Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today at this stage of the consideration of Bill C-9, to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or CEAA.

We have worked very hard and with a great deal of goodwill, both in this House and in committee, to amend this bill to ensure it meets the historical demands of Quebec with respect to environmental assessment.

This is done in committee by trying to make changes to both the bill's preamble and its essential clauses, to achieve greater cooperation and collaboration, as indicated; that is what is sought by the accord on environmental harmonization, which Quebec has not signed.

Quebec has not signed this accord on environmental harmonization, and we should recall what Quebec said at the time, which was, “We will not endorse this accord as long as we do not have the assurance that legislatively, our environmental process and legislation will be respected when, for example, projects are carried out in our jurisdiction”.

That is what was said at the time, and I remember this was what Minister Bégin or Minister Cliche was saying when I was elected in 1997. This is also the wish historically expressed by every previous government, whether PQ or Liberal. I will come back later to the commitments the Liberal Party of Quebec made during the last campaign in Quebec concerning environmental assessments and the demands of the current Government of Quebec in terms of environmental assessment process. That is our position, and it is not that we do not want projects carried out within Quebec's jurisdiction not to be subject to an environmental assessment, far from it.

The first bill on this topic, Bill C-78, was introduced on June 18, 1990. A bill respecting environmental assessment was first introduced in 1990, while in Quebec an environmental assessment process was established back in 1975. In Quebec, we developed our own environmental assessment system by incorporating it in the Environment Quality Act in 1978. Well before 1990, some 12 years before the first federal environmental assessment bill was introduced, Quebec was already putting in place its own environmental assessment mechanisms and process.

This shows then that, when it comes to the environment, particularly environmental impact assessment of projects within Quebec, Quebec has already demonstrated its leadership.

By 1978, Quebec had set up its environmental impact assessment system, and two years later, it created the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) in Quebec. Even Canadian environmental groups have told us that the BAPE is doing excellent work. This office provides for public participation and much greater transparency and has reduced delays in getting an environmental impact assessment. In short, it ensures that proper assessments are done, while making sure that some projects are also cost effective, for example, some hydroelectric projects. So, by 1980, Quebec had created the BAPE.

By 1990, when Bill C-78, the first bill on environmental procedure in Quebec was tabled, Quebec and Robert Bourassa's Liberal government joined forces, and the Minister of the Environment, Pierre Paradis, wrote a letter to the federal Minister of the Environment, Jean J. Charest.

I should first talk about the time that Pierre Paradis, in a letter to Robert René de Cotret, indicated that it was essential for Bill C-78 to introduce some flexibility into Quebec's process and avoid any duplication. At the time, Quebec asked that this be ensured. However, the federal government refused to make the changes to Bill C-78 that the Quebec government was requesting.

On December 17, 1990, that same Minister of the Environment for Quebec, Pierre Paradis, wrote to Jean Charest, federal Minister of the Environment, to tell him that it could clearly be demonstrated that the bill infringed on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This was a clear indication that the federal government was meddling in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Through all these processes, it seemed clear to me at the time that Quebec had a unanimous position on this issue. In fact, the environment minister of the day expressed it in a letter. On June 16, 1992, Pierre Paradis even made representations before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to indicate the impact that the environmental assessment process could have on the expertise that Quebec had developed and the experience that it had gained. But the government refused to listen to reason.

Seeing that the federal government was refusing to recognize Quebec's expertise and the legitimate demands of the Bourassa government, on March 18, 1992, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous resolution and a unanimous motion calling on the federal government to suspend its procedures.

In 1992, under the premiership of Robert Bourassa, both PQ members and Liberal members passed a unanimous motion voicing strong disapproval of the federal government's bill, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it went against Quebec's best interests. The assembly was therefore opposed to the federal Parliament passing the bill.

This shows that it was not only the Bourassa government that expressed its opposition to the process that was being put in place, and which is being amended today, but the whole National Assembly.

We must remember these historic moments. It is important to remember what we, in Quebec, thought at the time to try to understand the impact that the existing legislation, which we want to amend today, has had on us.

Bill C-78 became Bill C-13, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I have here documents from 1992 where the Government of Quebec was saying, with regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and I quote:

There is indeed a risk that the latter will constantly be duplicated, disputed or subordinated to the application of the federal process. Yet, the Quebec procedure has been well established for ten years already; it is well known by the general public and the promoters from Quebec; and it has proven itself.

The Government of Quebec added that the areas where the federal authority can get involved are somewhat limitless.

Therefore, in the view of the Government of Quebec of the time, the scope of this Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was limitless, given all of the provisions the bill contained to force obligatory reviews of projects by the federal authority.

That was our view, in Quebec, of Bill C-13, which became the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which we are amending today.

I will come back later to whether the concerns of the Government of Quebec were justified. I will refer to the Toulnustouc hydroelectric project, on the North Shore, which my colleague has seen postponed. This is a hydroelectric project, not a gas pipeline or an oil project. This hydroelectric project, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was postponed because of overlap and a federal environmental process that confirmed the conclusions already reached by Quebec's Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement. I will come back to this later.

In its past claims, Quebec said that it was important that there be an acknowledgment. Such was also the view of Alberta, to acknowledge Justice La Forest's Supreme Court decision in the Oldman case. This ruling set out and recognized the federal government's jurisdiction for undertaking environmental assessments of projects for which a federal decision is required. Those words need to be stressed, “where federal participation is required”.

Justice La Forest also added something in his decision that clarifies the issue of the federal government's real powers. He stated that “the Guidelines Order cannot be used as a colourable device to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction which are unconnected to the relevant heads of federal power” by the federal department or the board.

Therefore, Justice La Forest set limits on the federal government's ability to intervene on environmental matters. He recognizes, of course, that the federal government has discretionary powers, given that it is a shared jurisdiction. However, he clearly states that this power is not limitless. This needs to be acknowledged.

At the time, Quebec was also worried that this environmental assessment process would create duplication. It did say that if Bill C-13 was passed as written—and I want to stress this because it is the basic legislation that we are amending here today—it would mean submitting for federal evaluation many environmental projects that had already gone through Quebec's environmental impact examination and assessment procedure. This situation would therefore create a serious duplication problem in Quebec.

At the time, we feared that the federal environmental assessment process would create duplication. It is not that we do not want some projects to go through the environmental assessment procedure. In fact, we would like an environmental assessment to be done on as many projects as possible. That is why we created, in 1980, our very own Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement which ensures that an in-depth environmental assessment is carried out if requested by citizens.

In many ways and quite often, Quebec's environmental assessment process is more thorough than the federal process. Under the federal scheme, only 1% of all projects go through some in-depth analysis, which is not the case in Quebec. Also, Quebec's process is transparent and allows every citizen who so wishes—as long as the request for an environmental assessment is not far-fetched—to obtain consultations, hearings and environmental assessments within a reasonable time frame. Assessments are not done only on projects carried out in a specific area. BAPE can also assess industrial and farming projects, like pig farms, if they are believed to have some environmental impact.

The scope of Quebec's BAPE extends to diverse issues, and not only to specific projects from developers, something that is not possible in the federal process which we enacted a few years ago and which we are amending today.

Therefore, we must recognize the significance of the Quebec process. I remind members that Quebec did not sign the Accord on Environmental Harmonization because it was afraid at that time that the accord was one of those pieces of legislation that are not really intended to improve cooperation. As people often say, with an accord or a bill like that, you do not need to be married. Under these circumstances, we do not want to be partners.

True partnership involves cooperation. What we are hearing today is a request that Quebec become a partner, that Quebec cooperate, but one of the partners will be more equal than the other. It is often said that everyone is equal, but in reality, in the federal system as it now exists, one partner is more equal than the other. That is the federal government, because it has assumed this discretionary power. I will come back to this point later. The government will now let the minister increase his discretionary power, and that is totally unacceptable.

