Peter Milliken

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

I am trying to remind him by this speech. I hope he reads it very carefully and I am sure the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell would agree.

Sometimes remembrance is important in these things. The Minister of the Environment always learns something about his or her portfolio when occupying that portfolio. When the member for Lac-Saint-Jean was a minister, I remember him standing and answering questions, defending the government's environmental policy in the House. Now we see his party trying to undo the work of a committee of the House and the work of the present very competent Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Hamilton East.

The hon. member for Laurentides is pleading with me to continue this eulogy. I certainly could do that. She knows what a competent minister we have. The fact is all these ministers have stood for this kind of principle and they have all adopted the principle of sustainable development as the cornerstone of Canada's environmental policy.

The hon. member for Davenport, who I am sure will be speaking on this amendment in a few moments, can remind us of how long this principle of sustainable development has been a cornerstone of Canadian environmental policy. It is reflected in this bill. Here is an opportunity to have an officer with some authority to report on government departments on how they are doing on specific concerns. It was a great list.

The hon. member for Laurentides wants to throw the whole thing out of the bill. I do not understand it. Of course, the government will oppose this change. It is wrong headed. It is contrary to principles espoused by the hon. member's own leader. It is contrary to the principles that were agreed on in the committee which studied the bill. I am shocked to hear at this late date that the hon. member for Laurentides would take it in her own capacity to move an amendment to the bill that would undermine what I think is the view of the vast majority of Canadians and the vast majority of members of the House.

I want to indicate the government's strong opposition to the amendment. We will support the bill and the amendments that were made in committee. We feel the committee's amendments were entirely appropriate and the bill as it stands is a good bill.

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

Some say that perhaps he should have remained as Minister of the Environment, but he did not. On the other hand, I understand there were often times when he did not get a lot of support from his cabinet colleagues on environmental matters he raised. He may have gone out on a limb and done it in an appropriate way from time to time, but I do not know. I was not in the cabinet. It is not something I could easily comment on, but we certainly can see the effect of his environmental crusade. The hon. member for Laurentides has wilfully abandoned all the principles her leader stood for when he was Minister of the Environment.

As I said, I find myself almost at a loss for words in trying to understand the amendment she has put forward today. I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition did not see this amendment before it was tabled. If he had, he would have blown a gasket, in common parlance, and that would have been the end of the amendment.

I can only say that I hope there is a vote on this. I want to see the Leader of the Opposition come into the House and vote against the principles he so resolutely stood for when he was Minister of the Environment.

He may have forgotten some of the things he learned when he was minister.

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

As the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has said so ably, he invented some of them and I am sure his memory of these things is better than mine. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean invented these very concepts and now one of his henchmen comes into the House and tries to undermine the whole process.

I am shocked. I am sure every member of the House is shocked at the duplicity of the opposition in saying one thing through its leader when he was minister of the environment and saying another now through the hon. member for Laurentides with this frankly ridiculous amendment.

I see even the members of the Reform Party are smirking. They must agree this amendment is pretty wild. It is not something they would support. I am sure they support the bill. I am sure they realize the bill is in the best interests of all Canadians as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition does. After all he knows more about environmental issues than I do. He was minister for several years. I know it was with a government that showed a callous disregard for the environment but he had a reputation for doing the best he could in difficult circumstances.

Some say that perhaps-

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I want to respond to what the hon. member for Laurentides said and to the amendment she moved to the bill.

I think I should read the section the hon. member wishes to remove from the bill.

It is section 21.1, which reads as follows:

21.1 The purpose of the Commissioner is to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on the progress of category I departments towards sustainable development, which is a continually evolving concept based on the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns, and which may be achieved by, among other things,

(a) the integration of the environment and the economy;

(b) protecting the health of Canadians;

(c) protecting ecosystems;

(d) meeting international obligations;

(e) promoting equity;

(f) an integrated approach to planning and making decisions that takes into account the environmental and natural resource costs of different economic options and the economic costs of different environmental and natural resource options;

(g) preventing pollution; and

(h) respect for nature and the needs of future generations.

I find it really surprising that the hon. member for Laurentides has decided to move such an amendment to the bill at this time.

She knows perfectly well that her leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, was a minister of the environment and supported all these same principles. She comes into the House today while he is occupied considering his future and proposes an amendment that undermines the whole concept of sustainable development and a way of treating it in Canada.

I am absolutely astounded that the hon. member for Laurentides is getting away with this. I suspect that if the Leader of the Opposition were in Ottawa he would hound his colleague, the member for Laurentides, for proposing such an amendment as this. She has tried to claim this amendment is one that affects provincial jurisdiction but on its face it most patently does not.

It says that the commissioner will provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on the progress government departments are making. How can government departments be making progress on things that are not within their jurisdiction? They must deal with matters within their own jurisdiction. If they were dealing with matters beyond their jurisdiction, they would be doing something unlawful. Everyone know that government departments do not do things that are unlawful, at least not very often.

The hon. member who is making these claims is saying that government departments are in fact dabbling in provincial matters all the time and therefore this section is bad because the commissioner in his work might impinge on provincial jurisdiction if the government department was doing so and he was reporting on it. Presumably if he thought the federal government department was overstepping its bounds he would report that.

After all, he is an officer who has some authority, according to my reading of this bill. I do not claim to be terribly familiar with it. I was not on the committee where the amendment was brought in but I understand the commissioner is given certain authority, which in my view is very sensible authority, to deal with a whole host of issues, all of which are of great concern to Canadians. Every one of the items I read from the list is of concern to Canadians.

Yet we have a situation where a party headed by a former minister of the environment who supported all of these things when he was minister-

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, November 20th, 1995]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 225 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 238 will be answered today.

Question No. 238-

[Government Response To Petitions, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.