The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

It being 2.45 p.m., pursuant to a Standing Order made Monday, February 15, 1993, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

In my opinion the yeas have it.

February 19, 1993

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, February 22, 1993.

I believe there is unanimous consent to go right into Private Members' hour.

Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

It being three o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should

develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in the House this afternoon to speak on my private member's motion: That the government should develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights which would promote and protect the health of our planet and would impose harsh penalties on all individuals and corporations found in violation of the charter.

While Canadians may have trouble at times finding ways to keep our country united, one thing is certain. Canadians agree that there is an issue out there upon which the quality of our lives depends: the environment. There is no doubt that there has been a deep and permanent shift in Canadian values and attitudes on this issue. Despite our diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, Canadians from coast to coast to coast share an abiding relationship with the land they love and cherish so dearly.

That being said, every Canadian should have the right to a clean and healthy environment; clean air, water and soil and justice for those who threaten them. Unfortunately, there is no such legal right in Canada. In fact,

Private Members' Business

most Canadians are excluded from the process by which environmental law is enforced in this country. There exists no requirement that they even be involved in the development of these laws.

The average citizen is not empowered as an individual to launch an environmental lawsuit against powerful corporations or government. Industry complains that the rules of the game change with the political winds of the day and environmentalists are concerned that existing environmental rules are not enforced or non-existent. The establishment of an environmental bill of rights would establish in law each citizen's fundamental right to environmental equality and would guarantee the public the right to a healthy environment.

The right of future generations to help the environment must also be protected as it is not enough to only be concerned about our short-term gains or health. Such a bill would also democratize environmental decision making by guaranteeing the public's right to participate and thereby increase government accountability.

Further, an environmental bill of rights could deal with existing environmental problems and would force government to address the issue of leadership and the environment in an area in which the need for leadership has never been greater than it is today.

I look to the south of us and I must say that it does my heart good to see the lights of that great environmentalist, Vice-President A1 Gore, leading the way and breaking new ground as it relates to the environment and the new BTU tax that was set in the last speech of the President.

A federal environmental bill of rights would be similar to the Canadian Bill of Rights. It would take precedence over all federal legislation with the exception of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it would not be binding upon provincial legislative authority.

A number of provinces and territories have already implemented environmental legislation. The province of Quebec established a Quebec Environment Quality Act in 1977 which includes elements of an environmental bill of rights.

The NWT was the first to pass a comprehensive NWT environmental bill of rights in November 1990. The

Private Members' Business

elements of an environmental bill of rights are also included in the Yukon environment act of May 1991.

The province of Ontario released for public review an Ontario environmental bill of rights in July 1992. As well, several American states have the equivalent of an environmental bill of rights, the most noted being the Michigan environmental protection act of 1972.

The concept of the environmental bill of rights is very intriguing. An environmental bill of rights would contain both substantive and procedural features enabling the legislation to put into place certain mechanisms to achieve specific environmental objectives. These would include the public's right to a healthy environment. The public's right must be enforced through improved access to the courts and/or tribunals. The onus of proof should rest with the plaintiff and should be on a basis of probabilities. There must be an increase in public participation in environmental decision making and legislated intervener funding for public participation must be made available. There should be mandatory notification of the public when significant environmental approvals are made.

Greater protection is needed for employees who blow the whistle on polluting employers. If we are going to have a UIC snitch line we can have an environmental polluter snitch line too.

There must be the creation of an accessible and affordable electronic registry that would give the public necessary government and industry information concerning environmental standards: the use, storage and release of pollutants and infractions. The use and the access to the state of the art environment reporting would provide the public with news and changes in our environment on a regular basis. It would be like an environmental monitoring program.

I believe there should be an independent environmental commissioner or ombudsman appointed to make sure that the principles of the bill are applied in a fair and consistent manner.

In addition, the position of an environmental auditor general should be created who could report directly to Parliament with powers of investigation similar to the powers invested in the Auditor General. This office could issue an annual public report reflecting the federal

government's goals with respect to environmental programs, spending, implementation and enforcement.

