Bill Gilmour

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that the Reform Party believes in the self-reliance of natives in the Yukon. The difficulties that we have with this bill are on the generosity aspect.

To begin with, I am concerned with the general direction of this bill because it sets a precedent and, along with other bills such as the Nunavut deal that was brought in by the Conservatives, C-16, the Sahtu, these are overly generous settlements to small numbers of people.

If you look at the Canadian map, you start to see the jigsaw puzzle that is put together, individual bits and pieces. However, if put all together it is very clear that the area in Canada north of 60 is very quickly being set aside in land claims. There is little regard for the implications on non-native Canadians because these agreements have implications for both native and non-native Canadians. We have to look at it from that aspect.

It appears that this government may be sleepwalking toward a disaster with this overly generous land settlement plan. The generosity of this agreement is somewhat ridiculous because it has no basis in fact and no basis in law.

We do not state that there should not be a settlement. That is not the point. We are saying that the size of this settlement is clearly overly generous. In fact we could say that this settlement is far too liberal. It is the kind of agreement that will drive a wedge between native and non-native Canadians.

To give some statistics, this agreement gives 17,275 square kilometres or 6,670 square miles to these four Yukon native groups. Out of this area, 12,000 square kilometres or nearly 5,000 square miles includes the mining and mineral rights. That is 6,670 square miles for 2,457 individuals or each individual getting about 3 square miles of land.

This settlement deals with only four of the bands out of 14. There are still 10 more claims to be negotiated. If these groups are to realize similar agreements then I have to ask this government where the land will come from. Certainly to grant similar agreements to the 10 remaining groups will cover the entire Yukon Territory and possibly more.

I will go back to my jigsaw puzzle because it is starting to appear that each piece is falling into place, only the whole northern top end of Canada is being taken up.

What about the land rights of non-native Canadians here? When will this government look at the developments that are going on in the rest of the world? The policy that we are talking about here today is based on race. The rest of the world is going toward equality. We see it all over the world. I have to question why this bill and the self-government bill are going against that when the rest of the world is going for, the equality of all its citizens.

What about the non-native Canadians who spent their lives in the Yukon? Where do they fit in? That is unclear. What will happen if some of these people are in an area where the land claims go through the area? What if they are displaced? Will they be compensated? Have they been consulted?

On the consultation process the government has said, yes, it has consulted with the people. However, my understanding is that it is a fairly broad consultation on very fuzzy ideas like: Are you in favour of native self-government? Yes. Are you in favour of settling the land claims? Yes.

The detail of these settlements has not been made public to my understanding. What will happen to the current landholders? If you own a house, a ranch, a trapline or whatever and it is covered by a land claim, whose law do you answer to? Is it the Canadian law? Is it native law? Is it a combination of both? I can see a nightmare of bureaucracy running through this whole situation.

There are not only native land claims. There are numerous more land claims that have to be settled. This precedent setting legislation that we are looking at is exceedingly dangerous in that each band will look at this as an agreement and say: "We want at least as much if not more". We are on the tracks heading to an area where we are going to have some huge disagreements.

Some of the areas that I have talked about before like the Nunavut deal that covered the eastern Arctic, the Inuvialuit deal that was the western Arctic, the Gwich'in agreement in the Mackenzie River delta, are all parts of this puzzle that are

falling into place. Again it appears that this government's goal is to blanket the Canadian north with these settlement agreements.

Let us go back in time because Canada is a nation of immigrants. We are all immigrants whether we arrived here first, second, third or just recently landed. Every one of us including natives has come to this country from somewhere else. Some of us have come for economic reasons. Some have come to join loved ones and some of us have had the good fortune to be born here.

Many immigrants have come here because they were persecuted somewhere else and Canada has opened its doors. What are we offering? We are offering equality for everyone. That is where we should be going today with these settlements. The first people in this country should not have any more rights or any fewer rights than other Canadians.

Moreover I do not think that the government is really aware of the extent of this settlement. According to the final umbrella agreement, $242.6 million in cash compensation will be divided among the 14 native groups to be paid over 15 years. That results in about $30,000 per individual. Thirty thousand dollars is a nice lump sum when one's house is paid for and the government is still continuing to pay the other bills.

