such as the Environmental Contaminants Act, the Ocean Dumping Control Act and the Clean Air Act. To summarize, CEPA gives the federal government authority to regulate toxic substances throughout their life cycle; establish environmental quality objectives, guidelines and codes of practice; regulate cleaning agents, nutrients and water conditioners; regulate waste handling and disposal practises, emissions and effluents for federal departments, crown corporations and federal agencies; and control of ocean dumping.

The main purpose of CEPA is to keep toxic substances out of the air, water and soil. For example, the law makes it illegal to dump anything into federally regulated waters that could harm fish. The act also regulates a list of toxic substances. Included are provisions for penalties and enforcement. Currently the maximum fine is $200,000 and a six-month jail term.

When it was proclaimed six years ago the Conservative government bragged that it was the toughest environmental law in the western hemisphere. Yet according to several sources, including the final report on CEPA of December 1993, this has proven to be quite an exaggeration. I will address some of the concerns raised in the final report a bit later.

Included in its provisions was a section stating, as the minister has noted, that the act must be reviewed every five years. In fact that is why we are here today. Given the significance of the act this clause is crucial as it allows the government the opportunity to examine, evaluate, critique and amend where necessary sections of the act which hinder its successful implementation.

The question which now needs to be asked is how are the various activities under the act contributing to achieving the protection of the environment and human life and health? We need to examine whether the act is fulfilling its original intentions. Is the act being administered effectively? What is working and what is not working? This is what has to be looked at in committee.

I would like to take the opportunity to look at some of the criticisms of the act which I hope will be brought forward during committee and seriously addressed if necessary in the revisions to the act. Uncertain areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction with environmental issues remain one of the biggest challenges in regulating and enforcing environmental laws. This seems to have played a role in CEPA's performance over the past six years.

Environmental problems rarely respect geographic or jurisdictional boundaries. Environmental problems are never just regional concerns as what impacts one end of the country may affect us all. However the division of powers when dealing with environmental concerns is not always clear. Federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction have remained a complicating issue with the legislation. There is no explicit mention of environment in the division of powers laid out in the Constitution

Act, 1867. In practice jurisdiction has been shared among the various levels of government. This partnership in responsibility is vital to the successful implementation of national environmental policies and objectives.

While the final CEPA report addresses this concern, the report points out that the lack of enforcement of this act may be due to uncertain constitutional grounds for federal action in this area.

One of the basic concepts behind CEPA was the promotion of federal-provincial harmonization. One way of promoting this was the development of working agreements among the federal and provincial governments. Equivalency agreements were to maximize efforts while minimizing overlap and duplication. This would allow both parties to achieve the desired results, protection of the environment and human health most effectively, while at the same time saving money.

Yet after six years only recently has the first agreement been signed with the province of Ontario. It has been suggested that perhaps equivalency agreements should focus more on equivalent efforts rather than on equivalent results. This is another area of the act which needs to be scrutinized. The development of working agreements with provincial environmental enforcement officials needs to be pursued more fully and more effectively. Federal-provincial overlap concerns must be addressed in this review and resolved as it is one of the recommendations in the final CEPA report.

Another area of federal-provincial overlap which needs to be addressed is that of regulations and policies and the provinces. The preliminary findings of the regulatory review noted overlap with the provincial regulations concerning asbestos mills and mines, release regulations, secondary lead smelter release regulations, storage of PCB materials and ozone depleting substance regulations.

There are two sets of regulations which is one set too many. We must work toward one clear set of regulations as a second set not only complicates matters but weakens the efficiency of both the federal and provincial regulations. Both parties have the same common goal and as such the two levels of government must co-ordinate their efforts and work together.

It appears that the implementation of the act has also been slow at the start with the priority substances list. Back in 1988 the act provided for the compilation of the list. The priority substance list was intended to identify chemicals and other materials that required urgent assessment and evaluation in order to determine their toxicities. Once the toxicity was determined regulations were then to be recommended. Forty-four chemicals were identified as priorities for assessment on the priority substances list. Yet three years after the act was passed only two had been fully identified. Even as recent as this February it was reported that the list of 44 chemicals was still awaiting assessment.

This week I learned from the environment department that of the 44 chemical substances approximately 33 had been assessed and reported. Yet information to properly assess the 11 remaining substances was still inadequate. This delay in chemical assessment and reporting needs to be evaluated as it is critical to the development of regulations and recommendations that guide the implementation of the act.

Toxic substances must be identified before they can be regulated. It is hoped that 100 chemical substances will be evaluated by the year 2000. That is 56 substances in six years or almost double the number which the department has barely managed to assess in an equivalent time. This is an issue which the committee will need to address carefully to get at the roots of this matter.

Not only the assessment of toxic substances but also the definition of toxic appear to be areas which may warrant further examination. Critics have noted that toxics are defined too narrowly in the act. One problem with this narrow definition has been its failure to deal with environmental emergencies. Perhaps an expanded definition may allow for greater application of the act. As a result this is certainly an area for discussion.

Another area of CEPA which needs to be addressed is that of its ability to address the harm that toxics cause to the environment and human health. CEPA needs to move forward to a more proactive position. Policies to date have been largely reactive.