In the past governments have been held to public scrutiny mainly in terms of their economic achievements. This is no longer true. The time has passed when strict economics is the main indicator of progress.

Governments must become more responsible and accountable for the environment. After decades and even centuries of economic growth, environmental conditions have worsened. The health of Canadians has been threatened and the physical foundation of our economy, our precious stock of natural capital, being fish, forest, soil, air and water, has been eroded. In fact we are now building up an ecological deficit which is as threatening in the long run as the more visible financial deficit.

This country and its leaders need an agenda that is environmentally driven. Canada needs to carve out an industrial policy which underlines the fact that good environmental management is also good business by integrating the economy and the environment.

We need to encourage expansion of the industrial sector which is involved in producing goods and services that help protect the environment. Part of the problem is Canada's lack of innovation in relation to environmental management. Instead of strictly following the initiative of Germany, Japan and others, Canada should be blazing the trail. Clearly Canada needs to build a wider involvement from all sectors of the public, including the involvement of Canada's First Nations peoples.

1993 has been proclaimed the Intematioal Year for World Indigenous Peoples. The theme for this year is Indigenous Peoples-A New Partnership. I believe the time has come for western science to integrate its environmental efforts with that traditional knowledge.

Aboriginal people view the environment as the foundation of our spiritual well-being as well as our economic and physical health. One of the major costs of progress has been a spiritual one, the feeling that we have been alienated from nature. For many of us the physical uprooting from the land of our ancestors and the adoption of modem technologies have brought a deep sense of loss and in part disorientation, confusion and disempowerment.

February 19, 1993

By responding in a creative way, native communities have begun to rekindle traditional forms of worship and philosophies based on the understanding that the earth is our mother. Traditional knowledge is the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the human place in relation to the universe. It encompasses spiritual relationships with the natural environment and the use of natural resources.

The potential for the use of traditional knowledge in the areas of the environment, renewable resources and sustainable development is tremendous. A government of the Northwest Territories report on the traditional knowledge working group outlined recommendations calling for the use of traditional knowledge within the government decision-making process in a number of areas, including the environment.

Research and development efforts by the Dene cultural institute in Hay River, Northwest Territories, helps to bring greater recognition to the importance and value of preserving traditional knowledge for the use of scientists, governments and aboriginal peoples of today and generations to follow.

At the Rio conference in June 1992 a number of indigenous principles and objectives were recognized, including the world's need for better understanding of indigenous people's knowledge and management experience related to the environment, and the need to apply this information to contemporary development challenges.

Chapter 26 of Agenda 21 also recognizes indigenous values, traditional knowledge and resource management practices with a view to promoting environmentally sound and sustainable development. It also recognized that government should where necessary work in full partnership with indigenous peoples and their communities.

I believe the environment is an extremely appropriate area in which governments on all levels could develop co-management relationships with First Nations peoples. In doing so Canada would set an example for other global communities to follow.

It is not enough, however, to expect individual First Nations' representatives sitting on co-management boards to advance traditional knowledge. Extensive research and documentation work by aboriginal peoples on their environmental knowledge must be supported.

Private Members' Business

Without this research support, decision makers will continue to rely on western science and will not implement the learnings and beliefs of traditional knowledge.

Where do we go from here? In conclusion, I have to say it is our responsibility to plan a strategic course of action to protect the future of our environment. Canada must become a true world leader in the fight to protect the ozone layer. We must protect the health and abundance of our oceans. We must give immediate attention to protecting traditional food sources of the world's indigenous peoples who are suffering from toxic and PCB contamination. Contamination of the food chain means a lot of suffering and a lot of hardship for indigenous populations. A moral code of ethics held by the Dene should be adopted to guide the interpretation and implementation of this bill.

As Bella T'seleie of Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories, explained: "Everyone takes responsibility for what is going on, on the land with the animals, not only the game officers. This is why our Dene system works. Anyone in the community who does not follow it is considered naive and is not respected". There is a great deal of social pressure when these rules are not followed because our survival depends on the land and the animals.

