Len Taylor

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats present vote nay.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate on behalf of the New Democratic Party members present, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway and myself, that we would vote nay on this motion.

[Petitions, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today of presenting, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by many residents of my constituency, specifically from the communities of Marcelin, Rabbit Lake, Hafford, Blaine Lake, Krydor and Leask.

The petitioners state that a very vocal minority of citizens are requesting Parliament to institute a dual marketing system of wheat and barley for export.

The petitioners therefore request that Parliament continue to give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers to export wheat and barley. They also request that Parliament expand further Canadian Wheat Board marketing powers to include all grains and oilseeds.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 5th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-56 be amended by adding after new subclause 5(2), the following new Clause:

"5.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 59:

"59.1 (1) Every regulation that is proposed to be made under section 59 shall be laid before each House of Parliament at least twenty sitting days before the proposed effective date thereof.

(2) Where, within fifteen sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of that House to the effect that the proposed regulation not be approved, signed by no fewer than fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, is filed with the Speaker of the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, the Speaker shall, within five sitting days of the filing of the motion, without debate or amendment put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.

(3) Where a motion referred to in subsection (2) is adopted by both Houses of Parliament, the proposed regulations to which the motion relates may not be made, and the proposed regulation shall be referred to the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers environmental affairs for further consideration.

(4) Where Parliament dissolves or prorogues earlier than fifteen sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before both Houses of Parliament under subsection (1) and a motion has not been disposed of under subsection (2) in relation to the proposed regulation in both Houses of Parliament, the proposed regulation may not be made.

(5) For the purposes of this section, "sitting day" means, in respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which the House sits."."

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to my motion in front of the House today. This is a motion that I have raised in this Chamber on one previous occasion. I am very pleased to have an opportunity to again try to convince the members of this House of the importance of dealing with public involvement in the regulatory process.

I should indicate to members and to those who are watching today from outside this Chamber that public involvement in decision making is something that I have always taken very seriously.

Although Bill C-56 in front of us deals to a certain extent with participant funding and individual participation within the process of environmental assessment, I was very anxious to include amendments as well dealing with participant funding, define more readily participant funding and also ensure that the agency in the legislation take more responsibility for participant funding programs.

I found that the amendments I submitted for inclusion on the Order Paper for today were ruled out of order before they were printed, again because they did not deal specifically with the intent of the legislation before the House.

While we are dealing with the importance of public participation in the environmental assessment process I want to urge the government to do more to ensure a public participation funding program or an intervener funding program than has been done in the legislation in front of us.

The government responded in committee to the question of greater definition of public participation funding programs by stating that it will include guidelines and rules within the regulations that make the act operable. That and other reasons is what prompts the amendment on the table now.

What I am saying by moving the amendment is that the current regulatory process is inadequate, troublesome and lacking in public scrutiny. Members of the public and in fact the members of the House do not have the ability to examine in public, debate in public, discuss in public with a view to change, regulations once they have been dealt with, generally behind closed doors.

As witness after witness before the committee in the previous Parliament and before the committee in this Parliament indicated, it is the regulations which run the act and therefore the process, not the act itself. The regulations are as important as the act.

We have spent on environmental assessment legislation hundreds if not thousands of hours putting in place the proper wording for the legislation but we have not dealt at all with the regulatory process.

One of the witnesses before the committee, a man by the name of Brian Pannell from Winnipeg had some comments in this regard that I want to bring to the attention of the House before I proceed with my arguments. Mr. Pannell said: "On the law list, the law list remains substantially deficient. I can tell you that this law list has been worked on for years and it has always been a struggle to be relatively inclusive of the real substantial decisions that should be on there and there are still many decisions that should be on there that aren't because there are many departmental interests that are served by not having them there and I don't see an early resolution to this process".