Moreover, as was said at the time of Bill C-13, the Government of Quebec documents submitted to a Senate committee clearly indicated, and here I quote the words of the duly elected Government of Quebec in 1992:

We fail to see why the Government of Quebec should be interested in having the implementation of these elements of the federal environmental assessment process delegated to it, when the procedure Quebec has developed in recent years has been recognized as the most effective in the world.

Not only do we say so, but others say so, too. Why destroy something that is working well? If Quebec were not proactive in environmental assessment, then perhaps I could understand why the Canadian government would want to have a federal procedure, because Quebec was weak in environmental assessment. But why, when the Quebec procedure is recognized, does the government want to create duplicate procedures?

It is because of the will of an increasingly centralizing government in Ottawa, the same government that preaches cooperation and harmonization. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want cooperation and then bring in bills that increase centralization.

Consistency is the only way to go in politics, and it is the only way people will again have faith in the political system. Double talk is indeed the kind of approach and vision that makes voters in Quebec and Canada lose interest. In my view, consistency is fundamental.

As I often said, Quebec voiced its opposition to the bill for several reasons. Why? Because, among other things, there are several elements in the environmental assessment process that depend, for the most part, on the scope and complexity of the probable effects of a project.

The main tool is screening, which applies to 99% of assessed projects. Only 1% of projects, as I said before, are subject to a comprehensive study.

Why then is Quebec's process, which allows for a comprehensive study, not properly recognized? This is what I do not understand. Since the Quebec's process allows for a comprehensive study, why does the federal government want to have a better environmental assessment? They are not taking full advantage of a process that allows for comprehensive studies. Instead, they are consolidating the legislation.

There is another fundamental problem. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act favours self-assessment in that the federal government assesses its own projects. Unlike Quebec, where we have the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement which is responsible for environmental assessments, under Canadian law it is often the departments that do their own assessment. So they are both judge and jury. It is as if the oil industry or an industrial developer were told, “You will conduct your own environmental assessment”. What would happen? It would result in biases. What we really need is not a self-assessment process but a truly independent process as afforded by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

Finally, public hearings were held between January and March 2000. Over 1,200 stakeholders took part. A parallel consultation process was held by the first nations organizations. But Quebec did not take part in these discussion and did not make any comments, gbecause the bill denies Quebec's traditional demands.

This legislation has resulted in 5,500 to 6,000 environmental impact assessments per year. This is a lot. It is important to remember that these assessments are being done by the departments responsible for the projects and not by the agency. The agency could not, in any case, handle such a high volume.

We have some criticisms of several sections of Bill C-9. First, section 22 clearly gives the federal government greater authority to interfere in one of Quebec's jurisdictions. By adding “of the opinion”, the bill gives the minister discretionary power. So, the minister has the discretion to intervene.

Second, in clause 8, the whole part about the federal environmental assessment coordinator clearly shows that the federal government wants to interfere in Quebec's process. The federal government has to create this position because it intends to operate in one of Quebec's jurisdictions. If it stayed in its own jurisdiction, it would not need to do this.

Quebec is not opposed to a federal environmental assessment process, just as it did not oppose the federal species at risk legislation. Why was it not opposed to such legislation? Because, since 1990, Quebec has its own such legislation. It took the federal government 13 years to decide to adopt federal species at risk legislation and, 13 years later, we are being told that the federal legislation might eliminate Quebec's process and legislation.

I do not get it. There are members across the way who voted for this threatened species act when they were in Quebec in 1990. As we consider Bill C-9, to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and allow the federal process to apply in Quebec, I have a hard time understanding how some members opposite who defended and adopted the Quebec process just a few years ago can now support this bill. I do not understand this double talk. They cannot have it both ways.

One cannot endorse a bill providing for environmental assessments in Quebec and, 15 years later, support a bill allegedly designed to improve, from a federal point of view, the current legislation and the original legislation.

As far as we are concerned, the position of federal coordinator reflects the federal government's desire to interfere in the process established in Quebec. As I said, we objected to that, and so did the Government of Quebec. Why? Because we have our own Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

I want to stress that this widely recognized process is more transparent when it comes to public participation. It is at arm's length as compared to the federal government's self-assessment approach, which I described earlier, whereby departments assess their own projects.

The process in Quebec is more at arm's length, as compared to that approach. It excludes fewer projects, thus ensuring more comprehensive protection of the environment. It is less complex than the federal process. It is also more uniform, hence more predictable, since it comes under just one entity instead of various federal departments.

Finally, it provides clearly set time limits, contrary to the federal process, which never gives any precise time limit.

When we look at the Quebec process, and analyse its performance record, including the latest report of the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement for 2000-01, which I have recently examined, we might conclude that Quebeckers are finding that the process in Quebec is not working; that it is time for a double safety net; that the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement is not, Quebeckers feel, carrying out sufficiently independent assessments; that it is time then for the federal level to step in and patch up the Quebec process; that, basically, the Quebec process needs to be consolidated because it is no good.

Yet polls have been carried out in connection with the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement, because it is important to examine what is being done, in order to see whether it is appreciated and whether the process is a good one. Most poll subjects who attended a public information session by the BAPE, 91% in fact, found its presentation appropriate. As well, 92% found the various means used to inform and consult the public on a project useful.

I am not sure that the public would really find the federal process satisfactory, when only 1% of projects are subjected to a comprehensive study. I would be curious to find out. I would be pleased to carry out a poll of those who have used the federal process, and this is what I would ask, “Are you happy that only 1% of projects were subjected to a comprehensive study? That 99% were subjected to screening only. Do you agree with this? Do you feel the process is transparent? Do you think the federal self-assessment process is a good one?” I am sure that the results would not be the same.

Most of the people polled seemed satisfied with the process in Quebec. Most of them, 86%, felt that the commission lets them ask all relevant questions within a reasonable time limit. The first part of the public hearing makes it possible for them to gain clear and precise information on the impact of projects. Eighty-eight per cent of them say this is the case. For each of these two elements, 10% report that they are dissatisfied.

However, the proportion of those who are dissatisfied is higher with regard to the time provided for preparing briefs or oral presentations. It is 21%. Therefore, even though 21% of those polled expressed dissatisfaction in terms of the time provided for preparing briefs under the Quebec process, close to 80% are indeed satisfied.

Finally, satisfaction with regard to the inquiry and public hearing process is such that two out of five respondents think that it does not need any specific improvements.

Eight respondents out of ten, or 79%, totally or generally agree that the format and structure of the report make it easy to read, whereas 8% think the opposite.

I insist on these assessments, on these comprehensive studies as opposed to screenings—it is the terminology used by the federal government. In Quebec, they are called inquiries.

The annual number of public information and consultation mandates has gone from 15 in the 1980s, when the process was created, to 18 in the 1990s and to 25 in 2001-02. The average annual number of inquiry, public hearing and mediation mandates has also increased, going from 3 in the 1980s, to 7 in the 1990s and to 12 in 2001-02. There is also a steady increase in the number of mandate-days for information, inquiry and mediation periods, that number jumping from 1,543 in 1998 to 2,622 in 2001-02.

It seems clear to me that the federal government is trying to impose its process on Quebec when Quebec's own process is working well. This is my opinion and also one that has been widely expressed.

I also have to say that in committee we tried to have included in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as it is in Quebec's environment quality act, Quebec Crees' special status recognized under article 22 of the James Bay Convention that provides for a distinct environmental assessment process and system. That was one of the major demands of the Grand Council of the Crees, namely granting them this special status and recognizing article 22 of the convention.

The federal government turned us down. We tried several times both within the bill before us now and in committee—the issue of the environmental assessment was also reviewed in committee—I have been trying and I am still trying to have the James Bay Convention, especially article 22 on environmental assessment, recognized by the legislation and the federal government. Unfortunately, it is turning a deaf ear to us.

Finally, I talked about the 1990s, under the government of Robert Bourassa , and I also talked about the PQ government from 1994 until very recently. In a few days, we will vote on Bill C-9 at third reading. It is important to try to understand and see whether the new Quebec government has a different vision in this regard.

