Monique Guay

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up from where I left off.

This is what some people who were involved and interested in the issue said at the time. However, all these representations, warnings and concerns proved to be of little help, since the current Minister of the Environment announced that legislation on October 6.

The amendments which are proposed by the minister and included in Bill C-56 do no change anything to the centralizing objectives of the federal government. The regulations made under old Bill C-13 are nothing to reassure those who want to invest in Quebec. Except for the construction of houses for non-migratory birds or field shelters, an almost endless number of projects could trigger a federal environmental assessment. The Minister of the Environment knows full well that the current Leader of the Opposition is not the one who drafted these regulations.

It is her government that decided to take control over Quebec's economic development by subjecting to a federal assessment projects of vital importance for our province, including mining development as well as the expansion of power plants and hydroelectric projects. The strategy used by the minister to that end is both very simple and very predictable.

The minister makes arrangements with a number of provinces to take control of fields where those provinces have not exercised their jurisdiction. She then signs an agreement with those provinces and there you have it: that agreement becomes just as valid for Quebec as it is for the other provinces. This is the automatic response of this centralizing government.

And the Liberals behave that way in other sectors as well. Since they took office, they have constantly introduced projects aimed at giving the federal more control over the provinces. The big federal machine is systematically trying to gain more control in every sector, in spite of its own problems and its serious functional and political deficiencies.

Members sitting on the other side are pleased. They keep singing each other's praises, they keep chanting "Long live the federal government; long live our strong centralizing government; long live the big federal machine". However, the other side of the coin is very depressing and raises serious concerns among people. And people are right to be worried. The federal government is like a steamroller levelling everything and jeopardizing vital entitlements. People fought to gain these rights and now they have to fight again to preserve them.

In fact, with their big boss who speaks of dignity and pride, their bread and butter supplier, the Liberals are driving a huge steamroller over the less affluent and middle-income taxpayers.

The provinces are also getting crushed under this huge steamroller. Naturally, the rich, the large corporations, the financiers, all those who are for centralizing to excess find pleasure in watching the steamroller do its job. It is a real shame, Mr. Speaker.

Small is beautiful and people first are concepts unknown to the people opposite. Yet, on the evening of October 25, 1993, these same people had promised us the moon. But getting back to the subject, let me quote them.

When they were in opposition, the Liberals opposite used to speak against the bill on the federal environmental assessment legislation. This will illustrate the striking transformation elected members undergo when they move across the way. It is tragi-comic.

Bach in those days, the present Liberal member for Winnipeg North Centre was saying: "We must ensure that the powers put in place are explicit enough to make it possible to develop environmental standards that can withstand provincial pressure. The government is not protecting Canadians, with this bill at least, against the aims of the provincial and federal governments. The people have been let down in so many ways already that, if we do it again, Parliament will score more poorly than ever".

That is what he thought of this bill passed by his government. It was no good then, but now it is OK.

The Liberal member for Eglinton-Lawrence, who still sits in this House, said on October 22, 1990, and I quote: "It is, in fact, legislation without teeth". [-]The key word was "redraft" and not make amendments that are going to provide acceptable frills to this bill but to alter completely the whole dimension of this bill. [-]One of those items refers to the fact that the compliance component of the bill certainly is very lacking. There is absolute indifference to the concept of making various jurisdictions of government comply, particularly when they set up their own review mechanisms".

Our colleague from Egmont, Prince Edward Island, was saying: "Bill C-78 does not meet the legislative requirements relating to environmental protection. Considering how important and urgently required this legislation is, we cannot be satisfied with such an ill-defined and toothless bill. This bill does not meet the expectations of Canadians nor those of the government's own environment and economy committee". It is so seriously flawed that it should be withdrawn or redrafted. But I am sure he will vote for this bill.

The Liberal member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso said: "In addition, I have many concerns about the philosophy behind the bill and about the bill's effectiveness". As I listen to this debate, I am convinced the government should go back to the drawing board before it asks us to pass this bill. Many basic aspects of this measure should be rethought, and quite frankly, I must say the bill is far from perfect.