One aspect of the act which I have mentioned is the regulation of the discharge of toxic substances. The act needs to take the next step forward and focus on discouraging the manufacture and use of these toxic substances. Rather than constantly cleaning up our mess afterward, we should stop making it in the first place. This will be an area on which the review should concentrate.

One of the main criticisms of the administration of CEPA has been the enforcement of its regulations. Out of more than 5,800 inspections carried out from June 1988 to March 1990, 300 violations were found. Of these only five companies or individuals were successfully prosecuted on nine charges. The average fine was less than $3,000.

Following this track record, the auditor general made recommendations in his 1991 report that Environment Canada needed to make enforcement and compliance with its regulations top priorities. The report also noted that clear levels of compliance needed to be established. Yet a year later the auditor general in his 1992 report noted that the previous year's recommendations had not been carried out. The 1992 report emphasized that standards of environmental quality were still lacking. There was still a lack of knowledge surrounding the whole issue of compliance and enforcement. The department seemed unable to provide the facts on how well the act was being implemented, how many businesses and individuals were complying with the laws, where enforcement was necessary and who needed to be prosecuted. Four years after its enactment it was not possible to assess the effectiveness of these existing regulations.

In 1992 the department investigated 103 cases of polluting in the 12 months ending March 31, 1992 but only prosecuted 20 cases. A recent report notes that Environment Canada lays fewer than 30 pollution charges a year in the entire country. Most polluters are let off with warnings.

The auditor general's report of April 1990 to March 1991 stated that legislation and regulation were only as good as their enforcement. However when examining the act I should emphasize that this may not be the direction we would necessarily take.

Enforcement is not the key word here; it is compliance. A law may only be good if it successfully punishes the individual. However it is better if it deters the individual from breaking the law or, even better yet, if it encourages the individual to follow the law. The effectiveness of CEPA must be measured in its level of compliance.

This is the old carrot and stick principle. It is much better to lead the donkey with the carrot than to beat it with a stick. Not to confuse people with donkeys, people should be much more willing to comply with incentive than to be focusing their efforts on not getting caught.

What needs to be looked at here is how we can build incentives around the act as with all environmental legislation and principles. The December 1993 CEPA report makes many excuses for the lack of enforcement of CEPA. This says to me that something is drastically wrong. The difficulty is targeting what it is so that we can fix it.

Some environmental groups have complained that this law is not tough enough and needs a major overhaul. CEPA has been called toothless because it is so seldom enforced. Even a former policy adviser with the department called the approach wimpy as it allows industrial polluters to continue contaminating places such as the St. Lawrence River.

As we look at the bill we need to ask the question is the act not stiff enough or is the act not being enforced? There are three possibilities: first, that the penalties are too lenient; second, that the enforcement is inadequate; or, third, that there is not too much wrong out there at all, which I rather doubt. This enforcement dilemma should be examined in detail and I look forward to doing that in committee. The final report includes many excuses for its lack of implementation. Some of these excuses contain some valid concerns.

In conclusion, I would like to say that environmental laws can no longer be just reactive; they must be proactive. This philosophy must be applied to all our environmental legislation if we are to achieve our goal of sustainable development. We must leave this planet to future generations in better condition than we inherited.

There are many concerns with CEPA that will be addressed. Some of the concerns I have mentioned, and it is not a comprehensive list, included federal-provincial overlaps, the priority substances list, and issues concerning enforcement and compliance of the act.

Over the next year as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development I look forward to participating in the task before us. We will take the act apart, examine it and look at it carefully. We will need a balanced perspective from both industry and environmental groups to help us with the task. In the end I hope we will put together a more efficient and effective act that does the job of cleaning up the environment which each and every one of us so much enjoys.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding, as I touched on in my speech, that the general knowledge in depth of this agreement is not high.

The concept of self-government, the concept of a land claim deal, that is fine. People are well aware of that. But the depth of what is in this bill and its generosity is not general knowledge.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

I thank the member for her question. We have a differing point of view which often happens in the House.

I will not be using the term First Nation because to me it implies a second nation and a third nation. There is only one one nation of Canada. That to me is equality. It is all of us together. It is not a slight on our native peoples. If there is a First Nation, what is the second, what is the third and what are the different rights? There are no different rights. We are all equal.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

I thank the member for his question. It brings very much to the fore the tying together of these two bills, native self-government and the land deal.

The member is absolutely right. We appear to be setting two different nations within a nation with these two pieces of legislation. The bills tie together, they are intertwined. I fully believe, as I have said a number of times, that we are going the wrong direction. We are only one nation. We cannot be people from Quebec, people from the Yukon, people from other parts of Canada; we are all Canadians.

The push to pass this legislation, in my mind, is going away from the direction of equality toward a self-government that cannot be defined. We have asked the government on a number of occasions to please define their view of what is self-government. Is it a municipality? Is it provincial, is it federal; what is the umbrella approach? We cannot get those answers.

Until we can get those answers, until Canadians can sit down and see what they are looking at, what we are voting on, it is so vague, so loose, it can be manipulated by virtually any party that is part of the agreement.

It is paramount that we should be going toward equality. We should be going toward a fair settlement that puts all of us on an equal basis.