Monique Guay

[Canada Water Export Prohibition Act, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the bill introduced by my colleague from the NDP, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.

The purpose of this bill, introduced by the member for Kamloops, is clear from the title: to prohibit the export of our water by interbasin transfers.

Many questions come to mind that are not answered in this bill. These questions occurred to me after I read an article by Louis-Gilles Francoeur, published yesterday in Le Devoir . Its title is rather instructive. It is a question: ``Scientists' recommendation: fresh water under federal control?''

The journalist was referring to the report by the Canadian Water Ressources Association and to the Canadian Global Change Program, which recommends that the federal government get involved in managing fresh water resources, especially by taking over control of the main hydrographic basins such as the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.

This report, published in August under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada, suggests that the federal government review its 1970 Canada Water Act in terms of the new outlook and the new circumstances in this area.

The bill presented by the member for Kamloops is similar, since it suggests that the federal government get involved in the export of its water resources.

I will now go back to the report, which Mr. Francoeur quotes extensively in his article. It says: "The way the situation is evolving, management of fresh water, a provincial resource-again, a strictly provincial resource- could become a constitutional issue, like many other environmental management issues, for that matter. Water resource management is a strategic issue, particularly in Quebec, considering the importance of hydro power".

In light of this quote, one can clearly see that fresh water and the management of this resource is under the provinces' jurisdiction. I do not know if the member for Kamloops consulted the authorities in his province, British Columbia, before introducing his bill. I am sure his province would not agree to lose this jurisdiction. In fact, if his province, or any other, decided to export water by interbasin transfers, could they not do it since it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction?

I cannot see how the federal government would once again intrude on matters of provincial jurisdiction. We know that it is a habit dear to the Liberals, especially with regard to the environment, but for a New Democrat to get into the fray, asking the federal government to put its big fat paws into his own province's business, is beyond me. I cannot see what the member is trying to do with his bill. To protect water? To conserve water? These are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Does the member not trust his provincial government in this respect?

As a matter of fact, his province, the member will correct me if I am wrong, made its position very clear with Bill C-9, The Water Protection Act, tabled by the minister Moe Sihota. I would like the member for Kamloops to tell us more about this piece of legislation. Right from the start, minister Sihota stated his intentions on this matter.

In a press release issued on April 27, 1995, Mr. Sihota said, and I quote:

The key is for the province to have control over that development, not the federal through NAFTA or the United States.

I believe it is quite clear. Minister Sihota wants to deal with water himself because it comes under his jurisdiction, "not the federal", as he said so well in his press release .If the Environment minister of his own province says that he wants control over this matter and is telling the federal government not to interfere, why does the hon. member for Kamloops seek to impose a new act on his province and on the others? Would it not be better to leave the question of water management to the provinces, like British Columbia, that have jurisdiction over it?

Unfortunately, I have not looked at this issue with regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement. We should certainly look at this question of water exports, or trade in water, in connection with this agreement.

I sense that, once again, this will be served to us with an ecosystem sauce, that is to say, we will be told that we should consider the large living systems as a whole, because they justify the interference of Ottawa with provincial jurisdictions. The report referred to before is asking Ottawa to develop a strategy for interwoven basins. Under this strategy, Ottawa would look after large basins like the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, while provinces and municipalities would manage small basins in accordance with federal policies.

I will read to you two paragraphs from Francoeur's article which show clearly the interfering intent of the federal government. He says: "Ottawa proposes to reduce the role of the provinces, which own water resources, by drowning their constitutional responsibilities in a sea of intervenors. For example, the report suggests that we create a consortium with representatives of the public sector (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments), the First Nations, the universities, the colleges and private sector

businesses, who would tackle various problems related to water on a national and international level. The scientific societies' report also suggests that we extend federal jurisdiction to estuaries like the St. Lawrence estuary and to coastal zones, which are provincial properties, in the context of a global approach focused on ecosystems and nested drainage basins."