How is this money going to be divided? When I talked earlier on the self-government bill, it became clear that the charter does not apply. We have huge sums of money and huge tracts of land that are going to be looked at and overseen by groups of people.

One of the biggest concerns that people had with the old Indian affairs act was that a native on a reserve did not own the land. He could not go to the bank and say: "I own this chunk of land". It is going to be the same thing as I understand it with these deals.

What about an individual native owning the land that he is on. This is where we start to get self-esteem. If it is owned by the band, if it is owned by an umbrella group, again we run into difficulties because it is not covered in the charter.

Does this government know the potential of the mining rights that are given in this deal? I made some phone calls to some mining people to find out and they are unclear where it is going. They do not know the potential of the mining claims in the Yukon. Because of uncertainty, a lot of the claims have been basically set back. Exploration has been set back.

The government does not know the value of what it is deeding away. Included in these four agreements is the option to acquire up to 25 per cent of the royalties held by the Yukon government, its agencies or corporations in future non-renewable resource development and hydro projects in the traditional territories.

Again, can the government tell the Canadian people what the values of these royalties are? I rather doubt it. We do not know what kind of money we are talking about here. One of the agreements, the Champagne agreement, provides for economic development agreements within the federal government to provide technical and financial assistance for economic development purposes.

How much assistance are we talking about? Does this mean unlimited loans? What are the guidelines? Again, where is the equality here? There should be the same rights and privileges for natives as for non-natives in the area.

I question if this government had any idea of the actual proportion of transfer payments involved. In fact, I wonder if anyone knows. I fail to see how this government can justify the royalties to this House and to the Canadian people. We know it is going to be asked by the Canadian people to justify it.

In addition the federal government will continue to support all the present and future programs. Again how are we getting to self-sufficiency? Getting the land, getting the money, yet the programs continue to be ongoing. This does not bode well for getting self-sufficiency of individual natives.

The minister states that these agreements give aboriginal beneficiaries the means to become self-reliant, to regain a measure of control over their lives. My colleagues and I are in complete support of such an end. We recognize the need for all Canadians to become self-reliant and to gain control over their lives.

We would support such an agreement that would actually fulfil such a goal that is beneficial to natives and non-natives alike. However, this agreement moves in a very different direction. The granting of all this money, all the land or continuing to provide the same programs and benefits will nurture dependency and in no way fosters any measure of independence. Rather it would seem that by giving out these huge sums of money and land this agreement removes the incentive.

The agreement takes away the motivation for these people to gain their own self-respect and self-worth as individuals. This agreement does not allow the natives to make their own way and to succeed on their own. It is the old Indian act again.

There is no indication anywhere in this agreement of any intention to phase out financial assistance and government native programs if the terms of the agreement prove it successful.

For all the money that this agreement deals with there is no justification to state why this money is being awarded. What is the rationale? It concerns me that this agreement sets a very bad

precedent for fiscal responsibility in future government negotiations for many, many more land claim deals and agreements with natives.

There are many concerns about the management of both the funds and land base, concerns raised by natives themselves because settlement dollars and land title are not vested in the individuals. They are vested in the organizations as I said earlier.

This huge conveyance is far too generous and the entire deal should be re-examined to bring the agreement into reality. I stress again it is the size of this agreement that we are concerned with.

What are the rights of the non-natives in this agreement? That needs to be spelled out. Some of these agreements are providing for exclusive harvesting rights in the parks and in the territories. Where do the non-natives come into this? What are their rights?

Natives are granted guaranteed participation in commercial fresh water salmon fishery and sports fishing, adventure travel, forestry, outfitting and campsite operations in the traditional territories. Does this mean that they have exclusive rights? That is unclear. Once again the rights are given out on the basis of race. When the world is moving toward equality of all its citizens this government seems to want to move away from that direction and go on to a basis of creating two nations with the nation of Canada.

I am particularly concerned about the backlash from non-native Canadians. This government with this agreement is going to drive a wedge between these two peoples. What was supposed to be a program to assist natives in B.C. in the aboriginal fisheries strategy is a good example. It is native fishermen and non-native fishermen. Twenty-five per cent of the fishery is native. They worked together for generations and did just fine until the aboriginal fisheries strategy came in. It drove a wedge between those two groups of people who got along for years and years. This is the same type of thinking I see in this agreement.