The Liberal member for Nepean went even further when she said: "Unfortunately, the weakness of the legislation before us makes for a sceptical public and questions the motives of us as legislators and the seriousness of the government's intent in enacting this resolution".

The current Secretary of State and Liberal member for Northumberland said, in referring to Bill C-78, and I quote: "Mr. Mulroney's government's latest environmental legislation is fundamentally flawed. Canada will return to the dark ages of environmental law if Bill C-78 passes in its present form".

The present Minister of Industry said in the House: "The heritage of Canadians is too important to be left only to the provinces. I do not see even a wish to acknowledge that it has the power to intervene in development projects which are going to be environmentally harmful. This bill is an inadequate response in the context of many events occurring in Canada".

One of his cabinet colleagues, the Minister of social program cuts, mentioned that his Liberal colleagues had been devastating in their criticism of the flaws of this bill. He said this measure would do no good at all. He hoped that someday, we would have a government that would be able to negotiate a new agreement, with responsibility shared by federal and provincial authorities. "I think that our own creative juices should be employed for finding out how we can share jurisdiction for environmental assessment", said the present minister. It is rather comical that at the time, this minister talked about sharing responsibility, when we consider the negative response from the provinces to his social security reform.

Finally, the first prize goes to our beloved Minister of Finance, and I will give you a few samples of what he said. "Bill C-78 is so flawed that it will weaken existing standards for environmental assessment. The bill is lacking in all respects."

"So we have a bill that died on the Order Paper and which the government, with its supreme arrogance and total lack of logic, now wants to resurrect, although the measure was unanimously rejected by Canadians. As unrealistic governments go, this one takes the cake. And if there is one government proving it, it surely is the present one with its attitude towards Bill C-78. First, this bill is based on a completely false assumption. But the government wants to hold fast to a vision developed in the 1850s and to continue to believe we can produce goods without worrying about waste and the frittering away of our resources, as if it had no importance whatsoever".

"Both the business representatives and the environmentalists heard in committee think this bill is unacceptable". "When we come to office in two years, I can assure you that no member will ask himself if the water he drinks is harmless. This bill will cause more problems than it will solve. It should go back to the drawing board."

We should not be astonished by the radical turnabouts of the Minister of Finance. He is the wind vane of the Liberals.

That is what some governement members were saying when they were on this side of the House. Should we believe they were all victims of the same phenomenon and all have to get a feeling of the wind, like the Minister of Finance, before making up their minds?

The most serious aspect of this sudden change of mind on the part of the Liberals is that the Minister of Environment now praises this bill and congratulates our leader for having initiated it in 1990. She says he is the father of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and pats him on the back every opportunity she gets whereas, at the time, the Liberals were certainly not patting him on the back, quite the contrary. They were strongly against this bill, as their statements on the subject show. That is typical of the Liberals. They are real weathercocks. No, worse than that, they are opportunists.

As far as this Bill C-56 is concerned, the federal minister wants to make sure that, as much as possible, only one environmental assessment will be made for each project. Of course, and again this is easy to anticipate, she will fall back on our leader to justify her bill, but we all know that the bill tabled by our leader in 1990 has been extensively amended and that-

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was announced on October 6, is now at second reading.

This legislation includes three amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as announced by the minister on October 6. That announcement almost went unnoticed, since the paper on social program reform had been tabled the day before. The minister's decision to make the announcement on that day was obviously an attempt to create a diversion, given the controversy generated by the reform proposal tabled by her colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The method used by the minister can certainly not be called transparent and open. On that day, the minister announced a piece of legislation which was first developed in 1990 when our current leader, who was then Minister of the Environment, tabled Bill C-78 on the environmental assessment process. That legislation was reintroduced in May 1991 as Bill C-13. In December of the same year, a legislative committee made over 150 amendments to the original bill. Several provisions and clauses were deleted, reworded or added.