This report puts forward the same arguments as the federal government uses to justify interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Ecosystems, the nation, globalization, the ingredients are always the same and they bring the federal government to push provinces around. Contrary to Obelix who was the only one to fall into the kettle of magic potion, the federalists have all been cooked in the same pot. The hon. member for Kamloops is no exception because his bill reflects perfectly the centralizing views promoted by the federal government in environmental matters.

Finally, the report goes on to say that Environment Canada should enhance the protection of fresh water ecosystems by assuming jurisdiction over fresh water fishing. Yet, since 1922-

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as we said in the motion, we are not asking for the bill to be withdrawn altogether but to be postponed for six months. The environment is of course a very important matter, and we support any measures that have a positive impact on the environment and that are environmentally viable.

However, as far as Bill C-94 on the abolition of MMT is concerned, we are not convinced it is a good bill. If we consider what has been done with respect to manganese, including tests by the automotive industry, the tests now being done by independent laboratories were ordered strictly by Ethyl Corporation which, on the basis of its tests, has demonstrated that MMT does not in any way affect the components of the antipollution system in automobiles.

I also wonder what the automotive industry is doing in this respect. If studies have already found that MMT causes pollution in the components of the antipollution system, why have these tests not been published? Did they actually do any tests? Do they intend to or did they never do any at all?

When I look at the government's position in this respect, is it possible that the government was pressured by the automotive industry lobby to the extent that it felt obliged to table this bill? It is quite possible. I do not want to accuse anybody, but we all know that there are two major lobbies here in Canada. The oil company lobby and the automotive lobby. As it happens, all the automotive industries are in Ontario, not far from the environment minister's riding. Maybe that should give rise to some questions.

However, the U.S. automotive industry is only beginning to test this product. The purpose of our amendment is for us to wait until they get the results of those tests before we make a final and definitive decision, because legislation is definitive. We must have some kind of proof and nobody has proven anything yet, not even Health Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said earlier-he read it, by the way, because it is in Hansard -that as far as health is concerned, tests have shown that there is no threat whatsoever to health.

I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment made a mistake a while ago when he mentioned that manganese was a toxin. I am sorry, but if it were considered a toxic product, we would not be here considering a special piece of legislation such as Bill C-94 to ban it, because it would be covered under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This means that any product considered toxic is automatically included under CEPA. This is not the case here. Manganese is not a toxic product since we have to enact a specific legislation to ban it. There has been a slight error which I wanted to point out and correct.

We have heard about a recent ruling in the United States, which I believe to be very important. The Ethyl corporation has been working for years to keep on manufacturing and marketing its product. Very recently, a few weeks ago, a ruling ordered the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American equivalent of our Department of the Environment, to lift the ban on MMT.

In the United States, even the Environmental Protection Agency tells us when we call that it does not know if it is going to appeal, that it does not think so. We are told that this product could be reintroduced in the United States as early as the beginning of December. So what is the rationale behind Bill C-94?

We are also told that 50 per cent of American refineries are ready to use this product and cannot wait to do so. So if 50 per cent of these industries are ready to use MMT, again what is the rationale behind Bill C-94?

In the environment committee, we are always talking about harmonization, about trying to make the environment an international concern. I totally agree with that. Yes, I said many times that we have to avoid duplication and conflict and yet, with Bill C-94, we are creating a conflict with our neighbours, the Americans, who are a bit more powerful than we are.

So we are going to eliminate MMT from the market and ask all our refineries to transform their system, at a cost of several million dollars, because they will not be able to use MMT any more, and we may well have to reintroduce it in six months. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

What we are asking is not that the bill be withdrawn, but that we wait and see what happens in the United States. We are also asking to see the tests being done right now by the U.S. automotive industry, and I have the feeling that these tests will be performed a little bit faster than the ones scheduled to be done in Canada, because we will not be able to watch them. Once we have these results, we will have a complete, concrete and logical overview of the issue, and in six months' time, we can revisit the bill and make a decision based on logical arguments.

