Monique Guay

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

Madam Speaker, we recognize that Motion No. 4 put forward by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake definitely has some merit. While it will not gain our full support, it is far from worthless. It has the advantage of applying the concept of transparency to one of the most fundamental aspects of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the regulations made under the Act.

I would like to remind my colleagues that on October 6, the Minister of the Environment announced in this House that the Act would be proclaimed and that its regulations would soon be published in the Canada Gazette . These regulations are actually one of the many shortcomings of this federal legislation. They confer great power and allow the federal government to give a wide application to its environmental assessment process, without any regard for assessment processes already established by the provinces.

The federal regulations have a major impact in Quebec. In view of the great power the federal government has seized to initiate federal assessments, as provided under the regulations, most projects covered by Quebec regulations are likely to be subject to the federal regulations also. Clearly, two processes could be undertaken for the same project, unless, of course, there was a bilateral agreement between the province and the federal government. So far, I think that only one province has signed such an agreement with the federal minister.

Federal regulations on environmental assessment reinforce and give further extension to the Act. That will lead to a duplication of assessment processes, an inability to meet deadlines under provincial processes, the possibility that provincial decisions could be challenged, some uncertainty and hesitation by developers in submitting projects owing to the dual assessment process and the subsequent decisions, a waste of time and money, the possibility of legal challenges for the results and decisions, if the two assessments reach different conclusions. These are serious consequences of regulations made under the Act.

Since the minister refused to amend her legislation to specify that provincial procedures, and more specifically those in Quebec, are comparable to the federal process and equally valid, so that projects subject to Quebec regulations would be subject only to provincial procedures, we now have two sets of procedures, which is very costly and very confusing for all concerned.

The federal legislative process is opaque to the point of being secretive. Regulations are churned out without any genuine debate by members. They are published and easily pass consideration by the Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, without anyone being able to challenge the basis for certain regulations. The process makes absolutely no sense at all and is also dangerous because these regulations are often vitally important.

In this particular case, the regulations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act mostly duplicate Quebec's regulations. It is most unfortunate that no Quebec members had a chance to look at these regulations before they came into force. It is also unfortunate that members have had absolutely no say in this respect. We find the same situation-not a very democratic one, in my opinion-with all other bills debated and voted on in this House. We can see the bills and study them clause by clause, but we never have that opportunity with the regulations.

If the NDP motion is adopted, it would have to be part of the general procedure for proposed legislation, so that at least elected members would be able to discuss draft regulations before they become official.

We support the main purpose behind this motion. However, we object to including the senators in a process to prevent the approval of draft regulations. The Senate consists of non-elected individuals, appointed strictly on a partisan basis. These are patronage appointments, and these friends of the government cost us $53 million.

As I said before, the motion's purpose, which is to give us a chance to examine the regulations and to amend or reject them,

is entirely valid. The legislative system should make it possible for members to intervene in this area.

Therefore, I move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Terrebonne:

That Motion No. 4 be amended: a ) in sub-clause (1), by replacing the words ``each House of Parliament'', with the following:

"the House of Commons"; b ) in sub-clause (2),

(i) by replacing the words "either House of Parliament under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of that House", with the following:

"the House of Commons under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of the House"; and

(ii) by striking out the words "fifteen Senators or", "the Senate or" and ", as the case may be,"; c ) in sub-clause (3), by replacing the words ``both Houses of Parliament'', with the following:

"the House of Commons"; d ) in sub-clause (4), by replacing each instance of the words ``both Houses of Parliament'', with the following:

"the House of Commons"; and e ) in sub-clause (5), by replacing the words ``either House of Parliament'', with the following:

"the House of Commons".

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

Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 put forward today by our colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and Motion No. 3 put forward

by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are amendments to Bill C-56.

First, I will remind you that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-56 since this bill amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which implements across the country an environmental assessment process that duplicates a process already existing in some provinces, including Quebec where there has been an environmental assessment process for more than 15 years now.