However, the flexibility which had characterized Bill C-78 had completely disappeared and been replaced by a very strict legislative intent. Moreover, one of these amendments, which affirms the federal government's intention to promote sustainable development, clearly indicates that the federal government considers itself the sole responsible for the renewal of resources, even though these fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Bill C-13 was passed by Parliament in June 1992. The long delay before the proclamation of the bill was due to the need to draft the regulations required to implement the act, and also to the desire of the current Minister of the Environment to introduce the amendments which we are now examining at second reading.

Following all these changes, it is clear that the current centralizing vision does not agree with the original legislation tabled by our leader when he was Minister of the Environment. In an article published in Le Devoir on April 1, 1992, Mr. Michel Yergeau, a prominent lawyer specializing in environmental law, reminded those who were trying to justify federal interference in fields of provincial jurisdiction by invoking the fact that the original legislation had been drafted under Mr. Bouchard's responsibility, that the then Minister of the Environment was very aware of the constitutional realities imposed by the nature of environmental problems.

Mr. Yergeau quoted part of a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition who stated that in the grey areas, where the Constitution does not clearly define the role of each of the stakeholders, we must have co-operation. He added that, at a time when we realize that the debate on the environment is the fight for life itself and that this fight must be taken up by the whole world, and not affect only our own jurisdictions, our constituents would not understand and even less tolerate a wrestling match between federal and provincial politicians.

Moreover, the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court in 1992, in the Oldman River case, essentially boiled down to respect for provincial jurisdictions. The Court ruled that the assessment process provided for by the order did not apply to projects undertaken pursuant to federal legislation, and I quote: "On the issue of the positive obligation to regulate, Mr. Justice LaForest indicated that it was not intended that the guidelines order be applied every time a project could have an environmental impact of an area of federal jurisdiction". He added: "The federal minister or the panel cannot use the guidelines order as a disguised tool to impinge on areas under provincial jurisdiction that have nothing to do with the relevant field of federal jurisdiction".

We must admit that all the amendments made to this legislation between the time it was first introduced and the time it was enacted changed completely the spirit of the reform proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in 1989. Bill C-78 was designed to harmonize the assessment processes and not to put under federal supervision the processes already in place in Quebec and in other provinces.

Despite these revealing statements on the true spirit and purpose of the original bill, the minister jumped on the opportunity to give credit to the Leader of the Official Opposition for this legislation. In fact, the minister always uses this defensive strategy when we ask questions regarding environmental matters that date back to the period when our leader was Minister of the Environment. Could it be that the minister is looking for a good example or even for a guide to help her run her department? If she continues to link everything she does to our leader, Canadians will wonder whether our leader is still running this department or whether he has simply become the minister's mentor.

But knowing the minister and her political ways, which are always of a partisan nature, we have to conclude that this is just a strategy to slow down the Official Opposition. She uses the alleged inaction of her predecessors to try and justify her own incompetence.

The minister obviously thinks that she just has to refer to our leader's past and we will buy everything she wants to sell us, but she is wrong. We will reject all of her proposals that do not respect the environment and we will protest against any infringement on the provinces' jurisdiction. Already, in 1992, the Bloc had expressed its strong opposition to Bill C-13 because it did not recognize the existence of a provincial environmental assessment process in Quebec. I also want to remind the minister that the Bloc Quebecois made a biting reply to the promulgation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I also remind her that the government of Quebec reacted the same way. Mr. Jacques Brassard, provincial Minister of the Environment, even withdrew Quebec's representatives from federal-provincial discussions. The new Quebec environment minister described this new federal environmental assessment process as an arrogant attempt at displacing Quebec from that jurisdiction. He went on to say that this is precisely what business people were asking his government to avoid, that business executives think having two assessment processes will be a disaster for the Quebec economy.

The Quebec minister states that developers of all kinds will be faced with two processes having two different sets of requirements. He said: "It is clearly unacceptable to Quebec. It smacks of provocation, arrogance and lack of respect for Quebec".