We are going through tough a period, in our economy, where we cannot afford to make mistakes. We are out of money. We are going through some hard times. Are we going to ask refineries to completely modify their process simply to achieve what we set to do as far as MMT is concerned? I know that MMT is an additive. But we are also talking about other additives now available on the market, such as ethanol. As you know, we have yet to see complete and concrete evidence that ethanol is neither toxic nor hazardous.

We may realize one day that ethanol is not that good for the environment.

I am not against the introduction of products like ethanol, but why should we replace manganese, MMT, which has been thoroughly analyzed for 15 years and has not been proven to be dangerous? On the contrary, it even helps to reduce the greenhouse effect by 20 per cent.

I am not saying that we should keep this product forever or that the bill is not good. What I am saying is that the product is now being reintroduced on the American market and that we should wait six months to see what the EPA will do or what studies the U.S. automotive industry will produce on this product before we make a logical and reasonable decision on this issue.

[Environment, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister, who prides herself on implementing the principle whereby the polluter must pay, give the example by pledging to decontaminate that potentially contaminated site before its final sale? I think my question is clear, Mr. Speaker.

[Environment, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment surely knows that her colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources will, as early as mid-December, fob off on the private sector a site located in Quebec which could be contaminated by nuclear waste. Indeed, a public servant involved in the sale wrote that: "If the site is contaminated, we may be forced to decontaminate it, even after the sale".

Is that the kind of practice to which the minister was alluding when she recently said, with great pomp: "We do our best to turn environmental challenges into economic opportunities"?

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Very well. Thank you.

We, sovereignists are as much if not more interested in ecology than most Liberal, Reform and Conservative members, the federalists in this House. To say that we are against the environment, in particular against sustainable development, because we do not support bill C-83 is going a bit far.

We are the ones who initially proposed the creation of a position of environment auditor within the auditor general's office. The minister took up the Bloc's idea and introduced the bill.

Besides, the auditor general, Denis Desautels, said in committee that he was already performing this role and could continue do to so if given more resources.

This seemed to us the best solution, the most efficient, the least expensive and the most logical. But the Liberals went overboard on this. They stuck doggedly to the promise they had made in the red book and suggested the creation of an independent office of the Commissioner of the Environment.

They suggested furthermore to renew the mandate of the auditor general in this area, even to give him additional resources. In other words, the Liberals wanted two independent offices, two auditors to perform the same task. What a fine way to manage. The Liberals wanted to create expensive and inefficient overlaps within the federal machinery itself.

So, if they are advocating creating duplication in their own house, one can certainly understand our reluctance and concern as to the commitment of these same people not to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. One can imagine the chaos and the administrative mess created by two environmental auditors. Such a situation would have been intolerable, and detrimental to the environment itself.

The Minister of the Environment-the best we ever had according to the member for Davenport, who is very humble since he himself has been a Minister of the Environment before-was clever enough to follow through. She introduced Bill C-83 at first reading stage on April 25. At that time, we were in favour of the bill.

Later on, in committee, everything changed completely. Eager to lay it on, the Liberals suggested amendments that clearly demonstrated their annoying tendency to think that environmental protection is an exclusive federal role. When these amendments were tabled, for that matter, they were in for a bumpy ride, in fact it almost degenerated into a farce. At first, the Liberals moved amendments and voted on them. Next, relying on a rule rarely invoked, they cancelled these same amendments only to move new ones and take another vote. I want to point out that no amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois carried.

So, the whole amendment stage was marked by confusion and turmoil. It seemed that the Liberals themselves could not understand each other; they appeared to be torn between publics servants and politicians. That resulted in the Liberal amendment that modifies the bill by adding section 21.1, from (a) to (h). This added clause is what had led us to fear increased federal interference in provincial jurisdiction, and that is why we reject this bill. Liberals and Reformers are doing their best to convince us that this is not the case, but we see things differently.