We must develop ways to measure how we are doing in our efforts to protect the environment. We must establish cultural survival schools and regional and world environmental study centres, maybe even a world biodiversity centre in the Northwest Territories which is seen by many parts of the world to be the last frontier of clean air and clean water. That is not really true but that certainly is an image we would like to preserve.

We must also have more focused and tougher legislation put into place. An environmental bill of rights would be an excellent start. It would give each person the right to live in a healthy environment and make polluters and governments accountable should they infringe on those rights.

Those who resist this initiative really fear that the rules of the environmental decision-making game will shift into the hands of the public when in reality an environmental bill of rights ensures that individuals, groups, companies and governments all play by the same

Private Members' Business

rules. This sounds like a reasonable goal in a democratic society.

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate about the environment.

I would like to begin by commending my hon. friend from Western Arctic for bringing this important subject before Parliament. I know it is a matter of deep concern to her, particularly in view of her constituency and the sensitivity of the environment in that part of the country. I too represent a constituency that is blessed with the bounties of nature but is also an area very much subject to environmental damage and difficulties. I share her concern for the environment.

As to whether the solution she puts forward is the ideal one or not, that may be a different thing. I am not sure that it is an appropriate or desirable thing that the protection of the Canadian environment in the final analysis should be turned over to the courts as opposed to resting the obligation on the heads of the elected people, who are accountable.

When an environmental difficulty arises in my own area the telephone lines in my offices are absolutely blitzed with calls. That is appropriate and proper. If the public were to make a challenge under yet another charter of rights, I am not sure that would be the best protection for our environment. With the greatest of respect to my hon. friend, the imperative she is concerned about, the preservation and protection of our environment, is an aspiration shared by all members of this House. The best way to protect the environment and the interests of future citizens, my children and I hope some day my grandchildren if I should live so long as to have some, is by having accountability rest with government. I think actions speak louder than words.

I might use a few minutes to reflect on some of the actions taken by this government. Perhaps the most significant, but certainly the most visible, is the very historic green plan brought down by the government in 1990 with the greatest commitment of financial expenditure with respect to the environment in the history of governments.

I do not want to talk about just the money involved because I think the green plan is much more than money. One of its main features is that it sets forth an environmental action plan totally consistent with the principal recommendations of the Brundtland commission with respect to sustainable development as a goal.

If I may remind the House, economic development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is the concept of sustainable development as set down by that commission. That is the basis for environmental policy but also resource development of this government, which is extremely important.

In effect the green plan is a co-ordinated action plan dealing with many environmental issues: acid rain, climate change, parks, wildlife, coastal ports and waters, and so on. I would be pleased to provide to my hon. friend or to anyone else a list of all the expenditures involved there.

The point is that it is not just a matter of spending money. It is the partnership approach that is applied in the green plan, the idea that the federal government does not just throw money at a problem but actually goes out and brings people together: other levels of government, industry, individuals, and people interested in preserving their future and their environment. As well, it requires of the government regular reporting to the people of Canada through this Parliament on the state of the environment in this country.

The green plan establishes targets and schedules for action. Take for example the recent establishment of regulations relating to the pulp and paper industry. These are not easy things to be faced by that industry. I know that the Bowater Mersey paper mill in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, is very much challenged by the $37 million that it has to come up with in order to comply with those regulations.

Obviously there is a need for the government to show some flexibility to ensure that the requirements of those regulations will improve the environment. These things have to be scrutinized.

What is significant is that those regulations are there. The government is not backing down in the face of the

February 19, 1993

expenditures required. That is going to lead to exactly the kind of future ray hon. friend is looking for.

The environmental review process put in place by this government with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is extremely important. It was passed in June 1988. At the same time the government brought in a practice whereby no new policies can go before cabinet, no new initiatives, until there has been an environmental impact assessment done to make sure that development in this country is consistent with good environmental practice.

That is this government putting action where others might just use words. I do not refer to my hon. friend from Western Arctic when I say that, but I know that a lot of people like to mouth platitudes about the environment. If we are going to pass on to the next generation of Canadians a clean, healthy country, we have to set these standards and guidelines, and as a government we have to live up to them.