As I already indicated, Quebec announced it was pulling out of discussions initiated by the federal government on environmental requirements harmonization because those discussions are a sham. The Quebec minister said: "They have gone too far. This bill is a deliberate act of provocation on the part of the federal government against the new sovereignist government in Quebec. It amounts to putting the province under a kind of guardianship".

The federal minister nonetheless proclaims a so-called new era of co-operation, but it is nothing but window dressing. It clearly demonstrates the centralist vision of the federal government. Certain provinces are used to justify the use of strong-arm tactics against other provinces. The federal government signs agreements with some provinces, Alberta and Manitoba in this case, indicates that negotiations are under way with five more provinces and, all of a sudden, introduces a bill.

The wall-to-wall theory is used. The Canada-wide approach is made to apply. National standards are implemented without any regard for what is already being done in some provinces or territories. The federal bulldozer starts rolling before discussions with the provinces are completed. That is precisely the attitude provinces reject and the public no longer accepts.

Unfortunately, ever since they came to office the Liberals have done nothing but centralize and encroach upon provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals still believe in a Canada that is the same from one end to the other, wrapped in the same red tapestry made from a book of the same colour on which the members opposite have fed abundantly during the last electoral campaign. However, as time passes, colour and direction are changing.

Take for example the last green, mauve and grey books that this government made public with great pomp. Their projects and propositions once more target ordinary Canadians and show this government's determination to encroach upon provincial jurisdiction.

This bill on environmental assessment is no exception to the rule of this overbearing and totalitarian federalism, as the former Liberal Environment Minister of Quebec, Mr. Pierre Paradis, called it. Coming from a convinced and orthodox federalist, from the same party as hon. members opposite, that says it all. May I remind you that Mr. Paradis came before the Senate to try to stop the passing of the bill introduced by then minister Charest, implementing the federal environmental assessment process. The minister said that Bill C-13 was trespassing dangerously on Quebec's preserves.

He also said that this bill would allow the federal government to encroach upon a provincial jurisdiction. He believed Ottawa could, from then on, intervene any time it wished to assess a Quebec project that could have an environmental impact.

This true federalist said that Bill C-13 would allow the use of every available lever to submit as many projects as possible to the federal assessment process and even to control all aspects of assessments done by another jurisdiction. He also said that the federal process would constantly interfere with Quebec procedure.

The person who said those things in 1992 was not a member of the P.Q. or the Bloc, not a separatist. He was a Grit, a Liberal, a federalist, just like the Minister of the Environment and the government.

On November 22, 1991, Mr. Paradis wrote to his old friend in Ottawa, minister Charest, the present member for Sherbrooke. He wrote: "Bill C-13, in its present form, far from clarifying the situation, allows for a useless encroachment of the federal assessment process on decisions which fall exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction, and this can only lead to a wasteful duplication of assessment processes and, inevitably, to numerous conflicts".

The federalist Quebec minister said he wished that Ottawa would recognize and respect the process used by the provinces to assess environmental impacts, something clearly under their jurisdiction.

It was not a P.Q. member who said that, that was not an evil separatist, it was a federalist who wanted the federal government to stay in Ottawa and look after its own affairs.

In another letter addressed to another minister of the Conservative government of the time-we should probably say of the era, since this party has virtually disappeared from the map-Minister Paradis wrote on December 17, 1990: "-the bill raises important constitutional questions and many implementation problems". He was saying clearly that the federal government had no business saying it had to protect the environment when trying to regulate areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

This legislation would mean that all Quebec projects would be submitted to a federal environmental assessment. Minister Paradis was concerned about wasteful and costly duplication and delays, since the federal process would be added on to the Quebec process.