We have been called obsessed, paranoid, we have been told we have a phobia against federalism. Fine. We have every right to feel that way, considering the environmental record of the federal government. We would not want the government to do more when it cannot even reach its own objectives in its own jurisdiction.

There are examples. The issues dealt with by the Liberals in the last two years and more clearly demonstrate that they are far from keeping their red book promises and that the minister, whom the member for Davenport has been praising for the last few days, failed on all counts. Indeed, criticism levelled by environmentalists at the Minister of the Environment, who is so very comptent

according to the member for Davenport, has been getting harsher and harsher, lately.

Environmentalists, the provinces, experts and reporters are forthright in their assessment of the minister's work and action. Disappointment is felt everywhere. The minister's abilities are regularly called into question. Bill C-83 is itself a telling example of the government's weakness. The red book proposed an independent auditor. Liberals in the standing committee proposed the same. The result is that the minister is meeting them halfway: half result, half failure. And now the Liberals are bragging about their minister's accomplishments.

One would have to be really blind or totally soft in the head to congratulate the minister on this issue. The least we can say is that the Liberals are a spineless lot.

Another issue is endangered and threatened species. If I were a Liberal, a federalist, I would find that the minister's position on this is very poor, and that her plan of action leaves much to be desired. In fact, the member for Davenport himself has tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-275, which is aimed at protecting species. Is the very competent minister supporting this bill? Why is that legislation not part of the government agenda?

We, Quebec sovereignists, are very happy with the minister's half measures in this area. In Quebec, we are quite capable of taking care of our species. But if I were a Liberal, a federalist, I would not find that the minister's performance in this area is not very good. The greenhouse gas issue? Another issue where the minister is incapable of reaching her objectives. The provinces seem increasingly to want to distance themselves from the minister on this issue. The same holds true for the whole issue of harmonization with the provinces.

The provinces do not seem to like the minister's heavyhandedness, as she is more intent on imposing the federal will than harmonizing. That is another failure of the Liberals and their very competent minister.

As for the CEPA, the Canadian Environment Protection Act, we are still waiting for an answer from the minister. She is late, and that in spite of the fact the committee clearly asked that she meet the deadline. Is the minister really looking after her responsibilities? I will let you answer that question. However, to ask the question is to answer it.

The Irving Whale , MMT, federal BCPs, etc., all these issues have something in common. Of course, they fall under the responsibility of the environment minister, but mainly they stand out as failures or as very sensitive issues whose management can only be described as incompetent and dominated by petty politics. Are the members opposite asleep? Are they not aware of all the mistakes their minister is making and of her inability to run her department? How distinguished Liberal members, true environmentalists albeit federalists, unfortunately, can lavish such praise on the minister is beyond me.

From a sovereignist perspective, Bill C-83, as explained earlier, poses a very real threat of federal intrusion into a provincial area of jurisdiction. Looking very closely at clause 21.1, one can see this clearly.

Dealing at first with sustainable development, this clause refers further on, through subclauses a to h , to several items that are under provincial jurisdiction. True, the Liberals claim that these are merely general goals related to sustainable development. We think there is more to it than that if you look beyond the words and this list of goals. Over the long term, these goals will encourage federal departments to intrude upon the jurisdictions of other government levels. The fact that a commissioner will measure the performance of departments against these goals in their programs or projects will be an incentive for them to do more and to get better results, even if they overstep their own area of jurisdiction.

Thus, under clause 21.1, a department encroaching on an area of provincial jurisdiction will get a positive appraisal from the federal commissioner. There was certainly nothing else to be expected from the Liberal committee members. True to themselves, they repeated the same arguments they had put forward when we were studying the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Sustainable development, a concept which the Liberals use a great deal to crowd out the provinces, is an ideal all societies should strive for.

Let us be clear. What is at stake here is not the validity of this principle, but the way it is implemented.

The Bloc Quebecois not only recognizes the validity of the principle, but also the need, not to say the urgent need, to translate it into concrete measures.