I will be very surprised if this government can provide all of the answers here. Hopefully when it is addressed in committee a number of these issues will be brought forth and will be addressed rather than rubber-stamped.

There is tremendous concern on the part of all Canadians who are not opposed to this settlement in principle but they do not like the generous deals. This agreement has to be re-examined in committee, it has to be re-examined here, the whole thinking process has to be looked at again.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

When speaking of evolution I guess we could go back a long way. However it is very clear and I pointed it out in my speech that equality and the evolution of equality can only go one direction. We have to be equal, all of us, whether we are from Quebec, from Yukon, from other parts of Canada.

That was the key point to my speech and if that is part of evolution that is exactly what I would like to see evolve in the bill because the bill does not speak to it now and it should not be passed in its present form.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just makes my point. We did not get the information until Thursday morning and the bill was due to be responded to on Friday. We had absolutely no lead time.

I find it rather curious that the native bands were here a week ahead of that time and yet the Reform Party was not advised of the agenda of the government.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in introducing the bill the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has urged the House and pressed for "the speedy passage of this important piece of historic legislation". I simply cannot understand why the government is attempting to ram the legislation through the House in the same manner as the Conservatives did in 1993 with similar legislation regarding the Nunavut deal, Bill C-132.

The minister has stated it has taken 20 years to formulate the legislation and the last few months to draft the agreements. Again I cannot understand the logic of rushing through legislation in a matter of days when it has taken us years to get this far. It begs the question: Is there another or what is the real government agenda? When this agreement which took 20 years to evolve is now being pushed through the House, we have to ask what is the rush.

Bill C-34 represents only four agreements of a possible fourteen. These future agreements will be negotiated behind closed doors if the bill passes. No doubt we can expect more Yukon bills to be pushed through the House.

Where is the new style of government the Liberals promised in the red book? For example, section 52 allows the other land claim agreements to be ratified by cabinet rather than by Parliament. Again it means it will be behind closed doors, not in the House as we are doing today. It means Parliament will no longer be involved. Again where will it be? It will be behind closed doors. So much for the open government promised by the Liberals. I expect they have to read their red book with rose coloured glasses so that only the parts they can deliver show through.

Another area I would like to touch on is the issue of constitutional recognition. In section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, there is provision on native rights stating that existing treaty and aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed. Yet there is no definition of native rights other than to say they are defined as rights in present and future land claim agreements.

The fact that these extremely vague rights are supposedly affirmed by the Constitution brings into question how readily and easily these rights can be changed. How could these rights be constitutionally entrenched when they are so vague that they can easily be altered at the whim of each new government or

cabinet? The definition of constitutional entrenchment is loose, to say the very least.

I would also like to point out that there are many problems in the definition of a native citizen as established in the bill. The bill sets out that the definition of native citizens is determined by the constitution of First Nations. In so doing the agreement provides for a completely separate level of citizenship distinct from that of non-native Canadians.

It appears the government is setting up a two-tier system with two levels of citizens and two nations. At a time when the rest of the world is striving toward equality as evidenced by what we saw in South Africa, the government is trying to establish a two-class system based on race.

It appears the Prime Minister has forgotten his days as Indian affairs minister. His so-called progressive report of 1969 proposed that Indian citizens should become equal citizens of the provinces and of the country. Now his government is proposing to relegate natives to a separate status from those of other Canadians.

As Indian affairs minister the Prime Minister wrote a report which argued for "the fundamental right of Indian people to full and equal participation in the cultural, social, economic and political life of Canada. To argue against this right is to argue for discrimination, isolation and separation. No Canadian should be excluded from participation in community life and none should expect to withdraw and enjoy the benefits that flow from those who participate". That was considered to be progressive in 1969. Compared to the implications of this agreement, I would say it still remains progressive, with the current proposed legislation regressive.

This agreement does not guarantee full and equal participation in Canada. Far from it. It sets up an entirely separate regime. The Prime Minister talked about ending the legal distinction between natives and other Canadians with a movement toward equality of all Canadians. Now his party affirms ethnic and racial distinctions. This is a step backwards. Our native people should be equals in every respect as should all Canadians. Racial distinctions are no longer justified or tolerated in today's society. It is clearly the wrong way to go.