Finally, in the March 17, 1994 issue of Le Journal de Montréal , federalist Quebec minister Pierre Paradis was quoted as saying on the question of environmental assessments: We have to harmonize the two legislations in order to have a single window, predominantly under Quebec control, for environmental assessment''. And he added:Quebec maintains that its jurisdiction must be protected and that it should be in charge''.

The minister was here on March 17, 1994. How could she ignore a Quebec federalist minister's request?

A lawyer, Michel Yergeau, was of the same opinion when he wrote the following in the April 1, 1992 issue of the daily Le Devoir : ``It is not because Ottawa has taken over a matter which demands a global approach and knows no boundaries that it can altogether disregard the Constitution. With Bill C-13, Ottawa

uses its authority and unilaterally settles matters in its favour, of course".

He then adds: "To justify such abruptness, Ottawa puts forward the pressing need to protect the environment in its areas of jurisdiction. The net result of this unilateral exercise is not and cannot be good. It must be reviewed and refined". I repeat: "It must be reviewed and refined".

The way things are at the present time, C-13 is just plain raw material the courts will have to refine on a case by case basis, which can only create a lot of resentment. In the long run, the whole exercise will be more time-consuming than sitting at the bargaining table to settle this issue once and for all. This is a real timebomb the federal government has planted in the Canadian legislation. This is also a further threat to the constitutional reconciliation the government yearns for. It is not even good for the environment.

This is a rather serious statement on the part of an environmental lawyer. It seems to me that the minister should take heed.

Mr. Yergeau says that Ottawa ignores the Constitution. He talks about the abruptness of the federal government. He thinks Ottawa is setting a time bomb in the Canadian legislation. The members opposite who believe in federalism should be very concerned by these statements. They should at least wonder about the impact their actions could have on the system they so implicitly believe in. It is totally illogical to in such a manner as to destroy a federal system you trust so much.

Of course, we in the Bloc feel that this suits our purpose. If you go on like this, there will come a time in 1995 when Quebecers will tell you: We see what you are after and you can just go back to Ottawa. From now on, we will do our own thing. This is just perfect. Carry on like you have been doing. All that is grist to our mill.

In an article published in Le Devoir on March 21, 1992, Lise Bissonnette said that the passage of the Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process was a kind of takeover. She indicated that Bill C-13 added to the Quebec-Canada problem that has yet to be solved, since it looks a lot like the Constitutional issue that it exacerbates while giving a lesson to Quebec. All the elements are there.

Lise Bissonnette compared Bill C-13 to an enormous machine that can assess absolutely everything, including the areas most obviously under provincial jurisdiction. She also said that the terms and conditions of future federal-provincial agreements would ensure that the provincial process is subject to the federal process, even though Ottawa only had a small say in this area.

More far-sighted, Ms. Bissonnette declared that Ottawa was giving itself the power to jeopardize Quebec's whole energy policy and thus its choices for economic development.

Finally, she concluded her article by saying that Ottawa, by giving itself such wide, preponderant power that could take many shapes and forms, would control not only the quality of life but also a large part of economic development.

Today, the minister and the federal government are faced with the clear consensus in Quebec against the CEAA. The Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois all expressed their strong opposition to this Act. But no matter what we do or say, the federal government will go ahead. Should we take comfort in realizing that such lack of understanding and respect leads to separation? As it did so many times in the past, the federal government leaves Quebec no choice. It is a take it or leave it situation. Quebecers will have to choose soon. That is what some people involved or interested in this issue said at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I must stop here. Will I be allowed to continue later?

[Great Lakes, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the International Joint Commission, a Canada-U.S. bilateral organization created by treaty in 1909, is responsible for monitoring the progress achieved in meeting the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement by the Canadian and U.S. governments, Ontario and eight states bordering the Great Lakes.

Last winter, the commission tabled its seventh report reaffirming the recommendations in the two previous reports and made new recommendations to eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes. The conclusion of the seventh report was inescapable: The Joint Commission rejected the approach traditionally favoured by both countries. It recommended a drastically different strategy. The commission wants a clear action plan aimed at virtually eliminating persistent toxins threatening human health and the future of the Great Lakes' ecosystem.