The record of this government is very impressive. We have to look upon development and economic development within the context of the environment.

My hon. friend spoke about the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio last year. Although environmental aspects of the conference seemed to attract most of the media attention, it is very significant the two concepts of environment and development were linked by the United Nations.

It is equally interesting to recall-and I noted earlier today my hon. friend from Oxford spoke to this fact- that the leadership in that international gathering, the largest gathering of heads of states in the history of the world, came from Canada. It was not just from the fact a Canadian was the commissioner of that great event, but the fact that the delegation looked at as the world leader was the Canadian delegation and the fact that the green plan was looked upon as a model for the rest of the world.

That is very encouraging as Canadians. We cannot sit back and rest on our laurels about that. We have to continue to be vigilant. I can say that my colleagues on this side of the House, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House, welcome the new priority it would appear the environment is to have in the United States.

Private Members' Business

There has been a lot of talk about the North American free trade agreement. Some concerns have been expressed by some people with respect to whether or not it adequately allows for protection of the environment and the maintenance of environmental standards. I am delighted President Clinton has indicated that he would like to have some sort of parallel agreement to address it. There is no question where the Government of Canada will be on it. As Mr. Clinton himself pointed out, we already have one of the most respected and successful records in the world in this regard.

It is extremely important that all members of this House, and indeed all Canadians, do not lose sight of the fact that we cannot lighten up on this issue. Our future in part is dependent on what we do with our environment. Therefore we cannot back off in any way, shape or form.

In concluding my remarks, I would not want to impose upon the House in the time available to me, I must again commend my hon. friend for bringing the subject forward. I really believe it is right here in Parliament that accountability should reside. That is why I do not think a charter of rights in this regard would be helpful to Canadians.

However I think we all have to look to the future. The environment is something that is a legacy to our children. We want to make sure that it is a legacy that we are proud to leave them.

Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to enter into this debate sponsored by the hon. member for Western Arctic. She says in her motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights.

I am extremely pleased to see this motion on the table before us once again. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that I put forward a motion veiy similar to this in June 1991, just to refresh your memory and the memories of members of the House. The motion I put forward at that time read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a bill of environmental rights to empower Canadians to fight polluters and guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment.

February 19, 1993

Private Members' Business

There is a tremendous similarity in these two bills and I am very pleased to rise again today to discuss this incredibly important issue for all of us.

As the hon. member who introduced the motion said, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are all too aware that our environment teeters on the brink of irreparable destruction. Cynical attempts by governments to buffer big businesses, continued practice of sacrificing our land, our air and our water to cheap and easy profits do nothing but sell our children's right to a healthful future.

This is very critical at a time when the entire world is debating the issue of how government should be involved in dealing with the environmental destruction that has occurred and how to prevent environmental destruction that we know will occur if we are not involved in the process.

The establishment of an environmental bill of rights or an environmental charter of rights is something that is most significant because it empowers people to be involved in the entire process of keeping an eye on corporations, governments and those people engaged in environmental activities.

There was a bit of a lull in this process of defining the rights of people on the environment and the jurisdiction of provinces, individuals, municipalities and the federal government over the environment. Some time around October 1992 when the government brought forward the motion to amend the Canadian Constitution, one of the principles included in that amendment was a charter of social rights. It included a right to a healthful environment.

That clause alone gave us reason to believe that the government was prepared to take certain steps that would give us something close to an environmental bill of rights. Therefore the debate over federal-provincial or whatever jurisdiction ceased for a short period of time.

There is no question that at a time when we are debating whether or not to build a bridge between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, how to deal with dams in western Canada, how to deal with the fragile environment of the Northwest Territories, of the Arctic

and other such matters, it is very important that we have a context in which to look at them.