The regulatory process takes place behind closed doors. Decisions are made about how the act will be run by people who study this very closely. To a certain extent the people in this regulatory process are doing a great job. The regulations are put in place and go before cabinet. Before those regulations can be published the cabinet makes decisions, makes deletions, makes additions, does whatever it wants to, not referring anything back to the regulatory development committee or whatever it is called, and the regulations are published. That is it. Everything is done and the operations of the act proceed.

Some time ago in dealing with the previous government's gun control legislation the government set a precedent by establishing a process by which regulations could be reviewed by members of Parliament. The government conceded, because the regulations concerned the addition of firearms that could be prohibited by order in council, not by debate, not by public discussion but simply by cabinet deciding that this or that firearm could be put on a prohibited list.

In this case we have regulations that can decide the future of environmental assessment, the process, how the participant funding program is going to operate, who is going to get funding under participant funding processes, which projects will be reviewed, which projects will not be reviewed, who can appear before panel decisions, who can sit on panels and where they are going to operate. All of these details about the decision-making process that will eventually lead to recommendations on projects are dealt with under regulations. As members of Parliament we and the public have no participation in that process before, in the middle of or after it is completed.

The point I am making is fairly simple. We are asking that when the regulation process is complete and the regulations are on the table that we set aside a period of time when members of Parliament or members of the Senate can respond to those regulations. We can say to the country that we do not want these regulations to pass until such time as we have had a chance to look at them. These matters can then be brought before committees or dealt with in any way that the government wishes to have them dealt with. Should public scrutiny allow those regulations to go forward, they can.

The government loses nothing in this process other than the fact that some of the regulations and some of the regulatory process is under the scrutiny of members of Parliament, the Senate and therefore the people of Canada, if we are paying attention to the needs and the interests of the Canadians who are concerned about these matters.

I do not consider this to be a significant amendment in terms of what it means to the government achieving its ends. I do see it as a significant amendment in terms of allowing for greater public participation on the side of the question that really matters: the operational and administrative side, the regulatory side.

I urge the government to carefully consider its concern and its stated support for public participation in the process. By supporting this amendment it will bring greater clarity to the whole regulatory decision-making process.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak on the amendments, some of which I brought forward and one of which has been brought forward by a member of the Reform Party.

The amendment process of Bill C-56 that is in front of us today will give us a good indication of the seriousness with which the government wishes to approach the process of developing the best environmental assessment legislation that we possibly can.

A lot of testimony was heard before the committee studying the bill. Among that testimony were many clauses of the original bill that are not discussed under Bill C-56 today but are matters which require attention in any case. I am hoping that we will have some opportunity in the future to address some of the additional concerns that we are unable to deal with in this bill.

Also among the testimony of the witnesses before the committee were matters relating to the concept of an independent decision-making process. That is what the first amendments I proposed today deal directly with. First, these amendments ensure that the concept of independent decision-making is included in the section outlining the purposes of the act to make things perfectly clear. Second, they ensure that the decisions are consistent with the recommendations of the assessment panel and are treated seriously by giving the necessary authority to the responsible authorities.

The concept is not a new one. It is one that has already been recognized by the Liberal Party which, prior to being elected, made certain promises to the Canadian people in regard to the environment. These promises contained in the now famous red book include the following: "Under a Liberal government the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will be amended to shift decision-making powers to an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to appeal to cabinet".

In Bill C-56 the only amendments the Liberals have brought forward to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act fail to create this independent decision-making body. In fact one could argue that they do almost the opposite because the government bill amends the act to give cabinet, referred to as the governor in council, the ability to amend the panel reports and then gives it

the final say on the panel report. Certainly cabinet cannot be considered an independent decision-making agency.

There are all too many examples where government departments and even ministers are the proponents of projects which would sooner see the recommendations of an independent assessment panel disappear than have them implemented. The possible conflict of interest with cabinet or between federal and provincial governments is altogether far too likely to go unaddressed.

On the other hand it is important to recognize that elected governments must be held accountable for their actions and they must be given the power to act when the interests of the electorate, the Canadian people, the citizens of Canada, need protecting.

I recognize that at the end of the day the government is responsible for its actions or the actions of those operating in its name.