We have spoken against the enactment of this Act wich we consider to be unacceptable federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. We will have another opportunity to oppose federal interference in provincial jurisdiction on third reading of Bill C-56.

Let us look now at the motions from our colleagues. Motion No. 1 wants projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects to be publicly reviewed through a process of independent decision making. That amendment would be included in the purposes of the Act. It is hard to see what our colleague from the NDP is really getting at with this amendment. He should tell us more about this process of independent decision making. Should the body or agency making the decision be permanent or ad hoc? What would the administrative structure of such an agency be? Who would be on it? Who would pay? How would the recommendations or the reports of that body be handled?

Members of the NDP propose creating a new body which would only add to the list of existing agencies. In Quebec, we already have the BAPE, Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. On the other hand, for those who support the imposition of the federal process-which we do not-the act provides for the establishment of the Canadian assessment agency, as well as opportunities to use a mediator or a review panel for major projects.

As you can see, there are already many authorities provided for in the act. It seems to us that the NDP motion wants to add more to that federal superstructure, but without saying specifically what that new independent authority will be.

You will understand that we, in the Bloc, cannot accept this motion from the NDP. We have a firm fundamental position on this bill and nothing can change it. We will also vote against Motion No. 2 that was moved by the same member.

I would like to deal a little more with parts (1.1) and (1.2)( b ) of the motion. Part (1.1) says: ``Where a report is submitted by a mediator or review panel-'' But what does the NDP do with the independent authority that it is proposing in its first motion? It is talking here about the report of a mediator or review panel. What about the independent authority report? Clearly defining structures does not seem to be a strength of the NDP.

I think that the NDP does even worse when it proposes, in clause (1.2)( b ), that:

-the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of dealing with any or all the findings or recommendations set out in the report 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.

I ask my colleague if the whole process that the federal government wants to implement and impose on the provinces is really to further public interest in environmental assessment issues. With this amendment, the NDP is telling us that the process as a whole is not important and that, in the end, Cabinet can impose its own decision in the public interest.

It is not reassuring at all, considering who influence our dear ministers. Lobbyists are certainly not the greatest champions of public interest and the environment.

Another major inconsistency in the motions of the NDP is that it is asking for an independent public review while giving the last word to the government. It is inconsistent and illogical to advocate these two things at the same time, that is, an independent agency whose recommendations will be submitted to a higher authority.

The NDP is not very clear and rigorous in its proposals. If what it wants is to give more power to the people, its two motions are not very convincing. They are pulling in opposite directions. The result is a draw, since it is impossible to answer yes and no at the same time.

Motion No. 3, presented by the member for Comox-Alberni, adds a reference to orders in council in clause 3 of Bill C-56. The bill only mentions the approval, or consent, of the Governor in Council, in a non-specific fashion. The Reform Party simply wants to specify how it will be done, by order in council. For us, this is merely specifying how they will go about it; it does not change Bill C-56 significantly.

Finally, we will not vote in favour of any of these motions. Bill C-56 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are both unacceptable and the changes proposed by our NDP and Reform colleagues do not make them more acceptable to us.

[Irving Whale, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently, Le Radar , the Magdalen Islands newspaper, published an editorial that was very critical of the Minister of the Environment for her attitude to the refloating of the Irving Whale . The barge is lying on the bottom of the sea between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island, with three million litres of oil in its hold.

The people of the Islands are alarmed at the prospect of this very risky operation to refloat the barge, especially since two sea birds were recently found covered in oil, on the beaches of the Islands.

The Regroupement des Madelinots has demanded that the Minister of Transport reconsider the decision to refloat the barge and adopt a safer method, consisting of pumping and refloating.

Why is the government so reluctant to listen to these people who are afraid that an ecological disaster could threaten the fragile ecosystem of the Islands? What is it waiting for?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder who is showing off.