I believe we must take stock and try to understand what this legitimate new government, recently elected in Quebec, will favour and ask for. Will it back down on Quebec traditional demands? It might, and then again, it might not. We know very little since the environment minister was appointed just yesterday .

The only indication we have comes from the Quebec Liberal Party election platform.

The proposal from their document on energy says:

In order to provide for Quebeckers' electricity needs in the near future, we plan to reduce construction delays for hydroelectric projects by concluding a timely agreement with federal authorities to harmonize the environmental assessment process, or even delegate it to Quebec.

What the Government of Quebec wants is to reduce the waiting period when it comes to hydroelectric projects.

The past is an indication of what the future holds in store. Look at what this government has done with the environmental assessment process in the Toulnustouc project on the North Shore. It is important to remember that the interference of the federal government in the hydroelectric generating station on the Toulnustouc River in 2001 caused delays of several months on this key project for the region.

After reviewing the environmental assessment of the project, after public consultations in Baie-Comeau and Betsiamites, after 13 hearings involving some 650 people with 31 briefs having been presented, the BAPE gave the project its approval in June 2001. This hydroelectric power plant was going to generate employment for 800 people per year.

The federal government decided to enforce the federal process, skeptical of the BAPE's environmental assessment under Quebec's system, thereby delaying a sustainable development project for Canada, and also violating the principles of sustainable development, under which the economy, the environment and society are equally important. I think that the proposal of the current Liberal government, to have environmental reviews delegated to Quebec, is completely warranted.

I find this reassuring and I have the following observation. We have always and often been reproached here in the House for not understanding anything. The Government of Quebec was often reproached for not understanding the situation and for not wanting to cooperate or harmonize environmental measures, because it was a PQ government, sovereignist and separatist—as the members opposite call us. Now, we can see that there was not just the issue of the fiscal imbalance that the Government of Quebec could not agree on. The current Liberal government of Quebec does not agree on this issue either.

I am convinced that when the newly elected government in the National Assembly sees this bill and when it studies and evaluates these major amendments, it will be consistent with Robert Bourassa's position in 1992 and support the drive to patriate and have one single environmental review process for all projects. In the end, I am convinced that the new government will remain faithful to Quebec's past claims and to the best interests of Quebec, as all of the Governments of Quebec have done for decades.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the third reading on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or CEAA. Although far from perfect, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting this legislation which is the result of a mandatory five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act itself.

Because the five year review did not allow full inspection of the original act, the bill in many ways is incomplete. This is regrettable and will need to be addressed at the next mandatory review seven years from now.

One of the chief features of Bill C-9 is the creation of the Canadian environmental assessment registry. The registry will provide more public access to documents, surrounding a project through an online database. A coordinator position has been created to administer this registry and coordinate the process.

I am pleased with some of the positives achieved at committee with respect to Bill C-9. These include new scoping provisions that can begin before a project is approved. Providing details on the scope of the project will increase transparency and trust between groups that have traditionally clashed over environmental issues.

The creation of an online registry should also provide more and better information. The Canadian Alliance fought hard to ensure that those without Internet access could still obtain information they sought.

Most important though, the entire act will be reviewed in seven years by a parliamentary committee. It is crucial that the next review take the process out of the hands of cabinet, which prevented a number of sections of CEAA not to be opened for political reasons.

When I speak about this review, it was a ministerial review and they very tightly controlled which aspects of the act could be reviewed under the scoping provisions. Fortunately we were able to get an amendment through where the next review would be a parliamentary review. It will be up to the purview of the committee itself. It will be the master of that review and will decide what should be opened. I think that will be a much better review seven years from now.

However there were some flaws which we also identified in Bill C-9 and I would like to talk about those for a few minutes.

The minister said that one of the positives of this act was that CEAA would now extend to some 40 crown corporations. I do not believe that is quite accurate, maybe on the face of it, but I will explain it in more details because this is the exact provision that we fought for in committee.

We felt that crown corporations operating inside Canada should follow the same rules, the Canadian environmental assessment rules, as every other business or company or anybody who fell under this act. Of course they have been exempted.

The government once again exempted many crown corporations from coverage under CEAA. Crown corporations will be allowed three years to create separate regulations governing environmental assessment. Certainly there are crown corporations that need special circumstances but these agencies are relatively few in number. The government had five years to prepare a list in which agencies should be exempted yet this was never done. We have to ask the question.

Under the new legislation, and this is where the government has sort of compromised the crown corporations, crown corporations that want to be exempted under the act have three years to prepare their own environmental assessment process. If they do not, then they will be bound by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We would have argued that they should not have even had that much latitude, that operating inside Canada they should still have been compelled the same as everybody else. However that is another question for another day and one which hopefully will be addressed when the review is done.

Another concern is that Bill C-9 allows too much authority to the minister to seek further consultation before he or she issues a decision statement. This provision is subject to abuse. When a project becomes politically sensitive, the minister could delay making a decision which to this side of the House represents an abuse of process. Again, while we are not suggesting it is, the potential is there for that to happen. We thought it would have been a much stronger bill if that loophole had been closed.

Another weak area is that the municipal land use authorities should have had equal input into the process as first nations bands. This amendment was defeated by the government. Municipal governments could be affected by federal projects near or in their jurisdictions. They should have an equal right to express these concerns within the assessment process. Sadly, they have been excluded. Again, we did not agree with that as well

Despite these concerns the Canadian Alliance recognizes that on balance these improvements would actually help the process and provide better clarity to what exists now in Bill C-9 and other areas. As steps toward a single window of approval process with meaningful penalties are being made, we should not refuse them. Between now and the next review of CEAA, we will have an opportunity to see how these changes will affect environmental assessment in Canada. At that time we can take the next step and improve upon the process.

Environmental protection and the needs of industry must be meshed and both viewpoints need to be considered in this process. Our support for Bill C-9 is not without reservation. We will be watching for the government to make CEAA work much more effectively in the future.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The act applies to federal decisions about projects

It was brought into force in 1995 by this government. Since that time some 40,000 environmental assessments have been conducted by 30 federal departments, boards and agencies. The projects assessed have ranged from the relatively small, such as the rebuilding of the Laurier Bridge here in Ottawa, to more complex proposals such as the Voisey's Bay mine proposal in Labrador.

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are identified, assessed and that, as far as possible, mitigation is done early in the planning phase of the project. It is a precautionary tool that is now used in more than 100 countries.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act contains a provision requiring a review of the act five years after its coming into force.

In preparing for this review, the first step was to ask ourselves, “What is wrong with the existing legislation?”

We heard the concerns about the lack of consistency and certainty in the manner the current process is applied. We also examined issues relating to the quality of assessments. In addition, we heard the concerns about the limited public participation in the on-going process.

I officially launched the review of the act in December 1999, with the release of a discussion paper, and a series of public consultations across the country.

I wanted this review to focus on the development of solutions to problems identified not only by the government but also by those involved in the assessments, environmental groups, industry representatives, aboriginal people and environmental assessment practitioners.

In March 2001, I tabled before Parliament my report on the results of the review and introduced Bill C-19, this bill's predecessor.

Making amendments to environmental laws is never an easy task because the issues are technical and complex. Often views are polarized as to what is the best approach and the stakes of course are very high. However I believe with Bill C-9 we have met those challenges. I believe this legislation responds effectively to concerns about uncertainty, inconsistent quality and limitations to public participation.

When the bill was originally introduced in March of 2001, environmental and industry groups praised it as a step in the right direction. For example, the Canadian Environmental Network and the Mining Association of Canada both issued press releases which were positive at that time.

I am very pleased to report that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development did excellent work examining these proposed changes. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chair and the members of the standing committee for their diligent review of the bill and their thoughtful suggestions and proposed amendments to the bill.