Therefore in writing the amendment before us I have tried to establish the framework for independent decision-making, that is establishing the independence of the assessment panel.

At the same time, I want to express my support for the concept of an appeal of this decision to cabinet. I tried to incorporate the idea of appeal into my amendment but it was ruled out of order by the legislative counsel before it appeared on the Order Paper. Therefore I had to rewrite my amendment in a way that would fit the needs of the legislative counsel rather than the needs that I really wanted to bring forward here today.

I was told that the idea of an appeal to cabinet was not consistent with the government's intent in Bill C-56, but I want the government to realize that although my amendments do not specifically allow for the appeal to cabinet of a panel decision or of a cabinet decision, I am willing to accept an amendment in the future, another bill that the government may wish to bring forward.

I am willing to accept an amendment that would incorporate an informal appeal process. It would be easy to do with reference to the fact that any person who participated in a mediation or a panel review in respect of a project could appeal to the governor in council any or all of the findings or recommendations set out in the report.

I want to make clear that accepting my recommendations today does not preclude a further amendment by government in the future to ensure that the appeal process exists and to give the protection that the government may think is necessary by government.

In the meantime, it is absolutely imperative that the legislation ensure the independence of the process. I think only the support of my motions today would ensure that. It is worth noting that the concept of independent decision-making is already accepted and practised in other areas of federal government activity.

Perhaps the best known example of the process, although it is somewhat different, there are similarities, exists within the mandate of the CRTC. It exists basically at arm's length from government. It issues orders that are basically binding on those applications that have been made before it.

However, there is an appeal process of sorts that allows the cabinet to make decisions on appeal. In the testimony heard during the committee study of the bill before us, officials from the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO, admitted that the current process requires that every decision of an assessment panel is not actually final until such time as the cabinet responds to it.

They also admitted that cabinet is not required to respond within any specific period of time. Therefore it is fairly easy to say that cabinet could take an infinite amount of time to respond to any report or any recommendations contained in a report from an assessment panel or from a mediation review.

We are already aware that cabinet, when it is not supportive of a panel decision or indeed parliamentary decisions, and I give the example of Bill C-13, the legislation that required more than two years to be proclaimed because of arguments received in cabinet over the regulations, as an example of how cabinet can delay matters for a long period of time.

Actually, the Indian lands claims process is also one in which cabinet has indicated that it is prepared to take its time on reviewing a decision that it is not altogether happy with. The Indian Land Claims Commission reported two years ago on the Canoe Lake Indian Band claim regarding the Cold Lake air weapons range. Cabinet is still sitting almost two years without responding to that recommendation of the commission.

We cannot allow that sort of a timeframe to elapse in regard to environmental assessment reports. Without going into any specific detail about how the two amendments that I have brought forward would work, let me simply conclude by saying that regardless of which path the cabinet wishes to take, the responsible authority is required within a short period of time to take a course of action consistent with the recommendations of the panel and, second, cabinet, if it has found the panel authority not consistent with the public idea, does have an opportunity to respond but the idea of an appeal is not within this amendment.

Therefore, I would be very happy to hear what the government has to say about adding an appeal process to the motion I have put forward.

It is my submission that the bill fails to meet the test of an independent decision-making authority as promised by the government prior to the election. I urge support of the motions I brought forward to ensure that the independent decision-making authority exists within the new agency.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 5th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-56, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 11, on page 1, the following:

"(b.2) to ensure that projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects or public concern are publicly reviewed through a process of independent decision making."

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-56 in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 33, on page 2, with the following:

"(1.1) Where a report is submitted by a mediator or review panel, the responsible authority shall take a course of action consistent with the findings and recommendations in the report.

(1.2) Within 30 days of the public release of a report mentioned in subsection (1.1), the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of dealing with any or all of the findings or recommendations set out in the report a ) require the mediator or review panel to clarify any of the findings or recommendations set out in the report; and b ) substitute its own findings and recommendations for those of the report where it concludes that the findings or recommendations of the report are not in the public interest.