It favoured a consultation process involving the federal government, Ontario, as well as union and community organizations to allow each player to participate in making decisions on how to achieve cleanup goals. What caught the attention of ordinary people-who do not know as much about the environment as biochemists and scientists with recognized expertise in this field-is probably the effect of toxins on animal and human health.

Reproductive, metabolic, neurological and behavioral abnormalities in humans, fish and birds which are due to water pollution in the Great Lakes are simply inconceivable. Exposure to these toxins increases the risk of breast and other types of cancer. In the long term, scientific evidence shows that PCBs, dioxins and organo-chlorinated compounds disrupt hormonal balance in animals. Studies show the existence of similar effects in humans.

Even more distressing are the long-term effects of these toxins on the body; they are currently hard to identify but may become devastating in the not too distant future. This is caused by toxic waste spills in the Great Lakes.

We must, however, admit that the governments of Ontario and Canada have made significant progress since the first agreement was signed in 1971. Since then, the amount of PCBs found in seagull eggs has gone down by 90 per cent. The iron and steel, and pulp and paper industries have reduced their release of conventional pollutants by 75 per cent since 1972, compared to 90 per cent for the petroleum industry.

The Bloc Quebecois is not denying the efforts of the two governments, but would like to point out that certain problems remain and that the Canada-Ontario agreement signed in July has been criticized on several counts. For example, Jay Palter of Greenpeace expressed his disappointment with the agreement. He felt that it would not protect the health of the public and the environment of the Great Lakes, because it ignored the most toxic chemicals and did absolutely nothing to eliminate the most toxic chlorinated substances in the Great Lakes.

Today, the minister is admittedly proposing an initial step towards the elimination of toxic chlorinated substances, but it is clearly insufficient and does not seem to meet the expectations of the environmental stakeholders. The minister indicates that the plan is designed to eliminate nine toxic chlorinated substances and to reduce the use, generation and release of five other substances, without placing a total ban on the use of chlorine.

The International Joint Commission proposed that the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds in manufacturing processes should be restricted, gradually eliminated and ultimately banned. Naturally, this approach was dependent on government consultation with industry and the other stakeholders.

The minister is basing her opinion on the results of a special meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, from which she has concluded that it is not necessary to ban the use of chlorine in manufacturing processes. We need hardly remind her that this opinion is not shared by all stakeholders in the Great Lakes' question.

At the biennial meeting of the International Joint Commission, which was held in the fall of 1993, a big controversy developed over the prohibition of that toxic substance.

For example, Greenpeace and Pollution Probe challenged claims made by American organizations such as the Chlorine Chemistry Council, as well as the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, to the effect that chlorine is not such a toxic substance.

It is essential to conduct research on chlorine and its alternatives in industrial processing techniques to put an end to the ambiguity regarding the virtual elimination of toxic substances which are harmful to our health.

Let us not forget that 40 million people live on the shores of those lakes. We often hear about the damage caused to the Amazon forest, the desertification of African land and numerous other sites threatened by human activity. The Great Lakes are one of those sites, since one quarter of the world's freshwater supply is found there. A long time ago, people may have believed that, because of its size, this body of water would never be seriously affected by pollution, but now we have to recognize that, after years of spillage, these toxic substances have formed sediments and created a very real problem.

The minister says that she is anxiously waiting for the American plan. It seems somewhat strange to us, Bloc Quebecois members, that the Canadian strategy would be released when the American plan is not even known.

If there is an issue over which the two countries should consult with each other it is the follow-up of the recommendations made by the International Joint Commission. The clean-up plans of both partners have an impact on the same body of water; consequently, these efforts must complement each other. As was the case when the signing of the Oslo Protocol on acid rain was announced last May, when measures to be initiated by the Government of Canada to deal with transborder environmental problems are announced by the minister in the House, it is imperative to supplement these with an agreement with the neighbouring country in order to make these clean-up efforts effective.