The treatment of our native people to this point has been unequal in many respects. They have been subject to inequalities based on race. To remedy the situation by legislating more equality does not make good sense.

The agreement would affirm and strengthen racial inequalities by establishing a two-tier system, by setting up another level of citizens separate from other Canadians. How could the government justify the obvious unequal treatment which the bill will create? We simply cannot allow the legislation to pass in its present form.

The fight for discrimination has gone on for centuries. In the 18th century William Wilberforce, as an MP in the British House of Commons, fought to free the slaves. On another front we have witnessed our American neighbours struggle through the civil rights movement. We have all witnessed the downfall of the two-tiered system in South Africa.

Systems based on racial inequalities are wrong and history has shown that they do not and cannot stand up to the test of time. Why is the government trying to set up these same barriers in Bill C-34 by establishing two levels of citizenship?

This agreement sets up two separate and distinct societies within the boundaries of Canada. In addition, this system sets up a bureaucratic nightmare in the territory of Yukon. At present Yukon has two levels of government, federal and territorial.

This agreement opens the way for another possible four levels of government with ten more to follow when the ten native bands are dealt with. This means Yukon could be subject to many varying law-making bodies.

Curiously, according to the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply to native self-government. Yet the justice minister of the same government has suggested that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not apply. Who are we to believe? There is no requirement in this agreement that laws will be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When the Charlottetown accord was drafted, it included 20 provisions for native people. An amendment to the Canadian charter was proposed that would apply to laws made by Canadian people. This clause said that the charter should not diminish any rights or freedoms relating to the exercise or protection of the languages, cultures and traditions of native people.

There was another clause in the Charlottetown accord that clarified that the equality of native men and women would apply to all respects of native rights, including the right to self-government. I question that any such rights will extend to native women in this agreement. Will the rights of native women, the rights which native women demanded to have protected in the October 26 referendum be protected in this agreement? It certainly does not appear so.

The minister of Indian affairs claims that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to natives. If this is so, why did the previous government find it necessary to include such provisions if the charter already applies? The answer is that if the charter is not included in this bill then it does not apply. As it

is not mentioned, I suggest it does not apply to native self-government.

Let me recount some history for hon. members. In 1982 the Assembly of First Nations when appearing before the parliamentary committee on aboriginal affairs said that: "As Indian people we cannot afford to have individual rights override collective rights. The Canadian charter of rights is in conflict with our philosophy and our culture".

In 1992 the Assembly of First Nations published a report which rejected the charter of rights. This report recommended: "that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall not override First Nations' law". Does this philosophy still stand? Is it the intent of Bill C-34? Will the Canadian charter of rights apply to native people? If not, this concerns me and will be of great concern to many Canadians.

Perhaps members will remember that many women's groups, particularly the Native Women's Association of Canada insisted that native self-government without the protection of the charter would be dangerous for native women, stating that violence against women on reserves was widespread.

The 1989 Ontario Native Women's Association report stated that while one in every ten Canadian women have experienced some form of abuse, eight out of ten native women have been abused or assaulted or can expect to be abused or assaulted.

Section 28 of the charter guarantees protection of sexual equality. Yet all native councils would be shielded from charter protection of guaranteed sexual equality. There is nothing in this agreement to guarantee that the rights of sexual equality will be protected. This concerns me as I am sure it concerns many native women.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms may not be perfect but it is one way in which the individual rights of each and every Canadian are protected. To deny any citizen of Canada, in particular native women, protection under the charter is not only negligent but deeply unjust.

In addition, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to federal and provincial levels of government. However there is nothing in the charter that would make it apply to native self-government. The democratic rights section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives all Canadians the right to elect people to the federal government or legislative assemblies or to run for office. There is no provision in this bill to protect the democratic rights of native citizens as this level of government is not covered in the charter.

There is no guarantee under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that native people have the right to vote for native governments, run for native office or to limit the terms of native government. These are concerns that were raised only two years ago.

There is nothing in this agreement which addresses these concerns and until this aspect is included in Bill C-34 it should not be passed.