(1.3) Following a decision by the Governor in Council under subsection (1.2), the responsible authority shall take a course of action under subsection (1) that is consistent with the decision of the Governor in Council."

[Meadow Lake Tribal Council, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Meadow Lake Tribal Council for its success in the forestry business, as reported this week by their auditors Price Waterhouse.

Federal loans worth $1.5 million, used by the tribal council to start two businesses, have paid off with a return of $10.7 million in corporate taxes.

The tribal council, led for many years by Chief Percy Derocher and today by Chief Richard Gladue, created jobs, contributed to their community and proved that there is an important and useful role for the federal government to play in support of aboriginal businesses.

The success of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council has paid off in other ways. Their contribution has helped lead to the naming of the town of Meadow Lake as Canada's forestry capital for 1995. We can all help them celebrate next year by ensuring that the federal government acknowledges this success with a continuation, indeed an enhancement, of the aboriginal business support program.

[Executive Salaries, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to again raise the issue of the northern tax allowance, a matter that I and my constituents have expressed concern about for many years. This was an issue that concerned my constituents and other Canadians during my first election campaign in 1988. It was an issue that the Mulroney government completely misunderstood and in responding to the complaints raised it made the situation worse.

I have always seen the northern tax benefit program as a simple acknowledgement that not all taxpayers in Canada have equal access to the programs and services to which they contribute as taxpayers. Northern residents live at a considerable distance from the majority of federal government services and the northern tax program provided them with some relief on their income tax as a result.

For example, an individual living in Pierceland, Saskatchewan has less access to federal government programs and services than does an individual living in Saskatoon. Therefore, it seemed the right thing to do when the original tax benefit program was initiated and brought into being.

However, there were problems in its implementation. Some communities achieved northern benefit status and others did not. There were arguments about why the residents in one community received benefits while residents in another did not. Instead of reviewing the criteria for the program and finding ways to increase its fairness, the Mulroney government appointed a special task force which reported to Parliament in October 1989.

The task force recommended that instead of fixing the problems the federal government should simply move the eligibility line so far north that few communities would argue about where the line was drawn. In other words, the task force recommendation walked away from the problem, took the easy way out and completely ignored the needs and desires of the people who were living in the area previously defined for eligibility.

According to the Mulroney government, which accepted the task force recommendations, the people who were receiving the benefits would be best served if they lost those benefits, not all at once but slowly, phased out over three years.

Despite their protests, these residents will see the end of the northern tax allowance this year. When taxes for 1994 are calculated and the benefit taken into account, that will be it. In 1995 these hard working Canadians will lose their benefits.

As a result it also means that each and every one of these tax paying families will see a dramatic increase in their tax bill beginning in the 1995 tax year. At the time of the task force report, I said it did nothing but address the cash grab needs of the federal government and completely ignored the needs of the people who live in the areas designated to receive the benefits.

I acknowledged the unfairness of the existing program, but I suggested that a review and some new criteria would be better than completely removing the benefits from so many tax paying residents.

Although the Liberal government since its election one year ago has refused to review the northern tax allowance program at my request, I decided last week to try once again so that in the development of the 1995 budget the government might consider reinstating the program to ensure that additional tax increases are not going to be unfairly forced on northern residents.

I was pleased to learn there is the possibility of a review. I hope the government will again tonight confirm that it is going to look at this program and give the residents of a part of my constituency and other northerners some reason to be optimistic.

[Members Of Parliament Office Inventories, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week I rose to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about two recent appointments to the Senate and

to offer a suggestion about what she, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government might do about the Senate in the future.

My remarks and the focus of my question were prompted by the government appointments earlier in the week of long-time Liberals, Ottawa's Jean-Robert Gauthier and New Brunswick's John Bryden. While I indicated that both may very well be very worthy appointments, I wanted to suggest that there is much more to this issue than the worthiness of the candidates.