In this respect, the 1992 report by the sub-committee on acid rain of the Standing Committee on the Environment was quite clear, and I quote: "Thus, while a unilateral Canadian program of controls on acid-rain-generating emissions might carry moral or political suasion, it is recognized that a permanent solution to the problem in North America must include the United States".

The same applies to dealing with pollution by chemical substances in the Great Lakes. The same applies to the clean-up of the St. Lawrence River. Last week, I went with the environment and sustainable development committee to the St. Lawrence Centre, which implements a federal-provincial program, with a budget of around $100 million, to clean up the river.

We know that 40 per cent of the toxics that pollute the river come from the Great Lakes. We therefore feel it is essential to take a comprehensive and consistent approach. Why bother spending all this money on cleaning up the river, if toxic substances can come from unmonitored sources upstream?

If we do not take steps to deal with the whole problem, we are just wasting taxpayers money. We are literally throwing it down the drain.

In concluding, we want to thank the members of the commission for their excellent job in clarifying what remains to be done to eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes. Their determination is a sign that future generations may yet see these magnificent waters in their pristine state.

As the commission's report said, what we do to the Great Lakes, we do to ourselves and to our children.

[Irving Whale, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree that Irving is the primary responsible for this accident and that this corporation, not Canadian taxpayers, must pay for the costs involved?

[Irving Whale, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In answer to a question from the Bloc Quebecois concerning the costs related to the Irving Whale , the minister said that the money would come from the compensation fund set up by oil companies. However, we were told by the Parliament's Research Branch that there is absolutely no money left in that fund.

Can the minister confirm that the compensation fund is indeed empty and, if so, what alternative is she considering to finance the operations which will get underway to settle this issue?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Fine.

My question is for my dear colleague from the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup: I would like to have your opinion on how women are treated in this green paper and especially on the situation of people who have seasonal jobs.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

My question is coming. Is that it?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I heard a Liberal member state that we should take our own destiny in our own hands. This involves a great many things, particularly for women. But what this green paper contains concerning women is plain awful.

Just today, I think my staff has received about 50 telephone calls from women in my riding who are worried. They are worried because they have fought for years to get recognized and carve a place for themselves in society.

Today, they are told: "From now on, when you apply for UI benefits, we will check your husband's income to determine how much you will get". That is disgusting!

For 20 to 25 years, women have fought, they have fought something fierce, to take their place in society. Today, with this legislation, we are telling them that they no longer have a place in this society. We are simply telling them: "From now on, you will be dependent upon your spouse's income". That is totally unacceptable.

I represent a riding the economy of which depends on the tourist industry to the tune of 90 per cent. Some of my constituents are seasonal workers. They work, 10, 11, perhaps 12 weeks, I do not know exactly. They will be penalized because, according to this green paper, they are usually unemployed. But that is not so; they are people who depend on tourism for a living.

You know what I would do with that reform? I would take it and just throw it in the garbage because I do not believe in it. I sincerely believe that we must cut where it really counts. Do not cut the women who have fought so hard, do not cut people who really depend on it. It is not their fault. They would like to work all year if it were possible, but it is impossible for them. These people really depend on seasonal work.

I think it is totally wrong to cut there. Cut the family trusts. Cut where the cuts should be made.

I was a businesswoman before being elected to Parliament and I tell you that I never refused to pay my taxes. When I made money, I never refused to give some to the government. But today, the government is going to take money from the less fortunate.

[The Environment, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister has announced a decision by her department that affects all those concerned with projects that have an environmental impact. This announcement is consistent with the centralizing approach that drives the federal government and indeed sustains it.

The minister is preparing to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which would allow the federal government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This act, and the related regulations, authorizes the federal government to block projects that are industrial in nature or that relate to provincial trade. Once again, the federal government has gone right ahead and meddled in someone else's area of jurisdiction. Its cavalier attitude is a sign that this new era of so-called co-operation is ultimately just so much window dressing.