How can the minister reconcile his current position on stable financing for the CBC with the promises he made to the corporation at the time of his appointment as heritage minister?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of heritage. Yesterday, former CBC chairman Patrick Watson accused the heritage minister of being invisible and lacking the will to protect Canadian cultural industries. We rarely hear such a credible member of the cultural community condemn a minister's inaction so strongly.

Does the minister not agree that Mr. Watson's very strong words about him amply demonstrate once again his lack of leadership and credibility in the cultural community?

[Global Climate Change, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, motion M-168 put forth by the hon. member for Davenport in this House today really caught my interest.

I have had the opportunity to work on regular basis with the hon. member on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, of which he is the chairman.

It is an honour for me to become the vice-chair of this committee. When you look at the background of the hon. member for Davenport and see what kind of work he does on the committee, his care and concern for the important issue of the environment really becomes apparent. He is, of course, a great conservationist, but he is also a great advocate of federalism.

We need not look any further to understand why the people opposite, the Minister of the Environment in particular, have no qualms interfering with the provinces' jurisdiction in that respect. The Liberals wrongly associate the federalist cause with that of the environment. In their view, provinces are small and incompetent entities which are incapable of looking after such a great cause as the environment all on their own, as an exclusive area of responsibility.

They tell us that air and water know no boundaries-what a revelation!-and that this is why the federal government has the duty to control, protect and preserve the environment. They justify encroaching upon a provincial jurisdiction by claiming to be in a better position than the provinces to do so and, of course, by arguing that Canada is a big country, so big in fact that all activities have to be centralized in Ottawa in order for the environment to be protected.

Yet, it is common knowledge that the centralized administration of this huge country does not necessarily have a positive impact in the field. On the contrary, centralizing to excess generally puts increased distance between what is going on in the field and the decision-makers. It is a phenomenon known as ivory tower phenomenon.

But the environment is about what happens in the field. So, serious thought must be given to the implications of increased centralization in that regard.

The hon. members opposite also rely heavily on the global approach argument to justify increasing federal interference with provincial jurisdictions. Their redundant message to the effect that pollution know no boundaries has become their creed and their justification for set themselves up as great national conservationists.

Basically, the government is creating new structures, unscrupulously, without paying any attention to duplication, to what the provinces are already doing. Worse, it takes advantage of grey areas and non-established areas to impose itself upon them. Some have gone along with this federal tactic. It is their choice. Others, on the other hand, see things differently and feel threatened and bullied by the federal government. But regardless of the fears expressed by certain provinces, the federal government, in the name of federalism and a comprehensive approach, pushes ahead and imposes its way of doing things, its standards and its administrative structures.

If this twisted line of reasoning were taken to its logical conclusion, Canada itself would be subordinated to a broader, North American, maybe even planetary, organization with overall responsibility for the environment.

We do not think that this is the best way to preserve and protect our natural environment. We are, of course, in favour of harmonizing standards and requirements, and we certainly support agreements for specific sectors. But we firmly maintain that these standards, requirements and agreements must be implemented on a smaller scale if we are to attain environmental objectives quickly and effectively. The federal government should therefore limit its role, and leave the implementation and administration of environmental matters to the provinces.

The motion by the member for Davenport mirrors only too well his government's desire to centralize and dominate. He would like the federal government to step onto an already very crowded playing field. When he speaks to us about energy conservation and efficiency, the member for Davenport is light years behind Quebec and other provinces who have already taken action in this area.

For several years now, Hydro-Québec, which reports to the government of Quebec, has been offering its consumers programs promoting energy conservation and efficiency. Again yesterday evening, I saw a Hydro-Québec television commercial offering information and a brochure on a new energy conservation program.

I wish to remind the hon. member who tabled this motion that all provinces also operate such programs through their power-producing corporations. The Power Smart Program, among others, has been around for a few years. The hon. member should also know that the federal Department of Natural Resources runs several programs resulting from the Green Plan. There is even an Efficiency and Alternative Energy Branch within this department.