I am especially grateful, if I may take a moment to congratulate one member in particular, to the member for Kitchener Centre for her steadfast work on Bill C-9 in her role as my former parliamentary secretary. She quarterbacked this review process for me and did an absolutely outstanding job.

During its review of Bill C-9, the standing committee also benefited enormously from the advice provided by environmental groups, representatives of industry, aboriginal peoples, individual citizens and academics. I was also particularly fortunate to have received an excellent report of consensus recommendations from my multi-stakeholder regulations advisory committee on how to fix the problems of the current act.

I would like now to describe some of the highlights in Bill C-9 including amendments made by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

First, there are amendments to close gaps and plug loopholes. One of the most significant amendments extends the environmental assessment obligations to crown corporations and this will occur three years after royal assent on Bill C-9. This means that projects initiated by some 40 crown corporations will be subject to environmental assessment.

Further, the standing committee also closed a potential loophole created by the federal court decision in the Red Hill Creek Expressway case that could have been used in the future by project proponents to avoid the requirements of the act. The bill would remove an existing gap that excludes federally funded projects on first nations reserve lands from the requirements for an assessment.

Bill C-9 also provides new authority for regulations to require assessments of projects undertaken by non-federal entities on federal lands, such as, for example airport authorities.

In the Speech from the Throne, Bill C-9 was cited as a model of “smart regulation” because it will enhance the efficiency of the environmental assessment process.

By improving coordination and the operation of the act, the provisions concerning the federal environmental assessment coordinator will allow a more efficient process to be put into place.

The bill makes it impossible for projects that have already undergone scrutiny as part of a comprehensive review to be subject to an assessment by a panel. Bill C-9 provides a new model of class screenings to examine efficiently less important, smaller projects.

The importance of working together with our provincial partners and with the aboriginal people is clearly recognized in this legislation. These changes as well as all other changes made to the bill will make the environmental assessment process safer, and more predictable and timely.

High quality environmental assessments are also indicative of an efficient process. Bill C-9 contains several measures that will ensure that this is always so under the amended Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will be required to establish and lead a quality assurance program. This is a very important initiative because more than 40 Crown corporations will soon be joining the 30 government departments, councils and agencies that currently enforce the act.

The success of the renewed process would depend, in a large part, on steps that we are taking to increase transparency and to promote public participation.

In this regard, Bill C-9 would require the establishment of a government-wide Internet site of project information. The site would include a notice at the start of each assessment. The Internet site would be complemented by the retention of the current system of project files that provide convenient public access to all documents associated with an environmental assessment.

I set three goals in my March 2001 report to Parliament on the five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

First, a renewed federal assessment process that brings a greater measure of certainty, predictability and timeliness of all participants.

Second, the renewed process must produce high-quality environmental assessments that contribute to better decisions in support of sustainable development.

Third, the process must provide opportunities for meaningful public participation.

I am convinced that the improvements in Bill C-9 will lead to the achievement of those goals.

The Government of Canada will be investing some $51 million over the next five years to implement the renewed act. This new funding and the legislative changes made by Bill C-9 will ensure that decision makers, both inside and outside the government, have better information about the environmental effects of proposed projects. Better information will mean better decisions that promote progress on the environmental priorities, including clean air, clean water, protection of Canada's biodiversity and climate change.

May I once again congratulate the members from all parties who took part in the diligent work done by the committee over the past year to improve Bill C-9.

I encourage the House to support passage of this important legislation, designed to ensure that new development projects are thoroughly examined in the planning stage to prevent harm to the environment and to help assure a more sustainable future for Canada.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-9. The question is on Motion No. 1.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to further defer the recorded division on report stage of Bill C-9 to the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 29, 2003.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I believe that it disturbs them that the former opposition leader, the Bloc leader, supported this legislation when he was here. There seem to be some contradiction somewhere.

However, I am a great supporter of the Quebec's environmental assessment legislation. I find the process is working quite well. It is open. I truly agree with my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, namely that it is open to the public, public participation is positive and part of the tradition. The act has been accepted by all parties concerned. I believe that the BAPE is doing a great job.

At the same time, that does not mean the federal government should not have its say in the environmental assessment process. That is what we are saying. We are not saying that Quebec's legislation is no good, on the contrary.

There is always room for accommodation. We could proceed as we did in the case of James Bay and elsewhere, namely that whenever Quebec is conducting an environmental assessment, the federal government accepts that it takes precedence over any others.

We truly agree with that. However, we still have a difference of opinions. I believe in a consensual positive federalism, which is impossible for my colleagues to accept. That is where we differ.

In no way do I want to denigrate Quebec's legislation, on the contrary. As a former environment minister who was passionate about the issue, I truly agree with my colleague's comments regarding the merits of the legislation.

With regard to the motions in Group No. 2, I would like to make a few comments regarding the facts that were brought to our attention.

First of all, no changes were made to the self-assessment system of environmental assessment. No arm's-length authority for overseeing and enforcing compliance with the act was considered. No enforcement regime was established, which is a pity. We had a big chance to do this.

Consequent amendments at report stage have watered down the amendment passed by the committee that would have imposed a duty on the agency to ensure that proponents and federal authorities, including responsible authorities, would comply with the provisions of the act and the regulations. Now, according to clause 31, the agency is simply required “to promote, monitor and facilitate compliance with the act and its regulations”.

I believe that besides the lessening of the obligation itself, it will now be required to promote, monitor and facilitate, instead of imposing a duty. Certainly the insertion of the words “facilitate compliance” lowers significantly the tone of the requirement. We have missed a great chance to reinforce the committee's amendment which was to impose a duty. This is now a different requirement from a requirement to promote, facilitate and monitor. It was an unfortunate decision to reverse this committee amendment.

At the same time, fair is fair, and we must give credit where credit is due. Regarding Motion No. 27, the government has accepted the committee amendment that the next review of the act be done by a joint committee of the Senate and an appropriate committee of the House, which is a great step forward. It has also accepted and improved the amendment in regard to the effective date of this review. Instead of putting it into force at a date to be decided by the government, the legislation has withdrawn the clause indicating that the review would start seven years from the date of royal assent of the bill.

This is a big improvement and a step forward. I recognize and thank the government for having agreed to have a joint committee of the House and Senate look into the review of the act. A review of the act carried out by Parliament is far more independent and more objective than one carried out internally by the very authorities that are supposed to monitor and govern the legislation. This is a big step forward and we will be the better for it.

At the same time, between now and the seven years to come, which is a long time, the government should take into account the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding Bill C-9 in its aftermath and look into the possibility of amendments to the act which have been brought forward by the committee in its report. It should not wait for seven years to make improvements to Bill C-9 for which we could find consensus on all sides of the House. That, too, would be a big step forward.

Finally, government must be praised for having kept the significant committee amendment to bring crown corporations within the orbit of the environmental assessment process. It was completely logical that the government, being responsible for environmental assessments in all its ministries, would have all crown corporations, which depend upon the government and which sometimes are so numerous and carry out such important tasks for the ministries, included in the legislation. That is another big step forward for which I commend the government.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motions in Group No. 2 at report stage of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

As I mentioned when I spoke to the motions in Group No. 1, it is important to remind members that we are still opposed to the original act, and today we are looking at Bill C-9, which amends that act. Indeed, this bill amends the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to which Quebec has been opposed from the start.

Let us keep in mind that this act was passed in 1992, but Quebec expressed its opposition as early as 1990. During consideration of the environmental assessment bill, Pierre Paradis, who was Quebec's environment minister at the time, sent a letter to his federal counterpart, Jean Charest, to explain to him or to try to explain to him that Quebec was against this initiative, that this kind of duplication in terms of the environmental process was unacceptable to Quebec.

Since the Minister of the Environment is in the House today, I would remind him that in this letter dated February 28, 1992, Quebec indicated that the bill that had been introduced on the federal environmental assessment process was already creating a great deal of insecurity among stakeholders who would have to contend with a great deal of duplication. The letter also said that provisions in the bill to eliminate any possibilities of overlap were far from adequate and that these provisions must allow for concrete agreements to be reached on the terms and conditions of the application of their respective procedures.