We believe this principle should be implemented by the provinces because they have the overriding jurisdiction over the environment. It is up to the provinces to promote the conditions needed for sustainable development.

In a federal system, the principle of sustainable development takes on a new dimension, that is respect for jurisdictions and areas of authority. Obviously, the squandering of both financial and human resources in order to maintain a dual structure, is in no way sustainable.

However, clause 21.1 provides for the commissioner to monitor the progress of the various departments, by taking into consideration criteria which clearly come under areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Clause 21.1 (a) deals with the integration of the environment and the economy. In fact, this part of the commissioner's mandate can turn into subsidy programs for suppliers or targeted purchase programs. For example, the Department of Public Works and Government Services can set so-called ``environmental'' standards for some very specific purchase programs.

Let us say that the department wants to buy 10,000 sheets of plywood, but that the award of this contract is subject to some sustainable development standards stipulated in the purchase program. The commissioner comes in, does his job, examines the purchase program and realizes that the program does not meet some objectives, such as maintenance of the resource, the wood fibre used, or that the process used causes too much pollution.

In other words, the environment commissioner assesses the purchase program and concludes that the standards do not promote sustainable development. In his report, he then urges the department to upgrade its criteria.

But, in this case involving the purchase of sheets of plywood, the whole industry comes under the provincial jurisdiction, thus under provincial criteria. What will happen if the federal criteria are not compatible with the Quebec criteria? What will industries do in such a mess? Who is better able to impose criteria and standards? The federal minister, under the guidance of the commissioner, or the Quebec minister?

There is no doubt in my mind that the provinces, which already have jurisdiction in this matter, are in a better position to manage their own affairs, that is, in this case, the forest industry and its pollutants.

This situation could occur in each and every department. One can easily imagine the jurisdictional problems that such situations could cause. This kind of back-door underhanded interference is unacceptable. I would like to hope that federalists will be bright enough to understand this situation and recognize that it is quite probable.

Other examples show that the federal government has used its spending power several times to launch programs or projects in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In many cases, after a few months, the federal government withdrew and let the provinces, especially the province of Quebec, foot the bill or assume responsibility for cancellation.

Item (b) is about protecting the health of Canadians. That makes the people on the other side jump and rant on about us, saying that the Bloc is against protecting the health of Canadians and Canadians being in good shape.

What we want is for Quebecers, Ontarians and Albertans to be in good health. Health is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It incumbent upon the provinces to prevent environmental degradation from threatening public health.

How far could the federal government go with this clause? It is a question the Liberals should answer.

Once again, duplication of standards and competition with provincial standards are inefficient and costly, for governments as well as for businesses and individuals. Again, the federal government opens the door to further jurisdictional quarrels.

Considering the crystal clear position of provinces on this issue, it is difficult to understand the attitude of the federal government. This is further proof that the Liberals have completely failed to grasp the repeated requests for change made by Canadians and Quebecers.

Clause 21.1(c) deals with the protection of ecosystems. As owners and managers of the land, the provinces have jurisdiction over the management of ecosystems. For example, to support this role, Quebec has created 17 national parks. It also adopted legislative tools to ensure the protection of biodiversity.

Provinces that have not done this must take action and meet the demands of the international community, which, for example, has criticized, in the OECD report, the environmental performance of Canada in the protection of ecosystems.

Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, is an object of concern for the protection of ecosystems. With this bill, the minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the saviour of our nation and of our turbot, strips the Minister of the Environment of her jurisdiction over this area.

He says that he wants to take full responsibility for the protection of ecosystems. We can well imagine the commissioner asking the minister of Fisheries to impose standards on a municipal waste water treatment plant because it pollutes an ecosystem where specific species of fish live. But municipal waste waters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. Is it not a direct interference with provincial jurisdiction?

Paragraph ( d ) is about meeting Canada's international obligations. The majority of these international commitments were made on behalf of the provinces, which are sometimes the last to be informed of Canadian positions. That goes to show the contempt in which the provinces are held by the federal government.