I am indeed shocked today to read in the Toronto Globe and Mail an article that tells me that the direction that this government is taking is exactly opposite to that which this country desires. I want to quote briefly from the article in today's Globe and Mail:

The federal government is reviewing all of its environmental regulations with an eye to eliminating rules that might hurt national competitiveness or drain the public purse, The Globe and Mail has learned.

In other words, this government is trying to find a way to make it easier for environmental polluters to do business in this country and to get away from those things that will protect the Canadian environment and the Canadian people from the activities that they are engaged in.

I continue to quote:

The Treasury Board told the environment department last fall "to look at existing regulations and identify those that significantly hinder Canadian competitiveness or impose needless costs on consumers".

This is from a memo from deputy minister Len Good to staff. This is simply incredible.

They talk about the review being linked to the Canadian government's Prosperity Initiative, a report released last October containing 54 recommendations to include Canadian industries' competitive position in the world.

In this House just a short time ago the subcommittee on acid rain to the committee on the environment tabled a report entitled From Words to Action. In that report we detailed findings from our study of the way in which the United States has dealt with acid rain controls. One thing we discovered in looking at the system in the United States was that under President George Bush, who is not a noted environmentalist as is Vice-President A1 Gore, an office of competitiveness was established right next door to the President's office. The office of competitiveness was headed by Dan Quayle, a man for whom I am sure we all have some respect.

The office of competitiveness was eliminating environmental regulations to make business more competitive in the United States, thereby jeopardizing the environment. In our case we were looking at acid rain matters, and we found that previously agreed upon acid rain

February 19, 1993

regulations were not being implemented on the specific request of the office of competitiveness.

Under its prosperity agenda, the equal of the Dan Quayle committee in the United States, this government is preparing to do exactly the same thing the Americans were doing, which has stalled acid rain matters in Canada.

If this is the action the Canadian government is prepared to engage in while at the same time talking about trying to protect this environment for the future of Canada, then we have to view with significant doubt virtually everything else it is saying because obviously its commitment to the environment is much less than the words it speaks here.

The North American free trade agreement is another matter that falls under some scrutiny for environmental considerations. An environmental charter of rights in Canada would go a long way toward empowering people to ensure that some of these matters were looked at more closely.

This government has accepted an environmental assessment of the North American free trade agreement. That environmental assessment was not done under the rules this House created just last year with the passage of Bill C-13, the Environmental Assessment Act. The assessment of the North American free trade agreement was not done by the agency that was created to do environmental assessments, previously the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO, but by a committee of deputy ministers. It was a committee on the government side. The committee basically said it was okay and that the North American free trade agreement passes the environmental assessment test. It did not pass any test that was established by this government.

I was a part of the committee that helped to rewrite the government's previously flawed Environmental Assessment Act. When Bill C-13 was passed in this House, despite certain objections I had to the way regulations were going to be dealt with, I very much agreed with most of it. We should be using that Environment Assessment Act when we examine all policies, programs and projects in the future, starting with the North American free trade agreement. We should also be applying it to the fixed link proposal which is going to be debated in this House next week.

Private Members' Business

In conclusion, I want to commend the member for bringing this motion forward to allow for the debate to continue on this most important issue. I want to urge the government to take every step possible to move away from this idea that business can look after the environment and get back to giving the people the power to protect and enhance the environment.

I agree with the member that the aboriginal peoples of this country-northern, plains, Cree and others-have a very solid reputation in this regard. We have a lot to learn from the way in which the environment has been protected and enhanced in the past. We must get back to that position whereby we can ensure that we will leave to our children a world that was better than that we inherited from our parents.

Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion of the hon. member which reads: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights". This charter would empower Canadians to fight polluters and guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment.

Let me make it clear that the protection and enhancement of the environment are high priorities for this government. Our record clearly shows our commitment. On December 11, 1990, we released our environmental action plan, Canada's green plan. This plan is based on a vision which Canadians share: to secure for current and future generations a safe and healthy environment and a sound and prosperous economy.