As early as February 28, 1992, Quebec's environment minister was against the initial legislation, which Bill C-9 would amend. On March 18, 1992, Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion voicing strong disapproval of the federal government's bill, the Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it went against Quebec's interests. The assembly was therefore opposed to the federal Parliament passing the bill.

So already in 1992 Quebec was against any environmental assessment process. Why? Was it because Quebec did not want any environmental review of projects? No. It was because Quebec already had had its own environmental assessment process in place for a long time, one that worked well and one that was even recognized by the federal government as a good process.

Back in 1978 Quebec established its own environmental review process under the Environment Quality Act of Quebec. Quebec also set up its BAPE in 1980, which is basically the institution that assesses projects through public consultations, and that is important.

In fact, so far, when we compare the Canadian environmental assessment process to that of Quebec, we see that Quebec's process provides for broader and more comprehensive consultations. With the federal process, 99% of the projects are screened, rather than subjected to a comprehensive review, as is done by Quebec's BAPE.

All this makes us wonder why the federal government would want to improve the act today and give it more teeth.

Projects implemented outside Crown land or federal jurisdiction could be subject to a double environmental process. If the process put in place by Quebec was not appropriate, I might understand, as I said yesterday, but the example of the Toulnustouc dam shows that this process is working well. The result has been delays in the implementation of a number of environmental projects, including a hydro electric project which is a renewable energy project.

This is why I think that strategic environmental assessment is important. Sustainable development is essential; it combines the social, economic and environmental aspects. If this double objective, which is essential to the development of communities and societies, cannot be achieved through double safety nets, then we are not meeting our goal.

We believe this is a dangerous bill, because it creates overlap. What we want is adequate protection through a rigorous environmental assessment process, which unfortunately, this bill does not provide. To some extent, creating a double safety net, creating triggers, and increasing the discretionary power of the minister is likely to hamper the implementation of some projects.

For instance, clause 22 of the bill is clearly intended to reinforce the federal government's power to intervene in Quebec's jurisdiction. Thus, the minister assumes discretionary power by using the words “the Minister is of the opinion”. This distortion is evident in section 46 of the act.

In our opinion, clause 8, creating the position of Federal Environment Assessment Coordinator, clearly shows the federal government's desire to interfere with Quebec's process. Because the federal government intends to act in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction, it feels the need to create a coordinating position. If the federal government stayed within its own jurisdiction, it would not need such a function or position.

Why are we opposed to a federal environmental assessment process? As I said, it is because Quebec's environmental process is working well. All stakeholders from Quebec agree. I was listening to Jean Charest a few weeks ago—he was the minister responsible for the initial legislation—and during his election campaign he said that his goal was to bring the environmental assessment process back to Quebec and that he was prepared to do battle with the federal government to block the federal environmental assessment process.

There is some double-talk. On one hand, it is recognized that Quebec wants all the projects in the province, whether the federal government is involved or not, subjected to its own environmental review process, which is implemented by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec.

Why is that? Because the Quebec environmental process is more transparent in terms of public involvement than the process put forward by the federal government. It is independent from the self-assessment philosophy of the federal government. It also excludes less projects to start with, and extends a more comprehensive protection to the environment. It is also less complex than the federal process.

It is a more transparent and simple process and it invites public involvement more than the present federal process. It is also more uniform and, hence, more predictable, since it is under just one entity instead of several departments. Finally, it provides clearly set time limits, contrary to the federal process, which never gives any precise time limit.

To conclude, we will obviously oppose Bill C-9. I can understand that, on public lands, the federal process will apply, but we want to be sure that, in Quebec, on provincial public lands, the Quebec process will apply.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to rise on Bill C-9. I again would like to thank the members of the committee on behalf of the minister for the manner in which they have addressed the proceedings of the bill in committee and with the amendments that have been brought forward attempting to reflect the spirit of the debate and the many deputations that came before the committee.

It has been pointed out that there is a thin line between the two groups of resolutions that have been brought forward. Today we are talking about the matter of compliance.

In Motions Nos. 25 and 26 we are trying to come to grips with wording that was incorporated in the amendments made through committee that would ensure the legislation passed in the form of Bill C-9 would be obeyed and respected. It would be an understatement for me to say that it is the hope in good faith that all laws which are passed by the Parliament of Canada would be respected by the institutions that have carriage and responsibility to carry them out.

In that vein, the committee recommended that the word “ensure”; that compliance with the legislation would be ensured. The amendment the government has put forward is more reflective of the role of the agency that is charged with responsibility to carry out the intent and substance of the bill.

The technical problems that would be created have been accommodated by changing the wording from, “ensuring that compliance would be achieved” to the words, “that the agency would be required to promote, monitor and facilitate compliance with the act”. I hope all members of the House would agree that this provision will better reflect the type of activities the agency will be involved in under the revised act.

Finally, I have a few comments with respect to points that have been raised. I sense these will also cross between the two sets of resolutions. On the issue of provincial jurisdiction, it should be understood that companion legislation also is a backgrounder for any legislation passed by the House.

In terms of provincial jurisdiction, paragraph 2.2 of Bill C-9 signals the importance of co-operation and co-ordination between the provincial governments and the federal government. That comes within the context of the 1998 Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization and the subagreement on environmental assessment.

Further, with respect to concerns that have been raised on crown corporations, it is understood that there will be a three year delay with respect to the intent of the legislation covering crown corporations, and there are good reasons for that. I will use one illustration.

For example, requiring an environmental assessment for the thousands of relatively small loans by the Farm Credit Corporation to family run farms could create hardships for farmers resulting from delays, et cetera, without any corresponding environmental benefit. This is a small illustration of the kind of implementing problems that might result. We need a little time to adjust to them.

Finally, I want to refer, under compliance, to the point raised by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis with respect to screenings, and also has been raised from time to time. I want to emphasize, as the member did in fact, that public participation, and I quote him, “is the key to everything”.

I cannot overstate the case that the bill, with the establishment of the registry, with the different criteria established, with the strengthening of the whole process of providing information and with the number of days that have been designated for minimal screenings to those that are at a higher level, is in the interest of facilitating citizen participation. Even the terms of the scoping in respect to why there is an hierarchy of screenings is being provided through the registry so that the citizenry, be it individuals or special interest groups, have the information and can cross-examine the whole nature of why discretionary authority is being applied. I hope that satisfies the member for Lac-Saint-Louis because he has raised a good issue.

The spirit and intent of the bill are to provide citizens with the information not only make the legislation inherently compliant but allows citizens the opportunity to be part of the oversight to assure that compliance with the spirit and intent of the bill are achieved in the interest of a greater and better legacy for future generations through the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-9, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 42 on page 37 with the following:

“31. Section 62 of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (d) and by replacing paragraph (e) with the following:

(e) to promote, monitor and facilitate compliance with this Act and the regulations;

(f) to promote and monitor the quality of assessments conducted under this Act;

(g) to ensure an opportunity for timely public participation in the environmental assessment process;

and (h) to engage in consultation with aboriginal peoples on policy issues related to this Act.”

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-9, in Clause 32, be amended:

(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 3 and 4 on page 38 with the following:

“the end of paragraph (b), by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):”

(b) by replacing lines 7 to 11 on page 38 with the following:

“this Act.”

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-9, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 39 with the following:

“34. The provisions of this Act, other than section 32.1, come into”

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will make some very brief comments on the first group of amendments on the review process.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is undergoing a mandatory review. The CEA process itself is to ensure that the impact of projects under federal government decision making authority are properly assessed. The act was first passed by the Conservative government in June 1992 but only came into proclamation in 1995.

The review leading up to Bill C-9 was launched in 1999 and it was conducted by CEA. The review entailed the commissioning of background papers, consultations with interest groups, specialized work groups, a parallel consultation process with aboriginal organizations, consultations with provinces and with federal departments and agencies. The amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are based on the consideration of the views presented during that consultative phase.