In conclusion, this bill goes well beyond giving natives the right to govern their own affairs in a manner similar to what is presently being done by municipal governments. With its all encompassing law-making powers it sets up a separate nation within the nation of Canada, a nation subject to laws and powers and outside the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are already experiencing separatist threats that originated from treating one group of Canadians differently from another. If Bill C-34 goes through in its present form we are setting the stage for even more discontent. There is room for only one nation in Canada, a nation where all Canadians are treated equally and respected by all.

[Kemano Completion Project, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Kemano completion project in British Columbia is currently under review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. However the terms of reference of this commission do not address reduced water flows into the Nechako and Fraser River systems and the subsequent impact on fisheries, municipalities and industry.

A petition from 1,100 constituents of Comox-Alberni shows the deep concern that this project has the potential of becoming the worst environmental disaster B.C. has yet encountered. The only way to avoid this potential disaster is to ensure a full federal environmental review is carried out on this project. Until this review is conducted, there is no process where all activity that occurred behind closed doors among the previous Conservative government, the B.C. government, DFO and Alcan is out in the open.

I encourage the government to order a full environmental review of the Kemano completion project in order to alleviate the concerns of many British Columbians.

[Petitions, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Comox-Alberni.

The petition states that the rural communities mainly of Merville, B.C., should not have to suffer any form of discrimination with regard to the quality of their postal services.

[Canada Wildlife Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary has stated, the purpose of Bill C-24 is to amend the existing Canada Wildlife Act.

At the outset may I say as environment critic that the Reform Party supports these long overdue amendments to the act that was first proclaimed in 1973. Since proclamation there have been a few minor amendments, but by and large the act is much the same as it was when introduced 20 years ago. Canada's wildlife legislation clearly needs modernization.

Bill C-24 is relatively simple and straightforward. However that does not mean we should just give it a rubber stamp of approval. This is the first real opportunity we have had in 20 years to sit down to review the act clause by clause and to amend the bill so that it meets the needs of the 21st century.

We must ensure the bill is all encompassing, for it is not enough simply to attempt to protect wildlife. I am pleased to see that the bill addresses a wider range of organisms. The broadening of the act to include all living organisms allows the government to protect all endangered species.

Back in 1973 when the wildlife protection bill was first passed it was said that the world was losing one species per year. Today there are 258 species on Canada's endangered species list. Only last month 20 new fish, mammals and plants were added to the endangered species list.

Some of these species include the western harvest mouse in the Okanagan and southern Alberta, the Pacific water shrew on the lower B.C. mainland, the King rail in southern Ontario, and the short-eared owl in most of Canada.

These species are largely endangered by pressures from the urban and agricultural sprawl. Habitat loss, industrial pollution and urban development contribute largely to the plight of Canada's wildlife. However the broadening of the act to include endangered species should be tempered in its use and particularly in how it is applied.

The United States with its endangered species act is not in my view the direction this country should be going. The amendments in Bill C-24 are appropriate as they cover measures necessary to protect endangered species without going to the extreme measures pursued in the United States. Too often the species in question, for example the spotted owl in the Pacific northwest, is simply the tool used to achieve another objective. In the case of the spotted owl the goal is forest preservation and the owl is simply used as a stepping stone to attain another goal.

In Canada we must ensure that our legislation is directed toward the endangered species in question and that the revised act cannot be used or abused to achieve other goals.

This will also require the co-operation and understanding of the provinces as there is an overlapping of jurisdiction. In protecting wildlife and wild organisms the act should be applied with care so as to avoid overstepping other jurisdictions. The wider discretionary powers granted to the minister by the bill must be exercised judiciously.

I would now like to step into the past for a moment and draw on my previous experiences to show where areas within the bill are appropriate and long overdue.

In my capacity as a forester for a large woodlands operation on Vancouver Island part of my duties included overseeing the land base of 250,000 acres. This involved dealing with many federal and provincial agencies, including fish and wildlife, and on numerous occasions dealing with wildlife offences.

In our area of operation there had been a particularly successful transplant of Roosevelt elk from northern Vancouver Island to the Nahmint Valley where a series of severe winters had virtually wiped out the local elk population.

During the mid-1980s, 13 young bull and cow elk were transported and released to join a single old bull who was the only survivor of the original herd. As an aside I want to say that old bull was delighted to see those cows coming off the back of the transport truck. Four of the cows were equipped with radio

collars in order to study the migration patterns and habits of the elk. It was truly a success story, and in four years the herd had multiplied to 24 animals from the original 14.