Canadians are looking for a change in the Senate itself. Canadians are looking for the government to take the necessary steps to either abolish the Senate or elect its members so that Parliament's second Chamber is accountable to the people of the country and not just to the Prime Minister who made the individual appointments.

As long as the Prime Minister continues to appoint senators, the same old charge of patronage can be made. For Canadians the government of the day is seen to be just like all those who have gone before it. Once again the Prime Minister has seen fit to ignore the calls for Senate reform and instead has done as Mulroney did before him. He appointed his friends and supporters to the upper house.

The Prime Minister is missing a great opportunity to correct years of abuse. Something different must be done as quickly as possible and only the Prime Minister is in a position to act today.

About two years ago I attended a constitutional conference in Calgary at which ordinary individuals as well as experts from across western Canada participated in a discussion about the Senate and the future of democracy. I listened to a lot of debate about an elected Senate and even about proportional representation as the basis for the election, not only of the Senate but of the House of Commons as well.

I say this to indicate that I am already aware that there is a great wealth of knowledge around the country that can be called on by any Prime Minister who really wants to do something to address Canadians' mounting distrust of governments, patronage and the Senate.

The existing appointed and unaccountable Senate must be abolished. I can add that I also support replacing it with an elected Senate which is given more specific responsibilities and is accountable primarily to the regions. I realize that any reform of the Senate as we know it would require a constitutional change, accepted not only by this House and the provinces, but also by members of the Senate. We saw in the Charlottetown accord how difficult this is going to be. Therefore, there must be more than one way to abolish the Senate. I call on the Liberals across the way to take a bold, new initiative.

In addition, Canadians are concerned about the country's mounting deficit and the federal government's desire to cut the deficit by cutting spending. It seems unfortunate the Liberals are telling Canadians that our nation can no longer afford social programs, but we can afford to continue to fill the Senate with political hacks.

Many jobs will be lost in the public service this year because of cutbacks. Many ordinary Canadians will lose their jobs and others will not find jobs because existing ones in the public service will not be filled when they become vacant. The Liberals should do to the Senate what it is doing to the public service. When a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the Prime Minister should resist the political temptation to fill it and instead leave the position vacant. Over time, by attrition, the Senate will slowly abolish itself. It is certainly a better idea than continuing to appoint the party faithful who have no mandate or commitment to reforming the system.

I ask the Liberal government to be bold and reform the Senate through attrition of its members.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer that question and actually another one that came to my mind as the member from Edmonton was speaking.

Essentially, as I view the world I see the words competitive and efficiencies working hand in hand. A competitive economy or an efficient economy are one and the same thing.

To me, and more importantly as I look at the whole country, when the country or the world looks at an efficient economy it sees an economy that will produce wealth that can be redistributed to ensure that all members of that particular area will be able to benefit from that increased wealth.

An efficient economy produces jobs. The world economy today is not increasing jobs. The OECD countries are all exhibiting unemployment rates from 7 per cent to 30 per cent. Those sorts of numbers tell us that we are not a very efficient economy.

One of the things that I had hoped to indicate in my remarks while I had the floor but was unable to because of time dealt with the matter of trade and the environment. I wanted to indicate in answer to this question that I believe that trade and the environment are also very much linked. When we look to the future of the world and the carrying capacity of the earth it is very easy to see that our task as leaders on this earth is to ensure that we plan far enough ahead to ensure that our grandchildren will be able to

survive on this planet without eating foods made from artificial substances.

Currently when we look at GATT planning documents we see that these leaders are predicting declines in employment for many sectors of the existing economy. High on that list scheduled for future unemployment are our farmers, agricultural workers, textile workers and office clerks. From that list it would appear that the GATT planners seem to be expecting us to go hungry with no clothes on our backs, without any information from people who are supposed to collect it for us.

With world populations increasing the way they are, surely this is absolute nonsense. Canada's leaders should be looking at building an efficient economy that produces wealth to ensure that Canadians have the jobs to be able to compete with those in the rest of the world.