The stark problem with that process is the fact that the Minister of the Environment, prior to reviewing this act, had the sole authority to determine which aspects of the act needed to be reviewed. The scope of what we are actually discussing is only a very small section of the act in general.

Some amendments in Group No. 1 deal with the timing of environmental assessments. A second group of amendments also are encompassed in the Group No. 1 motions which deal with minor technical changes, including amendments to ensure proper concordance between French and English. The third group of amendments deal with the machinery of government and the agency's role to ensure that we have compliance of the act itself.

I would like to speak primarily to Motions Nos. 12, 15, 17 and 21.

The standing committee passed an amendment stating that no decisions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including environmental assessment decisions, could be taken until 30 days after the posting of the last document on the Internet site of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.

There are those who believe this amendment would create significant delays because the 30 day period was not tied to a specific point in time. The time clock would restart with each posting of each new document. In addition, there are those who believe having a 30 day requirement for all projects does not recognize the difference between relatively small screening levels of assessments and assessments that are conducted through a comprehensive study, mediation or a panel review.

The government has proposed amendments to clause 12 so that decisions for simple screenings could occur 15 days after the notice of commencement and a description of the scope of the project has been posted on the Internet site. For more complex screenings with public participation, decisions could only occur 15 days after the scope of assessment or description of how to obtain it has been posted on the Internet site.

There are some missed opportunities here. Fifteen days is simply too short. Posted documents are only notification of commencement of an environmental assessment. We will not know what pieces of information on which the assessment itself will be based. The government will not be posting documents that are relevant to the final decision of the environmental assessment. A 30 day requirement is applied in other jurisdictions, such as the provinces, without bringing the process to a standstill.

The government of Ernie Eves, formerly that of Mike Harris, has a 30 day requirement on environmental assessment. I do not think business is coming to a standstill in that province. I think most members in the chamber would understand that the Ontario government is definitely pro-business.

I do not know why the Liberal government wants to be less environmentally friendly by having a further restriction by pulling it back to 15 days from 30 days.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are aware as a veteran of this chamber, that 99% of all environmental assessments are done under screenings. That means that 99% of all environmental assessments will only have a short 15 day window to have any public consultation or intervention and we would still not know what tool kit the government utilizes when it formulates its assessment in general.

For comprehensive studies, the government motion would create a minimum 30 day period between the public release on the Internet site of the comprehensive study report and the minister's environmental assessment decision. The text of the proposed amendment refers to other documents that must be included on the Internet site before decisions can be taken, such as a notice of commencement and the scoping information. There are some missed opportunities here. The government did not make any changes to this. However remember, going back to the screenings, that 99% of all EAs are performed through screenings, not comprehensive studies.

The approach it has taken on comprehensive studies would be a more prudent one if it were adopted for the screening process. I do not believe it would bring the process to a complete standstill in terms of environmental assessment. If the provinces want to provide more flexibility in 30 days, I do not see why the federal government would want to have such a restrictive and less permissive system for public input. We should have a bit more transparency.

Those are the amendments we are reviewing. To be fair to the government, this is an improvement over the current act but it is a pull back from what the committee did. It has not gut it to the same degree as we have seen in other approaches, such as amendments that were reversed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, or the species at risk legislation.

There was a bit of moderation in this reversal by the government. I give the officials and the minister some credit for at least having some flexibility. However there is a missed opportunity which the Government of Canada could have had by providing more flexibility. If the provinces can provide 30 days for public input, why can the federal government not provide 30 days as opposed to 15?

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9 at report stage, the statutory review of the environmental assessment legislation.

Bill C-9 and its precursor, Bill C-19, came about as a result of the requirements of the mandatory review requirements set out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, also known as the CEAA, or Bill C-13, which was proclaimed in 1992 and came into force in January 1995.

Section 72 of the current act required that the minister undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the act five years after its coming into force. It also required that within one year after the review the minister submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any recommended changes.

At the outset, we believe the review was fundamentally flawed. Although participants indicated some progress in improving environmental planning, there remained significant deficiencies in a variety of areas, including sustainability, regional planning and policy coordination, alternative development options, traditional land use and aboriginal participation, and perhaps most significant, the lack of practical enforcement measures.

New Democrats had reservations about the bill as it was introduced because it did not adequately address these and other severe problems associated with the act. Our initial opposition was based on the assertion that the bill failed to address three principal criteria.

The current CEAA did not go far enough to protect our environment and the changes proposed in Bill C-9 would further weaken that legislation.

Bill C-9 attempted to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment and review process seemingly to the benefit of developers and industry instead of protecting the environment and the public.

The bill did not substantively address the measures needed to strengthen and improve safeguards to protect the environment.

During debate of the bill and throughout committee hearings we raised those and other concerns over the lack of effectiveness, transparency and efficiency in the EA process.

By listening to my own constituents in Dartmouth, I am very aware of what the community wants and, I believe, has the right to expect from federal environmental assessments.

I would like to provide an example of the lack of transparency which this process now has in place.

The reasonable expectations of environmentally aware and community-minded people are often dashed due to the deficiencies of the environmental assessment process, deficiencies which are not corrected in the statutory review of Bill C-9.

In Dartmouth, for example, we currently have a coast guard base on a large wharf on the Halifax harbour near Dartmouth Cove. I dare say that the red and white coast guard icebreakers, such as the Louis St. Laurent and the John A. Macdonald , are almost as much of a local landmark as the naval yards are on the Halifax side of the harbour. In my mind the base is another part of the bustling activity of one of the world's great working harbours set in a magnificent natural beauty.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has decided that it eventually will be moving the coast guard base down the harbour to the site of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. I have no reason to believe that such a move would impair the important functions of the coast guard. If it can save money and allow for better search and rescue then all the better. However, one issue that is outstanding is what will happen to the current coast guard base. That is where the environmental assessment issue comes in.

The local municipality, the HRM, has for decades wanted to build sewage treatment plants throughout the municipality, including one near Dartmouth. I have supported these general plans because I am opposed to the dumping of raw sewage in the harbour, as is everyone in our community.

About 10 years ago the then municipalities of Halifax and Dartmouth proposed a number of cites for sewage plants, including one on the island in the middle of the harbour to take the Dartmouth sewage. An assessment was done that looked at the impact of the possible island sewage treatment plant. It is no real surprise that the result of that environmental study showed that building the plant would result in better water quality. The plant, however, was never built. It is now 10 years later and the municipality wants to put another plant on the current site of the coast guard base.

The Halifax regional municipality believes that this site is accessible to both the main sewage pipes from Dartmouth and it can also take the sewage from the cruise ships that are starting to frequent our harbour, and it will be available on the right time line in terms of when the base is moved by the coast guard.

The coast guard base is nestled right beside a residential community. There is a very limited amount of traffic going up and down the steep and narrow road to the base and the current base generates very little noise or odour.

Understandably, the neighbours around the coast guard base are not convinced that this would be the case with the sewage treatment plant. They have concerns about it. They worry that the plant will smell because it will only be about 100 yards from their homes. They worry about the noise and danger of heavy vehicles during the construction, and the noise and danger of the sludge trucks which will go up and down pass the area when the plant is operating. They worry about what this will do to the quality of their lives and their property values.

They have a right to worry about these things, and because the land is owned by the federal government, they have a right to look to the environment assessment process to make sure their concerns are dealt with.

I, as the MP, thought this would happen, that there would be an assessment because this project would involve the disposal of federal lands and that of course would automatically trigger an assessment.

I thought the environmental assessment would deal with the local concerns, which would have been communicated to both the municipality and to the federal department responsible. I expected that the assessment would look at the condition of the base, the concerns of the neighbours and would suggest ways for the plant to deal with concerns raised. I guess I was naive to believe that the system would be accessible and transparent for my constituents.

