Mr. Speaker, excuse my being out of breath, but as my colleague pointed out, there are times when one is even more in a rush than normally. I want to thank you for having the patience to wait for me. I really wanted to speak on Bill C-56. That is why I asked my colleagues to give me a hand and let you know that I was coming.
However, before I start talking about Bill C-56, in this festive season, I would like to say a few words to the people in the beautiful riding of Terrebonne. As previously mentioned in this House, the riding of Terrebonne is the most beautiful one after your own, dear colleagues. I would like to wish my constituents a very happy holiday season. I also would like to wish all the members of the great Bloc Quebecois family in the riding of Terrebonne a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I want to tell them that, in the coming year, we will have to work very hard, and that I look forward to working with them.
I now want to address Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It should first be pointed out that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meets regularly to harmonize, as much as possible, the various environment acts which cause problems between the federal government and the provinces.
While the provincial ministers are trying to agree on how to improve federal-provincial relations on the environment, the federal minister tells them: "You may pursue your useless talks on the harmonizing the environmental assessment process, but as for me, I will proclaim the CEEA which will immediately be amended by Bill C-56 and, in so doing, I will agree to federal interference in this area, which will be legitimized as soon as the bill is passed".
But the minister tells them: "Go on, continue your discussions between provinces, while I put forward the so-called flexible federalism". The subject of flexible federalism was raised last Thursday, and my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie gave us a definition of flexible federalism: it is a federal system in which the federal government encroaches on the provinces and the provinces give in. Bill C-56 is a case in point.
This short bill is designed to amend Bill C-13 with just four clauses, but these clauses show the federal government's intention to interfere in environmental assessment.
Logically, the federal government should limit itself to environmental assessments of projects for which it is the main developer, projects carried out on crown lands or Indian lands that require its specific authorization or to which it contributes so much that the very project depends on it. That is not the case with Bill C-56.
With Bill C-13 as amended by Bill C-56, the federal government is moving in the opposite direction. It gives itself the authority to make assessments in just about any circumstance, based on the various criteria prescribed in the legislation. This bill, if adopted, that is if Bill C-56 is allowed to amend Bill C-13, will result in legal controversy, federal-provincial conflict, again, immeasurable cost due to overlap, endless delays for the proponents. For developers, it will mean loss of contracts, loss of projects, loss of economic benefits.
Finally, the most deplorable effect this bill will have is inadequate environmental protection, because of the stubbornness of governments-need I remind you-as it is the duty of each to protect its own jurisdiction. Imposing federal jurisdiction on the provinces like that is not the way to go. The biggest loser in all this will be the environment, the very thing we were supposed to be protecting. The primary objective of the legislation is nullified by this legislation, this amended legislation. How great.
I am certainly not saying that it would be easy to determine which level of government should have jurisdiction on the environment. The constitutional division of environmental law-making powers is complex; the Constitution allocates certain responsibilities to the provinces and others to the federal government.
The Canadian Constitution does not give jurisdiction over the environment to the federal government or the provinces. When legislative powers were divided in 1867, the people and Parliament knew very little about the problems of pollution and environmental degradation. We must understand that the Fathers of Confederation could not include in the Constitution matters which were not then of public interest. That is partly why this sector is not among the various responsibilities assigned to the two levels of government under sections 91 and 92 of the 1867 Constitution Act.
While provincial environment ministers are trying to come to an agreement because the Constitution is far from clear on who is responsible for what in this area, the minister jumps into the fray saying, "Get out of my way. I am the boss in this matter".
Unfortunately for her, the official opposition is standing guard and will not remain silent on a bill like C-56, which will undermine the environmental assessment powers of Quebec and the other provinces by complementing C-13. It must be pointed out that Quebec has its own environmental assessment law, the Environment Quality Act. This law was even called one of the best in the world and one of the best assessment procedures.
With over 20 years of experience in environmental assessment, Quebec is way ahead. Why set this aside? Why reject this out of hand? Bill C-56 calls into question expertise that was acquired two decades ago.
On many occasions, the federal government has shown its interest in the environment. It has put forward principles like sustainable development, the fact that the environment knows no boundaries, and the national interest. On environmental issues, we have also been told about peace, order and good government, which are found in section 91. In short, a whole slew of arguments that we consider indefensible a priori. We have evidence to the contrary.
Bill C-13, as amended by Bill C-56, is a real legal hornets' nest. As you know, the great majority of legal challenges in this field end up in the Supreme Court, which means long delays, and except for lawyers, no one wins in these sterile conflicts. Here we might recall the dilemma opposing Hydro Québec and the Canadian government. I think it is worth giving an example to show that it is not easy to meddle so obviously in another's environmental jurisdiction.
Yes, the dispute arises from the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and not Bill C-13, but the example could very well apply to Bill C-13. The second part concerning toxics is at issue but I am sure that the ruling enlightens us on the wrong direction taken in Bill C-56. Let me quote you part of the sentence handed down by the Quebec Court and upheld by the Quebec Superior Court:
"Giving the federal government jurisdiction over the environment would allow it to infringe on provincial fields of jurisdiction. I repeat here those listed by the applicant: Section 92, subsection 5, public lands belonging to the province; section 92, subsection 8, municipal institutions; subsection 10, local works and undertakings; subsection 13, property and civil rights; and, finally, subsection 16, matters of a merely local nature".
These are some of the provisions which made these two authorities come to the following conclusion: "I have already said that, in my opinion, this section cannot fall under the general power of the federal Parliament to make laws for peace, order and good government. I am also of the opinion that this section cannot fall under the power to legislate criminal law. I therefore declare this section-of the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act-to be ultra vires". That section of the act relating to PCBs and deemed to be ultra vires can have a bearing on the whole underlying philosophy of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The government, which is not even waiting for the impending conclusion of this judgment, now wants to impose an amendment which will also be challenged. Who is the government trying to please, if not lawyers? We wonder.
A court has doubts about the federal authority. The government ignores the decision and continues to interfere even more, probably in the hope of having its other environmental act challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and see that tribunal conclude that it is ultra vires .
Why is the government so stubborn? It cannot even fulfill its current commitments, yet it keeps asking for more. As you know, in spite of the conventions and treaties signed, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River are more polluted than ever before. In spite of the billions of dollars spent, as mentioned in the newspapers last week, acid rain keeps poisoning our forests and lakes. In spite of the treaty signed in Rio, Canada has not reached its objective of reducing greenhouse gases. And the federal government still wants to interfere in a field which falls under provincial jurisdiction. We must wonder why the federal government wants to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction when it cannot even adequately carry out its own obligations. Tell me why.
After all, Canadians and Quebecers will have to foot the bill for this. Some would argue that the environment knows no boundary, and it is true. We are reminded of that so often that we have to wonder why broader international treaties are not signed. Yes, we agree that the government has the right to sign such agreements, but when it does, it cannot even honour them.
In 1992, the federal government became involved in promoting sustainable development, but did not meet its objectives. This example and all the others I have already given show why, with our expertise is Quebec, with a bill like Bill 26 passed by the Ontario legislature to protect its environmental rights, with the environmental agreements reached with Alberta and with all the various agreements, we just have to reject Bill C-56 that would amend Bill C-13 and create grey areas in interpreting the law. Before passing any laws that would raise doubts, we must determine who has jurisdiction in this area. I think the minister should listen to what the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has to say.
I urge the House to examine, reconsider and reject Bill C-56.