Is the hon. member telling us through his motion that the federal government's own actions are inefficient? That would confirm what we have known and noted for a very long time.

The hon. member's motion shows very clearly once again the federal government's lack of recognition for provincial initiatives and desire to meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I ask the hon. member for Davenport: Why should the federal government promote energy efficiency in Quebec and in the other provinces, when it is already being done, Mr. Speaker?

Would implementing such a motion not lead again to useless, inefficient and costly overlap and duplication, to a waste of public funds which would not achieve anything, except for spreading federal government propaganda?

I am asking myself serious questions regarding the hon. member for Davenport's intentions in putting forward this motion. Even his wishful thinking lacks vigour. The wording of the motion itself is very timid. It says: "That the government should-consider the advisability of promoting-". Let us say simply that one could not go very far with such words. The hon. member for Davenport is usually more specific and vigorous in his proposals.

I want to look at another part of the hon. member for Davenport's timid motion, and I quote: "-in anticipation of global climate change-". The hon. member talks about climate change; he is no doubt referring to global warning mostly caused by greenhouse gases.

I find it a little funny that the hon. member is telling us this when the Minister of the Environment recently admitted that she was not sure she would be able to honour an ambitious promise in the famous red book. This promise in the Liberals' bible said: "Our immediate priority will be to work with all major stakeholders to design a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1988 levels by the year 2005". Asked whether she was convinced that this objective could be attained, the minister replied: "Oh, my God! Am I convinced? No. I am not convinced".

She thus admitted her political inability due to the lack of support and backing in Cabinet. Nevertheless, this promise is a key plank in the Liberals' environmental platform. So what is the motion from the member for Davenport worth when an important promise of his party is so easily flouted by Liberal ministers?

Another disturbing point about this promise is the idea now being considered of passing our responsibilities off onto developing countries. Indeed, Canada is showing some openness to the idea of taking credit on its own account for reducing greenhouse gases when it supports or takes such action abroad. If that were so, it would be a blatant admission of failure and proof of the Liberal government's weakness.

The motion of the member for Davenport seems somewhat futile to me. First, it asks the government to duplicate what is already being done in the provinces and in the federal govern-

ment itself; second, it highlights a red book promise that will not be kept, concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases.

The member's motion is not very solid. It shows an obvious lack of front-line information. I am sure that the member can present us with much more substantial motions.

I conclude on an energy-saving note by telling you that on December 8, 120,000 Christmas lights will be lit on and around Parliament Hill-I repeat, 120,000 lights.

Also, I invite you to count how many government vehicles are left idling on the Hill, with their engines running, all day long. A good contribution to saving and the greenhouse effect! I believe that the federal government should do its own homework before imposing on others.

[The Environment, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister reconcile the answer she just gave with a recent statement made in Vancouver to the effect that the government did not think it would be able to fulfil its commitments with respect to greenhouse gas emission control?

[The Environment, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. At the Rio Summit, the previous government undertook to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions responsible for the greenhouse effect at their 1990 levels, and to do so by the year 2000. In their red book, the Liberals went further, promising to cut these emissions by 20 per cent from 1988 levels by the year 2005. But the Minister of the Environment has admitted publicly for the first time that she will not be able to fulfil this election promise.

Does the minister still intend to fulfil one of the most basic environmental undertakings in the red book, namely cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 1988 levels?

[Marine Transportation, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Transport continues to threaten to eliminate the St. Lawrence pilotage system, does the Minister of the Environment recognize that this system constitutes the best means of ensuring the protection of the environment with respect to navigation on the St. Lawrence?

[Marine Transportation, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Even though double hulls are not required for navigation on the St. Lawrence and giant oil tankers have very little clearance when carrying a full cargo, the transport sub-committee recommends that the Pilotage Act be repealed and the pilotage associations disbanded.

In order to avoid an ecological disaster on the St. Lawrence, does the Minister of the Environment intend to continue to require shipowners to use certified pilots?