The environmental assessment screening that was done was released in January and it did not discuss many of the issues raised. It set limits on noise and odour for a plant. It was vague on how compliance would be enforced. It did not look at the condition of the base. It did not deal with the specific concerns raised by the community, or by me, to the department. It had not left anyone feeling that the environment was better served.

The basic problem is that it was not a transparent process. It did not even deal with the actual proposed site in Dartmouth but discussed guidelines for three sites around the HRM. It did confirm that having sewage treatment was better than not having sewage treatment, but there is no surprise in that. It took comments from the consortium trying to build the plants pretty much at face value. It did not seek or obtain community input. My office, which had written to the minister on the site and the assessment, was not even made aware of the assessment's release.

The municipalities public relations meetings have not been satisfactory to the community. As a matter of fact the report says that 19 submissions were received of which 5 were supportive. The report says that the local concerns have been dealt with but many of them were not.

I say these things to highlight how unsatisfactory the assessment process was for these local Dartmouth residents. They feel that the environmental assessments are something that exists for high price consultants and for developers and not for public input.

I have since learned that getting an assessment to a public panel stage, where members of the community can actually get a formal hearing, are so rare that it is virtually impossible.

After reviewing the legislation and in consultation with a variety of environmental, aboriginal and legal experts, the NDP submitted more than 50 amendments to Bill C-9. These amendments attempted to address some of the identified shortcomings of the act. While there was some success in getting several amendments, many more were defeated, as the House knows.

In conclusion, we cannot support Bill C-9 in its present form or the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. It must be made clear that the NDP supports the goals of improving the environmental assessment process to make it more accountable, more transparent and to strengthen the protection of our environment.

Therefore it is with regret that because of the inadequacies of CEAA that we were not able to bring about meaningful amendments, we will have to give our dissent on the bill at this time.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the right to refer to a case, and this is a case that everyone knows about.

That is why I do not support Bill C-9. It constitutes complete interference with areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially in Quebec. Even Ontario, when it comes to the issue of infrastructure, has not agreed to comply with the federal government rules. Ontario has decided to make its own assessments and has said, “that is how we are going to do things”.

This is a useless bill that will cost a fortune, that will hamper projects in small municipalities and larger municipalities alike. It might also be a way for the government to hold back money, to keep from putting up its share.

This is a concrete example of the federal government's interference. The reason there have been so few infrastructure projects announced is obvious. It is because Ottawa blocks them thanks to legislation that duplicates what the provinces are doing.

Ottawa is probably the government that restricts itself the least to its own jurisdictions under the Canadian constitution. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, our dear Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, has the nerve to tell us that Canada is a decentralized federation. That is a joke. This just shows how out of touch he is, just like this bill is out of touch with the needs of all of the provinces.

That is why the bill before us today is unacceptable. Once again, Ottawa is like a bull in a china shop. With this bill, Ottawa has become the ingredient that has soured a good recipe. It is blocking the whole process, the sand in the gears. In other words, this bill is useless, because Quebec already has legislation that works very well.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-9. I want to say from the outset that, like the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, I totally disagree with this bill.

I am also taking this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his excellent work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He has made it his prime concern to protect the interests of Quebec and what Quebec has been doing well, and even very well, regarding the environment.

This is why, in my opinion, Bill C-9, which amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, should not exist. This basic legislation came into effect on January 1995 and is the process through which the federal government decides whether or not to approve projects that could have an environmental impact.

The federal government wants to get involved in projects in Quebec that have already been approved by the Quebec government. Let us not forget that Quebec has an environmental process. When objections are raised, the BAPE gets involved and settles the issue.

I notice that, with this bill, the federal government is once again intruding on provincial jurisdictions, despite what the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who is a former minister in the Quebec government, just said. The hon. member just told us that he supports having two levels of environmental protection. Even though I truly admire the former Quebec minister of the environment, and even though I have always held him in high esteem, I completely disagree with him on this issue.

It is the opposite. The hon. member should realize that we alaready have a tool, which is not perfect but which we improve whenever we have an opportunity to do so.

I would like to give an example of what is currently going on in the Canada-Quebec infrastructure issue. There are major problems. This is an area where the federal, provincial and municipal governments each bear one third of the costs.

Let me give an example which clearly shows that the federal government does not have any business in the assessment process. I will give the example of a small community located in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, close to Joliette. I am referring to the municipality of Saint-Jean-de-Matha.

This municipality had submitted a project for the construction of a dam. The Quebec government requested several studies from the municipality in order to ensure that the project was environmentally sound.

As hon. members are aware, I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for Canada-Quebec infrastructure and also for regional matters.

Once the documents were received and analyzed, the Government of Quebec registered it as one of its priorities and indicated this to the federal government, in order to obtain the federal one-third share of the funds requested.

However, this did not happen, as it should have, in view of what Quebec had required of the municipality in the way of studies and documents. Under the Canada Environmental Assessment Act, Environment Canada asked the municipality to carry out other studies, including ones on fish and migratory birds.

Imagine the cost of these additional studies. They would add up to $20,000 or $25,000 for a small municipality with a population of barely a few thousand. Ottawa does not plan to help it with these studies. It prefers bleeding the taxpayers of this little municipality dry to helping them. It has demanded additional assessments despite the municipality's having provided the Quebec government with documents that fully met its requirements.

What is more, when the municipality of Saint-Jean-de-Mantha indicated to the federal government that it could forward all the studies Quebec had required, the response was, “No, we do not want them. We want you to do the studies that we require”. Quebec had already required some, but now more are required.

So the response was no. Ottawa demanded more environmental assessments. It is Bill C-9 that prevents—

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this legislation is already 10 years old. The whole issue of environmental assessment deserves to be reviewed much more fully than it is in Bill C-9.

What happened is that an internal government study produced a bill dealing only with some aspects of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A much more comprehensive assessment would have been required. It should have addressed fundamental questions like cumulative impact, which were raised repeatedly. To this day, 10 years after the act came into force, 99% of assessments take the form of screenings.

We need to determine how many steps ahead we are with Bill C-9. It must be recognized that the committee has done pretty consistent work, and worthwhile work. It has put forward proposals and amaendments that have certainly improved on the original bill.

Still, in what little time I have at my disposal, I would like to focus on considerations I think are critical to any environmental assessment bill.

I am talking about public participation, especially in screening, considering that most environmental assessments under the federal system take place as screenings; 99% do, amazingly enough. If we look at what has been happening, I think we will see that we have not reached the kinds of goals we wanted, first of all on screenings, if they have to be the majority of assessments. I hope that gradually we are going to move toward comprehensive assessments, which is what we have been asking for, to give more powers to the minister. The regulations could be published to give the minister all the powers he needs to declare comprehensive assessments instead of screenings that go from department to department, from the official of one department to the official of another department under the guise of environmental assessment.

I would like to quote what the Canadian Environmental Law Association proposed to the committee when it set out eight core elements that it felt should be the core elements in any system of law relating to environmental assessment. This is what the Environmental Law Association said in regard to core item No. 5:

The legislation must provide for a significant public role early and often in the planning process, and thus must contain provisions relating to public notice and comment, access to information, participant funding, and related procedural matters.

The committee had suggested that, first of all, screenings be part of any public participation and notice. It had also suggested that a period of 30 days be put in place before any screenings are made into decisions. The government has amended this at report stage. It has provided a two tier system, effectively, in regard to screenings. The idea was that we do not want to delay small projects such as little bridges and so forth. Really, it is a two tier system, part of which reduces the 30 days to 15 days.

But I would like to point out, because the parliamentary secretary spoke at length in this regard, that the whole of this provision is subject to subsection 18(3) of the law, whereby discretion is given to the government to decide whether or not public participation, notice and publication will be required. It is at the discretion of the responsible authority as to whether this happens or does not happen. It seems to me that this very case of discretion negates anything that we would want to do in favour of greater public participation. It seems to me that public participation is the key to everything.