For example, Canada made serious mistakes by committing to reduce greenhouse gases to an extent far greater than what some of the most directly concerned provinces would have accepted. These are a few things that make us doubt the will of the federal government to respect the provinces. Section 21.1 of Bill C-83 is evidence of the contrary.

Under the guise of environmental protection objectives, the federal government is encroaching further on provinces' jurisdictions. I would also like to say a few words about the opportunity this bill gives individuals and groups to put pressure through petitions. Allow me to be sceptical about the effectiveness of these petitions, which will be treated the same way they are treated now by the government: they will simply be tabled in the House. Obviously petitions do not change anything and do not influence anybody, including ministers.

As I have said before, lobbyists and ministers go hand in hand and petitions are an exercise in futility. It is ridiculous to claim that the petition tabling process provided for in Bill C-93 will be a formidable weapon for the protection of the environment. The minister has not reinvented the wheel with this idea.

To conclude my remarks, I will say this: the commissioner of the environment must not encourage or even support this offhand attitude that characterizes federal interventions as a whole. I would like to read to you an excerpt from a document on the impact of federalism, published by the Quebec government in August 1995, and I quote: "Quebec's effectiveness and its ability to meet its objectives are increasingly hindered by the intransigence shown by the federal government in areas such as environmental assessment, the inconsistency of its interventions in relation to those of Quebec, including the sudden elimination of grant program funding and regulatory duplication in the pulp and paper and mining industries, the derogatory remarks contained in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and the fact that the federal government is forcing the adoption of its strategies in areas that should largely be under provincial jurisdiction, such as toxic substances, pollution prevention and sustainable development."

The role of the commissioner of the environment is not to promote duplication. On the contrary, he should encourage the various levels of government to respect each other's areas of jurisdiction. By giving so explicitly to the commissioner of the environment the mandate to monitor the extent to which sustainable development objectives are met, members of the committee have unduly politicized the role of the commissioner. We hope that, in the medium term, the use he will make of this mandate will have no impact on his credibility and his impartiality.

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you wish me to withdraw that part?

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to speaking on third reading of Bill C-83 because of the debate we had last Monday on an amendment we tabled that would have deleted paragraphs (a) to (h) in clause 21(1) of the bill. I very much wanted to clarify a fundamental difference between members of the Bloc Quebecois and other members in this House.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are sovereignists and we come from Quebec. In other words, we support Quebec's sovereignty and are opposed to any form of intrusion in its jurisdictions, while seeking to expand those jurisdictions until Quebecers decide to have their own country.

Obviously we do not have the same outlook as the other members of this House, who are federalists. When a bill is tabled, we do not consider or analyze the bill in the same way the Liberals, Reform members and the remaining Conservatives do, who are federalists. They still believe in federalism but we do not. They believe in intrusion and imposition but we do not.

It is only normal that we should see bills like the one we are discussing today as potential for encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions, while the other parties do not see it that way.

The deep-seated convictions of each and everyone of us mean that our points of view are different. We always try to assess the short and longer term impact of legislation on the prerogatives of the provinces. And when we consider the longer term effects, we feel that Bill C-83 will have a negative impact on the prerogatives of Quebec and thus on the environment.

From our point of view, the environment must be a provincial responsibility if we are to protect it, preserve it and, in many cases, restore it. We think it is clear the provinces have come a long way and today have most of the responsibilities in this area.

It is up to them to respond to their people and to pass effective legislation and set up programs and projects to preserve the environment. Many are already doing so, with good results. Quebec has assumed its responsibilities and done its homework. Furthermore, Quebec has led the way in a number of areas, including environmental assessment.

Looking at the federal side, there is not much to get excited about. The environmental effects are very watered down, and interest in the environment is not all that high and is a relatively recent thing. On the other hand, what is most remarkable about the federal government, the Liberal government in particular, is its great desire to become the saviour of the environment and to push aside the provinces more and more. It does this by riding over them roughshod, duplicating legislation, regulations, programs. The effects of this desire to interfere and to take over the helm at any price are very harmful to both the environment and the economy.