This is what the green plan does. The government's commitment to the environment has been enshrined in legislation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, affirms in its preamble a commitment to:

Achieve sustainable development by conserving and enhancing

environmental quality and by encouraging and promoting economic

development that conserves and enhances environmental quality.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ensures that all federal departments and agencies conduct environmental assessments of all project proposals for which they have a decision-making authority and gives the Minister of the Environment substantial powers to ensure that this process is fair, efficient, transparent and

February 19, 1993

Private Members' Business

allows for a high level of public input into decisions on projects which have a potentially significant impact on the natural environment.

In addition to this legislated base, the Prime Minister has clearly committed this government to consider the environment as a priority in all its policy and program decision-making.

As a government, we realize that the activities of government touch Canadians in many ways which are not directly linked to projects. That is why it is government policy to require that an environmental statement accompany any proposal considered by Cabinet dealing with policies or programs which may have a significant effect on the Canadian environment.

While the process of assessing policies for their environmental impact is still in its infancy, considerable progress has been made. For example, the Department of National Defence reviewed its policy on port visits by nuclear-powered vessels. The transit of Dixon Entrance by U.S. submarines was also assessed.

Agriculture Canada integrated an environmental review component into its farm safety net program. In addition, External Affairs conducted and made public an environmental review of the North American free trade agreement, the first major economic policy initiative to undergo such a review.

The Minister of the Environment has the responsibility to administer the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). This act gives the minister substantial power to establish regulations protecting Canada's air, water and land. More than this, the act obliges the minister to report to Canadians at regular intervals on the state of the Canadian environment.

CEPA guarantees extensive rights of public participation in decision making affecting the environment. It also confers upon the public the power to take court action against any polluter who contravenes the act.

Environmental information is another area to which the government attaches a great deal of importance. During the process of consulting with Canadians as a part of the development of the government's green plan, individual Canadians stressed repeatedly that a major priority of government must be the regular provision and

wide dissemination of readily understandable information on the state of the environment and how it is changing.

Canadians told us they wanted a sound basis to make their own decisions about the environment. They wanted a basis to understand whether the actions they were taking as individuals would help to reduce environmental degradation. They want to be able to judge whether government is doing its part to contribute to a healthy and sustainable environmental legacy for our children. As well, Canadians want to have a basis to make judgements about the environmental performance of industry.

The routine provision of high-quality environmental information is a major commitment included in the green plan.

In the view of the government, the measures we have already put in place are the best way to empower Canadians to fight polluters and ensure that the government lives up to its commitments. We already have what is needed to guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment. An environmental charter of rights would duplicate many of the provisions which already exist and is not an adequate substitute for an environmentally aware electorate making fully informed decisions about government performance. This is true accountability. The Canadian people will be the judge of whether we are successfully meeting our environmental goals.

Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):

[.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to talk on this motion of my hon. colleague from Western Arctic on the issue of a comprehensive environmental charter of rights.

When my colleague from South Shore was speaking he mentioned that he would like to make sure that the environment is there for his grandchildren to enjoy. At the rate his party is going his grandchildren will not have any environment to enjoy.

He mentioned that the green plan was an historic plan and I think the plan is history all right. I have not seen

February 19, 1993

much evidence of what the green plan is doing for the people of the eastern Arctic, the area I represent.

When I talk about the environment, as I mentioned earlier in Inuktitut, the aboriginal people have never ruined any part of the environment, have never caused any group of animals to become extinct.

For the Inuit, the Inuktitut language has no word for pollution because we do not create pollution. We do not have a word for radiation. We do not have words for cadmium or PCBs. We have words for dirt but that is about the strongest you can get. When we are talking about pollution or radiation the nearest we can come to is something that makes you sick.

When I say that the Canadian government would do well to listen to my colleague from Western Arctic and myself in terms of protecting the environment, I think it would be well advised to listen. When we are talking about preserving the quality of the environment, we are not just talking because it is the issue of the day. We are saying these things because we have always been concerned about the environment.

In the Northwest Territories, the area that my colleague and I represent, the government was the first to pass a comprehensive bill of rights on the environment in 1990. In 1981, the Yukon government passed legislation containing some elements of an environmental bill of rights. The principles involved in a bill of rights are: the people's right to be involved, the people's right to participate and the people's right to a healthy environment.