I would like to comment on a case that happened in Federal Court on March 4, 2003. It is a very recent judgment by Mr. Justice Blais of the Federal Court. In the case of the Sierra Club of Canada v. the Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Justice Blais found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, provided an inadequate opportunity for the public to comment on the screening report relating to a proposal by Bounty Bay Shellfish Incorporated and 5M Aqua Farms Limited to establish mussel aquaculture in St. Ann's Harbour, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. As a result, Justice Blais quashed DFO's approval of the project, ordering a reasonable period for review and comment on the screening report.

Justice Blais wrote:

After a reading of subsection 18(3) of the [Canadian Environmental Assessment Act], it seems clear to me that, once the responsible authority exercised its discretion--

I point out that he said “discretion”, which is still in the law.

--and determined that public participation was appropriate, it had an obligation to give the public an opportunity to examine and comment [on] not only the EIS, but also the screening report.

Such was not the case.

In fact, there was a ball game between Mr. Hominick and Ms. Donovan of DFO, which lasted a matter of days, between March 26 and April 3, 2002. Ms. Donovan, a very brief time after receiving a screening report from Mr. Hominick, decided to give approval of the project to the proponents.

Herein lies the whole question. First, should it be at the discretion of the authorities and the powers that be or should it be part of a compulsory obligation upon the ministry or agency to make sure that public participation, public awareness, public comment and public notice are part of the act? This is the question. One can say whether it is 15 or 30 days and whether small projects are different from big projects and arrange it accordingly, but if the discretion is left so that screenings, first of all, which are the great majority anyway, are not always subject to public transparency or a chance for the public to comment or to be given notice, then the whole case has to be reviewed. It is not satisfactory. Only full mandatory public participation will ensure that these screenings are done seriously.

What happens in every case that I have seen is that departments make these evaluations, one to the other. It has been commented on by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who has said the process right now does not work.

In the minute that is left I would suggest that not only is a thorough evaluation of the present act, including this amendment to Bill C-9, required to bring environmental assessment a little step forward, bit by bit, clause by clause, but an overall evaluation is required to take in the whole principle of environmental assessment. Let us make it open to public participation, make it transparent and make it real.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Environmental Assessment Act.

As we look at this first group of motions at report stage, it is useful to provide a bit of background to the bill that came about as a result of the requirements of the mandatory statutory review requirements set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that was proclaimed 11 years ago and came into force in January 1995.

A section of the current act required that the minister responsible for the environment undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the act five years after its coming into force. It also and required that within one year after the review, the minister submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any recommended changes.

Discussions and consultations took place between December 1999 through March 2000, and the precursor to this bill was tabled a couple of years ago.

At the outset the review was fundamentally flawed. We felt that the minister's report failed to address significant deficiencies revealed over the five year history of the Environmental Assessment Act and we initially opposed the bill based on the assertion that it did fail to address three principal criteria.

First, the current Environmental Assessment Act did not go sufficiently far enough to protect our environment and the changes proposed in Bill C-9, in our opinion, would weaken the legislation additionally.

Second, the legislation before us attempted to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment and review process but we felt seemingly to the primary benefit of developers and industry instead of protecting the environment and the public.

Third, the bill did not substantively address the measures needed to strengthen and improve safeguards to protect our fragile environment.

During debate on the bill and throughout committee hearings, my colleague, the member for Windsor—St. Clair, raised these and many other concerns regarding the lack of effectiveness, the lack of transparency and the inefficiency in the environmental assessment process. After reviewing the legislation and consulting with a variety of environmental, aboriginal and legal experts, that member submitted more than 50 amendments to Bill C-9 at the committee stage. The amendments attempted to redress some of the shortcomings that we had identified in the act. Most of those amendments were defeated and the bill that has returned from committee and is before us this afternoon has failed to address those concerns. They included predictability and timeliness for all participants in the process. It also failed to address enhancing the quality of assessments and ensuring more meaningful public participation.

Although the bill and the amendments partially address some of the concerns relating to the efficiency of the process, it is unclear to us how the effectiveness or transparency of the environmental assessment process will be improved through this legislation.

Many groups and individuals commented on the need to review the entire environmental assessment process. In fact, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, in its submission to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, commented on the need for review of the entire process and not simply to limit the scope to amendments made in the bill. It stated:

--in its current form, CEAA will continue to be applied to fewer projects, with little or no opportunity for meaningful public involvement.

While Bill C-9 attempts to address some of the glaring inadequacies of the Environmental Assessment Act, it does not specifically address the shortcomings of the process.

While we would agree that there are some recommendations and issues within the report that we support in principle, we are unable to endorse the complete document because it fails to address the concerns that were laid out so clearly at the committee stage by the member for Windsor—St. Clair.

Unfortunately, the final report has been watered down over the course of numerous revisions. It appears that many of the concessions made during the drafting of the report were aimed at appeasing the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office instead of forcefully addressing the inadequacies of the environmental assessment process. We maintain that the changes proposed in the bill and report will move environmental assessment toward the lowest common denominator, much as our free trade agreements have done in other areas.

It is also regrettable that the report, which contains some strong wording in the text, lacks similarly forceful wording within its recommendations. The recommendations are just that and there is nothing compelling the government to actually act upon them.

As indicated earlier, one of our principal concerns was with the streamlining or harmonization of the environmental assessment process. Our concerns about harmonization seem to have been justified as the report includes section 1.3 which cites a provincial and federal harmonization agreement as an example of addressing the issues of co-operation, uncertainty and duplication of effort.

In fact, when we attempted to introduce amendments to create a greater certainty and less duplication of effort, they were defeated by members opposite at the committee stage.

The committee did hear considerable evidence to suggest that the federal environmental assessment is indeed not “making a significant contribution to sustainable development”. The report, however, contains no meaningful recommendations for immediate changes to the process or for ensuring that changing the process would be given the highest priority in any subsequent review of the act.

Another instance of where we dissent from the findings of the report is in section 2.3 which states:

--the Committee felt that the goals of Bill C-9 were laudable, and that the bill should improve CEAA and federal EA as a whole.

We remain skeptical and unconvinced that the bill will make meaningful improvements to the stated objectives in the process. In fact, the bill does not even address adequately the three goals outlined by the minister when it was first introduced.

Another area where we disagree is in section 2.8 which states:

This report examines areas where the current federal approach has not succeeded, sets out a number of important challenges that remain to be addressed, and provides recommendations on what should be done. The report deals with the basic questions. In short, how can the federal EA process be improved to better meet the goals of sustainable development?

The report does not deal with the entire environmental assessment process and meeting the goals of sustainable development. Nothing in the report or the bill provides consequential reassurances that deficiencies within the Environmental Assessment Act and process will be remedied.

Throughout the examination of Bill C-9 the committee heard witnesses discuss problems with self-assessments, the failure of the regulatory authority to trigger an environmental assessment in a timely fashion and the lack of meaningful, timely public participation. These problems are not addressed adequately in the bill nor in the recommendations contained in the report. The report also lacks meaningful recommendations requiring enforcement or oversight mechanisms to ensure that federal authorities comply with the act.

These are just some illustrations of how we feel the report and the bill fail to deal with Canadians' stated concerns on our fragile environment.

It is disappointing that so much time and hard work has been dedicated to such a meagre piece of legislation as we see before us. The committee heard from numerous witnesses on the need to simplify the process. In the final analysis, Bill C-9 does little to meet these objectives and Canadians are left with a complex, confusing and basically inaccessible piece of legislation. Given the shortcomings of the act and the amending legislation, we recommend that an entirely new Environmental Assessment Act be introduced, an act that would create an environmental assessment process that would be efficient and allow for public participation.

We oppose this. Unfortunately and regrettably we have to stand in opposition to it. In conclusion I would simply say that we cannot support Bill C-9 or the recommendations of the report of the standing committee. We in this caucus would say that we need to leave a much softer footprint on our fragile environment. We did not simply inherit this planet from our ancestors. We are preserving it for our children and their children, and in that vein we are in opposition to Bill C-9.