There was also a sense of pride and ownership in the community as many different groups including wildlife clubs, provincial agencies, forest companies and the community at large had banded together to make this happen.

Unfortunately this story has a dark side as four of the best breeding cows, three with radio collars, were shot illegally. To add further insult only the hind quarters of one animal were removed. The others were left to rot.

The individuals responsible were subsequently caught and processed through the courts, but they only received extremely light sentences. The local residents of Port Alberni were particularly upset with the light sentences. My point is that although I realize the situation I described is within provincial jurisdiction, similar instances occur in federal areas such as our national parks.

I am particularly pleased to see the bill address the areas of enforcement and punishment, for too often the penalty does not fit the crime. However the bill puts some teeth into areas that up until now have lacked strength.

The bill increases penalties to include a maximum $25,000 fine and a maximum six months in prison. It also creates indictable offences for the more serious infractions.

However there is one area that does not appear to be covered in the bill. It is the illegal possession and sale of endangered or protected species animal body parts. We are all familiar with the plight of the African rhino. Its tusk brings poachers huge profits for its final use as an aphrodisiac in Asia. What we are not as familiar with is that this type of atrocity is also going on in this country.

In my former job I have come across black bear carcasses where only particular organs were removed, the remainder of the animal abandoned. Why? It was because the sale of these animal organs in Asia brings big dollars where they are required in ancient remedies and tonics.

Body parts commonly being exported to Asia from Canada include: black bear gall bladders, claws, paws and teeth; seal and sea lion genitalia; beaver genitalia; deer and elk antlers in velvet; and eagle and falcon beaks and claws.

British Columbia currently has legislation directed toward possession and sale of animal parts. It is my hope that the minister will be receptive to examining those portions of the B.C. legislation that may be applicable to the bill, with the intention of further strengthening the Canada Wildlife Act to prohibit the possession and sale of animal body parts.

Another area of the bill which has been updated is that pertaining to nautical wildlife. Whereas the old act applied to the old 12-mile limit, it has now been expanded to include the 200-mile limit. This increased area of jurisdiction will play a key role in the protection of water mammals and fish stocks. Regulation making authorities related to marine protected areas have also been established in the bill, and this will allow for enforcement. Other administrative and implementation provisions such as inspection, search, seizure, custody and forfeiture are all provided for in the bill which will hopefully allow these provisions to be effectively carried out. However all these powers need to be exercised with discretion.

Other areas that deserve comment are those directed toward the recovery of costs. In light of Canada's current financial situation it is most appropriate to recover costs related to the management of public lands and protected marine areas. It will mean reduced government expenditures and a more self-sufficient system. It will allow for greater financial sustainability in policy over the long term.

In conclusion, we support the bill and look forward to examining it in detail in committee with the purpose of refining it to best deal with the wildlife concerns of the country into the next century.

[The Environment, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as Earth Day is a positive day, I will keep my comments in a positive vein.

Earth Day is a time for all of us to look inward and examine what many of us take for granted, the planet on which we live.

I am pleased to see that we are on a path through the forest that leads toward a sustainable future and that we are addressing, although sometimes quite slowly, ways to prevent pollution thus ensuring a healthy planet for our children and our grandchildren.

The Brundtland commission's definition of sustainability: "Leaving our planet to our children in the same or better condition than the one that we inherited" should be the goal of each and every one of us. In order to achieve this goal we need to get into the regular habit of doing more with less.

Although I agree with the minister that government should be involved, I feel that it is more up to each and every one of us personally, not someone else, to do what is right. Only when we take responsibility and learn to live our everyday lives by conserving resources will we have achieved this goal of sustainability.

As I said earlier, we are still on the path in the forest. Sustainability is still some distance away. Only when we live each and every day as Earth Day will we have achieved that long awaited goal.

[Environmental Secretariat, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is sending mixed signals. One day she is saying that it is a political decision; the next, she is saying that it is based on this consultant's report.

Will the minister tell us what she means by a political decision?

[Environmental Secretariat, April 22nd, 1994]

How can the minister justify the selection of Montreal for the environmental secretariat?