When we talk about pollution and not causing the pollution, I would just like to mention some few instances of where other outside groups have caused pollution and environmental damage on the land on which we live, in my case Nunatsiaq, "the good land".

The DEW line sites, the distant early warning sites, have been left behind by the Americans, leaving thousands of barrels of whatever the barrels contain as well as the barrels themselves, which has caused a considerable amount of damage to the land. One good example might be the Horton River DEW line site situated between the communities of Polutuk and Thktoyaktuk. That site is littered with an estimated 10,000 45-gallon fuel drums, and various abandoned buildings and equip-

Private Members' Business

ment. This site is on Inuvialuit land, the area the Inuit occupy in the Beaufort region.

It is astonishing that the federal government under its green plan decided it was going to clean up a minimum of 21 DEW line sites. That particular place at the Horton River site has not been cleaned up even after three years have passed since the Inuvialuit reached an agreement with the federal government to clean up that site. That agreement acknowledged that the government had an obligation to remove all debris, all the fuel drums, the towers and the structures that were not required at the site. I repeat, three years after that agreement was reached between the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada, that site has not been cleaned up.

It seems there are insufficient funds in the Arctic environmental strategy, which the Minister of the Environment very loudly proclaimed in Iqaluit a couple of years ago as the answer to cleaning up the environment. It is too bad that the government has not followed through. I urge the government to try and work co-operatively with the Inuvialuit to achieve the wanted results, which is cleaning up the environment in the area that people see as pristine and without any environmental damage. Unfortunately the environmental damage has not been as a result of us living in that area, but other outside factors.

It has to be understood that the Inuvialuit have to be involved very comprehensively in the clean-up. The government must follow through and stop reneging on its promise to do this clean-up and should immediately take steps to correct the situation.

In the Northwest Territories we have some resources that people want to take out. We do not really have a problem with mining companies, oil companies and other groups wanting to take resources and minerals out of the Northwest Territories. I would like to mention briefly the Izok mine development in the Kitikmeot region. This is the central Arctic region in which they want to have a large-scale complex for development and mining.

Again, we do not really have a problem with people wanting to take that stuff out, but we want to ensure that the environment is not destroyed in the process. That is why we have to be involved as aboriginal people, whether Inuit, Dene or other groups of aboriginal people in Canada. That is why we have to be involved in the

Private Members' Business

planning, development and the shutdowns in all aspects of any mineral development. I point out we have never caused any species of animals to be extinct because of pollution to the land. We have never destroyed any part of our land. That is why we have to be very involved in any development of any kind.

I would like to mention a recent study respecting caribou. A great number of the people I represent depend on caribou, which contains high levels of cadmium. It hurts when people mention that maybe we should be eating less caribou, seal or muktuk.

Some years ago I remember we were told that we should not be eating any more seal liver because it contains mercury. We did not stop eating seal because we believe it is very healthy. I certainly did not do that. As a matter of fact, I love to go out to the area I am from, go out to the flow edge, get some seal and eat the liver.

We are not going to stop eating seal because it is a very healthy part of our diet, fresh raw seal liver. We are not going to stop doing that and we are not going to stop eating caribou just because somebody tells us.

I remember one Inuk said he would never stop eating even if his hair were falling out from his head. That is how tied we are to the environment and to the issue of eating the animals that we hunt in the north.

We would like the government to do a little more to try and prevent the pollution that is occurring in the north. We would like the government to follow through on some of the green plan and on doing more for the people, especially the mothers. In a study done over a series of years, Inuit mothers were found to have high levels of PCBs in their breast milk. It is scary that some mothers decided that they would not feed their babies breast milk when it is still the best for the baby.

There was one instance where the mother was looking for alternatives to breast milk. It is a sad situation when mothers have to do that.

I urge the government to follow through and follow the advice of my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic, and develop an environmental bill of rights so that we can feel that we are very much a part of the Canadian society and that people do listen to us.

Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion. I certainly congratulate the hon. member on the spirit of the motion.

The enhancement and the protection of the natural environment is a goal to which this government and all members of this House are firmly committed. It is a goal that will require changes in the way we make decisions at all levels of society, as individuals in our lives at work and as governments.

We made the development of a comprehensive framework for better decisions on the environment a priority. That is why this government has developed an environmental action plan which it has called the green plan.

The government engaged in a series of very extensive consultations with Canadians in all segments of society. We started those consultations with a paper entitled: "A Framework for Discussion on the Environment". That paper outlined the government's proposed environmental framework and set out possible measures to deal with specific environmental issues. We asked Canadians to give us their vision on the government's suggested approach and to tell us whether they agreed with our proposed priorities.

A number of clear messages came out of those consultations. Despite the emergence of a number of major issues competing for attention such as the Constitution, the economy, native affairs and international developments, Canadians remained deeply concerned about the environment and felt that environmental quality actually is deteriorating.

Canadians are looking to their governments for leadership on this issue. People recognize that individuals have a key role to play. They are optimistic about our ability as a nation to solve our environmental problems if we work together.

In focusing on single issues, Canadians want action on a broad range of issues from global warming to toxins, to waste management, to parks and wildlife and of course to the north. Consistent with this, people attach a high priority to those activities linked to the solution of a number of environmental problems. For example, there was general emphasis on the importance of better science, information and education.

February 19, 1993

What Canadians were telling us in those consultations is consistent with what we now understand about the nature of our environment. That is that air, water and land are not separate entities but form integrated ecosystems which require systematic action across a broad front.

The green plan reflects both what we have heard from Canadians and the evolution of our own policy thinking. It takes a comprehensive approach, a co-ordinated package of action across a broad range of environmental issues from climate change to parks and wildlife. This corresponds to what Canadians want. Equally important it corresponds to what we know about our ecosystem and the linkages between issues.

The green plan reflects the importance we attach to taking action which helps us to address environmental issues across a broad front. For example, the green plan emphasizes better science to allow us to understand environmental problems and their solutions. It emphasizes better information so all Canadians can make more informed decisions and hold governments, industry and themselves more accountable. It also emphasizes better education leading to an environmentally literate population increasingly involved in making better environmental decisions.

The green plan is specific. It sets out explicit targets and schedules and commits to ongoing consultations and extensive environmental reporting. These are the green plan's goals in terms of the environment. However, they can only be achieved by changing how we behave toward nature. Hence the green plan focuses on environmental responsibility through better decision making.

The green plan empowers Canadians to make a difference in decision making at all levels. Through better environmental information and education, Canadians will be equipped to make informed judgments about the performance of industry. Through regular reporting on green plan progress, Canadians will be able to hold governments, business and each other accountable for their progress or lack of it.

Individuals are also empowered to protect the environment in federal legislation. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, gives extensive rights of public participation in decision making that affects the environ-

Private Members' Business

ment. CEPA also confers upon the public the power to take court action against a polluter who contravenes the act.

The green plan also recognizes the important role of the federal government in making good environmental decisions.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to be proclaimed later this year, will ensure that all projects that require a federal decision are carefully assessed for their environmental implications.

Moreover, we have moved beyond the assessment of projects and since June 1990 have as a matter of government policy required that environmental impact assessments be made for all policy and program initiatives coming before cabinet for decisions.

Furthermore, our policy requires that a statement of the environmental implications of each policy or program be made public.

The green plan challenges all Canadians to make better environmental decisions. As a government we are prepared to lead by example. This is the way to effective protection and enhancement of the environment. It requires a change in behaviour at all levels of society. It requires a national co-ordinated strategy to provide people with the assurance that their individual activities are part of a co-ordinated approach to change.

Individuals, corporations, and governments need to know they can work together to make a difference.

Our government's priority is a broadly based attack on environmental degradation achieved by an environmentally literate society-one in which citizens are equipped with the knowledge, skills and values necessary for action-not piecemeal initiatives through the courts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 3.46 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).