Bill C-83 has not escaped this constantly increasing desire by the feds to throw their weight around in the environmental area, as in a number of others. I wanted to explain this fundamental difference between us and the other members of this House because of what the hon. member for Davenport said about me last Monday. He wondered, and I quote: "-is it perhaps that the member for Laurentides badly needs a psychiatrist to remove her obsession with federal-provincial relations, her obsession with seeing under

every chair a federal monster, a federal presence which may disrupt the quiet life of the people in her riding?"

I personally feel that the member for Davenport has defined our fears very well. I could not have depicted the federal government as well myself. And if he defines himself in that way, then surely the definition must be an apt one. Thank you, dear colleague, for that revealing definition.

You will understand that following such a definition, we will see the federal monster not under the chair, as you said, but on the chairs in front of us.

I am rather in a jocular mood today. I have to be, otherwise I would probably have to see a psychiatrist as the hon. member for Davenport suggested. As for me, I would never dare to suggest that my colleague from Davenport consult his geriatrician because of his retarded and old-fashioned ideas. I respect him to much to make such a suggestion. Yet, it is obvious that he looks at Bill C-83 with the eye of a federalist while I see it as a sovereignist.

However, the hon. member goes a bit too far when he accuses us of being against the health of Canadians, against the integration of environment and economy, against the protection of ecosystems and against the prevention of pollution. This is getting close to demagoguery and intellectual dishonesty.

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-83, in Clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 23, on page 3.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the motion that we have tabled, an amendment to remove the amendment tabled by the Liberals during the committee meeting of November 2, which amended Bill C-83, in clause 5, by adding section 21.1, from (a) to (h).

I note that this bill was given a fairly bumpy ride in committee, if I may say so. The Liberals seemed to be caught between a rock and a hard place, to be torn between public servants and politicians. First, members opposite moved and voted on their own amendments, then cancelled them and moved and voted on new ones. You will agree that this is confusion at its best.

The amendment our friends opposite, our friends of confusion and discord, are proposing seems to be a big catchall of environmental principles that constitutes a dangerous foot in the door of provincial jurisdiction.

A careful reading of section 21.1 and its points (a) to (h) leads us to believe that the Liberals may have wanted to better explain the work of the future commissioner of environment and sustainable development. If that was their objective, I think they are way off the mark. Instead of presenting precise objectives in support of the future commissioner, the Liberals propose to give him a series of broad environmental principles that, ultimately, will not make his task any easier. Even worse, these broad principles will extend his mandate to a point where he will be unable to carry it out.

However, this section is, once again, a case of the federal government wanting to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, through this section, the commissioner will have the mandate to monitor the progress of departments according to sustainable development criteria that are clearly the responsibility of the provinces.

Thus, under section 21.1, a department encroaching on an area of provincial jurisdiction will get a positive appraisal from the federal commissioner. There was certainly nothing else to be expected from the Liberal committee members. True to themselves, they repeated the same arguments they had put forward when we were studying the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the goal of Liberal committee members is to extend as much as possible federal jurisdiction on environmental matters and to use the federal government's spending power as much as possible, although that attitude is viewed as an aggression by the provinces. Committee members constantly refer to great green principles such as sustainable development, bio-diversity or systemic approach, to promote an increased federal presence in the area of environment.

Of course air pollution is not restricted to one region. Of course water knows no boundary. Of course species move around. We all know this, but this is no reason for the federal government to become or set out to become the sole keeper of the environment, especially since the provinces have made great strides in that area and have taken their responsibilities. The same certainly cannot be said for the federal government, something the Liberals should recognize.