When the minister points out that one of the amendments to the act is the principle of one assessment per project, she seems to be disregarding the system already in place in Quebec, which has its own environmental assessment agency. The federal government's action is all the more unacceptable because Quebec's assessment process is recognized as one of the best of its kind. It is credible, well established and has demonstrated its effectiveness.

Seven hundred and forty-five projects have gone through the assessment process since 1980. Two hundred and ninety projects are at various stages of the process and assessments are completed on twenty-five major projects a year. The reinforcement of the federal environmental assessment role will lead to dissension and conflict, sole responsibility for which will rest with the federal government, the very one who wanted to put an end to the provinces' vacillation where environmental assessment was concerned.

With no regard for the process in Quebec and the specific situation in each of the provinces, the federal government has stepped in and imposed a uniform system for all the provinces that adds nothing to what we in Quebec have been doing, with considerable success, for 15 years now. It is therefore not surprising that the minister makes no mention of the provinces' satisfaction with the new regulations being introduced.

This duplication, I need hardly repeat, is completely unproductive. Regulations in hand, the Minister of the Environment wishes to work with each province towards harmonization. The question is whether it will be based on federal or on provincial regulations.

Even more amazing, officials from Quebec and the other provinces have been working with federal officials for a year now on a harmonization project designed to define more clearly the environmental responsibilities of the two levels of government. These discussions, which are still ongoing, deal with the environmental assessment process in particular. With this sort of attitude on the part of the federal government, harmonization is headed nowhere.

Despite the minister's apparent goodwill, the act places environmental assessment under federal jurisdiction. There will be no delegation of responsibilities to the provinces, because a federal assessment is required, even if one has been done by the province. At best, an assessment could be conducted jointly with a province, theoretically anyway, since in practice the federal government would retain final responsibility for the process. As it has the right to participate in the appointment of the chairperson and to determine the mandate of the review panel, whose reports it wants to see, the federal government has exclusive authority in this area.

There is therefore a considerable contradiction between the spirit of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The existing equivalence agreements allow the provinces to settle certain pollution problems without the involvement of the federal government. This will not be the case here. The federal government is not interested in delegating this authority to the provinces.

The Minister of the Environment thinks that industry will be thrilled with this federal initiative. She is quite mistaken.

Last February, the director of the Centre patronal de l'environnement du Québec denounced the Environment minister's wish to make the environmental assessment process more rigorous. This group including more than 50 of Quebec's largest businesses and some 15 associations endorsed a request by the provinces to amend the federal law to provide for mutual recognition of assessments ordered by either level of government.

The Quebec industry is wary of federal legislation because it duplicates provincial legislation, which causes delays and can discourage private sector investment. So it is rather premature to maintain that the industry will applaud the federal regulations.

There is no question that the environmental impact of projects must be assessed in any society. Governments, businesses and conglomerates no longer undertake major building or development projects affecting waterways without first assessing their environmental impact. Such environmental assessments must be rigorous and methodical with a view to sustainable development.

However, the federal government's attitude toward environmental assessments suggests that confrontation with the provinces is the starting point for promulgating the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

If the new regulations to be published soon in the Gazette officielle du Québec reflect our apprehensions, this government has shown its usual intransigence and we can only denounce this practice.

Quebec, which has been a leader in environmental assessments in Canada and acted with exemplary consistency and rigour, will thus continue to assure Quebecers of an open, effective and full process.

From Quebec's viewpoint, the federal minister's initiative has nothing to do with better environmental management. It only appears to be an unjustified intervention in an area already very well managed by the Quebec government. This is another concrete proof of the federal government's ability and eagerness to create duplication and increase costs.

[The Environment, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, instead of attacking the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. minister should look after her responsibilities.

Am I to understand that the Minister of the Environment, aware of these leaks, will allow thousands of litres more of the oil still trapped in the barge to flow into the gulf until the summer of 1995? Is this what she wants to do?