The federal government has not made rapid progress and has failed on many environmental issues under its jurisdiction. Why then should we give it more responsibility, when it does not even carry out its primary duties? Why do they absolutely insist that the federal should interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction against the provinces' will? There lies the failing, if I may say, of our dear Liberals. The Liberals have some great environmentalists such as the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who, much to their credit, are also great champions of Canada. But that is exactly where their weakness lies: they are fervent federalists.

Their vision of the environment is clearly influenced, not to say marred by their natural federalist tendencies. That is why they tie everything that has to do with the environment to the federal system. This kind of attitude is alarming and dangerous for the environment because the farther you are from the field, the harder it is to find a solution. It is obvious that the provinces are closer to the environment and are therefore in a better position to deal with environmental issues.

Let us have a look at the concept of sustainable development to be found in the bill, a concept the Liberals use a great deal to

crowd out the provinces. Sustainable development is an ideal all societies should strive for.

What is at stake here is not the validity of this principle, but the way it is implemented. The Bloc Quebecois not only recognizes the validity of the principle, but also the need, not to say the urgent need, to translate it into concrete measures.

We believe this principle should be implemented by the provinces because they have the overriding jurisdiction over the environment. It is up to the provinces to promote the conditions needed for sustainable development.

In a federal system, the principle of sustainable development takes on a new dimension, that is respect for jurisdictions and areas of authority. Obviously, the squandering of both financial and human resources, due to a double structure, is in no way sustainable. However, pursuant to their amendment, the Liberals are asking the commissioner to monitor the progress of the various departments, by taking into consideration criteria which clearly come under areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Let us look at item (a) of the clause dealing with the integration of the environment and the economy. In fact, this part of the commissioner's mandate can turn into subsidy programs for suppliers or targeted purchase programs, for example.

Using its spending power, the federal government has often launched programs or projects in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In many cases, after a few months, the federal government withdrew and let the provinces, including the province of Quebec, foot the bill and go through the ordeal of squashing these projects.

This way of doing things can in no way help to protect the environment. Short term and paltry measures are to be excluded.

Item (b) talks about protecting the health of Canadians. Health is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of the provinces to prevent health risks due to water and air pollution or soil depletion.

Again, the duplication of standards and the inconsistency with the provincial standards are inefficient and costly for the governments as well as for the private sector and the public. The federal government has again opened the door to new quarrels concerning the division of powers.

Given the rather firm stand taken by the provinces on this issue, it is hard to understand the attitude of the federal government. That proves again that the Liberals do not understand a thing about the repeated demands for change made by Canadians and Quebecers.

We are anxious to see the changes promised by the other side on October 30. It will probably, in the end, be another case of "Much ado about nothing". But I am fair-play and ready to wait and see. All the more so since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs seems to be quite a miracle-worker.

Item (c) of clause 21.1 has to do with protecting ecosystems. As owners and managers of the land, the provinces have jurisdiction over ecosystems. As an example, to assume this role, Quebec created 17 national parks. It also gave itself the legislative tools to preserve biodiversity.

Provinces which have not yet done so have the responsibility to act and pay heed to the demands of the world community which, for example, made some criticisms in the OECD report concerning Canada's environmental performance when it comes to protecting ecosystems.

Those are some of the items that make us doubt the will of the federal government to respect the provinces.

Clause 21.1 of Bill C-83 is rather to the contrary. In mentioning vast environmental concepts the federal government shows its intention to interfere further in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The federal environmental record is nothing to cheer about.

[Canadian Armed Forces, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Defence aware that his obstinate defence of these soldiers against all attack discredits not only the entire Canadian armed forces but also the government itself?

[Canadian Armed Forces, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

While today, here in Ottawa, the families of the École polytechnique shooting victims are organizing a press conference in favour of firearms control, the Minister of National Defence is still refusing to reconsider the promotions of soldiers who, on at least two occasions, appear to have celebrated this sad occurrence.

How can the Minister of National Defence justify his stubbornness in maintaining the promotions of soldiers who apparently took part in celebrations in honour of Marc Lépine?